# Tax junk food to fight obesity: CMA head



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

good idea
healthy food should be a less expensive choice, not more



> Dennis Bueckert, The Canadian Press
> Published: Wednesday, March 22, 2006
> 
> OTTAWA -- Junk food should be taxed to combat the epidemic of childhood obesity, says Dr. Ruth Collins-Nakai, president of the Canadian Medical Association.
> ...


more info. at the link

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=5501f310-6fc9-4024-aea7-9d3741effbb3&k=64917


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sigh. Yet more social engineering.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Sigh. Yet more social engineering.


i guess you favour removing the tax from cigarettes to make it cheaper to smoke?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

No, I don't, but when is it enough to social engineer people's lives? Education is a far better option. You think for one minute that major corporations will not launch law suits against being singled out for excessive taxation?


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Tax is education. Education on your wallet. I'm all for taxing junk food... 

But then again most NON-junk foods are taxed less at the grocery anyway.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> Tax is education.


Well put!


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I don't know if it's an entirely bad idea. So much junk food is sold on a daily basis that merely tacking on a penny for every single piece of junk food could mean millions of dollars-- dollars that could go towards something we really need.

But there are other ways to get people to stop eating junk. How about removing vending machines from sidewalks (there are four in my area where I work) and removing junk food from schools--It's not much, but it's a start.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Why not make gym memberships tax deductible, instead of driving candy companies out of business like tobacco? Just imagine the stupid lawsuits that will follow this... "Oh Mr. Big made me fat." No it wasn't the Mr. Big, it was the fact that you're sitting on the couch 24/7 and eating all the crap! 

Chocolate Bars don't make people fat, lazy people make people fat. Anything in excess will make you fat. Take olive oil, the second healthiest food for you; if you start eating this in excess and not exercise you're going to get fat. Oh here's an idea, let's tax it! 

Give me a break this is a money grab plain and simple, remember the old saying "an oz of prevention equals a pound of reward." Well if the gov't spent a little money by allowing people to deduct things that keep us active, they would save down the road by not have to replace the heart valves of the obese.


----------



## 8127972 (Sep 8, 2005)

I think this is a good idea. Eating junk food is bad for you and can cause all sorts of health problems (weight issues, heart disease,etc.). Taxing it helps to pay for the health care that these people need, plus the education programs to point out the perils of eating junk food. 

Some people call this social engieering, but here's how I see it. My tax dollars are going to pay for some guy who loves to stop at the drive through twice a day to eat food that will eventually plug his arteries. Meanwhile I work out twice a day and I'm careful about what I eat. The only time I see a doctor is for my once a year checkup or if I do something stupid like crash on my bike. The bottom line is that I try not to be a drain on the health care system. Why the hell should I support someone that's a drain on already stretched health care resources? I shouldn't. Thus, we should tax their bad behaviour so they pay for their own stupidity.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Bit of social engineering but then so are speed limits and insurance a "modifier" on life styles/behaviour.
Building a payment for the consequences to the health system is a fine idea just as it is with cigarettes.

Educating is fine but it won't stop people from say gambling so society builds in some controls and a *pays it's own way* mechanism. Works for me.

If we want universal health care then this kind of modifier comes with the package in my mind to reduce the load down the line.

First people kvetch because there ISN'T enough preventative action taken - then they bitch when it is 

THIS is preventative.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

8127972 said:


> The bottom line is that I try not to be a drain on the health care system. Why the hell should I support someone that's a drain on already stretched health care resources? I shouldn't. Thus, we should tax their bad behaviour so they pay for their own stupidity.


That is how the social engineering comes into play.

First, nationlize it. Next, because 'everybody' pays for it, implement all sorts of sin taxes (quite efficient) so that you aren't a burden to 'everybody'. Next step is to start limiting service for bad behaviour (won't operate if you don't act right; beyond the basic medical needs like low blood pressure for safe operation). 

At no point are you allowed to opt-out with your implicit tax funding. Why should we support people who make bad career choices or are just plain stupid and lazy? Because some universal programs are worth it.

I like our healthcare system and think it is good for the country, as a social safety net, not as a moral club where socialists suddenly start using the 'why should I pay for someone else' argument. If that's the problem, let people opt out with their implicit tax contribution and see what happens.

Overall, this seems like a reasonable idea, but keep a close track of the moral police.


----------



## 8127972 (Sep 8, 2005)

> Why should we support people who make bad career choices or are just plain stupid and lazy? Because some universal programs are worth it.


There is a point when "self inflicted stupidity" shouldn't be supported. I think things like smoking, bad eating habits, deciding not to work because the government will support you, and the like cross that line.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

8127972 said:


> There is a point when "self inflicted stupidity" shouldn't be supported. I think things like smoking, bad eating habits, deciding not to work because the government will support you, and the like cross that line.


Is that point cost-matching sin taxes (not what we have, but at least similar) or refusing service? I would argue the first is reasonable, as long as the sin taxes don't become an uncontested general revenue source (what we do have), but that the second goes way over the 'moral club' line. 

In the second, you can't opt out with your funding, but you can't get service with your lifestyle choices; they'll take your money but not you...clearly going too far in my opinion, and eerily similar to law by religion (defining bad behaviour). We don't seem to be there yet, except in isolated cases, so I'm not too concerned, just wary.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

if you want "universal" health care, this tax IS necessary. tax everything you need to tax to make it "fair". because "universal" and "fair" come in a bundle. It's the way it is. Tax smokes, junk food, sugary beverages, candy, drive thru food ( don't want to move your butt, feel like polluting? 1 buck please), cars AND clicks you put on it, burning wood, i can go on.....

or cancel universal care altogether, each pays it's own bills.

I'll take "pro healthy and universal" please.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

GB has it right TANSTAAFL

••••



> (defining *bad behaviour*).


Poor word choice.........

Reality........"based on epidemiology evidence these choices will cost society $X and you as a consumer then pay for your increased insurance risk through tax on the risky product, be it smokes or chips."

It's not arbitrary definition - it's cost analysis based on science and data analyisis and adds a *pay as you use aspect* as it does with fuel taxes.

Health *INSURANCE.*

Insurance has premiums and risky behaviour ups the premiums.....just ask any motorcyclist or sports car driver. 

There is no judgement implied in the sense of an arbitrary decree.......it's application of a moderate form of risk/cost amelioration to keep the system viable and it's social engineering just like the cop at the corner is....

If you want to undertake risk - you'll pay a bit.


----------



## i<3myiBookg4 (Mar 17, 2006)

It is typically the poorer population buying junk food because compared to healthy food, it's cheaper! I drove by the elementary school I went to the other day and it was lunch time I could very easily find obese children... now when I went to school there, I can still remember who would be considered severely overweight or obese, one boy and one girl I can think of. Now she is still dangerously obese years later, don't know about him... but it just sickens me because that is when the heart disease starts developing, arteries begin clogging in childhood. I am wishing now that I took better care of myself and I am hoping it's not too late, I am not obese but I am a bit overweight but I do make good lifestyle choices and I am losing weight...

But if people want junk food, they are still going to buy it regardless of tax or the price or whatever, they're still going to get it. This would just make poor people even poorer imo.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Who is going to determine what is or isn't good for you? What boundries would this junk food tax have? Just chips and chocolate bars? If so, which chips? Will this include baked chips? How about hot dogs, hamburgers, peanut butter and jam, white bread, whole milk/cream, how about your Tim Horton's "double double". There are way to many foods that could potentially be bad for us that they would need to consider. 

What's next? How about your couch? Is watching TV going to be a sin now? Wait a minute, we all should be exercising now, lets tax the internet and video games, they all promote a lazy lifestyle, where will this stop?

We take risks everyday, not just in what we eat, apparently we can't walk across the street or ride our bikes anymore without getting hit by cars, should we look at those risks too? I mean we have to pay for their hospital bills too, damn people shouldn't be walking across the street, I shouldn't have to pay for them if they want to take that kind of risk.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> GB has it right TANSTAAFL
> 
> Reality........"based on epidemiology evidence these choices will cost society $X and you as a consumer then pay for your increased insurance risk through tax on the risky product, be it smokes or chips."
> 
> It's not arbitrary definition - it's cost analysis based on science and data analyisis and adds a *pay as you use aspect* as it does with fuel taxes.


If that were 'reality' that would be one thing. In reality, the general arguments are made as such but the actual taxes are not connected with it, they are used as a general revenue slush fund, with the occasional piece of poorly analysed data to justify the taxation (if you're lucky). So, although in theory it isn't arbitrary, in practice it is. Politically, sin taxes are very easy to increase relative to income taxes. Go figure...the politics of moral judgement.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Who is going to determine what is or isn't good for you? What boundries would this junk food tax have? Just chips and chocolate bars? If so, which chips? Will this include baked chips? How about hot dogs, hamburgers, peanut butter and jam, white bread, whole milk/cream, how about your Tim Horton's "double double". There are way to many foods that could potentially be bad for us that they would need to consider.
> 
> What's next? How about your couch? Is watching TV going to be a sin now? Wait a minute, we all should be exercising now, lets tax the internet and video games, they all promote a lazy lifestyle, where will this stop?
> 
> We take risks everyday, not just in what we eat, apparently we can't walk across the street or ride our bikes anymore without getting hit by cars, should we look at those risks too? I mean we have to pay for their hospital bills too, damn people shouldn't be walking across the street, I shouldn't have to pay for them if they want to take that kind of risk.


This is where the bad behaviour police come in. Although 'externality lifestyle' taxes can be theoretically calculated with reasonable errors, they usually aren't. The concept is espoused, but the implementation is by what products are politically easiest to go after.

I'm ok with the levels we have now, and even some extras, but not if some start limiting access to government programs and not without a real consideration of, as pointed out by a previous poster, who is really going to pay for this (proportionately).


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

eating unhealthy foods is a choice for most of us. But what about the fellow who lives his life in a healthy way and suffers a malady due to genetics? I had this happen to a friend of mine recently. He is in his early sixties and is in awesome shape. He does competetive rowing still. He just had to go in for a multiple bypass operation and nobody could believe it. He is now a drain on the system I guess.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

And all the chip eaters who get away with it can know their "premiums" went to a good cause 

Forms of revenue that modify risky behaviour through economic disincentives AND provide economic support for the truly low % incidents as related by Carex are in my mind ideal societal mechanisms.

He's not a "drain" ....he's part of the risk curve and there should be no shame associated with poor luck.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> Forms of revenue that modify risky behaviour through economic disincentives AND provide economic support for the truly low % incidents as related by Carex are in my mind ideal societal mechanisms.


I totally agree. When cigarettes skyrocketed in the early nineties, many turned towards cheaper smuggled cigs to get their fix. When the price dropped people migrated back. Now it's happening again without the smuggled option - people will and are beginning to quit. I'm sure it's a combo of education and taxation but the dollar speaks volumes when it comes to action. Look at people driving all over town to get gas 5 cents cheaper...

