Sin Taxes and Other Government Regulation on Unhealthy Products

[Archonsod]

The only way to pass it as law would be to limit the use of food stamps to products that meet a minimum nutritional value.

All foods have nutritional value. Limitation is pointless because it needs to be balanced across a diet as a whole.

Restricting calorie intake is pointless, the main reason people are fat ****s is not because they eat ****e, but because they spend most of the day sat on their arses. The only way to sort it out is to get them to do some exercise once in a while. Give them gym stamps as well as food stamps, and refuse to give them the food stamps unless they can demonstrate they've did a minimum of three hours exercise. It'd sort out the weight problem in six months.

 

[ealabor]

So, it's kinda old news, but we were recently discussing the ethical repercussions of the government not allowing people to buy soda and other junk food with food stamps.

Yeah ethics and the Federal government shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence.

While you are trying to wax philosophical on permissions to allow or deny the use of junkcards, handout folks will be swiping their handout cards at such healthy food places as KFC, Pizza Hut, and Jack in the Box

http://www.yearofplenty.org/2011/01/kfc-jack-in-the-box-and-other-fast-food-restaurants-to-accept-food-stamps.html?cid=6a00e5500a0b5588340147e1861dae970b

That's just for San Diego, as various counties have different lists of accepted restaurants, most of which on par. And if you think

But we have such ****ed up concepts on the role of government, that some folks think it's here to provide handouts, and has err'd their thinking.

citing the blogger in prior link :

I am thinking of one homeless person I'm working with lately who doesn't have access to a kitchen and he mostly just wants peanut butter from our food pantry. The worst fast food would be a better option for him than just peanut butter. So for him, and people like him I would support something like this.

What would be the "better" ****ing option is to get the guy set up with a job so he doesn't need a card in the first place.

Oh, stomach full from eating KFC on taxpayer money? Why not head on over to a casino
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/24/local/la-me-welfare-casinos-20100624

Which goes to show the poor oversight and exploitation of the system.


I'd think rather than debating what trivial items off an itemized list should be allowed on the program, the more critical discussion should be of how we can minimize and encourage people off a now defunct system.

And as a previous poster mentioned, it's not the calorie intake that's killing people, it's people sitting around on their fat asses that do it. No amount of government tax regulation can get people off their asses from watching American Idol, or playing Xbox or WoW, and force them to go throw a frisbie, or ride a bike.

I'm sure some day some dumb ****'s bright idea thinking is going to have a state official in our houses so they can tell us to go excercise.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

So, it's kinda old news, but we were recently discussing the ethical repercussions of the government not allowing people to buy soda and other junk food with food stamps. It's already impossible to buy alcohol and cigarettes with food stamps, and soda and junk foods don't offer any real nutritional value, so are just as much for recreational use as alcohol. Likewise, they can be seen as just as bad for people since a large part of Americans' calorie intake is contributed just to soda. With rising healthcare costs being attributed to obesity, is it right to try and limit people who are using government funded food stamps from buying junk food? Also, is it right to place a sin tax on the same products to try and offset costs?

There's rationale here in Canada that reasons that if you're using a publicly provided service, then you must take steps to ensure that the service is not abused and that it serves its purpose. Moreover, while there is a freedom to choose what you want to consume, this freedom is not absolute and can be curtailed by the conditions of which it is provided, namely, that other people are providing it for a very specific purpose.

Nutritional value is only relevant in that whomever is providing the food stamps intends it to serve that purpose. Of course, this assumes that the people who use food stamps can opt not to use them, thus resulting in the situation that the acceptance of food stamps is at the mercy of the people who choose it. This point is arguable, the people on food stamps are more or less at the bottom of the ladder, and for them to opt not to take food stamps would be of great detriment. But I guess it's whether you see the basic necessities, as basic necessities. There appears to be alternative ways of saving money or relying on the government which suits the needs of the destitute better. For instance, if you would like to retain your freedom of shoosing which ever food you want, you could pick the bottommost government housing plans in exchange for it. Though the person may certainly not be entitled to all their freedoms at this point if they want to survive. They cannot retain both while asking the state to provide for them.

As for junk food being cheap, I suspect it's from all the corporate tax cuts and easing of importing and exporting regulations for their specific realm, as well as the huge incentive to grow cash crops rather than staple crops that such industries dirve.

