- Vote 'NO!' to Government Regulation of Privacy at The Economist
- FCC Stalls on Internet Regulation; Asks for More Comments
- Why was the Volcker Commission Constrained by Obama’s Tax Pledge, but not the Simpson-Bowles?
- Daily Media Spotlight September 2, 2010
- Harry Reid Looks to Resurrect RES During Lame-Duck
- Calculating the Cost of Government (CFA Site »)
Thursday, September 2, 2010
- Daily Media Spotlight September 1, 2010
-
Obama Tax Commission Report:
Baby Step Toward IRS Tax Preparation - Dina Titus Launches False Attack Ad on Joe Heck and the Taxpayer Protection Pledge
- Indiana LaunchesTransparency Website (CFA Site »)
- Rally for Jobs Kicks Off Today in Texas
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
- Daily Media Spotlight August 31, 2010
- Let us All Join in on the NOT so “Green Cause”
- California Bag Ban Bill Up for Vote Today
- Norquist to Gov. Pat Quinn: Pick a Flawed Income Tax Hike and Stick With It
- Phil Moffett Signs Taxpayer Protection Pledge in Kentucky Gubernatorial Race
- New Mexico Sets Trends in Transparency Websites (CFA Site »)
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
- Robert Gibbs’s Fuzzy Tax Hike Math
- Daily Media Spotlight August 30, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
- 2011 Could Be Ugly for Nevada Taxpayers
- Lame Duck Governor Ed Rendell Not Going Gently Into That Good Night – New Call for Higher Taxes
- Happy Cost of Government Day, California
- Bay Staters Spent 239 Days Paying for Government Burdens in 2010 (CFA Site »)
- Washington Welcomes Cost of Government Day (CFA Site »)
Friday, August 27, 2010
- Spill Commission Should Lift Moratorium Which Has Cost Gulf Residents 12,000 Jobs and $2.1 Billion
- Daily Media Spotlight August 26, 2010
- Why is Dan Onorato Knowingly Misleading Pennsylvania Voters?
- Unions plan on spending big this election cycle
- Utah Tobacco Sellers Feeling the Impact of Tax Hikes
Thursday, August 26, 2010
- Daily Media Spotlight August 25, 2010
- WI Democrats Launch “Blatantly False” Attack on Sean Duffy
- Unions plan on spending big this election cycle (AWF Site »)
- Philly's New Blog Tax May Foreshadow Other eTaxes
- BNA: For 14 States, Existing Tax Code Leaves Room for Etax (Stop eTaxes Site »)
- Philly's $300 Blogger Tax (Stop eTaxes Site »)
- Cost of Government Day Arrives in the Commonwealth
- Pennsylvania Finally Celebrates Cost of Government Day
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
- California Budget Proposal Advocates eTax (Stop eTaxes Site »)
- Daily Media Spotlight August 24, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
- Daily Media Spotlight August 23, 2010
- Government Workers' Pensions are Underfunded by $3 Trillion
Monday, August 23, 2010
- Fourteen Ways to Reduce Government Spending
- FCC Report on Broadband Performance: A Scare Tactic
- Sen. Al Franken Doesn’t Understand Wireless Networks...or the First Amendment
Friday, August 20, 2010
- Daily Media Spotlight August 19, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Our Fat Government:
Why Fat Taxes Are a Bad Idea
From Benjamin Pacini on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 5:26 PM
Fat taxers. Think Rudy Ruiz, Mika Brzezinski from Morning Joe, and most latte liberals. Talk to them for a moment, and they’ll try to convince you that a fat tax will transform Americans from 'triple-decker-McFat-with-cheese' eaters, to marathon-running, tofu-eating, soy-milk drinking health nuts.
The basic fat tax idea is this: we levy a tax on fatty foods (burgers, french fries, ice cream etc.). People buy less of them. Then, we take the tax revenue, and spend it on wellness training. By simultaneously raising the price of fatty foods and increasing wellness training, citizens become lean, mean, fat-burnin’ machines.
Call me a skeptic, but I don’t buy it.
Why? Because I like burgers. A lot. Particularly with pastrami. And no $.20 tax would stop me.
