I am a big advocate of paying for health care for the poor by taxing the crappy food they tend to eat. They essentially will be paying for their health care by eating poorly, and if they start eating healthy then that's awesome. It's less burden on the health care system and saves money too. People may say that's an unfair burden on the poor, but I disagree. I think if you start taxing fast food and high fat content or unhealthy foods - companies will start creating healthier low-priced foods. The markets will adjust and find a solution to that. But we need to create a demand for healthier foods. At the end of the day, doing that, will lower the cost of eating healthy for all of us. it's just a very smart thing to do and in my opinion could save this country not only in money, but reverse the obesity trend that is frankly really scary.
Why would that be? The benevolent companies will drop the prices of healthy food because they are sooooo concerned about the poor? Pardon the pun, but fat chance. You would have expensive healthy food and expensive unhealthy food. The poor will end up not being very able to afford food at all. The amount of food stamps will have to go up and we will all pay for that. You can pay for the health care or pay for the food stamps. In the end, we are going to pay for it one way or another. It is the natural end of the blood from a stone problem.
Ref, if our government helped lower the cost of producing healthy food as much as it does unhealthy food, the prices will go down. It is hard to conceive a scenario where *all* foods are expensive.
It is as hard to conceive a scenario where the government starts subsidizing the production of healthy foods to the same extent as corn. If the government (that is financially strapped) does not start all new subsidies and continues the corn subsidy, we could easily see all foods going up in price. We have already seen food go up in price over the last few years. Add in some new sin taxes and you have the makings of a disaster.
Because if you tax unhealthy food and increase it's price, it creates a market for affordable healthy foods. Since their is a great pool of people - companies can get greater economies of scale. Part of the reason healthy foods are more expensive is because of scale issues. naturally, one is just that healthy foods can't use as many short cuts, but another big on is just that most people don't eat healthy. The bigger the market, the lower the price will be for a good or service due to efficiences of scale. A tax on unhealthy foods of say 10% would definitely hit the poor hard, but I definitely think in the long run it would be in their best interests as it would cut their their consumption of unhealthy foods.
Our government will be crushed under the weight of its unhealthy populace if it doesn't wake up and realize that supporting the corn cartel is going to ruin them. I think eventually money will talk sense into lawmakers, because it is cheaper in the end to subsidize healthy food and personal habits of all kinds. We can't afford to support gluttony anymore. Of course, this all starts with us and what food we vote for with our wallet.
Food is different though - having to produce more costs more because you have to start using lower quality land, etc. Just like you see with corn and ethanol. When you have increased demand, you have increased price.
I suggest that it is not nearly as simple as you would think. The cost of food overall would increase. Even if we are to assume that those the eat an unhealthy diet would all of a sudden seek to change their entire diet due to a tax, the producers of food (healthy and otherwise) would see a captive market. You have to eat to stay alive. The price really does not matter...people have to eat. You greatly overestimate the price effect of economies of scale. A lot of the staples (oranges, etc) are priced in the commodities market. The demand would increase without a substantial increase in supply (you can only grow so much). Therefore, prices soar. This does not even take into account the inability of healthy food producers to take the short cuts you posted about. You are much more likely to see a market where food just costs more.
The only thing that makes this scenario likely is the fact that something like 3 companies produce about 95% of the food in the US.
Sure that has something to do with it, but it would still be true even if 100 companies were heavily involved in food production. The number of companies does not change the capacity of our land to grow food sources. It does not change the yield per acre. It does not change the volatility of the commodities market. If our needs exceed our ability to grow, then we have to purchase from foreign sources, and all bets are off.
So how can you explain that bad foods are so inexpensive and healthy foods are expensive? If it can be this way, why can it not be the opposite? I think this has less to do with natural resources and more with the government than you think. Sure it takes more resources and man power to produce healthier foods, whereas bad foods can be produced by the butt-load with half as much resources and manpower, but I really don't think it would be impossible to flip the scenario if our government invested in healthier agriculture and food production. I don't agree that poor people would suffer as a result of any of this, if anything, they benefit... I see crap foods nosediving even cheaper as they remain cheap to produce and abundant in nature, but demand plummets.
To a point, but the whole organic / healthy food market is far below pushing the limits of what land will yield. Healthy foods are more expensive because it's a niche market that's made up of an affluent audience. Poor people don't buy healthy food, not because it's more expensive, but because they don't care for it.
OK, let's look at soft drinks as one example. Let's say you did something like put a 10 percent tax on anything that contained more then a certain percentage of sugar. That might include everything from Coke to Koolaid to Orange Juice. What is the net results? People drink more water - far healthier in todays America than any other drink. guess what, water is free. No matter how much you put the demand on there, it's not going to rise in a commodity market. Bottle water might. But at a few bucks a gallon in the supermarket, it's still more affordable than coke. Ok, let's look at other foods shall we? Maybe if McDonalds has a 10% tax on it, people will drive up the cost of Oranges - that's your argument. Problem is that there are PLENTY of alternative choices for McDonalds that go far beyond Oranges dude. Turkey Meat, Chicken, etc... What about white bread? Oh my gosh, there's this stuff called whole wheat and multigrain! Whole wheat bread isn't going to skyrocket in price if there's a tax on white bread. In fact, McDonalds will probably offer chicken sandwhiches without mayo and without white bread and guess what, it won't be hit up as junk food. Poor people will have an OPTION to buy healthy food for less. Yes, fruits and veggies tend to be more expensive then the crap made up of corn syrup in all the processed unhealthy foods. They are cheaper because they have less nutrional value people! On a nutrient basis, most healthy foods are actually cheaper. You act like it will bankrupt poor people - it won't. What it will do is result in a leaner, healthier, and happier America. And one that requires spending less on health care.
This is the most presumptuous, arrogant thing I have ever read on this board. How on earth do you suggest that you have the knowledge to even begin to make this broad statement? If soft drinks contained actual sugar, we would not be having this conversation. Soft drinks are as large a problem as they are from a health standpoint because they are loaded with the highly processed high fructose corn syrup rather than cane sugar. As for your proposed tax on "unhealthy food," what are the criteria? How do you keep that criteria from changing? Placing additional taxes on food is a dangerous game to start playing.
Don't put organic and healthy in the same context. Organic foods are NOT healthier. They use natural pesticides which are more dangerous than the artificial ones. They also a require a lot more land. 20 percent of organic foods come from China. The American Cancer assosication has repeatedly said that organic foods offer no benefits. It is all a marketing scheme. As far as land yield, we (as humans) may very well be on the verge of a food crisis. Unlike industrial output, we are largely limited by space. Crops need in land and land is limited. If we were to go all "healthy" (ie. organic), billions of humans around the world would starve - all to feed our current "organic" fad. Healthy IS NOT expensive. Delicious and healthy may be expensive. One can easily and healthily exist on a diet of beans, chicken, rice, and veggies for a very low cost. I think the crux of the problem in the US is that food is just so damn cheap. Yes, soda and fast food is bad, but the greater harm is in it's accesibiilty (price and convenience). I'd rather see some incentive to stay healthy (ie. lower insurance premiums, requirements for possible public option, etc.) than more outright taxes.
Ain't we paying taxes already for food, when we pay income taxes? A portion of federal taxes is reserved for farm subsidies every year.
