NY Bill Proposes Fat Tax On Games, DVDs, Junk Food 793
eldavojohn writes "GamePolitics is writing about a proposal to tax things that make your kids fat. The logic from its author: 'Almost all experts agree that the primary reasons [for the obesity epidemic] are increased consumption of larger quantities of high calorie foods, snacks and sugar sweetened beverages... and lack of physical activity as vigorous play is replaced by sedentary activities such as watching more television, movies and videos and playing video games. This bill would raise revenues from modest surcharges on the very food products and sedentary activities that are linked to the lifestyle changes involved in the explosion of childhood obesity in the last 20-30 years.' Not as explicit as Japan's fat tax but we're getting there."
Nice idea, wrong approach (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem isn't that there aren't enough taxes on junk food, the problem is that there's too much crap [mayoclinic.com] in it.
While it would be nice to think that putting taxes on garbage disguised as food would promote the availability of real food, I'm inclined to doubt that things work that way.
I still say they should get rid of HFC Syrup (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, there HAVE been studies that show the obesity levels began rising at the same time that High Fructose Corn Syrup started to infiltrate all of our foods.
I mean do they REALLY need to add HFCS to Tomato Sauces, Soups, etc. ?
The best thing lately has been the return to sugar as a sweetener. Pepsi Throwback is one great example (its much less sweet than regular pepsi - and I'm a Coke drinker primarily).
Better Idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Tax your gasoline to a similar degree as in Europe. That would encourage less car journeys, more walking/cycling and act as a buffer for when the oil prices start increasing again so your gas prices won't double practically overnight again.
Re:Money Grab (Score:5, Interesting)
Minnesotans still pays more per person and I'd bet we get a lot more from our money than you do.
Re:How about (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Money Grab (Score:2, Interesting)
It would probably meet much less resistance if some or all of the proceeds went towards offsetting the costs of healthy foods such as fresh produce and lifestyle assistance such as gym memberships.
Re:Money Grab (Score:3, Interesting)
states pay for medicaid and in NY State it's run like an HMO and open to a lot of people like small business owners to buy health insurance. the premiums are based on income, which means poorer people are paid for by others
Re:I still say they should get rid of HFC Syrup (Score:3, Interesting)
You got that right. Corn production in the US is massively subsidized, so much so that Mexico can no longer afford to produce its own corn.
This glut of corn has resulted in a number of rather poor changes to the US diet. HFCS as a substitute for sugar is one. Massive amounts of corn for feeding beef cattle is another - corn is not a natural diet for cows and is so bad many farmers are on record stating the cows would have died in 6 months anyway from organ failure if they were not slaughtered first. Is this really what you want to eat?
Corn is basically a product for making money, and has no real nutritional value at all.
Re:Money Grab (Score:2, Interesting)
I appreciate using taxes, which should be used to fund government operations that the people want, to punishment methods to create general "funds" that can be used in any way the politicians want.
Anyone supporting taxation for the purpose of punishment, "social manipulation" or whatever the reason, is ideologically aligned with fascism. No matter "what about the children".
Re:Money Grab (Score:1, Interesting)
It's not a money grab - I would totally support this.
I'm tired of my taxes paying the health care bills of these fat bastards. They eat crap, get overweight, next thing they are in for knee surgeries and lifelong diabetes management.
I'm also tired of getting on a plane and seeing a fare increase for more fuel when people around me weigh 100lbs more than they should. They then proceed to disgustingly 'flow' out of their seat and into mine. I would celebrate the day they charge passengers a low base rate then extra per pound for person and luggage combined. Kids and fit people would fly cheap, and it would encourage you to fly light.
I bet a lot of us are/were pretty damn fat. (Score:3, Interesting)
Growing up, and trying to deal with my diet, I realized at some point that all these drive-throughs kill people. You can't live off of McDonalds. If you ate Burger King for every meal you would die. Yet this food is marketed more, cheaper than, and more convenient than going to the grocery store. Going to the grocery store to pick up some fruit takes longer and costs more than stopping by Del Taco. Something is wrong here.
(To you people who can't live without your fast food, I just say this as someone who struggled with obesity, you diet is a huge part of your health. It's not easy. Going to drive throughs too often KILLS YOU.)
I've thought about this and similar subjects a lot (such as smoking cigarettes) and I think society has the following options.
Re: Fat Tax. It doesn't sit well with me. However, I admit that this tax will affect some people who might get something from the grocery store instead of ordering Pizza. It will make fat food cost more than healthy food. (I almost like this tax for this reason alone.)
After thinking about it, I realized I wasn't so against a fat tax as I thought I was. But damn, if you're gonna make a fat tax then lower some other goddamn taxes! Make my fucking carrots and apples and oranges tax free! (Oh god... who gets to decide what food is "healthy" and what food is "unhealthy"?)
Re:Money Grab (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How about (Score:3, Interesting)
so in that vein, I say, lets remove end of live coverage from medicare or medicaid.
Essentially, lets refuse to cover the cost of treatment to individuals who have ZERO realistic expectation of recovery (beyond pain management and keeping them clean and comfortable). I realize that there are limitations already in place, but it is still very common for the tax payers to fund a very expensive procedure that merely keeps someone alive for a week or two longer.
I don't know about you, but if I am dieing I wouldn't feel right taking $20,000 dollars from families that need it so that I can live another week!
Re:Money Grab (Score:4, Interesting)
While I generally agree with you, what home grown mac n cheese recipe do you have that is healthier? All of the recipes we have are very high in fat.