Now we need to make the government more accountable as to what it's doing with the revenue. Put it towards health care and stop the g-damn whining.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Carex said:


> eating unhealthy foods is a choice for most of us.


Sometimes, it's all people can afford. It's easier/less expensive to eat "junky foods". We all think we know what's good for us but rarely follow up diligently.

Some of her ideas are sound and good but instead of taxing junk food, why not increase gym time in schools? 
The suggestion of banning junk food (they should go further and ban commercial endeavours such a Pizza Hut Friday) is a good one.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Hence the "most of us" comment at the end. 

Increasing gym time would be useful but kids still need to do something outside of school as well. I think the obesity rate for Canadian kids is up to something like 25% now which will make the future of health care very interesting. 

And the commercial fast food restaurant thing in schools just floors me. It's very popular in the states and increasingly so here. Brilliant marketing strategy by the fast food giants.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> If we want universal health care then this kind of modifier comes with the package in my mind to reduce the load down the line.
> 
> First people kvetch because there ISN'T enough preventative action taken - then they bitch when it is
> 
> THIS is preventative.


This is intrusive. 
Preventative is education. 

Her timing on this controversial issue is amusing - wonder if she is trying to divert from the other CMA news of recent...


> The bulk of the editorial board of the Canadian Medical Association Journal resigned Thursday in an ongoing battle with the journal's owner, the Canadian Medical Association, over the issue of editorial independence.
> *Fourteen members of the 19-member board quit*, joining Dr. Jerome Kassirer, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine who resigned earlier this week. Joining them was Steve Shumak, a part-time editor at the journal.
> In a letter to Dr. Ruth Collins-Nakai, CMA president, the departing editorial board members said they didn't believe the organization was committed to insuring the journal's autonomy in the wake of last month's firings of editor Dr. John Hoey and senior deputy editor Anne Marie Todkill.
> "We believe your recent actions and pronouncements regarding establishing editorial autonomy are largely cosmetic and unlikely to lead to an independent and free voice for health related issues in Canada," they said.
> "The primary reason for our resignation is our loss of trust in the CMA leadership in relation to the CMAJ. As already stated in our earlier communications, we were deeply concerned by the firing, without declared cause, of two outstanding and highly successful editors who had led the CMAJ very effectively."


http://www.canada.com/topics/news/n...=5fc107cc-d013-4698-ab32-c87795379549&k=42133


----------



## i<3myiBookg4 (Mar 17, 2006)

The only way to improve obesity would be to put money into prevention. But like the roads, politicians need a *make it happen now* in order to put money into it. They will not put money into something that will make the FUTURE better, that won't "get" votes.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

i<3myiBookg4 said:


> The only way to improve obesity would be to put money into prevention. But like the roads, politicians need a *make it happen now* in order to put money into it. They will not put money into something that will make the FUTURE better, that won't "get" votes.


So it's up to voters to start voting a little more for the future and a little less for the now. We can't expect politicians to do it without votes (nor should they). It would be nice if they tried to raise the profile and convince us, instead of just reacting to polling. Of course, with all the issues out there, it's not clear that this one should be a 'deal breaker' or 'vote maker' for a party.


----------



## i<3myiBookg4 (Mar 17, 2006)

Beej said:


> So it's up to voters to start voting a little more for the future and a little less for the now. We can't expect politicians to do it without votes (nor should they). It would be nice if they tried to raise the profile and convince us, instead of just reacting to polling. Of course, with all the issues out there, it's not clear that this one should be a 'deal breaker' or 'vote maker' for a party.


Good point...
We got talking about politics here at work the other day, it was pretty interesting. The folks complaining the MOST don't vote.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

i<3myiBookg4 said:


> Good point...
> We got talking about politics here at work the other day, it was pretty interesting. The folks complaining the MOST don't vote.


You won't get much of that around ehmac's political threads. I think they tarred and feathered the last non-voter.


----------



## i<3myiBookg4 (Mar 17, 2006)

Beej said:


> You won't get much of that around ehmac's political threads. I think they tarred and feathered the last non-voter.


Great.

I have had two opportunities to vote, and I took part both times. Last election I volunteered and worked for a candidate in fact.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> Sometimes, it's all people can afford. It's easier/less expensive to eat "junky foods". We all think we know what's good for us but rarely follow up diligently.
> 
> Some of her ideas are sound and good but instead of taxing junk food, why not increase gym time in schools?
> The suggestion of banning junk food (they should go further and ban commercial endeavours such a Pizza Hut Friday) is a good one.



Do not agree. If you go drive Thru Mikyds and get a burger for $1, then competition will not have a chance. Now, if suddenly that burger cost $ 2,5 and the drive thru another $1, then you will end up in my new little soup and sandwich shop, where you can get a prosciutto and eggplant in rye for $4. And with the $1 cash back i get from the government for selling a huge "jumbo" beautiful cup of McNutt's water for $0,10; then the future is looking good.

But don't ban junk food, just don't allow it to make it so easy for all of us to get obese eating fried chicken every day.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Gaston, not talking about drive-thru. Everyday grocery items, was what I was talking about.
If I remember correctly this was an interesting read, or it was something similar that I got my hands on:
Taste, Cost and Convenience: Why Do the Poor Eat Poorly? 
Adam Drewnowski, Centre for Public Health Nutrition, University of Washington, Seattle

I'll see if I can dig up the PDF....


----------



## i<3myiBookg4 (Mar 17, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Gaston, not talking about drive-thru. Everyday grocery items, was what I was talking about.


Yeah, I was too... 
Costs more to get healthy food!


----------



## Jeepdude (Mar 3, 2005)

Tax obese people. Leave us skinny folks who like the occasional burger alone.

(slight reprieve from the heated discussion...)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

>>If we want universal health care then this kind of 
>> modifier comes with the package in my mind

Yes. Thank goodness single tiered health care is nearing its end.

I hope fast food taxes will work to curb obesity as well as the "war on poverty" has eliminated the problem of poverty.

Of course, there are people who become obese by eating too much healthy food. Let's just tax people based on their weight and let them decide how to avoid the "obesity tax."


----------



## Aero (Mar 2, 2006)

Tax junk
Lower good food


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> ...when is it enough to social engineer people's lives? Education is a far better option.


1) You imply social engineering is a bad thing.
2) Education is wasted on the inept.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think we should put a tax on lost pants.


----------



## Aero (Mar 2, 2006)

Put a tax on Bad Idea, to prevent people from making one. Make it really high lol


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

We definitely need a Stupid tax. If you pay it, you get taxed again at double the rate. This continues until you figure it out.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> We definitely need a Stupid tax. If you pay it, you get taxed again at double the rate. This continues until you figure it out.


We have a stupid tax - it's called a lottery ticket....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> We have a stupid tax - it's called a lottery ticket....


There's actually a chance at winning. Now, if you choose to live somewhere with worse government services and higher taxes...


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

In the end, I totally support a tax on junk food, and believe that the revenue should go to subsidizing healthy food choices.

Junk food is very cheap because of it's staying power. It can be salted, fried, frozen, and vacuum packed. With little or no spoilage, there is no waste.

On the flip side, the healthy options like fruits and vegetables spoil very quickly, and those costs are passed onto the consumer.

If I have $5 in my pocket, I know I can walk into a burger joint and get a burger, fries, and coke.

I'd love to be able to walk into a restaurant and get a turkey wrap with an OJ, but realistically, that's going to cost me almost double.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, Guy how could I resist seeing my tax dollars at work to subsidize your turkey wrap and OJ--that's what I call real taxpayer value.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

It is, actually. It saves the health system enormous dollars in the long run. And for once, Guy has said something that I agree with . A large part of the problem is that it costs far more to eat healthily.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

RevMatt said:


> It is, actually. It saves the health system enormous dollars in the long run. And for once, Guy has said something that I agree with . A large part of the problem is that it costs far more to eat healthily.


i always find it strange that a 2 litre bottle of cola costs less than a 1.5 litre of water

go figure, eh?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You're dealing with a false premise here. I can already eat "healthy" for a reasonable price. For those who haven't noticed, there's a large shift in the type of food being offered at various restaurants--the result of consumer demand. Perhaps some of you are simply not old enough or experienced enough to know how significant the change has been. 

Subsidizing a turkey wrap is no gurantee of health benefits. It merely encourages the production of subsidized food.

I know--let's set up a large government bureaucracy to rate all food on a health scale, then transfer surcharges and subsidies back and forth between bureaucracies, restaurant chains and food producers so Guy can get a cheap turkey wrap. We'll have to then police the system to make sure nobody cheats--claiming to have sold a turkey wrap when that wrap really contained not-very-lean pork.

Let's just go back to that simpler idea of taxing blubber. Work out an ideal weight for each frame and make the obese pay for most of the cost of health care on a pound by pound basis.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I think we should tax people who think taxing fast food is a good idea. That might make 'em change their mind and it makes about as much sense.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I agree with such a tax.

It's only fair that junk food consumers pay a tax that goes to fund the extra costs in healthcare due to obesity. To me, its the same as smoking.

The only problem with this is defining what constitutes junk food. For example, white flour and sugar aren't very good for you, but most people wouldn't call these ingredients junk food. What about sports supplements that I take for running, a healthy activity? They are mostly sugar.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> It's only fair that junk food consumers pay a tax that goes to fund the extra costs in healthcare due to obesity. To me, its the same as smoking.


I'm so sick and tired of taxes. Really. Prevention is a much more cost effective way to reduce cost due to obesity. 



Vandave said:


> The only problem with this is defining what constitutes junk food. For example, white flour and sugar aren't very good for you, but most people wouldn't call these ingredients junk food. What about sports supplements that I take for running, a healthy activity? They are mostly sugar.


Hence why you can't really tax junk food. Popcorn, good or bad? Gatorate, junk or not? Nuts, junk or not? 

Taxing junk food is not attacking the problem.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

And please don't ignore the fact that many people become obese eating vast quantities of healthy food. You can put on 20 pounds just walking through the Whole Foods Market.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> And please don't ignore the fact that many people become obese eating vast quantities of healthy food. You can put on 20 pounds just walking through the Whole Foods Market.


Putting on 20lbs by eating tofu burgers....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I'm so sick and tired of taxes. Really. Prevention is a much more cost effective way to reduce cost due to obesity.


 
Ya, whatever. You are one of the biggest lefty pinko big government proponents around here.

I'll save that quote for another time.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Ya, whatever. You are one of the biggest lefty pinko big government proponents around here.
> 
> I'll save that quote for another time.


