Vanilla Frosting Isn't Diet Food

[GREENBACK]

If fresh fruit and vegetables weren't more costly than corn chips and Twinkies, I think more poor people would buy them.

This is how things should be focused in my opinion.we should work toward Making fruits/vegs/lean meats more affortable and a better alternative to junk food and cheap wine.

Look at the majority of convience stores. What are they filled with? answer:Alcohol, tobacco, junkfood, and lets not forget lottery tickets. These places overflow in poor areas. These people are really preyed upon by this stuff. In better neighborhoods these things are available but people generally have better knowledge and other alternatives to this destructive lifestyle.

Not sure how we can make these options readily available and acceptable.

[GREENBACK]

I think you can measure sins quite effectively really - that's what economists actually can do with all their fancy equations and calculations.

Take alcohol for instance. . .I would say, oh, i don't know. . .30-40% of ER visits with me working CAT scan are alcohol related on a Saturday overnight, many from immigrant workers with no insurance. Every drunk who comes in seems to get a Foley catheter and a head CT at $3500 a pop, I guess to make sure there is no cranial bleed from falling off their barstool or an alcohol related assault.

Let's not forget the police that haul them in.

That's a costly sin.

A Hershey Bar. . .lots of them lead to Type II diabetes. . .but that's a little sin (and like I said, I would pay for my occasional dark chocolate).



Again, no one is saying, "Don't drink this. Don't shoot this gun. Don't eat this." You just measure it's cost to society and apply a tax based on it. Yes, oil is very costly to society - environment, not to mention the armed forces we have to maintain to keep it flowing.

(not that the Iraq war was about oil )

Okay, I see what you're saying, but where does my sin end? If I'm already obese should my ribeye steak be a sin.

Where should we reign the gov't in on controlling these things? Or do you think the gov't should decide what a sin is? I have worked in law enforcement for many years and am aware of the problems associated with alcohol and about any vice out there. I can tell you that an increased tax on these things will have zero effect on the problems.

Taxes affect people who are responsible enough to recognize the effect on their bottomline. It doesn't affect a chain smoking alcoholic who doesn't see his future beyond his next 6 pack.

[tzsgti]

Okay, I see what you're saying, but where does my sin end? If I'm already obese should my ribeye steak be a sin.

Where should we reign the gov't in on controlling these things? Or do you think the gov't should decide what a sin is? I have worked in law enforcement for many years and am aware of the problems associated with alcohol and about any vice out there. I can tell you that an increased tax on these things will have zero effect on the problems.

Taxes affect people who are responsible enough to recognize the effect on their bottomline. It doesn't affect a chain smoking alcoholic who doesn't see his future beyond his next 6 pack.

Well said. And my sister works in a Emergency room as well and the precentage of people who come in drunk and are illegals and that is what is costing us and overrunning out hospitals not the occasional drinker who has no insurance. Yes you have the homeless come in and then you have to treat them as well.

[feh]

Taxes affect people who are responsible enough to recognize the effect on their bottomline. It doesn't affect a chain smoking alcoholic who doesn't see his future beyond his next 6 pack.

I don't think this is necessarily true. I think one of the primary reasons smoking has become less prevalent the last 20 years is because it has become a terribly expensive habit.

[PrincessPerky]

I think smoking has gone down due to it not being 'cool' as much. I go to a church where judging by smell less than 1% smoke, used to live in a town where less than 1% didn't (including the kids!)

Though it is true, these things work from top down, education starts up when folk have the free time to learn (NOT from public school, but folk who have free time and desire tend to educate themselves)

Maybe if we let some of those kids have a bit of free time with worthwhile pursuits around they might try learning something....

Though I will agree the govt should NOT subsidize any food. who are they to decide what is truly the healthiest foods? Many folk are anti milk, others anti soy, still more eschew all high fructose corn syrup, others figure that stuff is fine but emulsifiers have to go.

I figure self destructive behavior is a personal choice, the govt should keep their nose out of it (so long as it is not hurting anyone-so go ahead and tax alcohol and ciggs a bit so long as the tax goes straight to paying for related injuries, not just lining the pockets of the govt.)

[GREENBACK]

I don't think this is necessarily true. I think one of the primary reasons smoking has become less prevalent the last 20 years is because it has become a terribly expensive habit.

I personally think it's due to education and, frankly, propaganda from the anti- smoking folks about the dangers of smoking. Don't know if you have kids or what your age is but I remember how "cool" smoking was when I was a teenager in the 70's and early 80's. Kids nowadays have a very different attitude overall.

I don't know what cigs. cost but if you adjust for inflation, are they really that much more expensive? I do know, because I'm around these people a lot, that the poorer classes of people do tend to smoke more but don't know what the desparity between classes might be.

[feh]

I personally think it's due to education and, frankly, propaganda from the anti- smoking folks about the dangers of smoking. Don't know if you have kids or what your age is but I remember how "cool" smoking was when I was a teenager in the 70's and early 80's. Kids nowadays have a very different attitude overall.

I don't know what cigs. cost but if you adjust for inflation, are they really that much more expensive? I do know, because I'm around these people a lot, that the poorer classes of people do tend to smoke more but don't know what the desparity between classes might be.

Cigarette Tax Increase Lowered NY Smoking Rates, Quit Smoking Support

The above article is for NY state, but a quick google finds similar stories in other states. The cig tax here in WI had a large increase earlier this year, and phone calls to cessation hot lines increased greatly.

[disneysteve]

I don't think this is necessarily true. I think one of the primary reasons smoking has become less prevalent the last 20 years is because it has become a terribly expensive habit.

Rhode Island has one of the lowest smoking rates in the country and has the highest tax on cigarettes in the country. South Carolina has one of the highest smoking rates and has the lowest cigarette tax.

I agree, feh. If you look at a chart of smoking rates by state, the states with higher cigarette taxes have lower smoking rates. That isn't a coincidence.

Some people will continue to do bad stuff no matter what, but the less affordable you make the vice, the less people will do it. The cost of a pack of cigarettes varies dramatically based on where you buy them. In S. Carolina, the tax is under $.25/pack, I believe. In Rhode Island, the tax is about $3.50/pack. Surely that has a lot to do with the big discrepancy between the smoking rates in each of those states. If you hiked the price of a pack of cigarettes in S. Carolina by $3.50, you can be damn sure the smoking rate would drop off.

[Scanner]

This is the beauty of a "Consumption" (VAT) tax. . .you are opposing it because you theorize that it won't change behavior.

You know what? It's possible. . .you know what? It doesn't matter. Let's say you applied a $5/six pack VAT on beer. And it doesn't change behavior one bit and people still buy all hte beer they can drink.

Great. . .more revenue for the State to pay for the drunks that are attended to by police and healthcare on a Sat. night.

IF they stop buying beer or reduce it. . .great. . .less alcohol related crime and illness.

Think about how outdated our tax code is - we tax virtues (working) and seem opposed to taxing vices because somehow, we seem entitled to them.

Well, no where in the Constitution does it say the People have a right to tax-free Fried Coke. Maybe tax-free dark chocolate (because that's Happiness) but not Fried Coke

[GREENBACK]

Some people will continue to do bad stuff no matter what, but the less affordable you make the vice, the less people will do it. The cost of a pack of cigarettes varies dramatically based on where you buy them. In S. Carolina, the tax is under $.25/pack, I believe. In Rhode Island, the tax is about $3.50/pack. Surely that has a lot to do with the big discrepancy between the smoking rates in each of those states. If you hiked the price of a pack of cigarettes in S. Carolina by $3.50, you can be damn sure the smoking rate would drop off.

DS

I have no doubt that higher prices on these types of vices will drive the numbers of consumers down. Here's my perpective though; does it have the effect we truly want. by that I mean are those who quit or curb their smoking, people who are responsible enough to realize that it's hurting them financially I.E., poor people who generally accept their vice at any price?

You have stated in previous posts that you work in a depressed area. Do you think higher prices would keep your patients from their vices? Personally, I doubt that. Or, conversely, will these people stop smoking and become responsible pictures of health? If taxes rise and they don't curtail this spending, then these folks will rely more heavily on the system since they would now pay more for their habits. As I've previously stated, these aren't responsible people that really even consider where to prioritize their expenditures.

I think the end result will be we as a society end up paying for this. Now, if the gov't would just stop wasting all the money we send them, we wouldn't have to discuss ridicoulus taxes like this. I'm not a real big fan of statistics that try to claim cause and effect results( reffering to the stats on smoking rates)because they don't really give you the full picture. I would like to see stats that show how incresed taxes resulted in an overall reduction in rates of smoking across all demographics and, as a consequence, resulted in lower health costs overall.

[Scanner]

RedBird,

Now there's something to really consider - gambling in NJ is very linked to tax revenues. I do support gambling tax to a certain extent (it's a sedentary activity and can promote bankruptcy/affect children) but I also beleive you can overdo it.

As a small business owner in the Atlantic City area, you can bet everytime the bear rolls over (the casinos), we all go a'runnin.

