In countries with socialized medicine, is a "fat tax" fair?

RockinInCanada · July 2007

onelongsong wrote:

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

americans have freedoms. we have the right to do with our bodies as we choose. the government cannot protect us from ourselves. right or wrong; that's how it is. many states don't tax food at all. but it still comes down to: "live in my house and live by my rules". when you invite government into your personal life; you give them the right to dictate the rules concerning what they are paying for. maybe it hasn't been put in those words yet; but legally; that's what it comes down to.

Coming from a civilian of a country where it has been proven illegal wire-taps have occured without no punishment to those that broke the law...taxing food would be my smallest concern at the end of the day....sorry friend but the government is already in your house (or easily can be)...something trivial as a food tax would not concern me compared to what else they have been doing...and doing it to no opposition.

chopitdown · July 2007

polaris wrote:

absolutely ... i know there are many who hate gov't interference and regulations ... but if we're gonna make people accountable - we should also make corporations and businesses as well ...

why spend so much money on cancer treatment drugs and nothing on removing carcinogens and toxins in the environment or getting people to eat healthier ...

I agree with you, businesses and corporations should be held more accountable. There are already a lot of oversight committees, but i think we can do better at using the oversight committees. And we should better our environment to help promote the changes.

know1 · July 2007

chopitdown wrote:

I agree with you, businesses and corporations should be held more accountable. There are already a lot of oversight committees, but i think we can do better at using the oversight committees. And we should better our environment to help promote the changes.

We should hold them accountable by spending or not spending our money with them.

chopitdown · July 2007

know1 wrote:

We should hold them accountable by spending or not spending our money with them.

that is one way, i agree.

onelongsong · July 2007

chopitdown wrote:

I agree with you, businesses and corporations should be held more accountable. There are already a lot of oversight committees, but i think we can do better at using the oversight committees. And we should better our environment to help promote the changes.

the ironic thing is that it's ok to feed landfill waste to cattle which is full of carcinogens and that's ok. but once again; you can't put too many regulations on businesses. businesses employ people. when you make it hard to do business; it's not worth the effort. for example; years back there was a ruling that if management is offered insurance; everyone has to be. since this only applied to full time employees; we downsized 90% of employees to part time and hired more part time employees. this is only one example but the bottom line is; without business; the tax obligation falls on the people.

CaterinaA · July 2007

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

Why the hell not, in Canada there are huge taxes on cigarettes...so I guess I would not mind a "fast-food" type tax. My only logic is that people have a choice to smoke and therefore accept the burden of the smoking tax...so if we can choose another proven proven poor lifestyle decision it makes sense.

Plus it would not lead to increase of everyone's taxes which is a good thing.

The idea is not so weird, in economic terms it's a common pratice of government. Usually goods that are perceived to be "harmful", have high taxes i.e, cigarettes and alcohol. The thing with such taxes is how effective they really are. For instance, cigarettes' demand is pretty much inelastic: smokers don't reduce their consumption when cigs become more expensive. If a person has tight budget he/she might switch to a cheaper brand, but rarely a higher price will be a deterrent (sp?). Same goes for alcohol. From what I've learned, in the US, Canada and Europe, the most successful tool has been banning smoking in public areas and such. Also prevention campaigns have succeeded.

Anyways, it is very likely that fatty food is less addictive (except for chocolate, of course) than cigarettes so it could work. However, it must be taken into account that these kind of taxes tend to have a bigger impact on the poor, since healthier/organic food is usually more expensive.

One more thing to consider is the use of such tax collection, imho it should be earkmarked and poured into the healthcare system.

Whether it's fair or not, I guess it depends on ones conception of social justice and how pro or anti government one is...

Just my 2cts
Caterina

Jeanie · July 2007

Ok so in a country with socialized medicine if we say it's ok to apply a fat tax would this also mean that the government could decide what treatment you would have for other medical conditions?

For instance what if they decided that you must have particular tests for your condition? That in order to be treated you submit to the tests? Or if they decided that they would fund one kind of medication but not another would this be ok? Or what if they decided that because they were footing the bill that you must give up all rights to your DNA?

Because I'm not seeing how allowing this fat tax wouldn't eventually lead to all these other problems when the government is looking for a buck.

More effective at continuing the declining rate of smokers in this country has been the education programs and the fact that smoking is pretty much banned in any indoor area except for private homes.

Ahnimus · July 2007

Some of us could benefit from a stupid tax.

Jeanie · July 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Some of us could benefit from a stupid tax.

is that directed at anyone in particular?

In countries with socialized medicine, is a "fat tax" fair?

Comments

Categories