- Dear Congress: ARE YOU CRAZY?????
- A Taxing Taste Of Things To Come
- Florida Set for Automatic Job Loss
- Congressman Latta Requests Hearing on Impacts of Cap and Trade
- Brian Rooney Signs Taxpayer Protection Pledge in Congressional Race
- Friday Afternoon Giggle (CFA Site »)
-
Senate Health Bill Raises Taxes
On Special Needs Kids and Their Families - "Stimulus" Reporting Lacks Logic...No Kidding (CFA Site »)
- Why Isn't the SEIU Telling Their Members About Their Failing Pensions? (AWF Site »)
- House Financial Services Committee Passes Ron Paul's Audit the Fed Amendment (CFA Site »)
Friday, November 20, 2009
-
How Does the Reid-Obama Health Bill
Raise Taxes on Your Current Health Plan? - ATR and CFA Endorse House GOP "Doc Fix" Alternative
- CFA and ATR Support GOP "Doc Fix" Alternative (CFA Site »)
- Former Union Organizers Say Tactics Induce Psychological Trauma (AWF Site »)
- ATR Breakdown of Senate Health Bill
- Conrad Reynolds Signs the Taxpayer Protection Pledge in AR Senate Race
Thursday, November 19, 2009
-
Senate Health Bill Breaks
Obama's $250,000 Tax Promise -
BREAKING: Full List of Tax Hikes
In Senate Democrat Health Bill - Senate Healthcare Bill Uses the Term “Tax” 183 Times
-
Yet Another Obama Appointee
Is a Tax Hypocrite - New House Dem Savers Tax Would Be Equivalent to Doubling Cap Gains Tax (ASA Site »)
-
Tax Pledge Alert:
Vote for Cloture on Motion to Proceed
Is Violation of Tax Pledge - CFA to House: Oppose the "Doc Fix" Boondoggle
- SEIU's Takes Aim At... Boy Scouts? (AWF Site »)
- Will Sen. Reid Let Us Read the Bill?
- Will We Get to Read the Bill? Reid to Unveil Health Bill - Timing of Procedural Vote Unclear (CFA Site »)
- ATRF Analysis: Reform Busines Entity Classifiction Rules
- Unions & Health Bureaucrats Gang Up To Deny Treatment
- The FCC's War On Freedom
- Sen. Cornyn Stands Up for Union Transparency (AWF Site »)
- 2009 State Tax Trends: Overview of Tax Changes and Spending Habits
-
ATR Will Rate a Vote Against
Moving to Proceed to Reid Health Bill - Is another Tax Hike Brewing in Tallahassee this year?
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
- Executive Director Discusses SEIU Investigation on Sirius XM Show, The Wilkow Majority (AWF Site »)
-
Pelosicare's Problem:
It Doesn't Fix Anything! - DC Launches "Education" Campaign on New Bag Tax
- Ed Morrissey Interview on ATR & AWF Call for SEIU Investigation Today at 3:30pm EST
- High Taxes Lead to Decreased Revenue in Chicago
- First Hand Experience With The Public Option
- ATR and CFA Join Sen. Thune in Calling for End of TARP Bailout
-
Advice to Departing Dems:
What to do After You Lose Your Seat - "Stimulus" Fuzzy Math of the Day: No Hope for Michigan in "Stimulus" Plan
- SEIU’s California Fraud Provides Glimpse into World with EFCA (AWF Site »)
- The Damage to Small Businesses
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
- ATR Endorses "Health Savings Account Expansion Act of 2009"
- Minnesota Budget Shouldn’t be Based on Money Politicians Hope to Have
- CFA to House: Vote "Yes" on TARP Accountability Bill
- ATRF Analysis of Administration Proposals to “Reform the U.S. International Tax System”
- The Money Hole
- 75,343 Bogus jobs 'created or saved' by the so-called "Stimulus"
- ATR and CFA to House: Pass the TARP Accountability and Disclosure Act
- Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Report On Obamacare
- ATR and AWF Call for the Investigation of SEIU President Andy Stern
Monday, November 16, 2009
-
ATR Supports H.R. 3905,
"The Estate Tax Relief Act of 2009" - ATR and CFA Support the "Protect Taxpayers from ACORN Act"
Friday, November 13, 2009
- Stimulus: A Picture is Worth a Thousand... Jobs? (ASA Site »)
- Global Flat Tax Revolution (ASA Site »)
- Global Flat Tax Revolution
- Stimulus: A Picture is Worth a Thousand... Jobs?
