I saw a clip on CNN this morning about the possibility of a special tax on fattening, non-nourishing foods and found the idea intriguing. We tax cigarettes and alcohol, I thought, maybe there is something to be said about taxing other harmful products to 1) discourage their use, and 2) use the funds for health care or whatever.
Yeah, this–like many taxes–disproportionately affects the poor, but…they also have disproportionately more problems with obesity because of buying cheap non-nutritional food.
Am I just being my usual “tax happy” self? Bah: I get a kick out of the One-Issue Republicans chanting “Lower Taxes” out of their own basic human greed (”More money in my pocket!”), while supporting policies that take many more multiples of that money out of their eventual pockets. For example, it is said that the Iraq War will end up costing us $1 trillion when you take into account the future medical expenses for our wounded troops. Divide this by the 300 million people in our country and we’re all going to pay an extra and unnecessary $3000+ just for that war–which will eventually have to be paid for during the Obama/Biden, Palin/Limbaugh, and Jenna Bush/Blanket Jackson administrations. (Never mind that pretty much all of us lost more of our net worth that last year of the Bush Administration than we had paid in taxes during his eight-year reign…)
From the FREAKONOMICS BLOG:
From a Wall Street Journal article by Betsy McKay come these tantalizing facts (emphasis added):
The medical costs of treating obesity-related diseases may have soared as high as $147 billion in 2008, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Monday, as its new director set a fresh tone in favor of more aggressively attacking obesity.
The cost of treating obesity doubled over a decade, signaling the rising prevalence of excess weight and the toll it is taking on the health-care system. The medical costs of obesity were estimated to be $74 billion in 1998, according to a study by federal government researchers and RTI International, a nonprofit research institute in Research Triangle Park, N.C.
The findings were released at a conference on obesity held by the CDC in Washington, D.C. The prevalence of obesity rose 37 percent between 1998 and 2006, and medical costs climbed to about 9.1 percent of all U.S. medical costs, the researchers said.
Obese people spent 42 percent more than people of normal weight on medical costs in 2006, a difference of $1,429, the study found. Prescription drugs accounted for much of the increase.
We’ve blogged here variously in the past about the many possible contributing factors that have made it so much easier to get obese these days. That said, it is a self-inflicted condition any way you look at it….[Rest of article]
Well taxing and banning private decisions because they’re politically unpopular is nothing new…your favourite Puritans were great at it.
But, if people are so incompetent at running their own lives that they shouldn’t even be able to choose a meal without Congressional approval…what magically gives politicians the expertise to run everyone’s lives? Do you really want a government with the power and precedent to prevent you from voluntary “self-harm” knowing that Palin or Huckabee could be there next to impose their vision of “healthy behaviour”?
Comment by Chris Culver — July 30, 2009 @ 8:55 am
Our country has used taxes to “aid policy” for a long time. Encourage home ownership? Give folks an interest and real estate tax deduction. DIScourage credit card use? Take away the interest deduction for that. Cigarettes and alcohol are bad, but people still should have freedom to use them? Tax them and use the money for “goodness”: education, roads.
Let the Fat have their Happy Meals. But why should *I* pay for their additional health care? Tax their Happy Meals and use it to help solve the health care crisis.
There’s a lot of precedent for this. It is certainly something to think about.
I’m not talking about trying to totally “prevent” this bad conduct–just to make it pay for its consequences. Don’t run my life and tell me I can’t drive on your roads–just have me pay gasoline taxes to help build and maintain roads. Taxes are a necessary “evil” in a civilized nation if you want to have an army, roads, police, etc. When taxes are “too low” (a phrase that Republicans can’t process, as anorexics can’t fathom “too skinny”), then bridges fall and our wounded soldiers get inferior care in Veteran’s Hospitals.
Comment by jerry — July 30, 2009 @ 9:29 am
But I’m not objecting to taxes that are equitable and used to fund necessary government services like military and police. I’m objecting to sin taxes and social engineering taxes that are nothing but politicians using the power of government to coerce us into acting how they want by penalizing those who, say, rent instead of own homes or don’t have kids or even prefer fried foods.
