Tax Junk Food/Regulate Contents?

[famousringo]

dsgrue3 said:

famousringo said:

See my previous post in this thread. About half of American health expenditure is paid by government, which means taxpayers have a stake in the health of many millions of Americans. The stake is even greater in the rest of the developed world where health care is universal. The case for taxing unhealthy foods is fundamentally the same as the case for taxing cigarettes or mandating seatbelts. Your bad health decisions cost everybody else money.

Sorry, but taxpayers don't get to decide where their money is spent; otherwise welfare wouldn't exist. I incur no additional taxation as a result of others' poor health. My tax rate is only affected by my income level and filing status. Operative word "my".

And you have failed to address people who snack occasionally - they will be paying more for the same food simply as a result of some fat person's irresponsibility. That isn't remotely logical. It's the same story with weapons. Some insane, socially-retarded, infantile derelict shoots up a school and suddenly it's the weapon's fault. 

You're deluding yourself if you think other Americans' health doesn't impact your taxes. US government spending on health is 70% higher than spending on defence, that comes out of your income tax, and that's before we account for the increased cost of private health insurance premiums. The collective paying for the bad circumstances of the individual is the very nature of insurance. 

Yes, people who snack occaisionally will also see a tax, but since they aren't subsisting on a diet of Snickers bars, it won't be a susbstantial barrier to their occaisional enjoyment of bad food. That's the great thing about consumption taxes, they scale based on how heavy a consumer you are.

Perhaps another contrast would help you see how you'd be better off paying for fat people's health with a consumption tax rather than on your income tax and insurance premiums.

There are two taxes which largely pay for roads where I live, property taxes to the city, and fuel taxes to the province. I rarely drive, so I don't have much use for roads, so you can see I might have an objection paying taxes for a good I rarely use. With the fuel tax, a consumption tax, this is not a problem. I don't drive, I don't burn gas, I don't pay tax to maintain roads. Even better, if I did drive, the tax scales based on what kind of vehicle I drive. A light, efficient hatchback burns less gas and causes less wear on the road than a huge SUV, so it's fair that the gas-guzzling SUV driver pays more tax to maintain roads.

But my property taxes pay no attention to whether I use the road or not, and has no regard for whether I'm using it lightly in a small sedan, or heavily in a large truck. That leaves me subsidizing the folks in my town who drive large vehicles. Not a very fair tax for me.

Right now, fat, unhealthy people are costing you money in income taxes and insurance premiums. Why should you be subsidizing their poor eating habits when a shift to a consumption tax would have individuals paying for their own unhealthy choices?