 

[Tibertus]

People who take food stamps aren't all at the bottom of the rung. My brother and I were getting food stamps and we each had jobs. There's cash ammounts you can get per month based on your income, and what food stamps do for a lot of people is free up some discretionary income. We may not have really needed it, but it was nice to have some free money that we didn't have to absolutely spend on food, rent and school. It's the same with a lot of people.

 

[mor2]

People who take food stamps aren't all at the bottom of the rung. My brother and I were getting food stamps and we each had jobs. There's cash ammounts you can get per month based on your income, and what food stamps do for a lot of people is free up some discretionary income. We may not have really needed it, but it was nice to have some free money that we didn't have to absolutely spend on food, rent and school. It's the same with a lot of people.

After reading this, its hard to believe you live in the USA, with everyone saying you are capitalistic bastards and all, But these actually sounds sweet, we never heard of anything like food stamps here...

Anyway, Isnt the whole idea of Food stamps, to limit what you can buy? (instead of giving you money), so i dont see any problem limiting it even further, but i doubt it will have the effect the organizers wish a.k.a educating the people to have a healthier life style.

 

[Tibertus]

Please rephrase.

 

[Archonsod]

As for junk food being cheap, I suspect it's from all the corporate tax cuts and easing of importing and exporting regulations for their specific realm, as well as the huge incentive to grow cash crops rather than staple crops that such industries dirve.

No, it's because it's cheap to produce. Junk food is usually reprocessed/reclaimed material, which is cheaper to buy. The disparity problem isn't due to government intervention but market forces. Marking a food as "health" food increases it's perceived value to buyers and thus it can be sold at a higher premium.
In fact there was a rather hilarious expose on the health food industry on BBC I think, whereby the supermarkets (Sainsbury's and Tesco's were the main two) openly admitted that they used exactly the same sources for their premium, healthy and own brand foodstuffs, yet the prices varied by as much as 200% on some products.

 

[Caba`drin]

True, there are definite markups, but some of the heavy government subsidies for easily-produced grain crops have definitely had a role in lowering the cost of certain types of cheap food products. Soy and corn being the most obvious. So we get soy-augmented cheaper "meats", and corn in a myriad of forms from starch to syrup etc as a filler.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

People who take food stamps aren't all at the bottom of the rung. My brother and I were getting food stamps and we each had jobs. There's cash ammounts you can get per month based on your income, and what food stamps do for a lot of people is free up some discretionary income. We may not have really needed it, but it was nice to have some free money that we didn't have to absolutely spend on food, rent and school. It's the same with a lot of people.

I'll cede that, but it still doesn't change the fact that you're entering into a contract of sorts. One that is dictated by the provider of the contract, and even better for my case, that it is not an absolute necessity that would demand some sort of protection for the rights of these people who have no place to turn.

 

[Tibertus]

People who take food stamps aren't all at the bottom of the rung. My brother and I were getting food stamps and we each had jobs. There's cash ammounts you can get per month based on your income, and what food stamps do for a lot of people is free up some discretionary income. We may not have really needed it, but it was nice to have some free money that we didn't have to absolutely spend on food, rent and school. It's the same with a lot of people.

I'll cede that, but it still doesn't change the fact that you're entering into a contract of sorts. One that is dictated by the provider of the contract, and even better for my case, that it is not an absolute necessity that would demand some sort of protection for the rights of these people who have no place to turn.

And I agree with you man... either I was tired or I somehow misread your post. 

People who take food stamps aren't all at the bottom of the rung. My brother and I were getting food stamps and we each had jobs. There's cash ammounts you can get per month based on your income, and what food stamps do for a lot of people is free up some discretionary income. We may not have really needed it, but it was nice to have some free money that we didn't have to absolutely spend on food, rent and school. It's the same with a lot of people.

After reading this, its hard to believe you live in the USA, with everyone saying you are capitalistic bastards and all, But these actually sounds sweet, we never heard of anything like food stamps here...

Anyway, Isnt the whole idea of Food stamps, to limit what you can buy? (instead of giving you money), so i dont see any problem limiting it even further, but i doubt it will have the effect the organizers wish a.k.a educating the people to have a healthier life style.

Yeah, despite what the world thinks, we actually have social welfare programs, which are already a large chunk of the federal budget. And no, food stamps are not meant to limit what you can buy, they're meant to give poor people a way to buy food. You're thinking of back during WWII and the oil crisis in '73 when the government issued rationing stamps.

