There is only so much a person can consume, any government has to take cut from it. Wouldn't it be better if government exempts food from tax, people might buy healthier options which often cost a bit more?
Taxation is not based on how much of something you can do or need. It's based on the concept of finite supply, which means you having something is coming at a cost to someone else. You are paying for the opportunity to have it at another person's expense. So tax, in it's original format is meant redistribute or rebalance that opportunity cost.
Not all governments. My weird state exempts the usual suspects when it comes to meal components (meats, veggies, bread), frozen meals, and milk and juices, but taxes ready-to-eat meals, booze, and I think most sugary soft drinks.
They also might buy and consume more of the unhealthy options. I think that’s more likely.
Taxing unhealthy foods more seems a better option to reach the desired goal. Some countries do that for such ‘foods’ as alcohol, tobacco, and sugary drinks. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax
I live in a country which put a tax on sugary drinks. Personally I think it's been great. All the main vendors came out with sugar free offerings (if they already hadn't one) and I think it will make a big difference to the every expanding kids on the street. Next step is to make it illegal to sell such kids the big cans of Monster and the likes.
4 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 21.7 ms ] threadTaxing unhealthy foods more seems a better option to reach the desired goal. Some countries do that for such ‘foods’ as alcohol, tobacco, and sugary drinks. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax