Not fair. And not strictly tailored to decreasing obesity either.
Putting aside the argument that regulating an individual's sugar intake is not within the original constitutional grant of power to the Federal government, let's focus on the lack of a tight fit between a sugar tax and the desired outcome (curbing obesity). There's an oversized disconnect. For instance, what if I'm drinking a sugary beverage because I'm trying to gain weight and I'm engaging in a calorie-splurge while at the gym lifting weights? Should I have to pay for those who drink soda while watching T.V. on the couch? Clearly, no.
The proposal to tax sugar is obviously an uncomfortable mix of science and government which goes further than the uncomfortable mix we already have. And moreover, what if we had taxed butter 30 years ago and poured the money into supporting companies making transfat-loaded margarine products? "Oh, didn't we?" you may be thinking. Mistakes don't happen?
But if we are going to get crazy about it, I propose a fat tax on body weight not a consumption tax on sugar. This will more appropriately punish RESULTS of poor eating habits. Add to that, a tax break on gym fees, exercise equipment and attire, e.g., the cute leggings with the matching pink sports bra — no tax on her gatorade, and tax rebate on the outfit.
(source)
US Government Proposes "Sugary-Food Tax" To Curb Obesity
Courtesy of ZeroHedge. View original post here.
The totalitarian arm of the ever-growing government appears to know no limit. In today's "oh no they didn't" moment, the US Government's diet panel has dictated proposed one more oppression of American's freedom to choose:
- *GOV'T PANEL PROPOSES SUGARY-FOOD TAX TO FUND NUTRITION PROGRAMS, CURB OBESITY
On the bright side, the government approves of "lean meat" as compatible with healthy eating. The bill, introduced by Rep. Juan Candelaria, D-New Haven, would impose a tax of 1 cent per ounce on soft drinks – including sweetened teas, energy drinks and soda – and candies that are high in sugar and calories.
As Bloomberg reports,
Americans should pay taxes on sugary sodas and snacks as a way to cut down on sweets, though they no longer need to worry about cholesterol, according to scientists helping to revamp dietary guidelines as U.S. obesity levels surge.
The recommendations Thursday from the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee also call for Americans to reduce meat consumption and to take sustainability into account when dining.
The panel released its report as the Obama administration seeks ways to fight obesity, which now affects more than one-third of American adults and 17 percent of children, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“What we’re calling for in the report in terms of innovation and bold new action in health care, in public health, at the community level, is what it’s going to take to try and make a dent on the epidemic of obesity,” committee chairwoman Barbara Millen of Millennium Prevention in Westwood, Massachusetts, said in a telephone interview.
Suggestions by the nonpartisan panel of academics and scientists helps shape school lunch menus and the $6 billion a year Women, Infants and Children program, which serves more than 8 million Americans buying groceries from retailers including Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Kroger Co. The recommendations were sent to the two agencies that later this year will issue the final guidelines that are used to create the government’s icon for healthy diets, currently a dinner-plate that replaced the widely used food pyramid.
Government knows best:
“Higher sugar-sweetened beverage taxes may encourage consumers to reduce sugar-sweetened beverage consumption,” according to the advisory panel. “Using the revenues from the higher sugar-sweetened beverage taxes for nutrition health promotion efforts or to subsidize fruits and vegetables could have public health benefits.”
The document states that “lean meats can be a part of a healthy dietary pattern.”
“The food industry is frantic about the guidelines. They don’t want anything in there that says anything about eating less of their products. That’s their concern more than anything else.”
* * *
So, expensive non-refined foods are good? And the poorist people – who can't afford to eat the way the government dictates – will pay all the taxes?