Gotta love the health care justification though. Start by proclaiming how the generous State is going to pay for everyone’s health care. Of course, now that Congress is footing the bill, citizens, some changes to your behavior are in order…
What the government pays for, it owns. When it pays for the maintenance of our bodies…well, I think your post here is a pretty good argument for keeping medicine out of State control.
Comment by Chris Culver — July 30, 2009 @ 11:46 am
You’re a perfect of example of the false generosity of state-controlled medicine, which sooner or later turns into the naked coercion that it is. Let me quote you: “I expect to personally pay more (via taxes or via premiums) to have a world where more people can have and afford insurance.” and today: “Let the Fat have their Happy Meals. But why should *I* pay for their additional health care?”
You shouldn’t be forced to pay for other people’s bad decisions, whether it’s eating too much pizza or not saving enough for retirement. There, no no one has to micro-manage anybody.
Comment by Chris Culver — July 30, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
How can you argue against “sin taxes”?!! Have you been talking to…um…SATAN!! (Much funnier if heard in Church Lady’s voice)
NO ONE quarrels with obesity being a terrible problem in this country–and one that costs our economy well over $100 billion per year I am informed. (Sick days, medical treatment…)
It is a KILLER. I’m not talking about banning Happy Meals. It’s just that if we DO need to have taxes…why not Sin Taxes? (Are you aware of why Nevada has no income taxes whatsoever?!)
Should we repeal the cigarette taxes, too, Chris?
Comment by jerry — July 30, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
@Chris Culver - Maybe your fears would have more weight if we were talking about a single-payer system (state run healthcare), but the public option (what Obama et al are proposing) is just one more giant HMO, just with lower administrative costs. I was on Medicaid for my pregnancy and it was just like using any other insurance company; I had a card, I showed it to the hospital/doctor, I signed way too much paperwork, I went home, the bill went to my insurer (medicaid).
It’s not that scary. FactCheck.org has a lot of information on the health care issue, and that’s a great non-partisan resource for good information.
Comment by Angie Jackson — July 30, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
it’s funded by taxpayer dollars and not taxed. It will have a negative impact on health insurers, health care, and ultimately you as you sit and wait for your rationed care.
Comment by steve da beave — July 31, 2009 @ 9:55 am
Sources, Steve?
What books and articles have you been reading on this and that you can recommend to me?
‘Cuz every time I see a “Just like Canada”, or “This is socialism”, or “The government is taking over health care” reference somewhere, my eyes just glaze over since I realize the speaker doesn’t know what they’re talking about. That is not what is in Obama’s plan.
I realize you haven’t said anything like that in this particular comment, but you HAVE had a tone of nothing but criticism of anything connected to Obama and an implication that he and other liberals are, well, evil.
I believe George W. Bush to have been a basically good person. I’m sorry that he failed. Believe me, I didn’t want him to fail.
Why am I not ever hearing anything like that from your fellow Conservative Republicans?
Comment by jerry — July 31, 2009 @ 10:45 am
Yes, the repeal of punitive cigarette taxes is consistent with the idea that people’s bodies belong to them and they may live as they see fit so long as they’re not coercing anyone else.
I admit, it is not consistent with the idea that citizens’ bodies are State property and the people in question are merely caretakers, which is the premise underlying this and other “social engineering” taxes. But, I think this idea should be eliminated from politics.
Dress it up however you like, but supporting a tax like this is saying my body is government property and I’m to pay a penalty for treating it in unapproved ways.
Comment by Chris Culver — July 31, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
Hey, it’s because I simply can’t find ANYTHING that the big O admin is doing well. He is obviously a prejudiced jerk as seen from his racist comments…but his real weakness is that he has no comprehension of how business works AND how to create jobs!! Talk to your docs medicare providers are disappearing at an accelerating rate. When you get to medicare you are gonna rot.
Comment by steve da beave — July 31, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
I can’t emphasize enough that I don’t want to interfere with a person’s God-given right to be fat or to smoke. I only find those a couple of good ways to raise money to, perhaps, battle the consequences of those choices.