 

[Orion]

I guess it's time to stop pitching in on the philosophical debate when some folks show they can't distinguish between idealism & realism or aren't willing to.

 

[Wheem]

It'd be largely pointless to limit the products that food stamps can be exchanged for. Sure, a food stamp recipient may not be able to "buy" Pepsi and a Snickers bar from the store, but there's nothing stopping them bartering with the bread and milk that they are allowed to buy. Especially if/when food stamps get a discount on healthier foods; 'In December 2011, the FNS will start testing a “healthy incentives” program in Hampden County, Massachusetts. Participants will receive a 30 percent discount on their EBT purchases of fruits and vegetables.' (http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/10/watching-what-you-eat)

Another quote from the article:

隐藏

'A Department of Agriculture report published in October 2010 notes that 66 percent of SNAP recipients in 2009 “were categorically eligible and thus neither subject to the asset test nor required to provide information about their assets.” In one controversial 2009 case, an Ohio family of three who owned their fully paid off home, had a three-year-old Mercedes and one additional car, and held $80,000 in the bank qualified for $500 a month in food stamps.

The FNS and stage agencies have also figured out ways to increase the monthly payments that SNAP participants receive. Ultimately, a household’s net income determines the size of its payment—the lower the net income, the higher the benefit. To lower their net incomes, recipients can claim various deductions, including one for utilities that can be as much as $273 a month. According to federal guidelines, recipients can claim the maximum utility deduction regardless of how much they actually spend on utilities as long as they participate in a Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). To take advantage of this fact, state agencies have started issuing annual fuel-assistance payments of $1 to SNAP recipients. In New York alone, administrators reportedly boosted monthly payments to 90,000 households by an average of $131 a month.'

As for the "sin tax" side of things - screw that. If one really wants to be so much of a meddling, patriarchal douche bag that they're willing to use the coercive power of government to try (and fail) to stop other people from doing something, then they should grow a pair and push for some legislation to do it. Only cowards try to use the tax code for purposes of social engineering.

 

[LittleJP]

If they can make good healthy food cheap, well, problem mostly solved, since preparing good food takes time and applications that cost money.

 

[Blackfish]

It'd be largely pointless to limit the products that food stamps can be exchanged for. Sure, a food stamp recipient may not be able to "buy" Pepsi and a Snickers bar from the store, but there's nothing stopping them bartering with the bread and milk that they are allowed to buy.

Bread and milk are considerably more filling than Pepsi and Snickers though. If they're willing to make that trade they clearly don't need food stamps all that much.

And who barters for food nowadays outside the Third World?

As for the "sin tax" side of things - screw that. If one really wants to be so much of a meddling, patriarchal douche bag that they're willing to use the coercive power of government to try (and fail) to stop other people from doing something, then they should grow a pair and push for some legislation to do it. Only cowards try to use the tax code for purposes of social engineering.

Wut?

 

[Wheem]

Bread and milk are considerably more filling than Pepsi and Snickers though. If they're willing to make that trade they clearly don't need food stamps all that much.

Who says they trade all the bread, milk, meat, etc...for junk food?

And who barters for food nowadays outside the Third World?

There's not much (any?) current incentive for those on food stamps to barter food in America. But if you don't allow purchases of soft drinks, candy bars, potato chips, etc...with food stamps, an incentive will be created. They'll work out something with relatives, friends, neighbors, or possibly even perfect strangers. It's not particularly hard to imagine a scenario of, "Hey if you'll put those eggs in my cart, I'll put this Snickers bar in yours and we'll trade up in the parking lot - it'll save you some money."

As for the "sin tax" side of things - screw that. If one really wants to be so much of a meddling, patriarchal douche bag that they're willing to use the coercive power of government to try (and fail) to stop other people from doing something, then they should grow a pair and push for some legislation to do it. Only cowards try to use the tax code for purposes of social engineering.

Wut?

Increasing taxes on certain goods or services because you want to penalize those who use them (or price them out of the market all together) is a form of social engineering. The slimeball politicians that try and use this form of social engineering are cowards because they don't have the stones to try and achieve the same end via legislation (ie, banning a product outright). Trying to shove unpopular laws down the people's throats often results in a backlash; moreso than a sin tax, which can often be rationalized with "but the government needs more revenue" propaganda.

