Could a sin tax make people eat healthier?

Educate, do not force.
Let people make up their minds.

Has alcohol & tobacco tax stopped people from drinking and smoking???
This kind of thing is infuriating. Simply a method of more taxes to spend out of control………….

Your question is self-answering. Yes it could, simply because when you tax something you have less of it.
The real question ought to be “Should there be a sin tax to make people eat healthier?” The answer to that is: Where in the Constitution is anything said about government’s ability to meddle in citizen’s eating habits? The nanny state is totally out of control.

Just as raising the price of cigarrettes did not stop people from smoking, increasing the cost of unhealthy food will not convince people to change their eating habits. Good tasting, inexpensive healthy foods and education are needed to change people’s eating habits.

Did raising tobacco tax slow down smokers, did alcohol tax or the high price charged at a bar slow down drinkers.

Do you want the goverment involved in your food selections? We must educate the people. We do not provide a curriculum for the 21 century. It is stuck in the 18th century. Things that were learned in the family unit are not taught there and now should be picked up in our schools.

Is this the Qing Dynasty or the USA; a country of individuals?

While I don’t think it will change behavior, I wouldn’t mind taking that tax money and putting it toward health education and health care.

I think that the problem would be - “Who is the expert? How do they determine what is healthy? Do they take into account different ethnic groups and different lifestyles? “

People have not stopped drinking alcohol or stopped smoking.

Let’s call it what it is, a tax increase that can be swallowed by the right.

People are always on the move and fast food is a service that people will use regardless of the cost. A tax will generate money for the goverment but do nothing for the health of the people eating the food.
Getting the food providers to come up with healther options seems to me to be part of the solution.
If people eat less because of a sin tax then won’t that have a negitive effect on food providers bottom line. I see no gain anywhere for a sin tax.

Would a “meanness tax” make people nicer? Maybe.
The answer to the eating question is maybe - it will work for some just as education on health topics works for some. It would be another approach which added to those already in place might make an additional impact.

Anyone who thinks that the sin tax will change behavior should have their motives examined. Unless the tax reaches a pain threshold that registers with the eater, this is nothing more than an opportunistic venture by states whose tax revenues are below expendatures. The states will not kill the revenue source by raising the tax to take the cost of unhealthy food to intolerable levels. Sin taxes have never changed behavior, they’ve only created a new class of criminal. Instead, the sin tax should be a source of funds for a program of education and rehabilitation of the eating public (if you can keep the states or feds from stealing it for other purposes, ala the social security funds raiding).

It is just another way of taking away our freedom and giving the politicians more money to squander.

If prices were a significant factor in food purchases in this country, then junk food would already be rare. People in economic distress eat beans and rice, not donuts and chips with soda pop. Higher taxes on “unhealthy” foods will fail to achieve any intended purpose except for turning freedom into government control.

Our government thinks Taxing is the solution to everything. Bull. STOP THE TAXES. We pay close to 40% of our pay on taxes as it is.

You have got to be kidding me! This must be coming from Congress as part of the proposed Government Health Care Bill. I suppose the next sin tax will be on sex in order to reduce the U.S. population.

Jim S. took the words right out of my mouth. I will add, however, that human beings naturally seek out calorie-dense foods with high levels of fat, sugar, and salt. This is due to evolutionary factors that favored the survival of those with such cravings. The problem arises when we can get too much of them, something that was not the case a million years ago. Unfortunately, we cannot disable our craving for them; thus, what benefited our species in the jungle is killing us now.

I voted no, because that is NOT how people think when they want to eat! The decision part of the brain of what and how much to eat is “primal”, it is related to the self preservation instincts, and it is an emotional reaction which is perfromed way back and deep in the amygdala region of the brain. This is different than the part that performs the executive functions such as self-control, planning, reasoning, and abstract thinking. I.e. the frontal lobes.
It would be a good idea for the state officials to get some advice from neuroscience and/or behavior psychologist expert. Then there is a chance they can get it right of what and how to implement.

Do you suppose if we taxed all crime it would stop?

Doh!

Incentives do work, up to a point, but might be counterproductive. Haven’t you ever heard the old saying, “survival of the fattest”?

Just another ploy by left wing control freak politicians, who can’t control government spending or their own thirst for power, to get more of our hard earned money via taxes.

I’m usually not an alarmist, but every time I hear a radio commercial promoting these taxes, I think “Big Brother is Watching”. Once it starts, watch out. What’s next on the agenda, butter, beef over x% fat content, cookies, or does it just depend on which industries will have the most dollars to lobby with?

I responded “no”, if one excepts the premise that such a left-wing, nanny-state, authoritarian action is at all justified. It is NOT. The government has no business getting into such things, but we already have seen it and it is a dangerous trend.
I do recall one comment indicating that if you tax an activity , you will get less of it. That is true, and I agree. What we really must remember is that the true goal is not healthier people; it’s all about CONTROL over every aspect of your life.

