To clarify: I am not suggesting that the government shouldn't regulate the food industry. If something is poisonous, it doesn't belong in food. That being said, if trans fats or HFCS are so terrible for you, why are they not banned the same way high levels of mercury or mad cow is? If they are hurting so many people, why are they just putting on a tax instead of banning them outright?
The answer, I think, is that HFCS and trans-fats are only bad for you if you overindulge, and even then are nowhere near as bad as ingesting too much mercury. They cannot justify banning the product, so instead they try to control your life anyway.
If the science supports that ingredient X is safe within certain limits, don't tax it and claim you are saving people's lives.
Nicotine and the other chemicals in cigarettes are safe within certain limits. So is alcohol. The government taxes them. There are compelling reasons to tax them, because the more you consume, the more likely you are to have a negative impact on society as a result. If the government has to spend money on fixing health problems that you did to yourself, that's a negative impact. People who consume lots of alcohol or cigarettes are more likely to have health problems that the state has to partially fund health care for. If you don't drink or smoke, then you won't have the same risk of health problems, so you don't pay the additional taxes that raise more money for the care.
This tax is not being leveled because the substance is too dangerous to consume. If that were the case, it would simply be banned. It will only significantly affect those who consume high quantities of sugary drinks. The proposed tax will help raise revenue, which will help offset the money the state pays for care of problems relating to the substance. If no additional revenue can be raised, then the state will have to cut the budget, including the funding for said care. Money has to come from somewhere. If people are pissed off that the state is cutting health care budgets, they shouldn't bitch about additional taxes on non-essentials like soda that are correlated with health problems.
The idea of a proportional tax is not new. If a product creates a health risk and the government has to spend money on care for those affected, then it is perfectly logical to tax that product as a way to finance that care.
Nicotine and the other chemicals in cigarettes are safe within certain limits. So is alcohol. The government taxes them. There are compelling reasons to tax them, because the more you consume, the more likely you are to have a negative impact on society as a result. If the government has to spend money on fixing health problems that you did to yourself, that's a negative impact. People who consume lots of alcohol or cigarettes are more likely to have health problems that the state has to partially fund health care for. If you don't drink or smoke, then you won't have the same risk of health problems, so you don't pay the additional taxes that raise more money for the care.
So, it is the state's responsibility to fix health problems you brought onto yourself?
So, it is the state's responsibility to fix health problems you brought onto yourself?
It is when there are state programs that pay for your health care. If you have a problem with that system, take it up with Emergency Rooms, Medicare, and Medicaid, not one part of the funding process for those programs. Cutting down one tree in an attempt to get rid of an entire forest is, quite simply, incredibly stupid methodology.
So, it is the state's responsibility to fix health problems you brought onto yourself?
What's the line? You brought horrible car injury onto yourself by choosing to risk riding in a car. You brought horrible stab wound on yourself from mugging by choosing to leave your house. You brought the cancer on by choosing to allow your cells access to oxygen.
Comments
The answer, I think, is that HFCS and trans-fats are only bad for you if you overindulge, and even then are nowhere near as bad as ingesting too much mercury. They cannot justify banning the product, so instead they try to control your life anyway.
If the science supports that ingredient X is safe within certain limits, don't tax it and claim you are saving people's lives.
This tax is not being leveled because the substance is too dangerous to consume. If that were the case, it would simply be banned. It will only significantly affect those who consume high quantities of sugary drinks. The proposed tax will help raise revenue, which will help offset the money the state pays for care of problems relating to the substance. If no additional revenue can be raised, then the state will have to cut the budget, including the funding for said care. Money has to come from somewhere. If people are pissed off that the state is cutting health care budgets, they shouldn't bitch about additional taxes on non-essentials like soda that are correlated with health problems.
The idea of a proportional tax is not new. If a product creates a health risk and the government has to spend money on care for those affected, then it is perfectly logical to tax that product as a way to finance that care.