Look, I know that pumping our kids full of sugary crap probably isn't the best long-term health strategy, but this is just ridiculous: punitive taxation shouldn't be a method of coercion, period. That applies to any vice or behavior that those who get a say in such things deem to be somehow lacking in moral purity. It's none of the government's goddamn business how unhealthy we are, and it's tiring to have to keep saying that.An alliance of health organizations, including the Canadian Cancer Society and Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, is calling on provincial governments to tax pop and other sugary drinks.
In a position statement released last week, the Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance of Canada noted that obesity and other chronic diseases caused by obesity cost Canadian taxpayers around $123 billion every year, and that taxing these products is an key part of an overall obesity prevention strategy.
[...]
In addition to these measures, the alliance is recommending a tax on all SSB's, or sugar-sweetened beverages; those that contain sugar or other "caloric sweeteners" such as pop, sports drinks, vitamin water or fruit drinks. Specifically, it recommends an excise tax of a fixed price per ounce, rather than a sales tax per item that might encourage the purchase of less expensive brands or large containers.
Update: Speaking of, here's Baylen Linnekin at Hit & Run: New Study on Kids, Ads, & Obesity Says Same Thing in Mildly Different Way.
23 comments:
Libertarians get worked up about the weirdest things.
Hey Anonymous, don't you know spending too much time on the computer is bad for your health? We should pay a tax per minute of internet usage to pursuade people to make healthier choices by hitting them in the wallet.
Well, considering libertarians would generally prefer that health care costs be paid by individuals in proportion to their actual use of health care services (my apologies if I'm putting words in anyone's mouth), I would think libertarians would be happy to see some attempt at generating revenue for health care services from individuals in a way that is more reflective of the sources fo health costs. Whereas now, those costs are socialized in a way that is proportional strictly to income (through income taxes). But it seems modern libertarians are of the rather purest variety, where such revenue generating, even though it uses market forces and attempts to connect costs to the sources of those costs, is still the height of tyranny. It's a bit like how libertarians insist that the costs of environmental externalities be socialized rather than paid by the consumers of the end-products of the given manufacturing process. It's all very strange to me.
Well Anon, you are quite the wrong....
For healthcare, you are correct, prevention is best but a tax on soda is a moronic idea.
Are you saying that all who drink soda will get sick because of the soda? That seems to be your assumption. Of course you are missing the point.
A tax on SSB is something purely subjective. Why not attack the root of poverty and obesity (for yes, they are sadly related).
Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance of Canada is hardly a group without a bias. Sure they mean well but should learn to be objective.
CWTF
I am sick and tired of these special interest groups lobbying governments to carry out their misguided agenda. This is not about health care. The truth is that big nanny state IS bad for our health.
As much as I agree with the government trying to curb the sale of sugary drinks in principle, this tax is a total half-assed way of going about it.
Reducing consumption by increasing cost implies rational, informed choice and if people were making rational, informed choices on these drinks they'd be reducing their consumption to about once a week.
If past consumption taxes on alcohol and cigarettes are any indication, people will simply pay the premium because they want the drinks. The government will have more money and the epidemic of diabetes and obesity will continue.
It's none of the government's business how unhealthy we are
Actually, it is the governments business. That's why we have laws governing the quality of food so that companies can't slip a some rotten meat into their ground beef because its cheaper.
Libertarians get worked up about the weirdest things.
Get back to me with a list of topics that aren't "weird" and I'll get right on it.
But it seems modern libertarians are of the rather purest variety, where such revenue generating, even though it uses market forces and attempts to connect costs to the sources of those costs, is still the height of tyranny.
It's "the height of tyranny," ( your words not mine ) because it punitively targets some of the choices that we make about what we eat or drink. I personally have no problem with paying taxes for healthcare ( which might make me a bad libertarian, I don't know ).
This is not about health care.
Nailed it.
If past consumption taxes on alcohol and cigarettes are any indication, people will simply pay the premium because they want the drinks.
Exactly. This sort of stuff doesn't work - in fact, if I were to get all populist, it just increases the burden on families and low income folks who already don't have the money to buy healthier foods.
That's why we have laws governing the quality of food so that companies can't slip a some rotten meat into their ground beef because its cheaper.