First it was gas, then cigarettes, then beer. People said: Of well it’s only those things that are bad for you. Guess what, according to these Gov’t. people who can’t raise enough taxes…….everything is bad for you, since most things have sugar. Why not tax cookies, cake, ice cream, & eventually everything two or three times until our incomes equal our taxation.

How about cutting the size of government?

My answer of NO was not in response to your question. It was in response to the question of if the government SHOULD tax food. Not only NO, but HELL NO! Get the damn Nanny State out of our lives.

Regardless of what they say it is all about generating more tax revenue. Sugars and fat are in almost all foods we eat. What a source of tax revenue to tap into. “Do we really think they care about us eating fewer sweets”. Mark

I’m sick of the sector of the population who think they need to take control for everyone else’s benefit. “If they don’t take care of themselves then I guess I/we will.” Is this not on the verge of true communist ideals? Everything for the state, everyone the same. NO NO NO NO. No to the ACLU, No to PETA, NO to anyone who wishes to control me for any reason. If I want to eat till I die, it’s my decision.
By the way, don’t make me wear a helmet when I’m driving my car either!

I think it is a step in the right direction. This nation is eating itself to death as heart disease is a top killer as is diabetes. People who argue it is an individual choice need to step back and access the fact that being unheathly costs everyone as health care costs spiral out of control partly from bad habits. I agree the goverment is not the best at spending money but honestly neither is the general public. Take the money collected from such a tax and spend it on something worthwhile and I am all for it.

Coffee is dangerous, Coffee is good; Bacon, wheat bran, oat flour, fish oil, saccharine, chinese food, red wine, ad infinitum. There are an infinite array of studies showing that this or that food is healthy/no, unhealthy. Is that a rational tax basis?

It is another source of revenue for those who value their power over everyone else’s liberty. “The power to tax is the power to destroy” –John Marshall. Read “Atlas Shrugged” for more examples of how government creates crony arrangements where favored (i.e. major campaign contributors) players have a hand in the regulations and taxes that can be manipulated to their advantage and their competitors disadvantage.
Let the tax&spendocrats figure out how to make good on all the present entitlements they’ve promised before we consent to any more government control over any other aspect of our lives.

I think this is just rediculous. The definition of healthy is far to complex. Certain items would be easy, but there would be a vast grey zone that would be nothing but political trouble. My grandfather is 93 and lived off lard for most of his life. He is in better health then most 65 year olds. So the health world has a lot to learn yet about what is and is not healthy. People need to use common sense. If the government wants to help then focus on reducing sugar. Give incentives to the companies that make the products. Allow insurers to charge more based on fatness. That way if I want to be fat and am rich enough to afford it.. so be it.

Boy, you people ask some of the most inappropriate questions - what do sin taxes on junk food have to do with NASA? Is “Tang” considered a junk food now?

NO, no, no! Can you say, “Discrimination?” Sin taxes simply punish a minority to reduce the cost of government on the majority. Not American at all! Another example of “majority rule” democracy = BAD; constitutional republic (based on Rule-of-Law) = GOOD. It is the Rule of Law that protects minorities from the injustices (such as sin taxes) of a majority.

“Discrimination” used to be a dirty word in this country until holier-than-thou, social engineering morons decided they know how to live everybody else’s lives better than their own. They are typically hypocrites unsuccessfully trying to justify their own pitiful, academic existence. Their most valuable contribution to society would be self-help suicide videos.

As always, the phrasing of the question determines the response, so as usual, we don’t get an informed survey.

Your “sin tax” on tobacco reduced smoking little, if at all. But, if our politicians dealt honestly with us, the extra revenue could offset the tremendous cost of tobacco to our health care system (having just had two parents in a nursing home full of ex-smokers and even continuing smokers, all on Medicaid, has brought this home forcefully to me).

Well-informed taxes on alcohol could help offset its tremendous cost to our society. Taxes on artificial chemicals in foods known to be unhealthy could offset their cost. Much of this is well-documented, and a little intelligent effort to make the cost of these behaviors and additives pay for themselves could make all our lives easier. Why should I, who have never smoked, have to pay for the 50-year-old in a wheelchair with his attached oxygen bottle’s valve shut so he can suck on his cigarette?

And, yes, if it happens to also reduce irresponsible behavior, good! But I agree with others that that’s not a good basis for these taxes.

Sin Tax? Get real! The sinning is performed by the taxer, not the taxee.

“The U.S. has no distinct criminal class–save Congress”

–Mark Twain–

We have a chance to fix the source of the problems Nov. 2010.

Throw the bums out!

This is more of another hidden tax to increase government revenues than a helth initiative. Higher cigarette taxes have not stopped smokers and they won’t limit junk food.
A related issue is the possibility of regulating the amount of sodium in prepared foods. Producers are being given the opportunity to limit sodium voluntarily, then regulations will be applied to force reduction of sodium. The average American consumes more than double the amount of sodium recommended leading to high blood pressure and strokes. Similar regulations to reduce junk like hydrogenated oils and high fructose corn syrup common in junk food would be more effective than taxation.

