I asked Dr. Oliver from the University of Chicago about proposals to tax foods not approved by the dietary dictocrats when I interviewed him for my film. He said economists have told him taxes like this are not effective unless they’re ridiculously steep. For example, you’d have to slap a $4 tax on 12-ounce sodas to cut their consumption in half. Then a black market typically sprouts, and you turn people into criminals.

I may or may not use that specific clip in the film, which you’ll see soon enough, but I thought you’d like to know.

I’d be against taxes like those proposed, even if they were effective. Once they tax the sodas, they’ll be after my sausage patties and eggs next.

Tom Naughton

Hi Tom–

Thanks for the feedback on the economics of food taxation.

Like you, I’m not in favor of the bureaucrat du jour levying taxes on any kind of food.

Cheers–

MRE

Hi Lynne–

They used pounds and ounces of food consumed. The calculations done today were converted from those measurements.

Best–

MRE

I agree that taxation of “bad” foods wouldn’t be a great idea right now given that foods high in the dreaded saturated animal fats would be among the first to be taxed.

Right you are.

MRE

Hi Helen–

We’re all trying.

Best–

MRE

Hi Lyndsey–

If a tax raising the price of sugary beverages makes consumption go down, then a price increase would make consumption go down even more. Since the margins are pretty high on sugar water (it doesn’t cost much to make yet sells for a fair amount) I suspect the manufacturers would lower the price somewhat to compensate for the tax, keeping consumption high, and still make plenty of money.

Best–

MRE

Dr Mike, there’s a certain tension between society and the individual that will always be there — how do we decide taxation–do we tax meat, or sugar, for instance. The decisions have to be made, not avoided.
That’s why democracy is so messy and terrible–and the best thing this world’s got going. It’s up to every individual to participate, because it’s not only the nimrods in charge who do bad and stupid things, it’s the apathetic citizenry who lets them do it. The American public forgets that WE THE PEOPLE are the government, and then sit on their behinds complaining.
I do belong to a couple of groups trying to establish connections and change things–I am putting my money where my mouth is.

I agree that virtually all farming subsidies should be eliminated. And I agree that a democracy (or in our case, a Republic) is the best thing going, and I agree that it is the apathetic citizenry that keeps the losers in office, but I don’t see it changing a whole lot. The sad thing is that a majority of people don’t even vote, may because they figure it doesn’t matter who is in office, things never really change. The political system we have ensures that nothing but ambitious, power-hungry people reach the top levels. We have no statesmen (or women) and haven’t for a long time. Maybe if we made public service a little less lucrative we could get some decent people. Believe me, I understand your frustration.

Best–

MRE

Instead of taxing soda, I wish we’d just remove the subsidies for HFCS.

Education is a start but the dollars would need to meet or exceed those of ag policy and advertising dollars. hmmmm

Hi Connie–

You’re right on the money about the subsidies to HFCS. I meant to mention that in the post when I set out to write it, but had forgotten by the time I got to the end. Thanks for bringing it up.

MRE

I don’t believe in legislating morality. I think Prohibition was one of the stupidest things this country ever engaged in. A certain number of politicians and prominent citizens thought the American public would be such sheep, that they would just obey the new law, and boy were they ever surprised. I think people should be able to engage in whatever behaviors they wish, but the manufacturers, facilitators, and participants of any risky behaviors should not expect others to take up the costs. Rather they should pay at the front end with a tax or licensing and handling fees.

The sales of all sugared drinks, no matter whether sodas, waters, or juices, for example, would be taxed to handle the rise in health costs we all know they already incur. An incentive to reduce the harm in some corporation’s product would be that a reduction in high risk content, whether sugar or something else, would result in a reduction in tax.

This gives everyone the choice–the corporation can modify the product to modify the tax, and the individual can decide how often to engage in the product or behavior.

Those who never engage in such products would not have to pay at the back end with any other kind of tax or bond. Users pay at the front end, nonusers don’t pay at all.

Hi LCforevah–

I agree with you 100 percent that those who engage in risky behaviors should pay for them in advance so that the rest of us don’t have to pay for them later…except for one little thing. Who is going to decide what risky activities are? If we left it up to the nimrods in charge today, there would be a tax on beef, pork, cheese, and any other food that contained saturated fat. Margarine and Crisco would have gotten a free ride up until just recently. I would be afraid to let the bozos who ‘govern’ us make the call as to what is a danger to me. And there’s the rub. If we had enlightened and intelligent leadership it might be a different story, but I would be afraid to put any such decisions into the hands of the dolts in charge right now (and I don’t mean just the Republicans–I mean any and all politicians of almost any stripe).

The point of my post was that a tax on soft-drinks, based on an historical precedent, was unlikely to have the desired effect, i.e., the reduction of soft drink consumption.

Thanks for writing. I always enjoy hearing from a fellow Libertarian.

MRE