Fair enough, but quality control like that is quite a lot different than targeting specific drinking choices, you know?
Fair enough, but quality control like that is quite a lot different than targeting specific drinking choices, you know?
Yea, I get what you mean. I know that whenever the government says its "alarmed" at increased alcohol consumption it freaks me out because I don't think how much I drink is any of their business. But I think that's because the majority of the population is capable of enjoying alcohol responsibly and there are resources available to those who can't. But sugary drinks are consumed far too regularly by the general public (as opposed to a select group of individuals) and the health consequences of their consistent consumption can even be worse than alcohol.
But sugary drinks are consumed far too regularly by the general public (as opposed to a select group of individuals) and the health consequences of their consistent consumption can even be worse than alcohol.
OK, I think I get where you're coming from, but correct me if I'm getting it wrong: The really pervasive nature of sugary drinks kind of eliminates the idea of making a choice about what we drink anyway.
I still don't think that this gets solved with a tax. This might be one of those issues where I'm going to bitch about whatever solution anybody comes up with ( taxation at the consumer level, or regulation at the production level ), so I can't claim to be the most reasonable observer here, but the idea of taxing sugary drinks just gives me the creeps for some reason. I get where it's coming from, but I really don't like it. I'm not a huge fan of production-level regulation either, but if government intervention is necessary in this instance, I'd almost prefer it be there.
"I still don't think that this gets solved with a tax. This might be one of those issues where I'm going to bitch about whatever solution anybody comes up with ( taxation at the consumer level, or regulation at the production level ), so I can't claim to be the most reasonable observer here, but the idea of taxing sugary drinks just gives me the creeps for some reason. I get where it's coming from, but I really don't like it. I'm not a huge fan of production-level regulation either, but if government intervention is necessary in this instance, I'd almost prefer it be there."
I don't necessarily agree with this tax, but I still don't understand the hostility. It seems like a whole lot of knee-jerk reactions. The problem here is both health effects, adn the costs of those health effects on our health care system. We could: (i) do nothing, in which case the health care costs of people conscious, unhealthy choices will be socialized - which is what you prefer; or (ii) do something. That something could be any number of things, but generally speaking is likely to be some kind fo more hand-on intrusive government program (like promoting healthy living,etc), which libertarians would certainly lose their shit over. Or that doing something could be using market incentives. This could be directed at lowering the price of healthy foods or raising the price of unhealthy foods. Whether that is through subsidies ot tax breaks, and at the production or consumer level doesn't really matter, the efefct will be the same. Imposing a production tax will filter down and equally effect working class families who still want to purchase an equal amount of sugary drinks.
So, yes, I believe you when you say that you would be unhappy and bitch about any state of affairs. Currently, you are supporting the most socialistic one. That's fine with me - I'm not a libertarian, so I don't really care. But you should at least recognize taht what you are doing is demand that health costs from unhealthy foods be socialized.
Anon, speaking of knee-jerk reactions, the demand by non elected special interest groups that government tax something they do not like is one big knee-jerk reaction. Anyone who has been around for a while can recall an endless list of things these groups claimed were bad for your health only for the claim to be later reversed. Once again this is not about health care, and certainly nothing about food safety; it is about yet again different special interest groups wanting the government to use its power to force people to do as they say.
"the demand by non elected special interest groups" - blah, blah blah... calling something "non-elected special interest groups" is the classic way of mindlessly dismissing whoever you don't agree with. Every individual and organization in this country that is not an elected member of parliament or government agency is a "non-elected special interest groups". So the f*ck what?
"Once again this is not about health care, and certainly nothing about food safety; it is about yet again different special interest groups wanting the government to use its power to force people to do as they say." - So its entirely about this group just arbitrarily deciding that they want to use their awesome power as a special interest group to get the government to intervene in people's lives, so they have randomly chosen this topic, because it would, in particular attack somethign that causes great human please (sugar). Yeah... that's why no one takes libertarians seriously.
"tax something they do not" - The do not like it because it raises the costs of health care. Costs which are socialized. Again, I don't really care. I'm perfectly happy to have socialize health care. I just think its funny when libertarians mindlessly oppose everything, even if proposed is to move away from socialized services.
