Monday, 12 January 2015

Taxes on food and drink: Fair? Efficient? Effective?

I have an article about sin taxes in the latest edition of Cato Unbound. Over the course of January, other writers will challenge and debate the point I make. I, in turn, will respond. You can also make a contribution in the comments if you wish.

Extending “sin taxes’” to certain foods and soft drinks is increasingly seen as a practical response to obesity and obesity-related diseases. Several countries and most U.S. states have some form of tax on soda, candy, and/or fatty foods, but they have so far had little or no effect on population health. For a tax to be justified, it should be efficient, fair and effective, and that taxes on food and drink meet none of these criteria.

Read the whole article here.


Christopher Snowdon said...

For a tax to be legal it must be FAIR and Equitable across all other taxable entities. Punitive taxation is illegal yet they get away with it.

Christopher Snowdon said...

I'm afraid you lost me in the second paragraph, Chris.

Cigarette smoking is the main cause of lung cancer, and most cases of lung cancer are caused by cigarette smoking.

That statement is supposition based on correlation, and I'm surprised a serious and supposedly impartial researcher such as yourself should assert as fact something that, although the orthodoxy as ordained by Tobacco Control, nevertheless has a considerable number of 'deniers' within the field of tobacco / smoking studies.

There are so many anomalies in the lung cancer / smoking association that the bald statement "cigarette smoking is the main cause of lung cancer" can only be conjecture, and does your normally well thought out articles a disservice.