Besides, many things that would be impossible to do via direct legislation (due to lack of support or Constitutional issues), can be forced onto the public via executive orders, regulative agencies, etc...So while it might be politically and legally impossible to pass a bill that says poor people aren't allowed to soft drinks, they can attempt to price the poor out of the market (or limit the amount they can afford) via tax increases. So maybe I should have said, "Only cowards or self-righteous, self-important, Constitution-dodging weasels try to use the tax code for purposes of social engineering."

 

[Blackfish]

There's not much (any?) current incentive for those on food stamps to barter food in America. But if you don't allow purchases of soft drinks, candy bars, potato chips, etc...with food stamps, an incentive will be created. They'll work out something with relatives, friends, neighbors, or possibly even perfect strangers. It's not particularly hard to imagine a scenario of, "Hey if you'll put those eggs in my cart, I'll put this Snickers bar in yours and we'll trade up in the parking lot - it'll save you some money."

I'm not poor, so I don't know for sure, but I'm just not convinced that these kinds of abuse will be common enough to be a problem. I'm not sure if this is the case in the US, but in Australia normal, substantial food is not that much more expensive than junk food.

Certainly I don't think the potential for abuse outweighs the benefits it could bring - that is, making the poor eat better. Or at least making sure they're not gorging themselves on unhealthy food on government money, which is a double financial strain as the fatasses then require more medical attention.

Increasing taxes on certain goods or services because you want to penalize those who use them (or price them out of the market all together) is a form of social engineering. The slimeball politicians that try and use this form of social engineering are cowards because they don't have the stones to try and achieve the same end via legislation (ie, banning a product outright). Trying to shove unpopular laws down the people's throats often results in a backlash; moreso than a sin tax, which can often be rationalized with "but the government needs more revenue" propaganda.

Besides, many things that would be impossible to do via direct legislation (due to lack of support or Constitutional issues), can be forced onto the public via executive orders, regulative agencies, etc...So while it might be politically and legally impossible to pass a bill that says poor people aren't allowed to soft drinks, they can attempt to price the poor out of the market (or limit the amount they can afford) via tax increases. So maybe I should have said, "Only cowards or self-righteous, self-important, Constitution-dodging weasels try to use the tax code for purposes of social engineering."

I see what you're saying, but I don't think it applies in this particular instance. Banning junk food is ridiculous, clearly, and I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that. Placing a 'sin tax' on junk food represents a more reasonable middle ground.

I agree with you basic premise that it's a form of social engineering, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, especially in this case - I'm assuming you agree that too much junk food is bad. People respond to monetary incentives, and these taxes are a way of influencing public behaviour without excessively draconian laws banning this and that.

they can attempt to price the poor out of the market (or limit the amount they can afford) via tax increases.

Keep in mind that any tax would probably be... what, three percent? Five percent? Even if you're buying fifty bucks of junk food (which you really shouldn't), that's an extra $2.50. As for limiting the amount of junk food one can afford, you say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[mor2]

Increasing taxes on certain goods or services because you want to penalize those who use them (or price them out of the market all together) is a form of social engineering. The slimeball politicians that try and use this form of social engineering are cowards because they don't have the stones to try and achieve the same end via legislation (ie, banning a product outright). Trying to shove unpopular laws down the people's throats often results in a backlash; moreso than a sin tax, which can often be rationalized with "but the government needs more revenue" propaganda.

If we look at real life examples, lets in the case of smoking. So according to you, Instead of raising taxes, gradual legislation and  campaigns to raise awareness etc, those coward slimeball politicians should have waited, until someone with stones would have show up and banned them outright?

 

[Tibertus]

If they can make good healthy food cheap, well, problem mostly solved, since preparing good food takes time and applications that cost money.

DAMNIT **** why does everyone keep saying this? Spaghetti isn't expensive, nor is buying a pot to boil water in from the dollar store. Sandwiches are cheap as **** to make and take no time at all. I think people hear "healthy food" and automatically think of organic food and crazy elaborate dishes. That is absolutely ****ing retarded.

 

[Wheem]

I'm not poor, so I don't know for sure, but I'm just not convinced that these kinds of abuse will be common enough to be a problem. I'm not sure if this is the case in the US, but in Australia normal, substantial food is not that much more expensive than junk food.

