As James Queally of the Stanton Island Advance phrased it, New Yorkers "stoutly oppose" the Phat Phee, an 18% tax on sugary soda drinks. NY1 news reports that 60% are against the tax to 37% in favor.
Elizabeth Benjamin of The Doctor Is In (Cyberspace) reports that State Health Commissioner Richard Daines has stoutly supported the phat phee despite thin support, noting that the phee is more of a health policy than a phee. Benjamin reports that the Phat Phee,
according to Daines, is to disincentivize sugary drinks, which research shows are the top culprit in the childhood obesity epidemic, and encourage people to return to 1970s-era levels of consumption of other, less fattening beverages like milk and water. The side benefits, according to Daines, include the fact that cutting down on soda saves money for consumers and whittling the state's collective waistline could save money for taxpayers in the form of fewer obesity-related health problems that need to be treated - particularly for Medicaid recipients.
Yikes! Let the state pay for a little health care for the poor and they will then want to control your diet. I would have preferred the measure as a simple money raising tax. Apparently, the goal of the state is to prolong life, decrease liberty, and allow the pursuit of happiness only if it is safe. I hope Health Commissioner does not learn about motorcycles, skiing, or sky diving. Imagine what would happen if we taxed every food or activity that was less healthy than average. I like Assemblyman Felix Ortiz's proposal better. Let's just tax phat people.
While New Yorkers got the Phat Pee right, they got the millionaire tax wrong, with 84% supporting the tax and 13% opposing. If someone had suggested a tax on Jews or Blacks, we would properly be offended, but tax the rich simply because they are rich and the majority support the tax.
"Ah ha," you say, "you cannot help being a Jew or Black," and you are right. For most it is a genetic or social characteristic given at birth by our parents. But for most, being rich is better than a genetic trait, it is a virtue. Most of the rich earn their wealth by hard work and diligence. Like anything else, if you tax a virtue, you will get less of it.
Posts
I finally get why people are opposed to this idea. A 'fat tax' shifts both the supply and demand curves to the left. The tax would shift demand to the left because the increase in the price for the good, and as a result, companies that make such goods would produce less in order to maintain a profit. It's pretty much the same as a cigarette tax, but on 'junk' food and therein lies the problem. A cigarette tax only affects comsumers of cigarettes, a limited market. A 'fat tax' affects anyone who consumes 'junk' food and that's a pretty broad market, not only those who are obese. And with that in mind, no one is going to punish me for eating a hamburger when I have a normal BMI.
ReplyDeleteJust realized that part of my prior statement is wrong; blame that on the deplorable lack of good sci-fi on TV. Anyway, only the supply curve would shift to the left. An increase in price would shift demand higher up the demand curve. As a result, the supply curve would shift for the reason given above.
ReplyDeleteI can see where both side are coming from when talking about proposing a "phat" tax. The one side wants a "phat" tax because it would help save the government money and save money for people as well. However the group who does not support the "phat" tax has a good reason as well, they do not want the tax because it will be costing them more money to buy sugary drinks and they do not want the government controlling what they can and cannot eat or drink.
ReplyDeleteKaydi Perry