This is the basis for taxing high sugar convenience food. It was done for cigarettes, and today, consumers overwhelmingly see it as a good program. (Of course tobacco companies lobbied hard against it)
Should there be a line on which products governments deincentivise? High sugar convenience foods have their purpose, but does it outweigh increasing obesity? Should we instead subsidize healthy foods? Or both together?
Gov’t should subsidize healthy food. Gov’t shouldn’t, however, make non-healthy food astronomically pricey. People should have affordable options for both. Like it or not, government making things artificially expensive in order to disincentivise people from buying the thing is a form of authoritarianism.
Like it or not, government making things artificially expensive in order to disincentivize people from buying the thing is a form of authoritarianism.
I’m struggling to think of any scenario I would agree with your statement and I’m not coming up with anything. Further, I think your statement is dangerous because it dilutes the actual dangers and restrictions an authoritarian government would put in place.
Gov’t should subsidize healthy food.
Wouldn’t that meet your definition of authoritarianism because it is causing non-healthy food to be proportionally more expensive?
Taxing in proportion to externalities is sound policy.
I agree, but that isn’t what is being discussed. Pricing in externalities isn’t artificial though. That could be well argued to be the “true cost” of an item. The poster’s premise was artificially inflating the cost of something.
Further, and my main point, government policy affecting pricing simply to incentivize or disincentivize consumption isn’t authoritarian as a standalone act.
This is true.
This is the basis for taxing high sugar convenience food. It was done for cigarettes, and today, consumers overwhelmingly see it as a good program. (Of course tobacco companies lobbied hard against it)
Should there be a line on which products governments deincentivise? High sugar convenience foods have their purpose, but does it outweigh increasing obesity? Should we instead subsidize healthy foods? Or both together?
Gov’t should subsidize healthy food. Gov’t shouldn’t, however, make non-healthy food astronomically pricey. People should have affordable options for both. Like it or not, government making things artificially expensive in order to disincentivise people from buying the thing is a form of authoritarianism.
I’m struggling to think of any scenario I would agree with your statement and I’m not coming up with anything. Further, I think your statement is dangerous because it dilutes the actual dangers and restrictions an authoritarian government would put in place.
Wouldn’t that meet your definition of authoritarianism because it is causing non-healthy food to be proportionally more expensive?
Taxing in proportion to externalities is sound policy.
I agree, but that isn’t what is being discussed. Pricing in externalities isn’t artificial though. That could be well argued to be the “true cost” of an item. The poster’s premise was artificially inflating the cost of something.
Further, and my main point, government policy affecting pricing simply to incentivize or disincentivize consumption isn’t authoritarian as a standalone act.