I think you have to kind of regard "sins" like the Catholic Church does - people are always going to have premarital sex, drink, smoke, gamble, and be gluttons sometimes. . .you can't stamp out "sin" totally. . .you just have to offer pathways to tax-free repent and a sin tax is almost like an "atonement."

[disneysteve]

DS

I have no doubt that higher prices on these types of vices will drive the numbers of consumers down. Here's my perpective though; does it have the effect we truly want. by that I mean are those who quit or curb their smoking, people who are responsible enough to realize that it's hurting them financially I.E., poor people who generally accept their vice at any price?

You have stated in previous posts that you work in a depressed area. Do you think higher prices would keep your patients from their vices? Personally, I doubt that.

Yes, I do think higher prices help encourage people to give up (or at least cut back) on their vices. I've had many patients tell me that they've reduced the number of cigarettes they smoke each day because they can't afford them anymore.

In better areas, doctors tend to see a rush of patients looking for smoking cessation treatment in January, when folks make New Year resolutions. In my area, I see a rush of patients looking for smoking cessation treatment any time they up the cigarette tax. It happened not long ago when they increased the tax by $1.00. Previously, a lot of patients would tell me they drove down to Delaware to buy their cigarettes. Now, between gas prices and higher taxes there too, it no longer pays them to do that, so they've just cut back on smoking.

Remember, the poor have less disposable income. They can't trim back their 401k contributions or put less in their kid's college fund or skip this year's cruise in order to cover cost increases in other areas. They don't have any reserve. If cigarettes get more expensive, they need to buy fewer cigarettes.

[GREENBACK]

Yes, I do think higher prices help encourage people to give up (or at least cut back) on their vices. I've had many patients tell me that they've reduced the number of cigarettes they smoke each day because they can't afford them anymore.

In better areas, doctors tend to see a rush of patients looking for smoking cessation treatment in January, when folks make New Year resolutions. In my area, I see a rush of patients looking for smoking cessation treatment any time they up the cigarette tax. It happened not long ago when they increased the tax by $1.00. Previously, a lot of patients would tell me they drove down to Delaware to buy their cigarettes. Now, between gas prices and higher taxes there too, it no longer pays them to do that, so they've just cut back on smoking.

Remember, the poor have less disposable income. They can't trim back their 401k contributions or put less in their kid's college fund or skip this year's cruise in order to cover cost increases in other areas. They don't have any reserve. If cigarettes get more expensive, they need to buy fewer cigarettes.

Hopefully, that's a lasting,if not permenent, thing for them. I still wonder will they buy fewer cigs or fewer healthy food items. I don't know the answer; time will tell, I suppose.

[minnie1928]

Yes, I do think higher prices help encourage people to give up (or at least cut back) on their vices. I've had many patients tell me that they've reduced the number of cigarettes they smoke each day because they can't afford them anymore.

My mom stopped smoking after 40+years because she couldn't afford it, and that was about 7 years ago. She REALLY couldn't afford it now!

She tried to quit several times but she always seemed to find her way back to the cigarettes. Then they significantly raised the prices and that was what finally did it!

[swanson719]

DS mentioned that farmers are paid not to farm in some instances. I don't disagree that this program dictates market prices, and what crops are raised. However, if we had all farmers out there planting crops with machinery and modern farming techniques, it would not be profitable very long, and supply would bottom out as farmers lost the revenue to meet their costs. A brand new combine costs upwards of $300,000. Your small time farmer cannot support that purchase. Instead, huge company farms buy 6 or 7 of these and have a monopoly on the market, prices. Small farmers are either paid to not farm, or they survive by leasing their land to company farms. More often, it is more profitable to be paid not to farm. This also keeps supply low enough to justify the increased prices necessary to make a profit, while still meeting demand.

Without this, the small farmer would either be forced to try his hand at farming in a co-op and effectively raise supply to the extent no one would be able to turn a profit, or they would lease their land to company farms who would then not farm it in order to keep prices high enough for them to pad their pockets. The gov't instead has stepped in and generally will pay a little over the going lease price of land. It keeps the small farmer in business for himself, while keeping the price of goods in the store low enough to be affordable. As a disclaimer, I directly benefit from this program as a landowner in in a state over 600 miles away that I couldn't farm if I wanted to. I still hold a hunting lease on the property, and between the gov't and the hunting lease, my property taxes are paid for me.

I don't know how you get rid of this program without killing off the small farmer - by small I mean anything less than 10,000 acres of row crops.


This still all goes back to the idea of what should be taxed and what shouldn't, and who decides that. It's too arbitrary. For a gov't that spends millions on the San Francisco Bay field mouse, I think they would find some way to try to explain away a tax on bran muffins.