Wow VanNutt - nice diversion. 
The government should be reduced to the strictest minimum - that includes all government subsidies to big business. We seem to tax the poor and middle class yet give too much to business. In the latest Quebec government budget, employers will be reimbursed 200% of transit passes for employees - and the employees will be taxed on that benefit - that kind of government stupidity irks me. 
I do believe that the government can sometimes do a much better job than the private sector when it applies to certain endeavours were profit should not the driving force. 

Prevention of childhood obesity by education, bringing back regular gym hours, removal of vending machines will have a better long term effect than taxing junk food. The consumption of junk food would still continue and the health effect still have to be dealt with. If you could influence in a positive way, and influence early on kids taste early on, then you are ahead of the game. 
Having another government layer taxing us once again, is not the solution.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I agree that it's quite difficult once you're beyond the big categories (cigarettes, alcohol, etc...). It's like porn; you know it when you see it, but it's tough to define.  But there may be a way to do it. One way is to just raise the GST. Basic foods are exempt now anyways (those, at least, can be reasonably identified).

Certainly getting kids into good habits is a good approach, instead of actively raising cookie monsters. This all reminds me of Death to Smoochy.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

nuts w/ salt = junk
nuts without salt = ok

pop, diet or otherwise = junk
big macs, 1/4 lb-er, macchicken, whopper, fries w/ or w/o salt, etc.
popped popcorn w/ any flavouring = bad
unpopped popcorn = food

fast, unhealthy food should be taxed (more difficult to obtain) than healthy choices like salads

the prepared food industry needs to take a very long, hard look at how much salt and "crap" they add to their foods

remember "SuperSize Me" ?
recall his blood analysis numbers?
his liver function was that of an alcoholic near day 20
cholesterol up, weight up, heart palpatations....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> One way is to just raise the GST.


didn't our current PM campaingn on lowering the GST?

also, charge PST on all prepared food items
right now, in Ontario, "value meals" below $4 are not charged PST
and u wondered why they were pegged at $3.99?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm afraid those type of simplistic judgements about "junk food" are nonsense. What about nuts with sea salt? What about pop sweetened with unrefined cane juice and flavoured naturally? Popcorn flavoured with organic ketchup flavouring?

Salads are OK? I presume they can have no dressing then? Salads with salt=bad? Lettuce without flavouring=good? 

The mind boggles.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Like I said, it is not possible to define the term "junk".

Tax those who would tax the junk food. There's apparently more of them than junk food anyway!


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

SINC said:


> Like I said, it is not possible to define the term "junk".


of course is possible, everything can be done, lazyness should not be an excuse. you just set a variable sales tax for each an every product. I'll do it for free, you can go grab me a burger!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

gastonbuffet said:


> you just set a variable sales tax for each an every product.


Aside from the complexities in determining such a tax, and the inevitable gaming of such taxes, does anyone in retail know how much of a burden product-specific sales taxes would be? Is the cure worse than the fat?


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

Beej said:


> Aside from the complexities in determining such a tax, and the inevitable gaming of such taxes, does anyone in retail know how much of a burden product-specific sales taxes would be? Is the cure worse than the fat?


burden? it's a piece of cake. whole cake 15%, cake mix 21%, flour 5%, i can go on a an on.

hey, if you want economic complexities, go live in argentina and when you come back, you will see why this is a joke.
And for the record, this will not mean more taxes per se, unless you compare a twice a day seven days a week burger eater with a healthy sandwich eater. they will both pay the same, but more tax will go to health care with the junk.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

gastonbuffet said:


> burden? it's a piece of cake. whole cake 15%, cake mix 21%, flour 5%, i can go on a an on.
> 
> hey, if you want economic complexities, go live in argentina and when you come back, you will see why this is a joke.
> And for the record, this will not mean more taxes per se, unless you compare a twice a day seven days a week burger eater with a healthy sandwich eater. they will both pay the same, but more tax will go to health care with the junk.


There are possible administrative complexities to business and governments that, while dispersed, can add up to billions. I'm not sure if it would be mostly a one-off investment or involve significant ongoing costs. For example, if there are 1,000,000 businesses in Canada and these taxes cost an extra $2000 per year in various admin costs (time, software, etc...), then you've got to consider if there's a better way. Any business owners have an idea what this may be like from their perspective?


----------



## _Outcast_ (Oct 17, 2003)

Does anyone really believe that any revenue collected from a tax on junk food will actually go toward the health care system?

Weren't we told that if we let the Ontario government bring in provincially run casinos that most of the revenue collected from the proceeds of these casinos would go toward health care? Didn't we fall for it? The casinos in this province rake in billions of dollars a year in profits yet we still have sub-standard health care in Ontario. There's a surprise.

What they say and what they do never seem to be the same thing.

Jerry


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Here's how easy it is to tax junk food:

Manufacturers must prove that their food meets nutritional guidelines (e.g. 30% or less calories from fat). Failure to prove that it meets the guidelines automatically categorizes it as junk food.

Then again, a lot of it comes down to common sense.

Raw blueberries - not junk food
Smarties - junk food


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Here's how easy it is to tax junk food:
> 
> Manufacturers must prove that their food meets nutritional guidelines (e.g. 30% or less calories from fat). Failure to prove that it meets the guidelines automatically categorizes it as junk food.
> 
> ...


Butter? (Salted and unsalted) Bacon, pre-cooked bacon, bacon bits (I'm getting really hungry), mixed vegetables with sauce, sauces, cheeses, etc. 

Just going down the aisles today, there would be problems, and that's before the food manufacturers started gaming the rules. I still think it's possible, but I'm not sure it's the best solution if the administrative costs for business end up being too high...money better spent on other things.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Again, I see people wanting to tax the issue and not find a cure. 
_outcast_ is right that this would be another tax grab that goes nowhere. 
Any food in excess will be unhealthy. Some fat is necessary. 

Having food manufacturers meet/prove certain nutritional guidelines would be a nightmare for them - some would just say "no".
The simplistic answer of taxing junk food to combat childhood obesity does nothing to address the problem. Even with taxes in place, the problem would still exist. Common sense answers such as education and getting commercial junk food out of schools is something that people don't want to address. Education cost money, so we prefer to let the problem slip until it's too late. Pepsi and Coke give money to schools so we let then brain wash children with insidious marketing. 

Then we have the challenge of defining what is "junk food". Eggs, milk, flour (whole wheat), a little flavonoids - all good for you - also the main ingredients of chocolate cake... Tortilla Chips, cheese, tomato sauce - all good - except when eaten in overabundance and coupled with inactivity. You can have hundreds of examples. 
Apple juice can make you fat - too much sugar - where would you draw the line? You can't.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Vandave said:


> It's only fair that junk food consumers pay a tax that goes to fund the extra costs in healthcare due to obesity. To me, its the same as smoking.


Then why don't we punish people who partake in potentially dangerous activities? Your kid plays hockey and gets a concussion, why should society have to pay his medical bills if they want to put their bodies at risk just to play hockey? 

Not everyone that is obese is a drain on the system, and not everyone that is obese got there because they eat junk food. So how can anyone even think that we could tax people on how much they weigh? What's next IQ tests to screen potential welfare cases? Or how about taxing women who have a family history of breast cancer? 

Our healthcare system is one of the best in the world, and it would be this kind of thinking that would put us on the same level as the American system.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Then why don't we punish people who partake in potentially dangerous activities? Your kid plays hockey and gets a concussion, why should society have to pay his medical bills if they want to put their bodies at risk just to play hockey?


Because hockey has a net health benefit, obesity does not. I never said we shouldn't pay people's medical bills. I still believe in universal access, regardless of how you entered the system.



JumboJones said:


> Not everyone that is obese is a drain on the system, and not everyone that is obese got there because they eat junk food. So how can anyone even think that we could tax people on how much they weigh? What's next IQ tests to screen potential welfare cases? Or how about taxing women who have a family history of breast cancer?
> 
> Our healthcare system is one of the best in the world, and it would be this kind of thinking that would put us on the same level as the American system.


The vast majority of overweight people got to be that way because the number of calories going in exceeded the number going out. Junk food plays a huge part on people taking too many calories in.

IQ and family history of breast cancer are genetic. For the vast majority of obese people, it was a choice they made.

The American system is irrelevant to this discussion.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Vandave said:


> Because hockey has a net health benefit, obesity does not.


 Just because you play hockey doesn't mean your in shape, I've seen a lot of fat people play sports, even professional "athletes" can be over weight. So you'll have fat people switching from eating chocolate bars to over eating on power bars, which can be deamed healthy, but in excess could also make you gain weight.


Vandave said:


> IQ and family history of breast cancer are genetic. For the vast majority of obese people, it was a choice they made.


You're going to tell me obesity is not genetic, come on. And IQ can be altered in many ways that are not genetic, i.e. drugs and alcohal or brain trama due to say a hockey injury. 

You can eat as healthy as you want and still gain weight, the fact is we need to get people moving. Giving us Canadians more time/incentive to be active, like shorter work days, or tax breaks on active lifestyles would go a lot futher than taxes. How have higher taxes helped Smoking or alcohol consumption? With taxes, we'll still end up with just as many obese people, and the only thing lighter about them is their pockets. 

And who says the gov't is going to even use the money to aid our healthcare system? It took provinces how long to see any of the gas tax?

If anyone thinks that this would come in and you won't be effected you're sadly mistaken, one way or another it will increase the price of something you buy. And last thing any Canadian needs is to pay more taxes.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> So you'll have fat people switching from eating chocolate bars to over eating on power bars, which can be deamed healthy, but in excess could also make you gain weight.


can't be as bad as downing 2 or 3 big macs (or worse "meals" w/ fires and pop) on a regular basis

again, I refer to "Supersize Me"


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> How have higher taxes helped Smoking or alcohol consumption? With taxes, we'll still end up with just as many obese people, and the only thing lighter about them is their pockets.
> ...
> And who says the gov't is going to even use the money to aid our healthcare system? It took provinces how long to see any of the gas tax?
> ...
> If anyone thinks that this would come in and you won't be effected you're sadly mistaken, one way or another it will increase the price of something you buy. And last thing any Canadian needs is to pay more taxes.


I think there was some evidence that cigarette taxes impacted teenage smoking, but that's from distant memory. Looking at everything else people do, higher prices mean relatively less (not absolutely less). Taxes won't solve obesity, but they could be a small step; along with controlling school menus and education. I don't think the problem will go away because it is linked to wealth, but it can be mitigated.
...
Government money goes into one big pot (in most cases); this would ease pressure on the pot and make room for more social spending or tax cuts or debt reduction. But no, it would not be directly allocated to health care in any meaningful way.
...
As a single person living downtown with no kids and questionable lifestyle choices I pay huge amounts to everyone else. Downtown to suburb subsidies, city to rural, employed to unemployed, income redistribution, school taxes, over-charged sin taxes...the list goes on and on. 

