Slashdot Mirror
The Fresca Rebellion
theodp writes "They can ban the Marlboros, tax the Cokes, and zone the Whoppers, says Slate's William Saletan on the subject of today's morality cops. But it's time to put the brakes on the paternalistic overreaching of the food police, Saletan argues, when they come after his editor's beloved Fresca ('there are concerns that diet beverages may increase calorie consumption by justifying consumption of other caloric foods'), which will have to be pried from his cold, dead hands. '40 states have enacted special taxes on soda or junk food. And the soda taxers are becoming ever bolder. Their latest manifesto is an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, co-authored by the health commissioner of New York City, the surgeon general of Arkansas, and several others. It declares soda fair game for government intervention (PDF) on the grounds that "market failures" in this area are causing "less-than-optimal production and consumption."' Where do we draw the line?"
Instead of people choosing their foods based on preference, we'll have politicians picking our foods based on how much money is contributed to their campaigns!
I, for one, welcome our politician overlords.
Wait...
the more the government becomes responsible for taking care of us, the more motivated they are to regulate our behavior to keep the costs of said care down.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Random Google search says US spent $4,920,813,719 subsidizing corn production in 2006. Corn gets turned into HFC (High Fructose Corn) Syrup. HFC is what makes most sodas and candies sweet. Fresh berries are $6.00 a pint in my grocery store. Make me president and I'll switch that $5B from corn to subsidizing the production of fresh produce.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Here is the irony of this sort of taxation behavior. If you are successful and get people to stop buying soda - your tax revenue goes away. This creates another problem because the revenue starts being counted on (see cigarette and alcohol taxes for example) and the vicious cycle continues with the government looking for other things to tax (all in the name of your well being mind you) to make up for the loss of the revenue which should have been expected. When the taxation goes too far you start to create an underground economy in the taxed product and enforcement of taxation starts to take up a signifigant amount of the revenue. A quote from the DOJ budget
"The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) requests $1,120,772,000 for FY 2010, including $1,114,772,000 in Direct Salaries and Expenses and 5,025 full time equivalents (FTE) and $6,000,000 for construction of explosives ranges at the ATF National Center for Explosives Training and Research (NCETR). Specifically, ATF requests $1,077,783,000 and 4,979 FTE for current services, $17,989,000 and 46 FTE for Southwest Border enforcement efforts, and $19,000,000 for operations and infrastructure costs associated with the NCETR."
Can you imagine what the Bureau of healthy food enforcement budget will look like in 20 years? Considering all the hyperbole that we have to suffer through regarding foods (first it's good for you, then it's bad, then it steals your wife, then it's a miracle diet food, etc, etc, etc) who has any faith that the regulations dreamed up with the contradictory drivers of increasing tax revenue and eating healthy compounded by several special interest groups will produce anything but a mess?
These are hard times and the government needs to SHRINK just like every other sector of the economy. Why should the government not feel the same pain and be forced to make hard decisions that every other entity is? It shouldn't. Here is a simple rule - does the law proposed increase or decrease liberty? If it decreases liberty it probably is a bad law and should not be passed.
-cluge
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
I'm suspecting that the reasoning comes from the taste. Artificially sweetened thing enters mouth, activates omg-here-come-the-calorie taste buds, the body gears up for it... and waits... and waits... and there are no calories to be had.
It's more of a "cost tax" than a "sin tax". The consumption of certain products (most obvious example: tobacco) has costs far beyond that of the production and selling of the item (consumer much more likely to die earlier and require expensive health treatment before he or she dies. Being coldly clinical for a moment: death has costs. People who die remove critical knowledge and skills from the economy that makes a society function. Meanwhile the health issues leading up to death are also a major problem, as we've seen discussed in the healthcare debate: people who contract expensive to treat diseases are more likely to have their paid-for insurance revoked on technicalities, and roughly 50% of bankruptcies in the US are due to insurance not covering critical healthcare treatments.
How do you deal with it while maximizing liberties? Answer: you try to have people responsible for the costs of their actions. And that's where cost taxes come in.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Sin taxes are stupid. They allow rich people to "sin" more.
Pretty profound, except that having more money allows the rich to do many things moreso than others.
"Sin taxes" should be used only when the consumption of a product has an indirect, substantial cost to society. For poor people in particular, there is a cost to society from their consumption of alcohol, cigarettes and high-calorie, low-quality food. That cost comes about when they expect society to pay for medical treatments to remedy the consequences of an unhealthy lifestyle. That expectation will only grow if plans for universal heathcare come to fruition.
Of course, the rich take actions that have societal costs, too, such as driving large luxury vehicles and flying private jets, which damage the environment disproportionately relative to the transportation modes of their less-wealthy fellows. Those products and actions are also legitimate targets of sin taxes.