Let us also not forget that many families are either single parent or have two working parents and thus there is a lack of time to prepare all of this delicious nutritious food. At my house we've been trying 20 minute recipes but in general they do end up costing more than just going out to eat.
One thing you are forgetting is that people that are cheap and would buy prepackaged food or eat at McDonalds will buy cheap ingredients for making food from scratch and you'll be back at square one when it comes to health concerns.
My house isn't struggling for money thankfully so we'll shop farmers markets mostly. Whole Foods is considered a special treat when we want to have a BBQ with family I don't get to see often or when we want a turkey for Thanksgiving.
Ultimately I'm not sure the food people are eating is the problem, it's more the lack of exercise in addition to the lack of proper sleep. Those contribute a lot to metabolism although obviously what you eat is still important.
I exercise 6 times a week and play video games (Score:3, Interesting)
I ran a half marathon last year and I hope to run a full marathon this year. There is almost no fat on my body. I go to the gym and then come home and relax by playing video gams.
If I lived in NY, I'd be pissed. Playing video games and exercise are not mutually exclusive. Maybe if these kids had parents that didn't sit around watching TV every night while eating their take out dinner there wouldn't be a problem?
Re:Money Grab (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Money Grab (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Money Grab (Score:5, Interesting)
This tax, especially on foods and drinks that can kill you if not used in extreme moderation (apparently they aren't) is for the same reasons, no?
So, look, if you're gonna bitch about these (and I'm sure new creative behavior modification taxes in the future), then complain in general about using any tax to try to modify behavior. They should not use the threat of tax to promote good or curb 'bad' behaviors if you are an adult.
What do you bet that in a future in the US, if you have a national medical system, with computerized national records, that can easily be tied to other systems out there that collect info on you (like with grocery store purchases? Drug stores? Liquor stores?) that you are charged and taxed based on your health risk behaviors? Don't think they'll do it?
Did you think they'd ever even consider taxing you a 'sin' tax for buying a soda pop??? Me neither...
Re:Money Grab (Score:3, Interesting)
I see that you are very short sighted, and intolerant of others freedoms.
I'm not intolerant of other peoples freedoms - I would forcefully oppose a ban on anything. However peoples choices have consequences and they should be held responsible for them.
If I have to pay $1.60 instead of $1.40 for a plate of greasy fries if I want one, I really couldn't care, and I should be able to enjoy that in peace. However someone who regularly make a meal out of fries and pop is going to have health problems and the money collected should go to offset those health costs. I should npt be on the hook for someone elses crappy diet decisions, and doing so is restricting *my* freedoms.
Re:Welcome to a tax on everything (Score:3, Interesting)
A republic is the rule of law, specifically, written law. A constitutional republic writes down what the limited extent of government powers is. While it is true that a few elite men designed our constitutional republic, they designed it explicitly to limit the power of any governors -- themselves and any subsequent politicians.
In in oligarchy there may be written laws, but in effect, you have the rule of a few men, because there may not be sufficient boundaries in the existing written law, or the few may circumvent written law as often as they like. Or, it may be that the written law really only applies to subjects, not to oligarchs themselves.
The cheif difference between written laws and limited government power, vs. any arrangement where there the boundaries of government power are not clearly defined, is that in the former, people can PLAN their lives and behaviors, and make long term plans and execute on them. In the latter situation, the actions and dreams of man are perpetually subject to the boundless whims of the oligarchs and their appointees.
One defect of the modern US government is that much of our law is unwritten -- we have review and regulation boards, committees, and agencies that decide on matters according to the whims of the men serving on those boards. The rules are not written down. So while we technically have a constitutional republic, we have many de-facto oligarchies in specific sectors of governance.
A specific example of this might be the FDA. Is it legal to to sell a certain drug in the US? That depends on what the FDA says. The law says "the FDA decides". The FDA provides information and guidance about its decision making process, but ultimatley, its still a decision making process. I have no specific experience with the FDA drug approval process, so it might be an especially vague or especially well defined process, and so might be a great or poor illustration of the point.
Another aspect to consider regarding the founding elite that drafted the constitution was that it was _imposed_ on nobody in particular - the "Federal" government is federated in the sense that there is a clear deliniation of powers delegated to the "national" government, and powers not otherwise specified remain with the states, localities, or individuals. States had to buy-in to the constitution, and it was on a voluntary basis, state by state, that this was done.
It wasn't until the Civil war that the US national government egregiously asserted its superiority to the states by raising an army to prevent certain states from "opting out" of the Union. The civil war, despite how it is frequently taught, was fought politically over the "legality" of state secession from the United States national government. Abraham Lincoln himself said that the issue of slavery was second to the issue of secession. While slavery was the pivotal issue that motivated the southern states to secede, Lincoln prosecuted the war on the grounds that the south had no right to secede, and there is a quote from him on the matter that says, in essence, his slavery policy would be whatever forced the union to remain a whole.
It wasn't until some time into the war that he wrapped up the moral aspects of combating slavery as a post-facto justification for war. The Civil War, as originally executed, was a political boondoggle. Only with the hindsight of what it accomplished in terms of human rights and freedoms can it be said to be a net positive. But critics of Lincoln suggest that any time prior to beginning the Civil War, the federal government and the northern states could have simply overturned or refused to enforce fugitive slave laws. Had that happened, the moral slavery issue would have sorted itself out via the mass exodous of escaping slaves to northern states. Northern states were legally bound to return escaped slaves to their southern masters; overtuning the laws that required this may have prevented the war and ended slavery just the same.
Re:Absurd - Every Bit Of It. (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't kid yourself. Which scenario is more likely?
So, is the tax really about health?