So, Chris: Let’s say the Republicans are in charge and they have some countries they want to invade. Let’s say the cost will run, um, $1 trillion per country.
What would be some good ways to raise money to pay for this?
Comment by jerry — July 31, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
MediaCurves.com just conducted a study exploring American’s opinions regarding the proposition of a tax on fatty foods. Results showed that while 68% felt there should not be a tax placed on foods higher in fat, 76% of viewers also felt that the rise in medical costs has been moderately or highly impacted by the increase in obesity and obesity-related conditions. More in-depth results can be seen at http://www.mediacurves.com/HealthCare/J7474-FatTax/Index.cfm. Thanks.
Ben
Comment by Ben — July 31, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
But if the only you’re allegedly taxing them in order to pay for the consequences to their health, why, then you could just not specially tax them and let them pay their own medical bills. You know, as if they were adults. But since states just throw sin taxs in general revenue like everything else and don’t set them aside, I suspect they’re just a way to fund politicians’ favourite programs at the expense of an unpopular element of society.
Funding wars? Since raising an army is part of the enumerated powers in the Constitution, I suppose they should be paid for like any other part of the budget, with tax revenue. We’re discussing the morality of a specific tax you proposed, not the morality of all taxes so I’m not sure what the relevence of that question is.
Although, a requirement that wars on foreign soil be fought with donated War Effort contributions would be an interesting way to leave the government powerless to fight wars its citizenry doesn’t support…
Comment by Chris Culver — August 1, 2009 @ 10:41 am
Just wanted to make sure you weren’t forgetting about this phrase in the Constitution: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, *****promote the general welfare,***** and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Comment by brett — August 1, 2009 @ 12:20 pm
brett, I assume that is directed at Chris with a reminder that our Constitution allows bills to be passed to “promote the general welfare”, including tax bills that have a revenue-enhancing intention as well as a promoting general welfare (having fewer people die) intention.
Which is why we have laws regulating child labor, discrimination, etc., even though that infringes on personal liberty…
Comment by jerry — August 1, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
Why would one believes that overall healthcare costs are higher for a smoker who dies of lung cancer at age 55 than for the non-smoking, regular exercising, healthy food eating person who lives to be 85?
I do understand that for the 2-5 years between the time that the smoker is diagnosed with lung cancer and the time he/she dies, the health care costs will naturally be higher than the healthy individual. However, common sense suggests to me that the health care costs of the healthy person would catch up over the additional 30 years of life. I mean really, the dead smoker is costing the system nothing, right?
Is there some kind of scientific study backing up this repeated claim that smokers are more costly to the healthcare system than nonsmokers?
Comment by Patrick — August 2, 2009 @ 8:48 pm
So argued Philip Morris a while back:
***
You have to be careful using that purely economic argument, or you can argue euthanizing the old folks to save money on health care–which it would.
The distinction, I believe, is that the old have high health care costs because, well, they’re old–and that’s not necessarily a “bad thing”. Smokers and fat people are to some extent responsible for the health care costs they incur, and a tax to help fund this care (and perhaps to discourage their poor behavior) is, in my opinion, something worth discussing.
Comment by jerry — August 2, 2009 @ 9:28 pm
Hi Jerry,
The argument that smokers are a financial burden on the healthcare system is used to justify taxes on tobacco. It is not my argument and I am not in favor of taxing a population of people who are physically addicted to a product and generally wish they could stop. Sure, the tobacco companies are wrong and profit from death. Why does the federal government (taxpayer/voter) take this same moral position and take a cut from the blood money? How much money are we talking about? According to the below link, it’s been just over $760 Billion dollars over the past 10 years.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=403
That’s a good bit of money all of which should be going toward offsetting the higher healthcare burden that smokers place on society. Where is the audit trail for this money? Has this money really gone into healthcare? One would think that there should be some sort of tangible, visible effect from 3/4 of a trillion dollars? Exactly “what” has been done with this money?