And as far as the "magic of the market" folks who oppose something like sin taxes, there's only one thing to say: Grow up. The market does not magically give you what you want just because you have the money to buy it. Companies sell you whatever they see to be in their interests to sell you. If a company sees a new product (like a "healthy drink") being detrimental to its existing cash-cow product lines (perhaps because the new product is less profitable due to higher production costs relative to its viable price of sale), they simply won't offer that product or will limit its distribution to "upscale" markets where they don't see it cannibalizing their core profits. Of course, some "scrappy start-up" could try to offer the new product, but such a company may be too small in scale to produce and/or distribute it widely and profitably. And that's when you have a market failure: When the existing companies in a market do not see it in their interest to offer new products, and when new companies cannot viably compete or can do so only marginally, the market has failed. Of course, whether a sin tax will actually remedy that favor is another question entirely.
N.B. As far as "market failures", they can also result when a new product has a very high R&D cost that an industry in unable or unwilling to bear. For example, the development of alternative fuel automobiles has largely stalled because automakers had no interest in producing them, even though consumers had an interest in buying them. An automaker had two alternatives: It could fund a development cycle in some new area (e.g., fuel cells). That might fail expensively and entirely. If it did produce a viable product, the cars would initially be very expensive and have a limited market due to high production costs, low yield (new assembly lines), etc. If the new cars found an enthusiastic consumer base, the costs could be brought down, production ramped up, until such vehicles could be real alternatives to current automobiles. Or, the manufacturers could just shrug, say its not worth the risk, and keep doing what they're doing. New car companies could try to produce the alternative fuel vehicles, of course, but they'd lack the budget to fund the R&D and the distribution network (dealers) for the products. This example becomes even more complicated when one considers that in order for such a vehicle to be viable, energy companies must actually distribute the fuel for it. They may have no interest in doing so for the same reasons I outline above. When you get such an interplay in established industries where each has enormous self-interests and little, perhaps conflicting incentives to innovate, the market is not going to "sort itself out."
"Sin tax" is a politically loaded term that implies the consumer is doing something morally wrong and should therefore be punished through taxation. The term itself encourages people line up on one side or the other of an imaginary dividing line in politics and argue from those perspectives. The economics term for taxes that charge back the negative indirect costs of a transaction is externalities. Economically speaking, it is a totally legitimate thing to associate the externality costs with the original transaction - people who argue against such taxes on the basis of economics are usually motivated by a political ideology rather than a sound understanding of economics. Another common claim from the economically illiterate is "taxes don't work to lower consumption, people will just spend more!". Right, so if the tax on a packet of cigarettes were $100, everyone would just pay that, rather than switching to some other vice?
A high enough tax is a de facto ban.
Just look at the effect the National Firearms Act of 1934 had on the sales of Machine Guns, Suppressors and Short Barreled Rifles and Shotguns. A $200.00 tax at that time was effectively a ban for all but the rich. This was admitted at the time and was the stated goal. Congress cannot outright ban the sale of such items, so they simply used their taxing power to ensure that only the well off, or more importantly a smaller portion of the population, could continue to buy and sell such items. Of course, this had pretty much the same effect on crime as all gun control laws. Nearly zero.
As the man said "An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy"
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Sure you can. For example, smokers actually contribute a net amount of money to society, even in places with universal health care like Canada. The high taxes they pay more than make up for the increased costs of their medical treatment (at least they did in 1998 when I did the research). You simply have to make sure that the prices of things reflect their real cost.
Although I agree with most of your post, this statement is wrong.
"People who die remove critical knowledge and skills from the economy that makes a society function."
Some (very few) people yes, but everyone? Of course not. The vast majority of the populace, myself included, have skills that are neither unique nor critical. Everyone is replaceable.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
they'll crawl along in a 45mph zone as though on a leisurely ride in the park
How on earth do you expect the average cyclist to travel at 45mph?! Even Lance Armstrong at his best is only averages 30mph. Have you ever considered that the fact you are being effortlessly propelled forward at 45mph by a motorised vehicle just might, possibly, impact your perception of speed in slower vehicles? It is perfectly legal for a cyclist to travel at 5mph, just as it's perfectly legal for a tractor to travel at 5mph. Not all vehicles you meet on the highways will be travelling at high speed, and if you can't cope with that situation calmly and safely, then you shouldn't be driving.
I'm not sure "obese" was ever a feel-good term.
You make an interesting point, but I'm not sure it would've helped me. I recently lost around 50 lbs, still more to go. Being called "fat" didn't motivate me. Realizing that I could build muscle, and that muscles are fun to have, was a much stronger motivation.
we need to go back to ridiculing them like we did in the 1950s and before.
