Matt writes: "I think part of the reason this gets a relatively good result is that it's framed in the context of revenue." And part of the reason this gets a relatively good response is that the question lumps fairly disparate activities -- cigarettes and candy? -- together. Both suspicions are in fact confirmed by the next couple of slides:
But I'm interested in why support flags as the questions move from cigarettes, to alcohol, to snack foods, to soft drinks. I understand why support waxes and wanes based on how progressively or regressively the proposal is framed. But why would you favor taxing snack foods but not soft drinks? Or cigarettes but not snack foods?
You might say that cigarettes and alcohol have negative externalities: I have to breathe your second hand smoke, you have to avoid my drunken staggering, etc. But if you wanted to be a little punctilious about it, you could make the argument that junk food has externalities, too: You are more likely to be overweight when surrounded by people who are overweight. (The connection is though to be causal and not just correlative.) So why the difference?
But I'm interested in why support flags as the questions move from cigarettes, to alcohol, to snack foods, to soft drinks. I understand why support waxes and wanes based on how progressively or regressively the proposal is framed. But why would you favor taxing snack foods but not soft drinks? Or cigarettes but not snack foods?You might say that cigarettes and alcohol have negative externalities: I have to breathe your second hand smoke, you have to avoid my drunken staggering, etc. But if you wanted to be a little punctilious about it, you could make the argument that junk food has externalities, too: You are more likely to be overweight when surrounded by people who are overweight. (The connection is though to be causal and not just correlative.) So why the difference?
The difference is two-fold: 1) more people casually enjoy soft drinks/snack foods than alcohol/cigarettes, and 2) there is not the same social stigma attached to snack foods, and especially, soft drinks as attached to alcohol and tobacco.
It's another example of the 'not-in-my-backyard' mindset. The public is perfectly happy to raise taxes as long as they're not affected; the majority of people are simply still not willing to make sacrifices for the greater good.
I do think we are in the beginning of a cultural shift though. Hopefully, by the end of a second Obama term, we'll be in a position where everyone is willing to pay the necessary taxes in order to fund good government.
The first thing that pops into my mind is "what is junk food going to be defined as?" In order for the goverment to roll out a junk food tax, they need to define what junk food is, and that means a whole bunch of arbitrary decisions. Will baked potato chips be taxed? Sugary cereal? Granola bars? What about unhealthy foods that aren't traditionally defined as junk foods, like bacon or mayo or lard?
The same applies to soda - will diet soda be taxed? Is soda really worse than "fruit drinks" that are mostly water and sugar?
Alcohol and tobacco are already regulated, and are easily categorized. "Junk Food" is an opinion.
I say no, because I don't trust government to tax the right things.
By all things just and holy the government should tax anything with high fructose corn syrup (or crystalline fructose) in it at 10,000% and anything with regular sugar at maybe half that. But they won't, because the corn and sugar lobbies would never allow it. Instead they'd tax a few things they can get away with while food manufacturers continue to put HFCS in what used to be healthy stuff that didn't need sweeteners (e.g., sausage. I mean, WTF?).
Further, the medical research just doesn't support that saturated fat is bad for you, but you'd never learn that asking the FDA. How do they explain the Kitivans, Masai or Eskimo, who get more than 50% of their annual calories from saturated fat (coconut, butter and whale/seal, respectively) and have a 0% incidence of heart attacks prior to American eating sugar or white flour? They don't, but popular (and politically popular) attitudes are against that idea. I like my arteries nice and clear the way they are, and I don't want some misguided crusade based on fraudulent science to make it illegal for me to be healthy.
I guess what I really mean is that all social engineering attempts are based on the assumptions that the government (1) knows what it's doing, and (2) won't be captured by special interests.
I don't see a shred of evidence for either of those assumptions.
People don't like paying taxes themselves, but mind a lot less taxing others. This explains the general trend. The more obvious the externality (smoking, for example), the more willing they are to tax themselves or family members.
From Paulavery:
I don't see how you can believe this is even a plausible possibility. Obama promises all the time that 95% of the people will see the same or lower taxes. Or by "everyone" did you mean that the ones Obama wishes to tax more are more willing?
Yancey,
That is a fair question. My hope, and belief, is that BO will tone down with the populist rhetoric on taxes and own up to the fact we have a serious revenue problem (especially if he is successful with his progressive agenda). My best guess is the administration will confront this issue AFTER some of their initiatives are passed (and proved popular).
But I don't know if the answer to the revenue problem is higher tax rates across the board. Personally, I would like to see something like this happen: 1) eliminate ALL personal deductions (mortgage, school loans, charity, etc), 2) create an additional five tiers of income above the 250k line and raise rates accordingly, 3) tax vices (alcohol, tobacco, candy, soft drinks....marijuana perhaps).
If the above steps were taken, we could potentially see an increase in revenue, a more progressive and simpler tax system, and perhaps even a lowering of rates.
In other words, you hope Obama has been lying?
Um....yes. I wish I had more to offer, but that is essentially what I'm hoping (and believe) will occur. We'll see. If he doesn't address the revenue side at some point though, he will leave office with a huge failing (no matter how much of the progressive agenda he passes). And I know how naive this sounds....but I just have faith in the guy. Crazy, I know.
What do you guys say? From the above comments it appears as though not many are not in favor of 'alternative taxes'. How do we address revenue? Or do we not address revenue and "shrink government"? And if you are proposing a smaller government; what are you prepared to cut?