According to your comment above, I gather that you feel justified in taxing tobacco users because it is their fault that they have healthcare costs related to their choice to use tobacco products. It is not that their healthcare costs are higher, because they are not. Their healthcare costs, may, in fact, be lower. You feel morally justified in taxing this population to fund the healthcare of other smart people who take care of themselves. All I can say is that I do not see the difference between your position and that of big tobacco. You are profiting from and becoming dependent on the death of others.
I am also opposed to a tax on high fat foods, but think it is preferable to the tobacco tax since it would likely affect the American diet in a positive way. The tobacco tax just picks on a politically vulnerable population. Tobacco tax does little to change behavior since there is a very powerful physical addiction to the product. Anyone who is in favor of the tobacco tax should have no problem in paying a similarly high tax on fatty foods. A $15 can of Pringles might not look as appetizing as the $3 bag of lower fat pretzels on the shelf next to it.
Comment by Patrick — August 3, 2009 @ 5:54 am
Hi, Patrick/Willblur. How’re your investments going this year?
When I was a kid, cigarettes were less than 50 cents a pack and a lot of kids smoked them.
Now they are, what, $5.00 per pack? I don’t think very many young people are even starting the habit any more.
Thank you, cigarette taxes!
Maybe something similar will work with fattening foods. (Although, in all seriousness, I don’t really see that happening…)
Comment by jerry — August 3, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
A government that fines or punishes citizens for treating their bodies in unapproved ways is more dangerous to the general welfare than French Fries are. This is explicitly a fine for not consuming what politicians think we should. As for the general welfare clause, James Madison, the guy who pretty much wrote the Constitution had some interesting things to say, like:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. “
Comment by Chris Culver — August 3, 2009 @ 12:45 pm
These unapproved ways are based on the science of nutrition and of demonstrable costs related to health care and obesity. Perhaps politicians are taking these things, in addition to advocacy from their constituents, into account and not merely levying taxes based on the whim of some moral point of view as you insinuate.
Patrick above may have made a good point–perhaps taxes on certain unhealthy foods should be directly linked to funding costs for obesity related diseases. Similarly, perhaps taxes on tobacco should be directly linked to funding costs for smoking related diseases. Symptoms from each behavior can likely be easily segregated, although some overlap will occur (thinking of stories of the ultra-fit jogger dying of a heart attack).
Moreover, it hardly seems that taxing the consumption of unhealthy products that most people recognize are saddling our nation with unsustainable health care costs would be a gross perversion of what the Constitution foresaw in the “general welfare” clause. Certainly no more perverted than taxing the population to invade countries that pose no threat on the whim of a politician.
Comment by brett — August 3, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
Jerry, don’t forget to thank the millions of dead and dying smokers for the $760B in tax revenue over the past decade as well. Hope they don’t all go and die all at the same time.
Bet we could drain some other politically weak group if we thought it over for a few minutes… Muslims? Immigrants? Lawyers? The police could just confiscate their belongings and liquidate. Hey, we have bills to pay…
Comment by Patrick — August 3, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
“A Brief History Of Sin Taxes”, from TIME Magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1889187,00.html
I didn’t realize the cigarette taxes dated back to the Civil War…
Comment by jerry — August 3, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
Let’s face it, the idea of a fat tax is never going to work. The food-oholics will just switch to eating more healthy foods with lower taxes and still be just as fat if not more so then they were before. To advance the cause of the President Obama’s National Healthcare Plan we must progressively tax the clothing that the fatties ware, that should get their attention. The taxes must be progressive based on the size of their fat buts and their wallets. The larger the clothing size the higher the tax and the more expensive fashion clothing will likewise be taxed at a progressive rate. No more free rides for the Lane Bryant Plus Size porkers or the fat slobs at Casual Male; they can pay their fair share of President Obama’s National Healthcare Plan or go naked.
Peter Gurney
Knowlton Township, New Jersey
Comment by Peter Gurney — August 4, 2009 @ 5:31 am
Hey Jerry,
I listened to this podcast and thought about this discussion we had. Here’s the link:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/sites/all/play_music/play_full.php?play=412&podcast=1
Comment by Patrick — July 24, 2010 @ 4:44 pm