You don't have to be poor to see that it might happen. Lets pretend for a moment that you were on software stamps, and they were your only (or at least, primary) way to get software of any type. Then the government decides that the software stamps should be used only on Operating Systems, Anti-Virus programs, or some form of productive/business software. Would you be willing to spend ~$200 worth of your software stamps on Windows 7, and trade it for say...three $50 games?

Poor doesn't mean stupid, and if they really want their junk food, they're going to get it. Bartering with people - especially friends or family - would be a very easy way around the system.

Certainly I don't think the potential for abuse outweighs the benefits it could bring - that is, making the poor eat better. Or at least making sure they're not gorging themselves on unhealthy food on government money, which is a double financial strain as the fatasses then require more medical attention.

Government really shouldn't be providing food or medical care. Those are things which should be handled by the market, with private charity providing for those too poor to afford what they need. When the providers are acting voluntarily, there's no good argument for trying to control what someone else eats and drinks. Under the current system, there's only one way to keep those on welfare programs from using government resources to acquire junk food; provide the food directly, and make sure that it's as bland as possible. 'Course, pushing for that will get you called heartless, among other things.

I see what you're saying, but I don't think it applies in this particular instance. Banning junk food is ridiculous, clearly, and I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that. Placing a 'sin tax' on junk food represents a more reasonable middle ground.

Why is it reasonable? Why should the government be allowed to arbitrarily decide that Good-X and Service-Y should cost more than the providers are selling them for? And if we're going to go that route, why stop at junk food?

There are those who claim a doomsday is coming because of CO2 emissions, so lets raise taxes on gasoline and electricity, and start subsidizing blankets, tank tops, and bicycle manufacturers.

It's claimed that too many people have a sedentary lifestyle, so lets jack up taxes on software, electronics, books, cable/satellite TV providers, internet services, chess boards, and comfortable chairs and couches.

And since everyone knows that teenage girls spend way too much time on the phone, all cell and land-line phone plans need an extra tax beyond what other electronic services get.

Also keep in mind that the government is not always going to be controlled by people who agree with you. If you support any sort of social engineering via the tax code, you really can't complain if it ever comes back to bite you in the backside under a different administration. After all, sin taxes got their name and popularity from moral crusaders that wanted to stop (or limit) people from doing naughty things like drinking beer; and something like $0.60 of every dollar spent on alcohol in America is taxation.

I agree with you basic premise that it's a form of social engineering, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, especially in this case - I'm assuming you agree that too much junk food is bad. People respond to monetary incentives, and these taxes are a way of influencing public behaviour without excessively draconian laws banning this and that.

Eating too much (even if it's not junk food) and not exercising enough is bad for a person, that's not really arguable. Our disagreement comes down to the role of government. I do not support giving the government the legal authority to meddle with market prices, and view such actions as overbearing and immoral. If some person wants to live an unhealthy lifestyle, then that's their business, not mine, yours, or the government's. 'Course, they should also be the one to bear the full costs of their own decisions, or rely on the kindness of others who willingly shoulder some of the burdens (ie, increased medical costs, paying extra for the XXXL shirts, or whatever).

Keep in mind that any tax would probably be... what, three percent? Five percent? Even if you're buying fifty bucks of junk food (which you really shouldn't), that's an extra $2.50. As for limiting the amount of junk food one can afford, you say that like it's a bad thing.

If the tax is small enough that it doesn't really do anything, what's the point? Thumbing noses at people the government doesn't like? Besides, it's quite possible that the tax would end up fairly high, even if it started out low. As I said earlier, more than half of the cost of alcohol in the US is taxes.

If we look at real life examples, lets in the case of smoking. So according to you, Instead of raising taxes, gradual legislation and  campaigns to raise awareness etc, those coward slimeball politicians should have waited, until someone with stones would have show up and banned them outright?

Basically, yes.

 

[mor2]

If we look at real life examples, lets in the case of smoking. So according to you, Instead of raising taxes, gradual legislation and  campaigns to raise awareness etc, those coward slimeball politicians should have waited, until someone with stones would have show up and banned them outright?

Basically, yes.

and you'll be more likely to see the judgment day and jesus having a butt sex with a raccoon, than this happening. So forgive me if i'll stay with those so called  slimeballs coward politicians. (unless you were planning some regime change to dictatorship, then i am sure there will be a guy with power todo so like that)