.

Fast-food tax would punish poor, WI economist says

CHEW ON THIS: A University of Wisconsin-La Crosse economics professor says taxing fast food will only limit choice and ultimately hurt the poor.
CHEW ON THIS: A University of Wisconsin-La Crosse economics professor says taxing fast food will only limit choice and ultimately hurt the poor.

By M.D. Kittle | Wisconsin Reporter

MADISON – Want to hit the poor where they live? Tax fast-food restaurants, big sugary drinks and other convenience food and beverage items deemed hazardous to your health.

That’s the take of Adam Hoffer, an assistant economics professor at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. Hoffer recently co-authored an op-ed on the subject of poverty and fast-food taxes for USA Today.

In the piece, headlined “Big Brother declares war on consumption,” Hoffer and fellow professors William F. Shughart II and Michael D. Thomas assert targeted taxation or bans on fatty, salty, sugary and preserved-filled foods may be designed to go after America’s epidemic obesity problem, but it’s hurting the people who can least afford such “sin taxes” the most.

“Research in the new field of ‘behavioral economics’ generally supports such policies, but what scholars often overlook is the impact taxes and regulations have on the poorest members of society,” the economists write. “The simple fact is that poverty reduces the scope of choice.”

Obesity fighters have advocated taxing fast-food establishments for several years.

Read more at WisconsinReporter.com

http://bit.ly/1c90gVP





This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Nuitari (Grand Master Editor) August 06, 2013 at 07:32 PM
The poor get all their food free through EBT so I don't care.
Mr Lundt August 06, 2013 at 11:03 PM
Rich or poor this tax is idiotic.
Pattie Savage August 07, 2013 at 09:58 AM
What about Walgreens? The cashiers are made to encourage you to buy candy at the check out line.
Mr Lundt August 07, 2013 at 10:03 AM
Wow Pattie---saying no is really that hard for you?
Mike in OC August 07, 2013 at 10:06 AM
What a great way to help pay for Obamacare.
Pattie Savage August 07, 2013 at 10:12 AM
No, I just think it's rather strange that they're hawking candy bars at the front of the store while selling drugs for diabetes at the back of the store.
Mr Lundt August 07, 2013 at 10:13 AM
Diabetics use candy bars to help with low blood sugar. It appears they are doing a public service. ;)
Bob McBride August 07, 2013 at 10:28 AM
Not to worry. Once minimum wage is raised to $15.00/hour this fat tax will look like peanuts by comparison.
Lee August 07, 2013 at 11:26 AM
For a country that says "less government" we sure seem to be going out of way telling everyone what to do, from food to abortion.
Robert Bohannon August 07, 2013 at 02:04 PM
@ Craig, if you paid attention to the news and facts, you would know that McDonalds eliminated the Angus burgers because they were selling poorly, which had nothing to do with Michelle Obama.
Mr Lundt August 07, 2013 at 02:29 PM
This has nothing to with Michelle Obama. This has to do with a government that finds no end to the behavior they want to control. Control through laws or stupid taxes. There are far to many US citizens that want mommy to tell them what to do and vote accordingly.
Nuitari (Grand Master Editor) August 07, 2013 at 04:06 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzspsovNvII
Dirk Gutzmiller August 07, 2013 at 06:45 PM
We can extend the conservatives' argument here against state nannyism to its thinly disguised, prudish attempts to punish pregnant women by putting up legal hurdles to abortion.
Mr Lundt August 07, 2013 at 10:41 PM
While you could do that Dick----it would continue to be a phony hollow argument.
Lyle Ruble August 08, 2013 at 01:02 PM
Hoffer is correct, it does disproportionately hit the poor. However, if we are going to use sin taxes, then I don't see why fast food, sugary drinks and snack food should be exempt. No one is being forced to eat junk food, or to smoke or to imbibe in alcoholic beverages. People still have free choice. The increased revenues can be put directly into health education and health care to help offset the effects of poor nutrition.
Mr Lundt August 08, 2013 at 01:06 PM
Or solyndra orTom Barrets trolley boondoggle. The notion that the government spends out money wisely has long gone the way of the dodo bird. It is not the role of the government to protect us from ding dongs, Twinkies and Dr. Pepper. There is no end to how far the left will go...
jbw August 08, 2013 at 07:35 PM
Dropping $10 at MCD and then saying you can't afford $2 for a 12 serving bag of beans or couple pounds of carrots (both of which EBT will cover, unlike fast food) is ridiculous. It sounds equally ridiculous to me to say we need to take some of that fast food money and use it to "educate" people that buying cheaper healthy food at the supermarket and cooking it themselves is better for them. They are buying fast food out of taste preference and convenience, and paying a premium for it already, certainly not out of necessity. Tax on cigs also hits the poor disproportionately. Perhaps we could look into my suggestion last year of a new "sin stamps" program to supplement food stamps, so the poor can buy more tobacco, liquor, and fast food. The theft prevention alone would go a long ways toward funding it.
Lika Phipps August 09, 2013 at 12:41 AM
It's a double edged sword. The working poor need a break sometimes, and fast food is easy. But, it seems as if many of the poor who don't have enough money to spend at the grocer's, will make poor choices like highly refined foods such as generic white bread, noodles, etc, which are cheap. Because it's the cheap high calorie and high fat foods, people may become fat. In which case, they shouldn't be eating fast food anyway. Thing is, it's not that much more expensive to go to a place like the Douglas Avenue Diner and get real food.
Lika Phipps August 09, 2013 at 12:46 AM
Mr. Lundt, people with low blood sugar are now called hypoglycemic. Type 1 diabetes is when your body doesn't make ANY insulin, and Type 2 is when your natural insulin is inefficient. So, diabetics tend to have high blood sugars until they take their meds, which could put them at a low. But, considering that most diabetics are over weight, candy isn't needed.
Mr Lundt August 09, 2013 at 10:08 AM
Lika---did you see my ;)? I was playing. I was responding to poster Patti, and stated there is no conflict of interest of having Walgreens sell prescription drugs and candy bars. The larger point is that the entire motion of a sin tax is simply an government over reach to control legal behavior.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something