I have to wonder, did ridiculing them work in the 1950s? I don't think so. Look around -- things are different now than then. Among other things ("supersize", anyone?), the fat and sugar content of the same foods has gone up quite a lot since then.
most fat people today are fat because they make stupid diet and exercise decisions.
And calling them fat and stupid doesn't motivate them to do anything other than cry.
Some sissies may think ridicule is mean, but it's just a form of positive peer pressure.
"Positive" in what way?
When I was growing up in the 50s, I used to like chocolates and sweets too much. They made me fat, and then people around me started ridiculing me. Even as a child, I knew that it was my diet that was to blame, and so I admitted I was at fault, and changed my ways.
Were you really so stupid you needed to have people around you ridicule you in order to realize it?
Actually, "stupid" is the term I'd bring back. For example, creationists do not have another point of view that should be respected, they have a stupid delusion that should not be given the time of day.
That, and people who are stupid in that way often don't realize they're stupid. Fat people would have to be pretty absurdly stupid to not realize they're fat.
We don't need soda taxes.
But they wouldn't hurt.
We just need to tell these fat fucks that they're fat and that they need to lose weight. Either they'll disregard us and face more and more ridicule, or they'll change their ways for the better.
And if they disregard us and continue to face more and more ridicule, what then?
No, I think a soda tax is much more practical. At some point, you stop caring about the ridicule, or even internalize it -- the fattest people I know often say things like "I'm so fat!" Maybe there are ways we could pressure them socially, but really, we need to hit them where it hurts -- in the wallet. If nothing else, we'll at least stop subsidizing them in our healthcare.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Consider this a more of a tax on bad ingredients in what used to be quite not so bad products, until corporate greed drove arse holes to remove expensive reasonably healthy ingredients and replace them with addictive junk chemical substitutes, double bonus not only cheaper but you will be forced to feed your addiction. Don't think it's addictive, you honestly don't think it's addictive, just read some of the comments and if those are not the comments of drug addicts, then it didn't take me four goes to give up smoking and give me the opportunity to learn how to recognise the behavioural patterns of addicts on a first hand basis.
The flip side of this, I had tasted sodas made from all natural ingredients, you the actually really truly 'traditional' not the PR=B$ traditional and the original type sodas taste a whole lot better of course they are also more expensive and for some reason are more satisfying and you feel less of a need to drink any where near of as much of it as the cheap junk fakes.
What a new law, a good law, than make it compulsory for corporate executives and their families to live on nothing but the junk food they create and, perhaps then we might see the 'real' not the marketing quality of the products improve, either that or all the crap executives will bloat up and die off, either way a real win ;).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
And that's where we start seeing the problems of the nanny state. If we are going to take care of the people, with our taxes and income, who have damaged themselves - those who consume too much food, resulting in extensive health care costs, etc. - then we have to manage those costs. Therefore, if we are providing health care for everyone, we need to make sure that people are taking care of themselves. We need mandatory exercise programs and diets - because that is the only known way to make sure people stay at a healthy weight. And we'll need to pay for oversight and enforcement of those programs. And while that'll be cheaper than paying for "obesity care" - the cost, in money and liberty, is going to get higher. Slippery slope arguments are usually ridiculous, but this one isn't so far fetched.
And that's where cost taxes come in.
I'd be inclined to agree with you, but unfortunately those taxes very rarely, if ever, go towards covering the costs society bears for that activity. Take smoking taxes. Here in Wisconsin there is a $1 per pack extra tax on the stuff. If your theory held true, that extra money the state collects on behalf of society should go to fund hospitals and prevention programs. Instead it is a bait and switch - tax something unpopular to make an attempt to close a very large budget hole. That is the real reason for all these new exotic taxing schemes, and the politicos know which buttons to hit to bring the useful idiots out in droves to support it.
Pessimists.net - as if life wasn't depressing enough.
The freedom to engage in any activity which might incur a health care cost, and the freedom to refrain from engaging in activities which might reduce health care costs. Once you've socialized health care, the claim of "I'm not hurting anyone but myself" goes away; each individual's well-being becomes the business of everyone in general.
We're already hearing calls to restrict (whether directly or through taxation) certain foods and certain intoxicants. But that is the tip of the iceberg. Once it's been established that an individual's health care costs are the governments business, there's no logical stopping point. Government restrictions on total calories consumed? Quotas on "good" foods and limits on "bad foods"? Government exercise requirements? All can be justified based on the idea that health care costs are socialized and therefore each individual's health is everyone's business.
You're correct that we are paying the consequences, but it's so indirectly that nobody feels the linkage and thus nobody's motivated to change their behavior.
If I rack up reckless driving tickets, my insurance premium then skyrockets. I can easily see the cause and effect, and the prospect of not paying so much money is motivation not to drive like an idiot. If however I eat recklessly, my insurance premium doesn't change noticeably as a result.