I'm not enthusiastic about more money from me to more common and socially acceptable choices, but society is choosing that way. As long as I'm not barred from government services for not meeting some idiotic secular or religious moral standard, I know that these are the choices a nation, province and city makes. 

I will vote against and speak out against some but, for the most part, the tide is what it is. Me not liking it doesn't in any way offset enough people being ok with it. I am given ample rights to make my case and, if I choose, organise opposition. 

Within that framework of rules and taxes, junk food taxes, if they can be implemented with reasonable administrative efficiency, seem like a decent idea. If it costs business $2 billion to raise $5 billion in revenue, that's another matter.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Then why don't we punish people who partake in potentially dangerous activities? Your kid plays hockey and gets a concussion, why should society have to pay his medical bills if they want to put their bodies at risk just to play hockey?


Very good point. Let's tax the joggers, skateboarders and other injury prone sportsmen/women. I'd like to see how proportionally these "athletes" drain the system. They sure seems to be a lot of medical sports clinics...



JumboJones said:


> Our healthcare system is one of the best in the world, and it would be this kind of thinking that would put us on the same level as the American system.


Soon, soon.....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> I think there was some evidence that cigarette taxes impacted teenage smoking, but that's from distant memory. Looking at everything else people do, higher prices mean relatively less (not absolutely less). Taxes won't solve obesity, but they could be a small step; along with controlling school menus and education. I don't think the problem will go away because it is linked to wealth, but it can be mitigated.


No one seems to have define "junk" food. I see this hurting the poor and middle class - and not addressing the root problem. If taxes won't solve obesity, then it's not the solution. 
The poor have poor eating habits, socio-economic factors at work here. This does not mean that they eat junk food, they eat foods that satisfy cravings and these are often what causes obesity. 
...


Beej said:


> Government money goes into one big pot (in most cases); this would ease pressure on the pot and make room for more social spending or tax cuts or debt reduction. But no, it would not be directly allocated to health care in any meaningful way.


So what the point of a tax if it won't go to health care in a meaningful way?
It's only a new tax grab...
...


Beej said:


> Within that framework of rules and taxes, junk food taxes, if they can be implemented with reasonable administrative efficiency, seem like a decent idea. If it costs business $2 billion to raise $5 billion in revenue, that's another matter.


In what way a decent idea? You said it we were not sure if it would solve obesity, be collected efficiently or even go back into health care. 
Has anyone said why kids are fat? Could it be mostly because they are couch potatoes, the parents don't provide proper nutrition, they don't get enough exercise at school. Instead of taking direct responsibility for the causes, we are trying to curb something by proxy.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Just because you play hockey doesn't mean your in shape, I've seen a lot of fat people play sports, even professional "athletes" can be over weight. So you'll have fat people switching from eating chocolate bars to over eating on power bars, which can be deamed healthy, but in excess could also make you gain weight.


I am not talking about individuals, I am talking about the average. On average, active people, who play sports like hockey, are more healthy. 



JumboJones said:


> You're going to tell me obesity is not genetic, come on.


Yes, I am. Show me how many obese animals exist in the wild. Look at the rates of obesity in non-western societies. If it was genetic, obesity would be consistent across the world.



JumboJones said:


> You can eat as healthy as you want and still gain weight, the fact is we need to get people moving. Giving us Canadians more time/incentive to be active, like shorter work days, or tax breaks on active lifestyles would go a lot futher than taxes. How have higher taxes helped Smoking or alcohol consumption? With taxes, we'll still end up with just as many obese people, and the only thing lighter about them is their pockets.
> 
> And who says the gov't is going to even use the money to aid our healthcare system? It took provinces how long to see any of the gas tax?
> 
> If anyone thinks that this would come in and you won't be effected you're sadly mistaken, one way or another it will increase the price of something you buy. And last thing any Canadian needs is to pay more taxes.


If calories in > calories expended, you gain weight. We need to work on both sides of the equation. I agree the incentives are needed to help people become more active. Remove taxes on products that contribute to a healthy lifestyle (e.g. bikes, hockey gear, etc..). Again, it gets difficult to define what constitutes healthy products.

Smoking rates have dropped steadily since the 60's. A big part of this was the tax on the product. Smokers are also smoking less, which suggests to me that cost is a big part of the equation.

I believe in free market capitalism and I generally don't like more taxes either. But, with capitalism, you should pay the full price of the product you buy, not pass on costs to society. Based on this, a tax on junk food is inherently more fair and more capitalistic. The theory is that when the full price of a product is paid, you get the maximum benefit to society. When products are subsidized, it results in a societal loss.

That said, I believe in being practical and if such a tax system were costly to implement, then it might not be worth doing.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Yes, I am. Show me how many obese animals exist in the wild. Look at the rates of obesity in non-western societies. If it was genetic, obesity would be consistent across the world.
> ...
> I believe in free market capitalism and I generally don't like more taxes either. But, with capitalism, you should pay the full price of the product you buy, not pass on costs to society. Based on this, a tax on junk food is inherently more fair and more capitalistic. The theory is that when the full price of a product is paid, you get the maximum benefit to society. When products are subsidized, it results in a societal loss.
> 
> That said, I believe in being practical and if such a tax system were costly to implement, then it might not be worth doing.


There may be genetic roots, as there are for many behaviours, but they generally create a predisposition for certain outcomes. Outcomes that, for the most part, the individual is responsible for nonetheless. One may have a genetic predisposition towards violence, but that doesn't make it acceptable. It may, however, influence what we do and do not include in health care treatment.
....
:love2: 

Strange to see some people 'get' aspects of economics, although your choice of words may give economics professors a migraine.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I believe in free market capitalism and I generally don't like more taxes either. But, with capitalism, you should pay the full price of the product you buy, not pass on costs to society. Based on this, a tax on junk food is inherently more fair and more capitalistic. The theory is that when the full price of a product is paid, you get the maximum benefit to society. When products are subsidized, it results in a societal loss.


Interesting concept. So lets start with factories that spew pollution, cars and all the infrastructures, damage to the environment.... By the end of it, we would be back to the stone age. Society makes choices and capitalism is a net drain on society. Now, if you capitalistic business had a moral conscience we would not have as many problems. So instead of starting with something that hurts people directly (the taxes), start with the bigger ravagers of society.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> No one seems to have define "junk" food. I see this hurting the poor and middle class - and not addressing the root problem.
> ...
> If taxes won't solve obesity, then it's not the solution.
> ...
> ...


I agree, we have to be very careful (as we are not with other sin taxes).
...
Solving it is not realistic, in my opinion. Reducing the problem, relative to otherwise, may be. I don't think policy measures should be evaluated as complete solutions, but chosen for their potential progress (relative to cost, inconvenience and loss of choice).
...
That would apply to all specific taxes. In general, consumption taxes are more efficient, but that doesn't address your comment. If you look at health care as sucking up money, independent of the source, then increasing revenues in one place (and relatively decreasing long-term costs in some small way) frees up government funds for whatever people vote for. Income taxes don't directly translate into health care (even health care premiums don't), but we know they displace other choices.
...
I don't think any single thing will solve this (actually, I don't think anything but technology will solve this). But I do think certain careful actions can moderate the problem. You've suggested some great stuff and, if a low-admin burden tax is possible, it would also help, in my opinion.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Interesting concept. So lets start with factories that spew pollution, cars and all the infrastructures, damage to the environment.... By the end of it, we would be back to the stone age. Society makes choices and capitalism is a net drain on society. Now, if you capitalistic business had a moral conscience we would not have as many problems. So instead of starting with something that hurts people directly (the taxes), start with the bigger ravagers of society.


I agree that businesses should pay for environmental damage and other Negative Externialities (economic term thrown in to keep Beej happy).

By the end of it, society would actually be better off, not in the stone age. If you want to see the stone age, go to a country that doesn't have capitalism (e.g. North Korea). Capitalism is not a drain on society at all. It is a strong net positive. Yes, there are some negative outcomes (e.g. pollution), but this is where government has a responsibility to manage the free market. In the case of pollution, you need laws to ensure pollution levels are acceptable. In the case of people who are left behind, we need Employment Insurance, welfare and other forms of assistance. 

The moral argument is a whole different animal. If you think junk food is a debatable term, try defining morals.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Interesting concept. So lets start with factories that spew pollution, cars and all the infrastructures, damage to the environment.... By the end of it, we would be back to the stone age. Society makes choices and capitalism is a net drain on society. Now, if you capitalistic business had a moral conscience we would not have as many problems. So instead of starting with something that hurts people directly (the taxes), start with the bigger ravagers of society.


This seems to blame the 'dealers' and not the people; similar to the U.S. approach to Columbia (sorry, couldn't resist  ). We could 'solve' our environmental problems without going to the stoneage, but not for free. Guess what voters keep choosing?

The point is that as people individually pursuing our own benefit, there are externalities that should be priced into our decisions. There is no 'moral conscience' that is agreed upon, but democracies can come to acceptable decisions. Expecting people and corporations to act based on national moral is somewhat close to religion (and it doesn't work), pricing real externalities into their decisions is something else.

The ravagers of society are the people, no one else. It is too easy to blame the company that provided the gasoline for the SUV; blame the person in the SUV for not taking the bus. As long as people expect government to find a big scapegoat for our environmental decisions, we will make no significant progress. There isn't a big scapegoat, the environmental impact of our lives is a direct result of the choices we individually and collectively make.

.end rant.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think we should all do careful research like MacSpectrum and quote only from the movie "Supersize Me." 

What's hilarious here is that all of this bloody "tax fatty food" nonsense was lampooned in an old SF story by F. Paul Wilson (I think) in which this guy (a "lipidlegger") is dealing in contraband fatty foods. At the end of the story they mention the government outlawing clothes over a certain waist size--which probably sounds good to some of the folks here. Though they might just want to tax the clothing at a special rate.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Geez - seems all are getting bogged down in what is really a contractual agreement between a populace and a government who

a) agrees to provide a certain range medical services to all ( medical insurance )

b) agrees to use it's power to keep the cost of providing medical service at reasonable levels.

By providing a "disincentive" in the form of taxes for activities that add to the cost of healthcare, they both fund it directly to ameliorate the extra cost and hopefully steer the populace to choices that reduce the cost of healthcare on a long term wide spectrum basis.

Your insurance company does the same - you get a ticket for speeding - that's a cost and you can get nicked on insurance premiums if you get too many tickets so both are disincentives for risky behaviour.....speeding.

YOUR additional premiums ( in theory ) go to lower the premiums of those who do not undertake risky behaviour.

Universal coverage with some "pay for risk" aspect.

I don't think it's necessary to look beyond that contractual basis.

If I choose to fly a plane I pay a premium on my life insurance. No one is making a judgement on my choice - only going by a statistical analysis that says I cost the plan more.

If I go for life insurance and I'm overweight and smoke the extra premium is not a moral judgement on my "excesses" - it's a risk analysis.

