posted
Cows eat a lot of corn, which currently have a negative tax on them due to government subsidation.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: If they stop eating fast food you won't need the extra money from the taxes.
Possibly, but you still need to figure out what your goal is -- decrease the amount of fast food eaten, or raise money?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: I see, thanks. One of the big things to be careful with would be to administer it in such a way that the overhead is minimized and most of the revenue goes straight to health care & where it's supposed to.
Wait -- which do you want to do with this law: raise money for health care costs or dissuade people from eating unhealthy foods? Those two are mutually exclusive goals.
If you want to raise money, you'll add low enough taxes so that it won't stop too many people from eating unhealthy food, because if they stop eating it, they'll stop paying the taxes.
The goal would be to basically use a tax on fast food (and perhaps junk food in the supermarket as well) to offset the additional burden that obesity places on America's healthcare system.
You're right, as less people eat unhealthy, the tax collected would be less. However, there would be less money needed to offset obesity related health costs. So this is ok.
If people eat more unhealthy foods, then more tax will be collected to offset the additional health problems inherent with that.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're right, as less people eat unhealthy, the tax collected would be less. However, there would be less money needed to offset obesity related health costs. So this is ok.
If people eat more unhealthy foods, then more tax will be collected to offset the additional health problems inherent with that.
So which is your goal?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:posted by pH: I wanna try it because I only like my burgers to be meat, cheese, and ketchup. And it's really annoying when fast food places dump all that crap on top of them. Fast food lettuce is nasty.
Oh man, I hear you about the lettuce. Probably the most appetizing thing ever is when I order a chicken sammich and, due to some horrible reaction of heat and mayo, I can see straight through the lettuce.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm confused as to why Burger King would be catching any particular flak over this considering if nothing else this: Wendys has had the double quarter pounder as a mainstream item for years, has had the triple on the menu and has an easy option to make it a quadruple by "doubling the meat" (really just adding another patty)
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph- I don't think I'm understanding what you're getting at. I understand that they may seem to be contradictory, but they're really not. I would consider the program a success if the costs of obesity to our healthcare system are completely recouped by the tax. That's my goal.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:mph- I don't think I'm understanding what you're getting at. I understand that they may seem to be contradictory, but they're really not. I would consider the program a success if the costs of obesity to our healthcare system are completely recouped by the tax. That's my goal.
But how do you want to mainly accomplish that -- by raising enough money for health costs or by decreasing obesity?
They might be interchangable to you, as each one is merely an intermediate goal, but they are very different goals, with different justifications.
To some, one might be an acceptable goal but the other not.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say that they are different means to the same end.
Thinking about it, I guess my intermediate goal is to raise the money to offset obesity related health costs-not to decrease obesity. However, that being said, I believe a reduction in obesity is a likely side effect of this main goal due to the negative individual economic consequences.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph, the thing is (as long as you balance things right): as obesity is decreased so is the cost of obesity to the health care system and so is the tax raised.
So the short term is that obesity funds itself, but the long term is that as people are driven away from obesity they cease to fund it and it ceases to need funds.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would say that they are different means to the same end.
I know. That's what I just said.
It is important which means you use.
quote:Thinking about it, I guess my intermediate goal is to raise the money to offset obesity related health costs-not to decrease obesity. However, that being said, I believe a reduction in obesity is a likely side effect of this main goal due to the negative individual economic consequences.
Are you planning on changing the amount of the sin tax over time?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah..I didn't see your last line when I started my last post. I think I see what you are getting at. No my goal is not to make people not fat. If that were the case then my idea would be an outright ban of unhealthy foods, not simply an extra tax.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So the short term is that obesity funds itself, but the long term is that as people are driven away from obesity they cease to fund it and it ceases to need funds.
I don't think you can succeed at this unless you start the tax out relatively low, and then increase it over time.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Meh. This is child's play. At Rutgers University they have the Grease Trucks, and their signature "Fat" sandwiches. In fact, the "Fat Darrell" won Maxim's 'best sandwich in the country' accolades.
Those are good... almost worth going to New Brunswick for. Almost.
The Fat Derrell has chicken fingers, marinara and french fries, right?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Every time I go to a fair, I hope that they have deep fried twinkies. So far, no luck.
Come to Louisiana in the last week of April. My friends and I work the food booth for the parish fair for my grade school. We get bored and batter and deep fry everything around. Twinkies, snickers bars, slices of pizza, burritos, etc.
Be warned that the center of the twinky turns to molten lava.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Deep fried Mars bars are better. Mmmm.... crunchy on the outside, gooey on the inside. Just the thing after a night in Scotland drinking scotch and pints.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Deep fried Mars bars are better. Mmmm.... crunchy on the outside, gooey on the inside. Just the thing after a night in Scotland drinking scotch and pints.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would just like to let you all know that the whopper I had today after dinner is entirely YOUR fault. I couldn't stand reading this thread and not eating one. I'm in a tricky spot here when it comes to fast food. I've been trying extremely hard to gain weight for the past few years of my life. I'm 5'10, 16 years old, and weigh 135. And I'm very athletic so alot of that is muscle (at least it used to be). So I'm very skinny. And I hate it. I've been eating a decent amount of fast food for the past year or so, most of which came from Taco Bell. But I do not gain weight. No matter what. Drives me crazy. All I want is 10 pounds. My metabolism is way too fast and I have ADD so I also move around way too much during the day, so that doesn't help.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why can't I have YOUR metabolism? I'm trying to LOSE weight. If I even eat a cookie it's stuck on my stomach and other places. It's why i can never eat fast food again.