The number of responses is not surprising. Someone wants to increase government income by getting at your diet, interfering at a most personal level in your life. What will be done with this money - it will go into the general budget, not targeted to improving snack foods or education about nutrition. It is another indication of the many small steps the government takes to get at you money. Income tax did not start at the levels it at today, sin taxes were on alcohol and cigarettes, but both are income sources that can be slowly expanded by generations of politicians. The cliche ‘ No matter what they talk about it is about money’ is as true today as ever.

Remember during the breakup of the Soviet Union, a couple of exchange students returning home where asked “What surprised you most about your stay in the US”. The answer “We thought you would be more free”.

The real question is, what does freedom mean to you?

If you want to tax the overweight, tax them directly. Some people can eat all of the sugar and fat they can find and are still healthier than average. Taxing fat and sugar is yet another example of penalizing the good to try and stop the bad.
I agree with educating the public.

No government on earth has ever been able to resist the urge to over-tax and over-control its citizens. There is a reason that the story of Robin Hood’s escapades to thwart the evil Sheriff of Nottingham resonates with people worldwide. Throughout history, wrongful governmental burden is one of the most consistent features of human experience. Only two things have ever successfully stood against that inexorable urge to power: 1. A written Constitution that the government actually adhered to, or failing that positive method, 2. A popular uprising - commonly referred to as a revolution - to overthrow the regime in power, which inevitably happens when the people come to the conclusion that it is the only recourse left to them. The only way to avoid #2 is to adhere to #1. Right now our various levels of government are blithely ignoring #1, to all of our peril. Their proposal for new “sin taxes” against citizens’ dietary choices is just one more in a galaxy of abuses, stoking the fires that power the choice behind Door #2.

It is time that the government take an example from private business. They must learn that a carrot works much better than a stick. Create an incentive to reduce fat and sugar instead of punishment.

Behavior modification is possible. But just how effective and exactly what is the goal? What behaviors should the government be modifying? I think the government has already overstepped that boundary and I fear this is an example of more to come. How far will the government go? Perhaps the most effective way to improve overall health is to execute anyone who is sick. Maybe they will not go that far.

What constitutes a “sin” not only changes as time passes but also has (or has no) meaning within a cultural context. Do I have to remind you that 100 years ago a terrible “sin” then is now considered healthy in moderation? Do I have to show you that traveling 100 miles and crossing a boarder that a horrible “sinner” is now a “saint”? Heaven save me from the evangelist who comes to my door or the current government who wants to save me from the “sin” dejure.

Splendid article . Will definitely copy it to my blog.Thanks.

NO! It would be unconstitutional to levy a “sin tax” to force people to eat healthier. Just like it is unconstitutional to force people to buy health insurance. If you want a authoritarian government, then you can have it. But under our constitutional Democratic Republic, you simply can’t do it.

I wish people would just mind their own business! Where in any constitution, State or Federal, does it say the government should have any jurisdiction over the diet of the citizens. When are these nannies going to pay attention to themselves? I’m tired of them noseing into my affairs!

A similar justification for taxes on alcoholic beverages has been made. The facts do not demonstrate any significant change in alcohol use as a result of that tax policy. It would seem that controling or attempting to control human behavior is a process that while endlessly attempted seldom succeeds.

I would suggest taxing the corporations that create the unhealthy food. They could produce healthier food, it’s just easier (i.e. more profitable) to market stuff that’s cheap to make in great quantities and cheap to store. If they could be taxed on the bad, and get tax credits for the good, maybe we’d see less obesity, heart attacks, diabetes, and cancer.

This is just another way for the goverment to tax people!

So-called sin taxes, such as the ones on cigarettes, do absolutely nothing for the health of the one being taxed. They are merely revenue machines and nothing else. The people must not believe the political technobabble that is being shown on TV; particularly in the New York area.
Furthermore, let’s say that 50% of the people abstained from the sodas. Do you think the government would say “we did a good job”? Of course not; an accountant would say that the tax must be increased to realize the same revenue that had been predicted and figured into the budget!

As someone who has lost weight and never felt better than when I am on a low carb/high protien (and yes high fat) diet. Imagine if I were making the decision for the nation, taxing everything with sugar, flour & starches, and making meats, fish, nuts the cheapest food. They don’t know what works for me, any more than I know what works for you.

Taxing is never the answer, not for food, medicine, or carbon. Who said tax the companies? Companies just raise their prices, taxing you.

You need to know that all taxes need to be 100% voluntary if the taxer is to be happy. We need to pay attention to the equal voice of others. We need to pay attention to our subconscious.

What is needed are better marketplace offerings–healthier beverages to replace carbonated, corn syrup-heavy soft drinks, along with veggie-rich fast-food meals cooked without oil. Perhaps a new look at food preservation and preparation technologies would also be appropriate. AND TAKE THE SODA POP AND SNACK MACHINES OUT OF THE SCHOOLS!

I read a few topics. I respect your work and added blog to favorites.

Thank you! You often write very interesting articles. You improved my mood.

lengthy and in depth article but full of useful information