Flying a plane OR junk food eating is not being "morally assessed"...it's only being identified as a risk within an insurance scheme and a premium being levied.

••

That's the easy part.
A bit harder to clearly identify risk factors and set a premium on them but a disincentive for junk food likely has some strong statistical backing for risk as smoking does and flying a plane does.

The concept SHOULD be purely transactional and leave the "moral judgement" issue at home.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> What's hilarious here is that all of this bloody "tax fatty food" nonsense


So along with dumping government entirely you think insurance is "nonsense".

Getting into the anarchy again pretty deep.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

The funny thing about “free market capitalist” is that others (mainly the poor and middle class) pay for their risks. Thatcherism was a failure in many ways and particularly towards the poor and middle class. The Laffer curve and all other voodoo economics espoused by the right when but into practice are always rescued by the public. 

During Reagan’s time, the total deficit for the US went from 900 billion to over 3 trillion – and I won’t even get into the Bush crime family years…

Thatcher was responsible for much of the liberalization of financial services (please note that Canada is undergoing such pressures). She herself joined Tiger Management after her time as PM. Tiger Management was one of the biggest hedge funds in the world – worth over 18 billion (from an original 8 million investment). She was hired at a salary of one million for attending board meeting (5 a year) and help with company decisions. From the moment she joined, Tiger started getting loses. Within 2 years, Tiger closed. Bankrupt. During that same time, the Federal Reserve rescued another hedge firm to the tune of 3.2 billion (Long Term Capital Management). 


> The paradigms of the 1990s managed to fool so many people for so long largely because they fed on the delusions fostered by Thatcher and Reagan in the previous decade, and Enron provides an exquisitely emblematic case history. Privatization made its rapid expansion possible, as it set out to gobble up utility firms all over the world. Deregulation permitted its daylight robbery.


A short history of modern delusion - Francis Wheen

Using "free-market-capitalism" for your argument is like using a chain-saw to try and screw in a light-bulb - just makes no sense....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> b) agrees to use it's power to keep the cost of providing medical service at reasonable levels.
> 
> By providing a "disincentive" in the form of taxes for activities that add to the cost of healthcare, they both fund it directly to ameliorate the extra cost and hopefully steer the populace to choices that reduce the cost of healthcare on a long term wide spectrum basis.


"disincentives" don't always work - prohibition was one great failed experiment. Education and early education work - you have said so yourself.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> The ravagers of society are the people, no one else. It is too easy to blame the company that provided the gasoline for the SUV; blame the person in the SUV for not taking the bus. .


Could the same not be said for taxing junk food? You are targeting the companies that provide the "junk".


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The funny thing about “free market capitalist” is that others (mainly the poor and middle class) pay for their risks. Thatcherism was a failure in many ways and particularly towards the poor and middle class. The Laffer curve and all other voodoo economics espoused by the right when but into practice are always rescued by the public.
> 
> During Reagan’s time, the total deficit for the US went from 900 billion to over 3 trillion – and I won’t even get into the Bush crime family years…
> 
> ...


I disagree with much of the thesis of this, but that's a much broader discussion...that will put people to sleep. Of course, I'm up for it!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Could the same not be said for taxing junk food? You are targeting the companies that provide the "junk".


In that case, you are targetting the people, as is the case with all taxes. More specifically, for junk food taxes, you would be targetting junk food consumers. To target Big Junk, you would have to tax their manufacturing processes, but that would still feed (  ) into the people, unless junk importing became the name of the game, in which case the policy would just be plain stupid.

With the trillion+ in CPP, RRSP and standard pensions, the 'people' will see how corporate taxes aren't an easy out. The income trust issue (pre-scandal) is just the beginning.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> I disagree with much of the thesis of this, but that's a much broader discussion...that will put people to sleep. Of course, I'm up for it!


Go for it - start a new thread. Are you arguing with the numbers?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

>> I disagree with much of the thesis of this, but that's a much broader 
>> discussion... Of course, I'm up for it!

I'm with Beej on that. 

>>So along with dumping government entirely you think insurance is "nonsense".

MacDoc, your leaps in logic are astounding. And your definition of "anarchy" has possibly the mildest threshhold I've ever encountered. Of course I agree with insurance--privately purchased and managed, providing people are not coerced into purchasing it, or thrown in prison if they want no part of it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> I disagree with much of the thesis of this, but that's a much broader discussion...that will put people to sleep. Of course, I'm up for it!


I am glad you are willing to take up the fight. I wouldn't know where to start.:lmao:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> In that case, you are targetting the people, as is the case with all taxes. More specifically, for junk food taxes, you would be targetting junk food consumers. To target Big Junk, you would have to tax their manufacturing processes, but that would still feed (  ) into the people, unless junk importing became the name of the game, in which case the policy would just be plain stupid.


What you may call junk food, can be a stable to some - again you would fall into messy schematics. You are not addressing the problem directly. You can't dictate to people - it will not work. 
What you are asking by taxing junk food is akin to taxing sex because of AIDS. You may stop a few people from having sex but the activity will continue nevertheless. The better approach is educate people about the dangers of unprotected sex. You will not stop AIDS but at least it will be reduced....
(Yes it's an extreme example).


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Go for it - start a new thread. Are you arguing with the numbers?


...
Using "free-market-capitalism" for your argument is like using a chain-saw to try and screw in a light-bulb - just makes not sense....
...

The numbers some like to focus on don't tell the whole story about free-market-capitalism, but then we're in to discussing neocons and their betrayal of fiscal conservatives, as well as long-term economic gains versus short-term and, well, it gets really fun for eco-geeks! 

Theory, looney-quoting, selective facts: all will be front and centre in such a discussion, and from all sides. Someone quotes a conservative institute (roundly shouted down), someone quotes a liberal institute (in the U.S. meaning, not in the real meaning) -- sporadically shouted down. Sounds like a theme park for geeks to me. Sadly, I am such a geek.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

AF
Because you try to hide your fundamentals. 

The issue on this thread is INSURANCE and what steps the insuring agency takes to reduce it's payout costs.



> "tax fatty food" nonsense


Means either you don't understand this is an insurance issue.
Or you don't believe in insurance as an effective transaction within groups of people.
The latter would be an anarchist view.

If you make a "throwaway comment like "tax fatty food nonsense" then you should be prepared to defend it's implications within the context of the thread and what it says about your worldview.
It's YOUR attitude and expression.
Nothing to do with my "tolerance level".
I'm simply holding you accountable for the underlying nature of YOUR comment.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I wouldn't know where to start.:lmao:


It would be rather difficult for you - I mean using polemic rhetoric trying to have some kind of scientific veneer. Friedman, Hayek and all have not exactly been right in hindsight.....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> What you may call junk food, can be a stable to some - again you would fall into messy schematics. You are not addressing the problem directly. You can't dictate to people - it will not work.
> What you are asking by taxing junk food is akin to taxing sex because of AIDS. You may stop a few people from having sex but the activity will continue nevertheless. The better approach is educate people about the dangers of unprotected sex. You will not stop AIDS but at least it will be reduced....
> (Yes it's an extreme example).


Good points, extremity acknowledged.

My position is that IF it can be implemented with a reasonable adminstrative burden then it can mitigate (but not solve) the problem. I also support education and pre-adult controls on what foods are sold in schools, even though that would eliminate a source of funding for some schools (whose replacement would require subsequent tax increases). 

Nothing, in my opinion, will 'solve' the problem, but mitigation is handy. Taxing externalities is always a balance of personal freedom/choice, the collective (resistance is futile!) and administrative efficiency. I'm not convinced that this can not be done well, but I'd like some business owners' perspective on this.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> ...
> The numbers some like to focus on don't tell the whole story about free-market-capitalism, but then *we're in to discussing neocons and their betrayal of fiscal conservatives*, as well as long-term economic gains versus short-term and, well, it gets really fun for eco-geeks!


The libertarian (or pinko neo communist - whatever VanNutt called me) agrees that we would have a problem there. How to you separate what the NeoCon nuts have put into practice (with all their distortions) and the results that have happened?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> It would be rather difficult for you - I mean using polemic rhetoric trying to have some kind of scientific veneer. Friedman, Hayek and all have not exactly been right in hindsight.....


Ooooh, the hurtins' started.  

I'll raise your Hayek by one Roosevelt, but I won't accept distanced and unconnected cynicism as collateral.  

Someone's brewing a thread that none of us, not even people who think their googling makes up for their shortfalls, or people who almost learned enough, are qualified for. Fun, fun fun, except for remotely normal people.

AS: The game is on, choose your beer and meet me at the bar!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The libertarian (or pinko neo communist - whatever VanNutt called me) agrees that we would have a problem there. How to you separate what the NeoCon nuts have put into practice (with all their distortions) and the results that have happened?


First, we need to define neocon so we don't use the same term but mean different things. Second, neocons and capitalism and free-markets and economic efficiency and etc... are different things. A 'neo con' can do smart 'economic' things, even though the totality of their choices is a betrayal of conservative fiscal values. Welcome to the political mess. 

Sask NDP now is more responsible than ON Cons, Fed Libs in the 70s are less responsible than today's NDP, Fed Libs in the 1990s are more responsible than Cons in the 1980s...it's all quite complex and I've just tossed out some quick statements; I don't mean them to be my definitive opinion.

I value the concept of separating theory from practice: there is no socialist or communist theory put into practice that isn't absolutely reprehensible to our values; yet the words sound attractive. Again: this is beer-talk. Jump on a VIA and get your butt to Ottawa.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: I've already explained why I believe taxing fatty food is nonsense. You want to call taxes "insurance" I won't argue with you. Changing the word "tax: to "insurance" would probably be considered a doubleplusgood idea by government bureaucrats.

Beej: I'm afraid I could get sucked into getting into this one--the problem of course is that few, if any, will change their minds, a few will be so offended they won't come back, and a few will show they're really not prepared for such a brawl. 

But pour me a bowl of peanut-butter stuffed pretzels and have at 'er--it can be fun!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> What you are asking by taxing junk food is akin to taxing sex because of AIDS.


That's a completely ridiculous comparison AS.

Junk food is a purchase choice that results in risk to health on a statistically basis so is open to disincentive through higher taxes as with smoking.

Sexually activity for the most part is NOT a purchase decision so a disincentive in that regard is not possible.
The only alternative is education AND easily available, openly available safe sex materials, as people will have sex.

The two situations are simply not comparable as one is open to economic disincentives where the other is not.

One area where sex can be modified through public programs other than education is through offering FREE condoms as a way to reduce healthcare cost.....in this case it's an INCENTIVE for safe behaviour.......like providing a free taxi ride for drunks at a bar.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I would just like to pause and say how impressive it is to see such polite but varied and informative discussion around here (even humourous at times  ). This is what I see as an inherent value of the internet; not the all too frequent bullying and grand-standing.

