Games Tax To Fund Obesity Prevention?

Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to an AP/Yahoo story discussing a New York State proposal to tax videogames, and use the money to prevent obesity. According to the article, "..the 1 percent tax hike proposed by Assemblyman Felix Ortiz would apply to junk food, video games and television commercials, which Ortiz blames on New York's growing obesity problem. Ortiz, a Democrat, did not rule out proposing tax increases on other things that he believes contribute to obesity." Fortunately, the proposal is believed to have a "slim chance" of passing into law.

Comments

Re:That's a reach

[skinfitz]

Video games cause obesity, so we'll tax them? Give me a break. I can think of a few other things have a much more direct effect on a persons body weight. Like, I dunno, food for example? I think it could be proven that the more food you eat, the more likely you are to be obese. Especially fast food.. why not tax that?

Believe it or not, something similar has recently been proposed in the UK. The BBC has recently reported that it is proposed that fatty foods should be taxed in the UK.

I was wondering recently if taxing things to artificially increase the price actually discourages people from wanting them. Cigarettes for example - I don't smoke and I dont know about the US but in the UK they are expensive however does making something more difficult to get hold of decrease the desire to aquire it or increase it? If cigarettes were free, would kids start to smoke? I believe that increasing the price has the reverse effect - kids want it more; the worst part - how do they get the money? Some will turn to petty crime. People do not stop wanting things because they are expensive, however only honest people will accept they can't afford things and leave it at that.

The Onion predicted this

[MobyDisk]

I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh (yea, so shoot me!) many years back, and he was saying how having a cigarette tax would open up the door to taxation of whatever the government thought was "evil." He did his usual over-extreme exaggeration and talked about a "twinkie" tax and a bunch of other utterly ridiculous taxes. I laughed at how stupid he was, and then one day -- McDonalds was sued for selling fatty foods -- New York proposed a tax on video games for making people fat -- and I became a believer.

But The Onion said it best here: Hershey's Ordered to Pay Obese Americans $135 Billion

Re:More direct approach

[hlh_nospam]

How about a tax on foods of which more than 50% of the caloric content is provided by carbohydrates and sugars?

Ah, somebody who actually understands the primary cause of obesity. Problem is, the lawmakers in question don't, and they are just following the popular low-fat superstition, proposed and preached mainly by diet-guru-wannabes with MDs, some of whom have discovered one or two things that actually appear to work, and immediately concluded that they have all of the answers. Some of them (notably Ornish) either didn't understand the question, or answered the wrong one.

I would like to point out some interesting facts:

1) I have personally lost over 100 lbs on a high-fat diet (around 55% calories from fat at this point), and kept it off for 3 years now. In addition to the weight loss, I experienced several other major health improvements, most of which occurred within a few weeks of the time I started restricting the sugar and starch in my diet, and long before I actually lost a substantial amount of weight. I initially gained most of the excess weight following a low-fat diet.

2) I have personally surveyed several hundred 'studies', and have found that most, if not all, 'studies' in nutrition have essentially nothing to do with science. They appear to follow the general pattern of a) form a conclusion, b) do some 'research', c) toss out any data that doesn't reinforce the conclusion, d) get the 'research' reviewed by other folks that have already accepted the conclusion, and e) get published in some mutual-admiration-society journal. Even if some of the data in part c is included, the conclusion is published intact, and most MDs will read only the abstract anyway, and will never realize that the data either does not support, or may even contradict, the conclusion.

3) All of the evidence that I have found (anecdotal and otherwise) indicates that one of the most important keys to a long and healthy life (other than safety items like wearing your seatbelt and not operating heavy machinery under the influence of mood-altering drugs) is to reduce the body's need for insulin. There are three (approximately equally important) factors involved, namely, diet, sleep, and exercise.

4) So far, I have not been able to locate any 'study' where carbohydrate consumption was reduced which did not result in multiple health improvements, even in those 'studies' where the resulting health improvements were attributed to other causes. My favorite example of a study falling into the latter category can be found here. BTW, I read this study when it first came out, and the phrase "and sugar" was added to the abstract only after the 'researchers' got some rather nasty public feedback concerning the fact that they had not proven their case (both of the 'researchers' involved in this circus are so-called "ethical vegetarians", which only shows that being an "ethical vegetarian" is a serious impediment to doing real science). Note that the title was not changed.

5) Since the nanny-state not only has no clue whatever about what constitutes a good diet, but also is not really concerned with my health, I strongly prefer that they quit trying to tell me what I should eat. That is not a legitimate function of government. I have already conclusively demonstrated that I can do a better job of maintaining my health than they can, anyway.