Claiming that this raises the cost of health care by anon is unsubstantiated and absolute rubbish. The claim is as scientific as the one made by the global warming crowd. It is about a group determined to have others act the way the group wants. If you truly believe you will die from drinking sugary drinks, then please feel free not to drink them and allow others the freedom to choose.
Alain - again, great example of why no one takes libertarians seriously. When you say it is about as scientific as the global warming, you are 100% correct. Global warming is accepted as scientific fact by every major scientific organization in the world. But since the logical implications of this fact may necessitate some government action of some kind, libertarians are ideologically opposed to its very existence and so have decided to disregard the scientific consensus in favour of a bunch of crackpot bloggers, also writing from an extreme ideological perspective. And the connection between sugar and obesity, and obesity and health care services use, is equally well established. But again, because the implication of thsee facts may lead some to propsoed government action as a response, the libertarian position is to disregard scientific consensus and stomp around like an angry child and insist that the real motivations behind proposed government responses is the arbirary need for libruls and soshulists to control peoples livse using whatever invented reasons they can come up with.
Actually, it is the governments business. That's why we have laws governing the quality of food so that companies can't slip a some rotten meat into their ground beef because its cheaper.
No, it's still not the business of the government. Your analogy is lousy; the rotten meat is essentially a kind of assault by the food company. The real reason they don't do that is sick customers are former customers.
I'm afraid support of any public healthcare does make you a crappy libertarian Walker. Public healthcare must be abolished.
I'm afraid support of any public healthcare does make you a crappy libertarian Walker.
Ah well, I had a good run :) Would it help if I said I'm in favour of private options?
That something could be any number of things, but generally speaking is likely to be some kind fo more hand-on intrusive government program (like promoting healthy living,etc), which libertarians would certainly lose their shit over. Or that doing something could be using market incentives.
Or people could be tasked with taking care of their own health, which you term as a scenario where "in which case the health care costs of people conscious, unhealthy choices will be socialized."
Again, I don't really have a problem with socialized healthcare, as long as it's delivered properly ( which it isn't, particularly, in Canada - but that's another debate for another time. ) I'd rather see an emphasis on treatment and care within the medical system than preventative measures that punitively target people for what they drink.
Anon, based on your latest comments claiming that global warming is a scientific fact accepted by all major science organisations, I rest my case for you continue to confuse fiction with fact, typical of the group-think crowd. That being the case there is no reasonable debate possible but do give my best to Gore and Suzuki.
Alain, I know you live in a tiny little bubble of right-wing wing extremist, but just a heads up - global climate change is an accepted fact among the grown ups of the world, no matter how fat you think Al Gore is.
global climate change is an accepted fact among the grown ups of the world
A statement so banal could not be made on purpose. "Climate change" is about as constant as could be.
Oh the old Heart and stroke foundation is back at it again is it?
I no longer give to them donations, nor do we allow our children to get pledges for the jump rope for heart at their schools. I will not willingly put one more penny in that group's pocket. They are no longer about informing or educating or research, medical advances, they are about dictating through government coercion their wants. They have tried to get trans fats banned, they have tried to do away with all sponsored drink machines in schools, they are even trying to have salt removed or reduced in all prepared foods in restaurants and grocery stores.
Adults can chose for them selves, I don't neeed some one who is afraid that I might have a slim chance of a disease stop me or anyone else, from enjoying food.
Also I resent the argument that since we are forced by law to use a public system that gives the public a right to dictate what I can and can not do because "they" are forced to pay for the system.
My Dear Autonomous at 110pm
I hate to burst your bubble but in fact obese people, people who smoke actually are less of a drain (on average) on the government coffers over a life time. I understand that this counter intuitive, but based in scientific fact that chronically obese and smokers actually DIE younger on average and over the loooooooong haul cost the government much less. No age security, no longer term geriatric care and so on.....
Also I resent the argument that since we are forced by law to use a public system that gives the public a right to dictate what I can and can not do because "they" are forced to pay for the system.
Excellent point.
I understand that this counter intuitive, but based in scientific fact that chronically obese and smokers actually DIE younger on average and over the loooooooong haul cost the government much less. No age security, no longer term geriatric care and so on.....
Makes sense to me. I knew all my unhealthy behavior was actually unselfish :P
Post a Comment