Kudos to everyone in this thread.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Ooooh, the hurtins' started.
> 
> I'll raise your Hayek by one Roosevelt, but I won't accept distanced and unconnected cynicism as collateral.


I guess the use of The Postmodernism Generator
 is out - pity, it produces such wonderful essays akin to the best quotes from so-called serious NeoCons. I'm sure that Dr. G will get a kick out of it...


Beej said:


> Someone's brewing a thread that none of us, not even people who think their googling makes up for their shortfalls, or people who almost learned enough, are qualified for. Fun, fun fun, except for remotely normal people.


My googling is my shortfall!  




Beej said:


> AS: The game is on, choose your beer and meet me at the bar!


That sounds like www.macmagic.ca -


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> First, we need to define neocon so we don't use the same term but mean different things.


I have been asking AS and MacDoc to define this term for months and how it applies to me. Don't expect an answer anytime soon.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> That sounds like www.macmagic.ca -


Not a one-board man I see. 

I checked it out once and didn't see the point, but it did seem like an ok place. 

Oh well, I will wait for you my faux libertarian.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I have been asking AS and MacDoc to define this term for months and how it applies to me. Don't expect an answer anytime soon.


I refer you to the case of Honey versus Vinegar. I trust AS. That may be my undoing, but have faith.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MF - this is an INSURANCE issue. What the hell do you think it is? 

The government is contracted to provide healthcare and reduce the cost of it.
Just as any insurance company ups premiums for higher risk activity so can PUBLIC MEDICAL INSURANCE.

The method for a government to do this is through taxation of any category such as cigarettes or junk food SHOWN to create higher costs to the health care providing system.

This is the way actuarial based insurance is conducted and has nothing to do with morality driven initiatives, but you can't get by your blinkers about taxes to see that.

It was far easier in my mind when individuals paid a separate healthcare premium to understand the insurance aspect as separate from general taxation issues.
They are too tangled right now for my comfort.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> The method for a government to do this is through taxation of any category such as cigarettes or junk food SHOWN to create higher costs to the health care providing system.


So how do you reduce the sleep deficit? Or stress? What are you going to tax to reduce those?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> First, we need to define neocon so we don't use the same term


Okay VD let's turn that about.

Let's hear YOUR definition of a NeoCon........ and then how it DOES NOT apply to you.

You clearly have an "idea" of neocon.

You clearly think it does not apply to you.

You've put the most thought into it.

Let's hear your analysis.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> This is the way actuarial based insurance is conducted and has nothing to do with morality driven initiatives, but you can't get by your blinkers about taxes to see that.
> 
> It was far easier in my mind when individuals paid a separate healthcare premium to understand the insurance aspect as separate from general taxation issues.
> They are too tangled right now for my comfort.


If this can be kept reasonable: actuarial equations can connect education and race to social cost outcomes. A line needs to be drawn somewhere; and we all will draw it somewhere else.

Tangled I'm ok with; when a doctor refuses service for other than directly scientifically applicable means, then I worry. Universal, to me, does not involve any judgement of lifestyle. The opposite has happened on occasion (not talking about blood pressure requirements for medical safety), but not much. Socialist programs are extremely difficult to implement (because they aren't natural), but some are worth the effort, in my opinion. 

That doesn't mean they, the programs, are sacred; something Canadians tend to do (e.g. sacred budget balance). Of course, the sacred sentiment seems to stem from a real understanding of pragmatic politics: give a government an inch, and they'll ruin everything.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: But the private insurance companies provide premiums that we can choose to pay to protect us from the >results< of engaging in certain behaviour. It's not intended as a disincentive, but an actual accounting of risk. 

The government merely taxes those items it pooh poohs at whatever level generates the most revenue for itself--then hopes we will call it insurance.

Beej: I think the sad fact is that the government wastes so darned much money that many of the hare brained schemes demanded by socialists could be implemented--while providing a healthy round of tax cuts.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Okay VD let's turn that about.
> 
> Let's hear YOUR definition of a NeoCon........ and then how it DOES NOT apply to you.
> 
> ...


Nope, you are the one who labeled me. The onus is on you to provide the definition.

Or if you prefer... I asked you first....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Okay VD let's turn that about.
> 
> Let's hear YOUR definition of a NeoCon........ and then how it DOES NOT apply to you.
> 
> ...


I suggest that the users of the term, especially in the pejorative, should provide a definition so we know what they mean. I don't intend this as part of our strange feud, just as an objective observation: to use a vague term such as neocon with people other than the chuckleheads who will mindlessly cheer (I don't consider you a chucklehead), some commonly understood definition seems in order. It's a simple matter of user be known.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Nope, you are the one who labeled me. The onus is on you to provide the definition.
> 
> Or if you prefer... I asked you first....


Geez VD, you make me seem like a windbag; or do I do that all by myself?  

Objectively speaking, my post rules and your concise post blows!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The term NeoCon has been around so long that we might have to refer to NeoNeoCons--Beej has the right idea. Define the term.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I don't intend this as part of our strange feud


   

and if you believe that I've got a slightly used bridge in Brooklyn to sell ya


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

AS - sleep/stress.

You can't and that's my point because like sex they are NOT a purchase decision.

Some activities are open to economic disincentive, speeding, mountaineering, smoking, hang gliding there are quite a number through "user pays for the additional risk".
Insurance premiums for a motorcycle rider is a clear disincentive and the government could quite rightly add a surcharge to a motorcycle or hang glider as the stats would back them up.

Tax BREAKS can be an incentive - ie get rid of sales tax on exercise equipment, or partially cover massage therapy to encourage healthy choices or choices that will reduce stress, aid sleep.
Just as an insurance company reduces premiums if you take safe driver course - that's an INCENTIVE based approach.

Returnable bottles with a refund is another example of an incentive program to direct behaviour in a way that reduces public costs...in that case landfill costs.

Some consumption behaviors are open to the disincentive approach, others not.
Some to the incentive approach or at least "make em as safe as possible" approach.
It's hard to "make" everyone where a bicycle helmut but you can use public levers to make that safe behaviour affordable to all families.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Beej: I think the sad fact is that the government wastes so darned much money that many of the hare brained schemes demanded by socialists could be implemented--while providing a healthy round of tax cuts.


Health care is too big to be solved with cutting other stuff, but there are certainly questionable billions out there. For example, Canadian culture needs to be bought by government? 

Either way, while 5-10 billion may be found, there are much larger long-term funding issues to be considered (one year of health care cost growth is about $6 billion).  I don't mean to suggest that the 5-10 shouldn't be pursued, or that health care is more important than education (personal pet peeve) but that the magnitude requires more than just cost cutting in other areas. Like many large problems it requires, in my opinion, and multitude of individually inadequate solutions.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and if you believe that I've got a slightly used bridge in Brooklyn to sell ya


Set an olive branch on fire? Shoot a dove? Sounds fun. XX)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well VD then you'll have to leave us in the dark with our shared illusions about you since you are clearly the one in the best position to separate yourself from the term but won't.......or can't.

It should be easy for you since YOU are thoroughly convinced there is a clear difference so it should be a piece of cake to clarify it for the muddled mob.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> AS - sleep/stress.
> 
> You can't and that's my point because like sex they are NOT a purchase decision.
> 
> ...


Nice perspective. We agree on many things, but we take a very different approach in communicating those things. Darned devilish details. :lmao:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Well VD then you'll have to leave us in the dark with our shared illusions about you since you are clearly the one in the best position to separate yourself from the term but won't.......or can't.


How can he separate himself from an undefined term? Unless we agree on wiki which would, at least, provide a common basis for usage.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> That's a completely ridiculous comparison AS.
> 
> Junk food is a purchase choice that results in risk to health on a statistically basis so is open to disincentive through higher taxes as with smoking.


No, abuse of junk food the risk to health. Higher taxes are partial disincentive - education and exercise the better solution. I don't know if the higher taxes on cigarettes had the impact on the smoking reduction as much as aggressive anti-tobacco ads, education, and other gentle means of persuasion. 




MacDoc said:


> Sexually activity for the most part is NOT a purchase decision so a disincentive in that regard is not possible.
> The only alternative is education AND easily available, openly available safe sex materials, as people will have sex.


Sex, like eating, is a pleasurable experience. A recent survey stated that most women prefer eating chocolate over sex. Now, I don't know what this says about their mates, but it shows that these are pleasurable activities. To some, eating fills a void - the fact that they eat "junk food" results in obesity. 
A tax on junk food may result in some people eating less junk food but it will not curtail the behaviour (and that's the goal of this tax, no?).





MacDoc said:


> The two situations are simply not comparable as one is open to economic disincentives where the other is not.


People have to eat - it's a basic need. Economic disincentives may alter what people eat but it will not change the "junk" they eat. 
What you call "junk food" is part of a larger problem - that of proper nutrition - and that can only be achieved by education. Even the definition of "junk food" will be hard to establish. 


> The nature of the relation between diet and disease is the subject of great
> controversy. Mixed messages have emerged from the scientific community
> and from the media concerning the potential benefits of a number of foods
> and nutrients, including rice bran, vitamins C and E, carotenoids and palm oil, in
> ...


Peter J. Jones - Professor of Dietetics and Nutrition, McGill University 
And so called "healthy" food are sometime expensive - so taxing junk food, will result in what?


> For consumers to agree to pay the premium associated with functional foods,
> they must be convinced that their health claim messages are clear, truthful and unambiguous.


Peter J. Jones - Professor of Dietetics and Nutrition, McGill University 




MacDoc said:


> One area where sex can be modified through public programs other than education is through offering FREE condoms as a way to reduce healthcare cost.....in this case it's an INCENTIVE for safe behaviour.......like providing a free taxi ride for drunks at a bar.


So maybe schools should be offering free lunches with healthy choices?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Universal, to me, does not involve any judgement of lifestyle. ....Socialist programs are extremely difficult to implement (because they aren't natural), but some are worth the effort, in my opinion.


On that, we agree - good start....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> On that, we agree - good start....


But am I a neocon?  

And, are you a *label*?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> But am I a neocon?


Ask Vandave. He's good at labelling - I'm a pinko communist. Ironic because most Neocons do need and cherish the cold war and the implications...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I repeat myself but...

I would just like to pause and say how impressive it is to see such polite but varied and informative discussion around here (even humourous at times  ). This is what I see as an inherent value of the internet; not the all too frequent bullying and grand-standing.

Kudos to everyone in this thread.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

AS It's not either/or ........it's both. In the case of smoking it's clearly both edu and cost.

In the case of junk food the stats are very clear and as mentioned earlier putting healthy choices cost below that of unhealthy choices provides a disincentive for the latter and an incentive for the healthy choice.

As it sits juices cost more than pop and in those cases due to peoples taste the gap has to be pretty severe to alter the choices but if you like it can be seen to be a "user pays" premium as much as choice modifier.