In fact, I love them so much that I wouldn’t even notice a $.20 or $.30 tax. Would you? If I did, I would probably grumble, and then order the same triple-decker-pastrami-with-extra-cheese-large-fries-and-a-milkshake (and a Diet Coke) that I always do.
In economics language, demand is more inelastic than that. Of course, this problem is solved by making the tax bigger—like $4 or $5. Americans might actually change their eating habits then. But they’d also get real mad.
Some of us think that fighting the wrath of angry burger-munchin’ protesters (not to mention the ire of suppliers and their attendant lobbies) isn’t the wisest way to spend our political capital.
More importantly, if we eliminated burgers from the American diet, would people be healthier? If we overcame the political obstacles, and were able to enforce a massive tax on fatty foods, would that really translate into regular exercise and other healthy habits? Doubtful.
Philosophically speaking, there are many who don’t like fat taxes because it isn’t the purpose of government to save us from ourselves. If people decide to eat too many hamburgers, or smoke, or make foolish decisions, many feel that it is their right to make bad decisions—so long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others.
All of this suggests that fat taxes would do little good, and maybe some bad. But there is (pardon the pun) a bigger issue here. The reason why conservatives don’t like fat taxes is because they feel like Americans aren’t the only ones that need to tighten the belt.
Cutting the fat is just as important for the government as it is for its citizens. The federal government (leaving out state and local spending) is currently eating 28.1% of GDP per year—that’s up 51.6% from 10 years ago. Meanwhile, taxes have been about stable—roughly 18% of GDP—for the better part of the last 50 years. Compared to the past, we are overspending, not undertaxing.
It should be noted that the proponents of fat taxes aren’t talking about tax reform—they’re talking about tax expansion. Sometimes people say that fat taxes are economically more efficient than other taxes—which is fine, but fat-taxers are talking about adding taxes, not substituting them. Some of the people who encourage fat taxes do so because they want a better country; politicians are doing so because they need to finance their ridiculous spending projects, like bailouts, Fannie Mae, and the ‘repopulate-the-fluffy-bunny-initiative.’
Then there is the question of “how-to-not-get-fat-classes” or “wellness training.” With a staggering public debt, the last thing we need is one more good idea of how to spend taxpayer money. The real lesson from ACORN is that the government isn’t good at running programs, monitoring expenditures, or maintaining control over taxpayer funds.
The good news is that there are common sense ways to make people healthier that don’t grow government. For instance, unhealthy food is much cheaper than healthy food due to wasteful subsidies to sugar and corn producers; government interference has made things worse, not better. Eliminating these subsidies would save the country billions of dollars a year, would help struggling 3rd world economies (and their starving citizens) and would also end the market distortion that makes unhealthy food so much cheaper than healthy food.
In the end, there’s no way to eat your way out of obesity. And there is no way to tax your way into into a healthier country.














Comments
This is the same logic as taxing cigarettes. The idea is to tax cigarettes and then use the revenue from the tax to help pay for health care programs. This deters some from smoking, though not many, however, lets assume that it does what it is supposed to and deters people from smoking. Those people are now not paying the taxes for the new programs that were created. Now there is less money going to the new programs, but like all gov programs, the budget stays the same (or goes up). So now you have an underfunded program and politicians and other group complaining that it needs more money, so then they raise taxes someplace else. Exactly what fat taxes will do, create new gov programs that we don't need and can't afford.
>> TCH Wednesday, October 28, 2009 9:35 AM Report Comment
“A government big enough to supply you with everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.... The course of history shows that as the government grows, liberty decreases.” Thomas Jefferson
>> R. J. Thursday, October 29, 2009 12:22 PM Report Comment
I agree with the comment above. I think the proposal of fat taxes is evidence of a larger issue--thinking that government can (and should--ack!) solve all of our problems. The second to last comment of the article shows us that government is, in fact, the problem. Yet we seem to be heading toward a bigger and bigger government by the hour. I want a government to provide me with public services and to protect me from those who would infringe upon my rights. I don't want a government to protect me from my own eating habits. You can't change culture by simple legislation; it's more deeply ingrained than that.
>> Sabrina Friday, October 30, 2009 12:57 AM Report Comment