One issue on the agenda is the potential for national health insurance in America. Many have asked how we could fund this, and I stated that it would in fact require some sort of rise in taxes (though people wouldn't be spending their money on private health insurance, so it's quid quo pro). Do you think it would make sense to tax foods based upon their saturated fat, sodium, and high fructose corn syrup content to help pay for national health insurance?

I'd imagine this proposal would be unpopular among the general population, given that food is already expensive... but I noticed that there are a lot of libertarians here, and I know that they generally do not like direct taxes. I think a compromise would be to have some combination of progressive income tax funding and junkfood tax funding (which would be somewhat regressive, but then it would encourage people to buy healthier food).

So we tax gasoline to repair our roads. We tax cigarettes (and sue their manufacturers) to pay for the health costs they end up costing us. So why not unhealthy food?

I heard that Sweden does something like that.
Anybody know about it?

The smokers and obese are less of a burden on the health care system than non-smokers and non-obese. The reason smokers get taxed to support health care is because it is politically acceptable to pick on them.

Smokers and the obese cheaper to care for, study shows - International Herald Tribune

This is Nanny State bs. Its an abhorrent idea and should be thrown away. When the government starts telling me what and when to eat is when I start fighting back.

There are better ways of doing things then taking all the freedom of life away from people by sin taxing them to death. No one should be telling another how to live so long as they aren't hurting anyone but themselves it is none of your bloody business.

If something is truely bad for you, ban it. Making a profit off of your citizens' poor decisions that your actually believe is a cause for poor health or increased death rates is sick and wrong. You are abdicating the use of it as long as you get a little action on the side.

__________________
I am more concerned with the intellectual environment

'Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.'

~ Thomas Jefferson

64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

Who gets to decide what is bad for me?

Yea, so you are going to enforce moderation one everyone then? Moderation seems to be the only thing that you can say is truly healthy for you. You can make yourself sick with the most basic of needs if overdone (food being a prime example), and whose to decide what is what for whom. . .Your thoughts on this topic does your sig great injustice lol.

Banning it would be pretty unrealistic. We see that banning drugs has not solved the problems associated with them, so I highly doubt it would help with unhealthy foods.

I didn't start the thread being totally sold on the idea of sin taxes, but it does seem like a more non-coercive way of encouraging healthy behavior, and helping to pay for what they may cost the rest of us.

That study surprises me a little bit and is the best argument I've seen against such a sin tax. We tax gasoline because the people who burn more generally put more strain on the road, but maybe the same principles do not apply to healthcare. Considering that the study uses a model, and not a more expensive and more convincing longitudinal study of actual patients, I am not thoroughly convinced. The model could be missing variables necessary for the simulation to work properly. Also aside from quality-of-life considerations, the study probably does not measure productivity of workers and other hard-to-define-or-know variables.

I think as long as the tax isn't too high it wouldn't be very coercive. Many libertarians believe we should legalize drugs and tax them to pay for what they cost society. The two reasons I can see for such sin taxes include encouraging (but not forcing) positive behavior, and paying for extra money they may cost us. As pointed out above, only the first reason may be valid for bad food and cigarettes, so I am a little less sure about such a sin tax now.

You missed the point. If government really believes that smoking is bad for you, so bad that it will kill you and those around you, they should ban it. The justification for the sin tax is a good enough justification for the ban. Instead they are doing what they can to profit from its citizens' vices. I am not advocating a ban of any type. Just asking if they are looking out for your health or their power base?

__________________
I am more concerned with the intellectual environment

'Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.'

~ Thomas Jefferson

64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

Down here in the South we refer to those taxes as "sin" taxes. Alabama taxes cigarettes, alcohol, and a number of other vices. I do not know how much they bring in. A couple of years ago they raised the taxes again to fund some pet projects.