I can still CHOOSE to speed, but I know it's gonna cost me.

Edu and playing field incentives/disincentives go together.

The disincentives can sometimes
a) pay for education
b) pay for a subsidized choice
c) add to the healthcare fund pool

or ideally all three.

If you like.....consider the "junk food" situation the same way "pollutants" should be considered.......dealing with the fallout they create should be included in the actual cost of the product by the supplier - ie the downstream cost of coal pollution should be embedded in the cost of producing...not left to the public to clean up.

So bringing orange juice from Florida versus sugar water locally can be put on a more equal footing as to downstream effects on health. $2 for a Coke or $1 for an OJ at least does some good in the 3 areas above where the "premim" flows to the healthcare system for amelioration of costs and education.

Using non transfat oils should be cheaper to the producer and to the public as a matter of public policy "where the link is clear".

The latter is the tough and controversial part.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> AS - sleep/stress.
> 
> You can't and that's my point because like sex they are NOT a purchase decision.


Eating is not a purchase decision. 




MacDoc said:


> Tax BREAKS can be an incentive - ie get rid of sales tax on *exercise equipment*, or partially cover *massage therapy* to encourage healthy choices or choices that will reduce stress, aid sleep.


Then you get into the problem of definitions - 
My exercise equipment is a pair of running shoes, shorts and t-shirt. But the same items can also be used for other purposes. The same applies to chocolate - to some it's junk food, to others part of a healthy diet. 

Massage therapy (with full release  )? 

I don't see why massage sessions should even be included - to me they are a pampering. They may work for some for some release but I find a relax more listening to Bach. Will you be deducting the price of my Sugden, Musical Fidelity and Dyaudio equipment?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Ask Vandave. He's good at labelling - I'm a pinko communist. Ironic because most Neocons do need and cherish the cold war and the implications...


My labeling you as a left pinko was only in response to my being labeled a neocon. My secondary intent was to troll you and MacDoc into this discussion with the possibility of finally getting an answer.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Universal, to me, does not involve any judgement of lifestyle.


That's what actuarial application is all about ......it's risk/cost without making a "good behaviour/bad behaviour judgement.

You CHOOSE to speed....it costs you.

Insurance IS collective by it's nature. The choice for populations is whether mandated insurance should be a "for profit" enterprise.

ie I choose not to insure my boat and I can insure with a "collective" mutual insurance company or a "for profit" company or self insure so we have a competitive playing field with choices and risks.

Once you add mandatory...it's open season on the consumer....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> TOnce you add mandatory...it's open season on the consumer....


And things get very messy when you require mandatory insurance because someone can cause more damage (externality) than they are capable of individually covering. I wouldn't agree that it's open season on the consumer, but the concept of mandatory insurance is definitely interesting.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> AS It's not either/or ........it's both.
> The latter is the tough and controversial part.


The problem is health care cost associates with childhood obesity. You are proposing a tax on "junk food" coupled with some form of education.

I'm saying that early education and exercise (starting with more gym time in school) is the better solution.


> ..in the last 30 years, calorie intake has increased for both men and women.
> 
> *Poor eating habits are often established during childhood*. In 2003, only 22% of young people ate the recommended five or more servings of fruits and vegetables each day.


http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/publications/aag/dnpa.htm

Your equation of taxing "junk food" will somehow lead to healthier kids (and adults) leaves out many mitigating factors. Taste, time of preparation, traditions (sugar shack season - or fat and sugar season - is upon us), family upbringing, and economics all play a part. 

Many seem to agree that bad nutrition, overeating and lack of exercise seem to be the problem - now the effort should be on direct solutions.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Eating is not a purchase decision.


WHAT you eat is.

Many things have multiple uses but somethings have exercise in mind only.
Those can be positively incentived....ie a bicycle, or tennis rackets, or hockey equipment free of sales tax as an example simply makes it more affordable ..not free.

Putting "premiums" from soft drink sales to local pools, hockey rinks, hiking trails.
There already is a form of it in classifying snacks differently for sales tax purposes than food in Ontario.

Buy a banana - no pst - buy a candy banana - sales tax.

As I said there will be areas difficult to identify but where a link is clear public policy can use an actuarial basis for incentive or disincentive to reduce the costs of certain lifestyle choices to the public system....be it from speeding or food choices or smoking or alcohol.

Identifying the links and costs is the key. Insurance companies do it all the time.
The difference with the gov is they can go further into the educational part of the concept - something the insurance companies are not obliged to do - tho they will at times.

The insurance company will simply charge you a premium for smoking.

The gov insurance will charge the premium by way of purchase tax AND attempt to educate you.

I think BOTH are needed for certain "large scale" identifiable risk behaviours.

If I want to skydive I can buy insurance and expect to pay a premium. There is little point in the gov trying to dissuade me as the scale is small.

Speeding or smoking.....different scale of public costs. Edu and premiums called for.

The latest with the junkfood is simply an attempt to add it to the list as an"identified widescale risk worth addressing"
.....how and in what form to address/reduce the risk is open for discussion.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You still are claiming either/or....why not both? If the extra taxes hires more physed teachers, builds more basketball courts etc........there nothing wrong with parallel complimenting approaches.
You say better.....I say BOTH.

I would never see the tax as a solution or a substitute - but it can be a mechanism or part of the mechanism to achieve the goals.

I would also add that like the lotteries the benefits of such a tax should be made visible just as Timmies supports entry level hockey.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I'm sorry but taxing junk food is not going to reduse obesity in Canada. There are way too many factors that can make a person overweight, the main one being inactivity. Things like how much you eat and even when you eat can factor in as well. 30 years ago the average person came home at a certain time every day, and probably ate at the same time as well. Now with commuting and high stress jobs, where most look at you sideways for leaving at 6:30pm, you get home and eat and go to bed, and do it all over day in and day out. My point is-that type of lifestyle doesn't need to have "junk food" involved in order to get fat. In the end we'll still have obesity, and high priced "junk food" and no one wins, we'll all be fat and poor.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That may be true but the health care system will have a premium from those that DO get fat or other ill effects from junk food....just as it does from smokers.

Remember the a limited "pay as you go" to top off the universal premium is also a factor and as well the sports facility support too.

Also a disincentive for kids.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> That may be true but the health care system *will* have a premium from those that DO get fat or other ill effects from junk food....just as it does from smokers.


People who get fat are easy enough to see, but how will you determine that it's junk food that made them fat?

At the moment, smokers are treated equally for the most part in our health care system.

Pity the poor Hottentot Venus, how/what would be though of her...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What does it matter?? - there is no need to figure out anything about any individual.

ALL junk food premiums go to the health care/sports facilities etc just as taxes on smokes contribute to the care for smokers down the line and education even tho some may never need the extra care - it's a known risk factor so there is a premium due and it's added through a purchase tax.....which also serves as a disincentive.

You undertake risk behaviour and pay a premium just like any other risk assessment.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> What does it matter?? - there is no need to figure out anything about any individual.
> 
> ALL junk food premiums go to the health care/sports facilities etc just as taxes on smokes contribute to the care for smokers down the line and education even tho some may never need the extra care - it's a known risk factor so there is a premium due and it's added through a purchase tax.....which also serves as a disincentive.
> 
> You undertake risk behaviour and pay a premium just like any other risk assessment.


Why it matters is that when no one is buying junk food anymore because of the taxes and supposed health benefits, there still will be no money to treat the obese because ITS NOT JUST JUNK FOOD THAT MAKE PEOPLE FAT! Its the overeating, the supersize me complex, the "I want to get what pay for" attitude, were they throw portion sizing out the window, and go up for seconds and thirds like a chinese smorg.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I'm saying that early education and exercise (starting with more gym time in school) is the better solution.


How does early education stop the parents who drag their kids to McDonald's 3 nights a week?

It doesn't. Education doesn't stop french fries from tasting good to a kid. Education doesn't stop parents from Super-Sizing meals. Education doesn't make healthy food more affordable than junk food. Education doesn't help parents too lazy or too tired to cook. Education doesn't stop junk-food marketing at kids. Are you getting the point? Education isn't going to solve the problem.

Can you make junk-food taste bad to kids? No.
Can you make junk-food more expensive? Yes.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Are you getting the point? Education isn't going to solve the problem.


No.

Just like you don't get the point that taxing it won't work either.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Why it matters is that when no one is buying junk food anymore because of the taxes and supposed health benefit


Do you understand insurance at all?? It doesn't STOP people from doing things - it makes them pay a premium for actvities that add extra payout costs ( in this case healthcare ) down the line.

Some people will get lung cancer despite not smoking - but more will get it smoking....so they pay a premium both in buying smokes and in other forms of insurance.

It won't be 100% effective in changing behaviour - it may not even be 30% effective but it has a combined benefit. It's risk management and partial user premium for an insurance plan.

It in no way takes away the need for education, better choices, more facilities but it can make those more available and more widely applied from the resulting funds.


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> People who get fat are easy enough to see, but how will you determine that it's junk food that made them fat?


Dude, the purpose of this is not to tax fat people, but to tax people who eat junk food, people who chooses to eat unhealthy. Putting taxes on junk food is the most direct and logical way to achieve this. I don't understand what the beef is?


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

SINC said:


> No.
> 
> Just like you don't get the point that taxing it won't work either.


Why is junk food popular? It taste okay, but that's not the main factor, it's because it's CHEAP. There are more choices out there that taste a lot better, but they are more expensive, thus less people consume it regularly. Taxing it, making more expensive, would take away the advantage of fast food over "slow" food or other healthier choices. That way would make consumers steer away from it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> Dude, the purpose of this is not to tax fat people, but to tax people who eat junk food, people who chooses to eat unhealthy. Putting taxes on junk food is the most direct and logical way to achieve this. I don't understand what the beef is?


What you are saying is that we who use fast food in a reasonable manner, like say once a month, are to be taxed just like those who abuse it.

One more bloody reason it is a bad idea. There are quite enough repressive taxes out there and we don't need social do-gooders adding more. 

Social engineering like this sucks big fat ones, if you'll pardon the pun!


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Do you understand insurance at all?? It doesn't STOP people from doing things - it makes them pay a premium for actvities that add extra payout costs ( in this case healthcare ) down the line.


Then why don't we just tax everything that is potentially dangerous to our health and not just single out junk food. Otherwise just increase everyones taxes so there is more money for healthcare, and forget about this rediculous smokescreen junk food tax.

I don't know about you but I've had my insurance go up even if I had no accidents in that year, all depends on how much your insurance company has paid out. So if the gov't doesn't have enough to pay for what it needs to then raise all our rates (taxes) as an insurance company would.


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

SINC said:


> What you are saying is that we who use fast food in a reasonable manner, like say once a month, are to be taxed just like those who abuse it.
> 
> One more bloody reason it is a bad idea. There are quite enough repressive taxes out there and we don't need social do-gooders adding more.
> 
> Social engineering like this sucks big fat ones, if you'll pardon the pun!