The health premiums do go up a lot each year, but that's (mostly) from *everyone else* eating recklessly too. Even if I become a health nut my insurance costs won't change. Now, if everyones' insurance companies gave discounts for safe eating, like car companies do for safe driving, maybe you'd start to see a change.
Ridicule is never the answer. I used to be fat myself and I'm still very self conscious about my body even after losing a third of my total weight. My niece who wasn't even fat, just a little chubby, got anorexic after too many comments about her looks. Ridicule for most people destroys self esteem which is often the problem in the first place.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
F*ck you all who voted for this nanny state. You get what you deserve.
I'm looking at you Democrats, who have never seen a government program you didn't want to throw MORE money at, or a single issue that you didn't think some bureaucrat in Washington couldn't resolve better than the people directly involved.
I'm ALSO looking at you Republicans, who have invented your own version of the nanny state and labeled it "The War On Terror" where (for our own good, of COURSE) you've turned on its head the Founding Fathers' basic concept that power flows FROM the people and that the government SHOULD be afraid of its populace.
-Styopa
We only have HFCS because of tariffs and quotas on sugar. All at the behest of the corn belt, though.
HFCS exists because of the agriculture lobby. It's easier and more PC to invoke a myriad of worthless "sin taxes" than to actually fix a problem caused by the government to begin with.
DATABASE WOW WOW
"We need mandatory exercise programs and diets - because that is the only known way to make sure people stay at a healthy weight. And we'll need to pay for oversight and enforcement of those programs"
No we don't. You've changed the question from how do we make sure *most* people stay at a healthy weight to how do we make sure *everyone* stays at a healthy weight.
The law of diminishing returns is a well known economic concept, and your example of mandatory activities is an example of diminished returns.
It is where initial steps that are taken to address a problem give huge gains, but each additional step taken gives smaller and smaller gains until eventually it is no longer economically viable to go further.
Your example is not a valid way of 'managing costs' as you put it. We are at the stage where taking small measures produces large gains. And your example is an invalid slippery slope argument because it assumes we need to and will take these measures to the extreme without explaining how each step of the slope is inevitable.
until corporate greed drove arse holes to remove expensive reasonably healthy ingredients and replace them with addictive junk chemical substitutes
People who blame issues on "corporate greed" seldom think through what that term means. If problems can be caused by so called "greed" then that creates several questions. What causes "greed" to fluctuate? Where people less "greedy" in the past, and if so why? What is the difference between trying to satisfy what is clearly a market demand and being "greedy"? Are the corporations you so love demonizing really any more "greedy" than the people who work to buy their products? Are the companies that make healthy beverages less "greedy"? Are customers who buy these healthier products less "greedy" somehow, even though they too work to buy them (indeed the healthier "natural" ones are generally more expensive, possibly due to this mysterious force you call "greed", or possibly due to this mysterious force I call "individual choices")? It is no surprise people attribute problems to "greed'. It is the same reason people have attributed things to conspiracies, witches, Jews, or "the rich", that is people are always happy to look for simplistic answers to complex problems, even if these answers really make no sense upon analysis.
double bonus not only cheaper but you will be forced to feed your addiction. Don't think it's addictive, you honestly don't think it's addictive, just read some of the comments and if those are not the comments of drug addicts, then it didn't take me four goes to give up smoking and give me the opportunity to learn how to recognise the behavioural patterns of addicts on a first hand basis.
Oh yes, I have heard of many people who have gone into shock or gone mad from being deprived of soda! I mean, I almost died of my former soda habit. BE STRONG! /sarcasm.
What a new law, a good law, than make it compulsory for corporate executives and their families to live on nothing but the junk food they create and, perhaps then we might see the 'real' not the marketing quality of the products improve, either that or all the crap executives will bloat up and die off, either way a real win ;)
Yes, of course, BURN THE WITCHES! There is nothing unhealthy about having the occasional soda or bag of chips. If you go over to a party and have some chips and a soda, no harm done. There is such thing as "moderation". If you try to live off of sodas and chips you will have problems, but it is perfectly healthy to have them occasionally. The same thing can be said about almost any health habit. The occasional glass of wine is good for you, and occasional light consumption of alcohol is harmless, but bing drinking or getting plowed is dangerous. Heck even healthy things can be harmful in large quantities. Jogging for an hour a day is good for you, forcing yourself to jog for a hundred miles nonstop would likely kill you.
Now I am sure you must be really smart, being able to micromanage everybody's life and all, but I feel people can handle deciding things for themselves. Sure occasionally someone will get fat, but if they do so out of their own free will, who am I to judge?
The Gospel according to lolcat