Yes, but that wasn’t really cgod’s point. He only commented on the hypocritical nature of Sin Tax in the first place which makes me think where do these taxes go. Like if we’re saying this food is largely consumed by poor people is the money raised going back into that community ? Or are we just taxing poor people to build a new public school in a nice new suburb for upper middle class families ?
Let's reframe: The human cost of cocaine consumption is principally suffered by the communities that are poorer and less informed or less able to get help for their addiction. So the government is subsidizing cocaine production, to make the farmers profitable. But that leads to more cocaine being consumed in disadvantaged communities who rely heavily on socialized services (healthcare), and use more of their share of those services. (Oops. I mean 'cola'. Not cocaine.)
But is that where the tax is going ? That was my main point, you’ve made your point enough times, but you haven’t addressed anybody else’s point. Cgod’s point was we wouldn’t even be having this discussion if those god damn progressives didn’t want to bring in that hypocritical sin tax in the first place. He raises a valid argument ,because you marketed the very thing as a punishment for lifestyle choices by calling it a sin tax. You want to call it a getting back the money we gave to those farmers tax than his point is moot. Of course the argument to that is well why the hell don’t we just pay more for it in the first place so the farmers make more money so it doesn’t need to be subsidized so we don’t need to add tax to cover the subsidizies.in disadvantaged communities who rely heavily on socialized services
I think you nailed it there, honestly. Cities and counties, and even some states, have little to no ability to affect change in how skewed and fucked up the farming and food distribution system is. The mess of subsidies and tax breaks and weird legislation is too tightly wound - and too many scared people know that and yet rely on it for their livelihoods - that you can't fix the problem at the core: The way farming is funded. So you gotta do what you can do... incentivize better choices at the consumer end of the food chain. The is already happening at the grassroots level, with non-profits stocking gas station coolers with fresh produce and veggies, and school programs teaching kids about what food actually is, and how to make healthier food choices. Those are all positive incentives. But it is a two-sided coin. You need to make disincentives that drive people to make better decisions. You are incentivized to get a driver's license because it is useful ID, and you can use it as proof of who you are to get a loan, pick up a prescription, etc. It also allows you to operate a motor vehicle. It does not give you the RIGHT to have a motor vehicle. If you operate it in an irresponsible manner, then the cops take your license, as a disincentive. Taxing poor food choices is already done for cigarettes, liquor, and any number of other things. Nobody prevents you from buying them. The price is raised to incentivize you to think twice before getting an addictive and health-damaging substance. The base social contract of any society is that you will behave in a manner that is compatible with the society at large, and not put an undue burden on anyone else. Everyone gets enough, if people are responsible and don't take too much. But then you throw in addiction and brain chemistry, and you need to give some people an incentive to avoid those addictive substances, so they don't put an unbalanced strain on the system. Where the money goes? Honestly, who fucking cares. It's a sin tax. The whole concept is for it to eventually make itself irrelevant. Of course the argument to that is well why the hell don’t we just pay more for it in the first place so the farmers make more money so it doesn’t need to be subsidized so we don’t need to add tax to cover the subsidizies.
I get the incentive idea however I was a cashier at a grocery store where this happens for too many year to believe in it. Everybody is just floating through life paying no attention to anything but sharing memes about the life they’re barely even conscious for. The people buying healthy food don’t realize they aren’t being taxed and the people buying crappy food don’t realize there is an alternative. You give people to much credit.
It really is - we're talking about economic incentives and there are economic incentives for poor people to buy soda (it's cheap) and for large companies to sell soda (it's inexpensive and high-profit). The way to handle this is to make it more expensive to buy (taxes - which are regressive, as cgod pointed out) or more expensive to produce (end subsidies). On the local level, municipalities can pass whatever stupid taxes they feel like. My home town tried to fine people for the amount of dogshit they had in their back yard until someone asked who the fuck got to enforce it (let alone weigh it). But dealing with national issues such as our 50-year history of subsidizing corn production is far beyond the ability of your average hippie town to attempt. The end result is local attempts at national problems. That national problem is a dearth of nutrition. cgod is all about individual responsibility but at the end of the day, if there's more money in Coca Cola than there is in spinach I'm going to have a devil of a time buying spinach and an easy time buying coca cola. Ain't nobody saying you can't buy soda. But if your soda habit means you're more likely to have diabetes it means that insurance rates go up which means your soda habit directly impacts my quality of life. It's a problem of externality.