Can I have a diet coke with that, please? Thanks!

[telemann.livejournal.com]

malasadas had a great post recently about making good food choices, especially when consumers have informed choices. In the spirit of that post, I was amused when I saw this today (via the "The Consumerist") KFC's "Double Down": it's bacon and cheese sandwiched between two pieces of fried chicken. The "Original Recipe" sandwich will set you back about 540 calories, 32g of fat and 1380mg of sodium. The not-as-bad-for-you Grilled Double Down totals 460 calories, 23g of fat and 1430mg of sodium. This doesn't even look appealing to me. Luckily here in New York City, restaurants are required to post nutritional information like this to give us some informed choices. But what if consumers insist on making the wrong choice even with all the information? New York City is considering a "bad food tax," and when you see fare like this, you have to wonder if heavy taxation would have an impact. Such taxation reduced cigarette consumption (a carton of cigarettes by law can not be lower than 72.00 here in New York). True, the case can be made taxation like this is rather ineffective because people order cigarettes online, or just buy them in other states, but with a lot of hungry tourists and citizens, it's unlikely everyone is just going to leave, and eat in New Jersey.

Comments

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'I have no principled objection to bad food taxes. If we're going to socialize the costs of providing and insuring health care (and I think we should) then for better or worse the taxpayers do have a right to decide what care we're willing to pay for and what risks we're willing to pay to cover. '

Likewise, we need to do something to criminalize poor sexual practices. STDs cause hundreds of millions of dollars a year in healthcare costs, if we're going to socialize healthcare we need to limit deviant sexual behavior which tends to increase the transmission on sexual diseases. This should include outlawing, homosexuality and sodomy as well as featuring high taxes on out-of-wedlock promiscuity.

People have to understand that they don't have the freedom to make bad choices when I have to pay for them.

[dzlk.livejournal.com]

People have to understand that they don't have the freedom to make bad choices when [others] have to pay for them.

Correct. They don't.

Not that they ever had it anyway, given that the "freedom" to purchase a food item is already contingent on someone else's willingness and ability to produce and sell it. Which is already contingent on someone's willingness and ability to produce and sell the necessary inputs, and the inputs to the inputs. And the means of distribution. And on everything else on which the possibility of realizing the choice depends. Most of which is already well beyond the individual's control.

As with all "choice". No exceptions. I have no time for the utopian fantasy that this will ever not be the case.

And I'm sure you're perfectly capable of understanding why assessing a tax that isn't likely to put a behavior out of reach of a person of average means isn't strictly analogous to criminalizing the behavior altogether, but for the moment that's beside the point.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'And I'm sure you're perfectly capable of understanding why assessing a tax that isn't likely to put a behavior out of reach of a person of average means isn't strictly analogous to criminalizing the behavior altogether, but for the moment that's beside the point.'

Poll taxes don't stop people from voting but it may keep stupid people from doing so. Ergo... it's a good idea.

[dzlk.livejournal.com]

Poll taxes don't stop people from voting but it may keep stupid people from doing so. Ergo... it's a good idea.

This is exactly the tangent I didn't want to get onto: I already made it clear that I'm opposed to taxation for the purpose of forcing changes in behavior. I won't bother to restate that because what most likely happens then is that you point out that the tax I don't oppose will have that effect all the same, and then presumably my head is supposed to asplode.

It won't, sorry. Of course a "bad food" tax will inevitably put some foods beyond the means of those that can't afford the new tax. I don't care. Being poor already severely limits freedom of choice — except in the purely formal sense to which my entire political philosophy is vehemently indifferent.

(And if your argument is that it'll force changes of behavior for everyone regardless of income then it's even more trivial. Of course it will, any tax will. But so will any non-trivial change of any economic variable at all for any reason at all. You can't deprive a person of a "freedom" they never had to begin with.)

If you want to argue with someone who likes to think taxation isn't underwritten by the point of a gun, you'll have to go elsewhere. From my perspective the burden of proof is on you to show that there's such a thing, in this world and not the ideal realm of thought experiment, as an economic form that isn't.