This is the basis for taxing high sugar convenience food. It was done for cigarettes, and today, consumers overwhelmingly see it as a good program. (Of course tobacco companies lobbied hard against it)
Should there be a line on which products governments deincentivise? High sugar convenience foods have their purpose, but does it outweigh increasing obesity? Should we instead subsidize healthy foods? Or both together?
This is the basis for taxing high sugar convenience food. It was done for cigarettes, and today, consumers overwhelmingly see it as a good program. (Of course tobacco companies lobbied hard against it)
You’re referring to so called “sin taxes”. I’m aware those exist for cigarettes of course, and I know some places have them for sugary drinks, but I’m not aware of any sin taxes on sweet food. I know many places that do not have sales tax food have exclusions that put candy back under regular sales tax, but those aren’t sin taxes, and the sales tax percentage (usually at or under 10%) wouldn’t come close to the sugar drink sin taxes I’ve seen (which are closer to 50%). In my state there’s no sin tax on sugary anything, only the rules that mean that candy bars would have regular sales tax applied (about 7% in my area).
Can you cite a particular sin tax or situation where there is excessive taxation specifically on candy?
Gov’t should subsidize healthy food. Gov’t shouldn’t, however, make non-healthy food astronomically pricey. People should have affordable options for both. Like it or not, government making things artificially expensive in order to disincentivise people from buying the thing is a form of authoritarianism.
Like it or not, government making things artificially expensive in order to disincentivize people from buying the thing is a form of authoritarianism.
I’m struggling to think of any scenario I would agree with your statement and I’m not coming up with anything. Further, I think your statement is dangerous because it dilutes the actual dangers and restrictions an authoritarian government would put in place.
Gov’t should subsidize healthy food.
Wouldn’t that meet your definition of authoritarianism because it is causing non-healthy food to be proportionally more expensive?
This is true.
This is the basis for taxing high sugar convenience food. It was done for cigarettes, and today, consumers overwhelmingly see it as a good program. (Of course tobacco companies lobbied hard against it)
Should there be a line on which products governments deincentivise? High sugar convenience foods have their purpose, but does it outweigh increasing obesity? Should we instead subsidize healthy foods? Or both together?
You’re referring to so called “sin taxes”. I’m aware those exist for cigarettes of course, and I know some places have them for sugary drinks, but I’m not aware of any sin taxes on sweet food. I know many places that do not have sales tax food have exclusions that put candy back under regular sales tax, but those aren’t sin taxes, and the sales tax percentage (usually at or under 10%) wouldn’t come close to the sugar drink sin taxes I’ve seen (which are closer to 50%). In my state there’s no sin tax on sugary anything, only the rules that mean that candy bars would have regular sales tax applied (about 7% in my area).
Can you cite a particular sin tax or situation where there is excessive taxation specifically on candy?
Gov’t should subsidize healthy food. Gov’t shouldn’t, however, make non-healthy food astronomically pricey. People should have affordable options for both. Like it or not, government making things artificially expensive in order to disincentivise people from buying the thing is a form of authoritarianism.
I’m struggling to think of any scenario I would agree with your statement and I’m not coming up with anything. Further, I think your statement is dangerous because it dilutes the actual dangers and restrictions an authoritarian government would put in place.
Wouldn’t that meet your definition of authoritarianism because it is causing non-healthy food to be proportionally more expensive?
Taxing in proportion to externalities is sound policy.