tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006149227755828619.post7660707655989950292..comments2024-02-28T07:39:18.803+00:00Comments on Clay Testament: The Fat Tax: An Idea Whose Time has ComeEric Maderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10612913626447216776noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006149227755828619.post-65285472133621388842011-08-03T06:17:56.087+01:002011-08-03T06:17:56.087+01:00welll what about muscle mass cuz muscle weighs mor...welll what about muscle mass cuz muscle weighs more than fat and what if u r a weight lifter not a body builder so ur kinda bulky but lift like twice ur weight is there a write off for tht... other then that its a ggood and hilarious way of raising money fastAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006149227755828619.post-66338977953434084712010-02-23T04:35:44.436+00:002010-02-23T04:35:44.436+00:00Twinkies are priced under their actual cost, not j...Twinkies are priced under their actual cost, not just their social cost, due to the enormous subsidies for corn and, concomitantly, corn syrup. <br /><br />In other words, the social costs of the American diet are shifted onto third parties (the environment, the overburdened health care system, and, ultimately, the tax payer), even as the actual costs of its production are subsidized for the benefit of Monsanto and Archer Midland stockholders.<br /><br />I laughed my ass off as I read your Swiftian piece. The PIGouvian tax was something we studied in grad school. Never have I heard it explained so cogently.<br /><br />Hope you are well.<br /><br />TagUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04378048653091318684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006149227755828619.post-7697414372683274742010-02-18T12:08:11.025+00:002010-02-18T12:08:11.025+00:00Reply to Anonymous Victor. . .
ON PIGOVIAN TAX
A...Reply to Anonymous Victor. . .<br /><br />ON PIGOVIAN TAX<br /><br />Actually it seems I've been scooped. Again.<br /><br />Doing a Google search I learn that the term "fat tax" has already been coined, and that it is, get this, a typical example of a "Pigovian tax." <br /><br />That sounds just about right, doesn't it? Pigovian tax. "We're gonna slap a Pigovian tax on your ass!"<br /><br />In fact <i>Pigovian</i> has nothing to do with stuffing yourself like a pig, but comes from an economist's name: Arthur Pigou.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_tax" rel="nofollow"> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_tax</a><br /><br />A Pigovian tax is a means of counterbalancing what in economics is called an "externality problem." For instance, a Pigovian tax might try to correct for a "negative externality" such as we see in the case of people who <i>pig out</i> on junk food eight days a week. <br /><br />And so, in simple economic terms: Your neighbor Joe Smith doesn't pay much for the two boxes of Twinkies he eats every day--Twinkies are cheap--but after two decades, when his health complications end up costing society tens of thousands of dollars, <i>everybody</i> has to pay for those Twinkies. <br /><br />In other words: there's an imbalance between the low purchase price of Twinkies and the high costs, for everybody, of years of Twinkie-eating. <br /><br />The advocates of Pigovian taxation would insist that the cost of the health problems should have been factored into the price of the Twinkies to begin with. Joe shouldn't have been able, so cheaply, to do something that ended up costing all of us so much. Because although Joe could afford the many boxes of Twinkies, he alone couldn't afford the huge hospital bills he left behind on his demise. Those hospital bills are called a "negative externality" because it is a matter of costs external to the initial transactions between Joe and the Twinkie mongers.<br /><br />Pigou would maybe say that the price for Twinkies, cigarettes, McDonald's french fries, etc., is unnaturally low. The purchase price doesn't relate soundly to the real price.<br /><br />What's more, if Twinkies are $21.95 a box, the likelihood is that Joe will start eating fewer. And would the "P. Tax" slapped on junk food be earmarked for subsidizing health care? <br /><br />In any case, I agree with the general principal here. But try to impose a Pigovian tax in the U.S. of A. The soda companies, pizza companies, and snack companies will lobby against it and it won't pass. It has happened before. Which is unfortunate. We should be pushing more for these kinds of taxes. To hell with Junk Food, Inc.<br /><br />Sadly things even seem headed in the <i>opposite</i> direction. We can all be thankful the "conservatives" on the Supreme Court recently ruled that corporations can contribute as much money as they want to candidates for political office. It's still mind-boggling that Americans will put up with this nonsense, that there isn't more outcry against it. This recent Supreme Court ruling means that soon we'll maybe have laws <i>requiring</i> children to drink one Coke and eat four Twinkies every day as part of their school lunch. It's the American Way.Eric Maderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10612913626447216776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006149227755828619.post-17102349832846981472010-02-17T05:14:34.446+00:002010-02-17T05:14:34.446+00:00Victor said...
well written and a clever idea. Ev...Victor said...<br /><br />well written and a clever idea. Every year all American's have to pay for all these fatties: fatties suffer far, far more health issues. They leave behind $billions in unpaid medical bills at our nations hospitals. Hospitals raise rates for all of us to cover them. We suffer higher health insurance costs because of these lardo's.<br />Eric, you have my vote.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006149227755828619.post-44549445577825110862010-02-17T02:36:10.783+00:002010-02-17T02:36:10.783+00:00and don't forget 300 pound film director Micha...and don't forget 300 pound film director Michael MooreDANIELBLOOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05130493903696077379noreply@blogger.com