Except for take out chinese food.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: Again, I don't think it's the government's responsiblity to make sure people don't eat fast food.
Again, they can eat just as horribly at home. Are we going to start having the Food Police? "Put down the cupcake and back away slowly!"
-pH
And thus a new reality TV show is born. We should probably tax television as well. Doing so fights obesity and weans people off the idiot box at the same time.
Posts: 413 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm. My indulgence in the Angus burger isn't healthy. 560 Calories (200 from fat), 22g of fat (8 Saturated fat, 1.5 transfat), and 13g of sugar.
Tastes good, though.
( I only eat out once or twice a week, and more frequently, I eat a sub sandwich, which usually proves more nutritious than the Angus burger from Burger King.)
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Avatar300: And thus a new reality TV show is born. We should probably tax television as well. Doing so fights obesity and weans people off the idiot box at the same time.
In that case, let's tax the Internets. And books. Books keep people from exercising sometimes, too!
posted
How, exactly, would we define the difference between healthy food and fast food, in order to tax one and not the other? I'm not sure there is any agreement on what is classified as "healthy" and it almost certainly varies from person to person. A tax high enough to seriously deter people from eating unhealthy foods would seriously harm ice cream parlors, bakeries, local diners, etc., in addition to big fast food chains. And it would almost certainly tax the poor far more heavily than the rich.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Thankfully, I don't think anyone in this thread has said that is their stated goal.
"Discourage people from eating fast food" is pretty close.
-pH
Again, this isn't the goal of the tax. The goal would be to offset the costs to Medicare, Medicaid, health care infrastructure, etc caused by obesity. MPH was quite patient in helping to define this as the goal of the plan.
They could eat themselves in to quadruple bypass territory for all I care...as long as they're not a burden to the healthcare system in doing so.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So the purpose of this tax is to extract money from people who eat food that is bad for them.
I'm not terribly trilled about taking a group of people with serous problems (people who eat a lot of junk food and who are more likely to have health problems like diabetes, obesity, heart conditions, etc.) and giving them one more problem by increasing their taxes.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd think one of the goals of a tax like this would be to decrease the occurences or severity of some of those other problems you mentioned.
Bao specifically said that this wasn't a goal.
As I said before, you can either design the tax to raise money, to decrease usage, or to do neither well.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I'd think one of the goals of a tax like this would be to decrease the occurences or severity of some of those other problems you mentioned.
So called 'sin taxes' pretty much always add that problem (increased taxes) to the list.
I think that will be a positive side effect El JT de Spang...but I'd be uncomfortable making it the purpose of the plan.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just because decreasing usage isn't the sole, or even primary, goal doesn't mean it won't be a side-effect.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: As I said before, you can either design the tax to raise money, to decrease usage, or to do neither well.
I'm curious why you say this...
Even if reducing the occurance of obesity is not the goal of this, but only to raise money to cause obesity to be less of a drain on the health-care system, there still is the potential of more or less equal monetary value between someone paying the tax and someone ceasing to be obese.
For example: say that on average if someone eats X amount on fast food (or whatever else you want to tax) they make health care go up $5. So, you set up the tax such that eating X amount of fast food costs you $5 more (or say $6 to account for bureaucratic costs). The net impact is in principle $0 to the health care costs.
Now say instead that the person doesn't want to pay that $6 and instead decides to eat healthier and as a result does not end up obese, and does not impact the health-care system. the net impact is still $0.
Now of course this assumes that cutting all fast food out of said person's diet is enough to remove their obesity-related health problems, but the basic concept seems fairly sound to me.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wait -- which do you want to do with this law: raise money for health care costs or dissuade people from eating unhealthy foods? Those two are mutually exclusive goals.
If you want to raise money, you'll add low enough taxes so that it won't stop too many people from eating unhealthy food, because if they stop eating it, they'll stop paying the taxes. [/QB]
You've got the goal mixed up. The goal of such a tax would be to reduce the amount "healthy eaters" pay to cover the health care costs associated with unhealthy foods. So it doesn't matter whether the tax raises alot of money for health care or dissuades people from eating unhealthy foods. Either end acheives the real objective.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: Again, I don't think it's the government's responsiblity to make sure people don't eat fast food.
Again, they can eat just as horribly at home. Are we going to start having the Food Police? "Put down the cupcake and back away slowly!"
-pH
I'm not sure that's entirely true, regarding people's ability to eat worse at home.
No doubt, people can slather everything with Velveeta and fry it up in bacon grease if they really try.
But fast-food often seems to take processing to ridiculous extremes. Fast food is often designed by what amounts to chemists. It generally needs to be storable indefinitely prior to being cooked and served to a customer. It needs to be possible to process into an edible form without error by a high-school drop-out with minimal training. And following the process, it needs to taste good enough that customers will willingly come back and consume more.
My sister read a section of a book to me a while back that noted among the myraid ingredients of a Chicken Mcnugget is a carcinogenic anti-foaming agent. And unless they've finally changed it, McDonalds french fries are still cooked in tallow.
I don't even know where I'd *get* tallow, if I wanted to do that to myself...
If I make a hamburger at home, it will undoubtedly be more of an indulgent than a healthful experience, complete with a big slice of Tilamook cheddar on top. But it probably won't contain the levels of salt, flavoring, and miscelaneous chemicals that its fast-food brethren would.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most people when they cook burgers at home either use a grill, where the grease and fat cooks off, or something like a Foreman grill, where it collects in a tray.
How many of you have deep fryers at home?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