Do you think if I smoked a pack a week shouldn't be taxed as much as those who smoke two packs a day? I don't abuse it. I use it in a "reasonable manner". However, tobacco is tobacco, it's bad for you. Same goes for fast food. Fast food is fast food, heavily processed, high in sodium, sugar, and trans/saturated fats. It's bad for you regardless of how often you use it.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> Do you think if I smoked a pack a week shouldn't be taxed as much as those who smoke two packs a day? I don't abuse it. I use it in a "reasonable manner". However, tobacco is tobacco, it's bad for you. Same goes for fast food. Fast food is fast food, heavily processed, high in sodium, sugar, and trans/saturated fats. It's bad for you regardless of how often you use it.


But there is a difference between fast food and smoking, eating is a nesscessity smoking is not. And you can get fat off of the same things at a supermarket as you can at a fast food joint, all food could potentially lead to obesity.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> It's bad for you regardless of how often you use it.


There isn't a lot of evidence that, in moderation, a lot of the 'bad for you' stuff does any harm. Health research is generally based on more intensive use with any purported low-use impacts extrapolated and somewhat meaningless. The researchers generally don't report that, for example, 1 pack a day removes 25 years from your life therefore 1 cigarette a day removes 1 year. The body has a certain tolerance to process many 'bad' things if they are on occasion...unlike smog. 

I doubt there's much evidence behind 1 quarter pounder and fries a month creating negative health outcomes unless, maybe, your body is already very sensitive. A more extreme example would be alcohol: in moderation it may improve your health while in larger quantities it hurts it.


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> But there is a difference between fast food and smoking, eating is a nesscessity smoking is not. And you can get fat off of the same things at a supermarket as you can at a fast food joint, all food could potentially lead to obesity.


How is it different? Fast food provides no nutrients that is adaquate for maintanence of health, in that sense, they are the same.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> How is it different? Fast food provides no nutrients that is adaquate for maintanence of health, in that sense, they are the same.


I guess you don't count protein, fiber, Carbs, Vitamin A & C or iron. Even Weight Watchers allows you to occassionally dip into the Mc Donalds, you just have to watch how much and how often.

http://uriblyd.beigetower.org/WW/mcd.htm


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

JJ - see Poke - he understands.

There are two aspects to universal insurance whether it's gov run or not,

Overall premiums everyone pays.
Enhanced risk premiums.

If the system requires more funds to meet payouts all premiums go up.

If the system identifies risk factors for a specific behaviour - ie skydiving, flying a small plane, driving a sportscar or a motorcycle or smoking cigarettes those participating pay a higher premium.

In the case of a motorcycle the premium is billed by the insurance company.
In the case of cigarettes the premium is billed through added purchase taxes.

The insurer ( this time the gov ) has identified junk food consumption as a risk factor akin to smoking and proposes a premium.

Your life insurer does it a different way - identifies an applicant as overweight or a smoker or both and charges accordingly.

It's based on actuarial risk - it's not some sort of "judgement".

As the population ages the health insurance premium rises as the system needs more funds to support the risks associated with aging.

It's really straight forward - I really don't see what the fuss is about...it's how insurance works.

•••

Secondary aspects are disincentives by way of pricing and flowing funds to proactive health activities such as athletic facilities. But this should not be tangled with the insurance/risk system.

The case of small planes for instance....the insurer is not trying to prevent me from flying, they are happy for me to pay the insurance premium. At the same time it's an identified risk above the norm so commands a premium. Same goes for motorcyclists. They are not trying to stop you from driving - only to assign a premium to that behaviour.

In the case of speeding - the ticket cost and the premium increase is clearly a disincentive for higher risk behaviour which affects others.

There are some activities you can undertake which makes you uninsurable. I doubt astronauts have life insurance.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Nice explanation I understand, but you never answered why not then tax any and every potentially dangerous activity? Why just junk food, why not computers for potentially making you lazy, or maybe you sit at it wrong and have bad posture and could potentially get arthritis, carpal tunnel, near sighted, sore backs/necks and headaches. While we're at it lets bring back the cd/dvd levy because we're all potential pirates and the music/movie industry is losing money.


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> I guess you don't count protein, fiber, Carbs, Vitamin A & C or iron. Even Weight Watchers allows you to occassionally dip into the Mc Donalds, you just have to watch how much and how often.
> 
> http://uriblyd.beigetower.org/WW/mcd.htm


Not all vitamins are made equal, nor proteins, fibre, and carbs. Even if those vitamins and such are actually good, the value of that is not worth it if you would look at the amount of harzardous substances you're going to consume along with it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You still don't get "identifiable higher risk activity".

ALL things carry some sort of risk - walking down the street for instance. General premiums cover that.

Certain identifiable activities such as smoking carry increased risk in an actuarial sense that warrant an increased premium. 
In Canada individuals are not targetted for increased premiums due to existing health issues as they are in the mess in the US.
Due to genes you may well have an increased heart attack risk but you are not dinged for that.

The program does attempt to target higher risk choices such as smoking and apparently has enough epidemiological evidence to include consumption of junk foods in that risky behaviour category to warrant a premium/deterrant program.

It's only when there is a very high risk/high cost or very broad based risk that singling out an activity occurs.
ie not a lot of people drive motorcycles but the accident rate and cost of recovery is very high.

That junk food consumption is a risk is hardly arguable tho it's not the sole cause it is one that can be dealt with in part.

Just a google on ' junk food epidemiology" gives enough data and concern worldwide to satsify the "increased risk" aspect.

It took a while for smoking to come under the spotlight for a broad based campaign including disincentives, education and premium increases even outside the public health system.

Junk food is on the radar for the same combined effort.
Disincentive....dicsussed here
Voluntary cut back of advertising to children or legislated bans
Encouragement of corporations to market healthy foods as an alternative
Increased exercise activity to address soe of the consequences

it's no one thing that will deal with it on a large scale.....this is one aspect however and fully understandable within insurance premium terms AND public policy goals.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think we should just eliminate insurance premiums on all risky behaviour and let the government pay for the consequences through taxes--and why not, since they've done such a marvelous job of managing our funds already. Perhaps we could also create more disincentives for such high-risk behaviour as sitting around too long watching TV--yes, a television/DVD/Cable TV tax to help offset shortfalls in publicly mismanaged health care budgets.


----------



## james_squared (May 3, 2002)

*Direction of Causality*



JumboJones said:


> Nice explanation I understand, but you never answered why not then tax any and every potentially dangerous activity? Why just junk food, why not computers for potentially making you lazy, or maybe you sit at it wrong and have bad posture and could potentially get arthritis, carpal tunnel, near sighted, sore backs/necks and headaches. While we're at it lets bring back the cd/dvd levy because we're all potential pirates and the music/movie industry is losing money.


I suppose it would have to do with the direction of causality. That is to say, how clear is it that junk food (however it is defined) causes obesity and Type II diabetes? How clear is it that violent video games lead to increased violence in society? How clear is it that smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease? How clear is it that sitting in front of a computer makes you lazier?

Further, the impact that the tax has on consumption really depends on the type of product involved. Is the tax on an elastic or an inelastic good? That is to say, how does the price change impact the quantity demanded? Well, these depend on a few factors: if the good is a luxury or a necessity (a necessity suggests inelastic), the number of close substitutes available (few substitutes suggests inelastic), and the percentage of one's budget spent on the product (a low % suggests inelastic).

So, for junk food, I would suspect that it is an inelastic good for most consumers. Thus, the price increase will have little impact on consumption, but it would have a nice impact on the tax revenues for the government. In _theory_, the government could use these tax revenues for education.

The tax is an attempt to take into consider the negative externalities of eating junk food: the extra costs that society has to pay for obesity and Type II diabetes. And, at least for me, I believe there is a role for government to intervene into the market place and correct market failures.

Or, does the government just tax inelastic goods to raise tax revenues? Such as taxes on cigarettes, gasoline, alcohol, and lottery tickets.

James


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I suppose it would have to do with the direction of causality. That is to say, how clear is it that junk food (however it is defined) causes obesity and Type II diabetes? How clear is it that violent video games lead to increased violence in society? How clear is it that smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease? How clear is it that sitting in front of a computer makes you lazie


an addendum.....how clear is the link and is there a feasible remedy that can be realized - either effective disincentive or revenue producer.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> How does early education stop the parents who drag their kids to McDonald's 3 nights a week?


Kids taste buds and eating habits develop at an early age - 
Going to McDonalds is already taxed as a restaurant. You are changing the context of the tax. 




guytoronto said:


> It doesn't. Education doesn't stop french fries from tasting good to a kid. Education doesn't stop parents from Super-Sizing meals. Education doesn't make healthy food more affordable than junk food. Education doesn't help parents too lazy or too tired to cook. Education doesn't stop junk-food marketing at kids. Are you getting the point? Education isn't going to solve the problem.


Another tax on what you perceive to be the problem is not going to help. 
You are talking about cultural taste (among other aspects) and taxing those will have no impact. Healthier foods are more expensive. Various studies have shown that the less income in a house, the poorer the diet. Quickness, convenience, and taste all play a factor. Also, you can't ignore economic and educational factors. The basic need to satiate is fulfilled by sugar rich, fatty foods. 



guytoronto said:


> Can you make junk-food taste bad to kids? No.
> Can you make junk-food more expensive? Yes.


Exposure to certain foods and your perception of them can be shaped. And yes, you can make it that kids don't overindulge on chips, soda or other foods.
Making junk-food more expensive does not solve anything - how hard is that for you to understand?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> How is it different? Fast food provides no nutrients that is adaquate for maintanence of health, in that sense, they are the same.


Only if we can agree on the definition of junk food.
Fast food is another definition. You can get healthy choices at Fast food restaurants.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Kids taste buds and eating habits develop at an early age


kids don't pay at mcdonald's
parents do
mc'd targets kids w/ their marketing of toys and the screaming kids drag the parents to the restaurant
kids get brainwashed by madison avenue marketing machine,
kids learn that yelling and screaming gets you what you want
parents don't know how to say no
kids learn bad eating habits as mc'd becomes acceptable regular behaviour
result?
childhood diabetes and obesity at epidemic levels

i'm old enough to remember no commercials were allowed on any children's tv programming in canada but then the CRTC members got bought out by the marketing machine


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> parents don't know how to say no


Maybe the desire to always be the 'good guy' is a problem. Some parents seem to want to blame 'someone else'.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Good parenting skills could change what children eat in a generation, but the parents have to be aware of the risk. Educate them, don't tax me yet again.

All you people who advocate taxes must have a bundle. Me, I'm on a fixed income now and I don't need my monthly burger taxed more, thank you.


----------