- A Red-Ink Train Wreck: The Real Fiscal Cost of Government-Run Healthcare (ASA Site »)
-
A Red-Ink Train Wreck:
The Real Fiscal Cost of Government-Run Healthcare
Thursday, November 12, 2009
- No Time for Obama to Stall on Trade Agenda
- Does “Net Neutrality” Violate The First Amendment?
- “[C]arbon credits won't matter” Says Senator Vitter (R-La.)
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
- Global Warming Has Brought on A New Ice Age!
-
Outline of House GOP Alternative
To Pelosi-Rangel-Obama Health Bill - Union Cost Increases in Dem. Healthcare Bill Raises Hospital Costs by $27 Billion (AWF Site »)
- ATR Testimony for Senate Hearing on Climate Change Legislation: Considerations for Future Jobs
- Tom Cox, AR Senate Candidate, Signs the Taxpayer Protection Pledge
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
- Job Losses Continue Despite False Claims and Broken Promises from White House
- Union Cost Increases in Dem. Healthcare Bill Raises Hospital Costs by $27 Billion
- Berlin Wall Falls: 20th Anniversary
- Tennessee candidate Lou Ann Zelenik Signs the Taxpayer Protection Pledge
- Why We Need To Regulate Big Google
- Senate Budget Staff: House Dems' Fully Implemented Health Bill to Cost $3 Trillion
Monday, November 9, 2009
- Obama Lied, His Tax Pledge Died
Friday, November 6, 2009
Our Fat Government:
Why Fat Taxes Are a Bad Idea
From Benjamin Pacini on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 5:26 PM
Fat taxers. Think Rudy Ruiz, Mika Brzezinski from Morning Joe, and most latte liberals. Talk to them for a moment, and they’ll try to convince you that a fat tax will transform Americans from 'triple-decker-McFat-with-cheese' eaters, to marathon-running, tofu-eating, soy-milk drinking health nuts.
The basic fat tax idea is this: we levy a tax on fatty foods (burgers, french fries, ice cream etc.). People buy less of them. Then, we take the tax revenue, and spend it on wellness training. By simultaneously raising the price of fatty foods and increasing wellness training, citizens become lean, mean, fat-burnin’ machines.
Call me a skeptic, but I don’t buy it.
Why? Because I like burgers. A lot. Particularly with pastrami. And no $.20 tax would stop me.
In fact, I love them so much that I wouldn’t even notice a $.20 or $.30 tax. Would you? If I did, I would probably grumble, and then order the same triple-decker-pastrami-with-extra-cheese-large-fries-and-a-milkshake (and a Diet Coke) that I always do.
In economics language, demand is more inelastic than that. Of course, this problem is solved by making the tax bigger—like $4 or $5. Americans might actually change their eating habits then. But they’d also get real mad.
Some of us think that fighting the wrath of angry burger-munchin’ protesters (not to mention the ire of suppliers and their attendant lobbies) isn’t the wisest way to spend our political capital.
More importantly, if we eliminated burgers from the American diet, would people be healthier? If we overcame the political obstacles, and were able to enforce a massive tax on fatty foods, would that really translate into regular exercise and other healthy habits? Doubtful.
Philosophically speaking, there are many who don’t like fat taxes because it isn’t the purpose of government to save us from ourselves. If people decide to eat too many hamburgers, or smoke, or make foolish decisions, many feel that it is their right to make bad decisions—so long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others.
All of this suggests that fat taxes would do little good, and maybe some bad. But there is (pardon the pun) a bigger issue here. The reason why conservatives don’t like fat taxes is because they feel like Americans aren’t the only ones that need to tighten the belt.
Cutting the fat is just as important for the government as it is for its citizens. The federal government (leaving out state and local spending) is currently eating 28.1% of GDP per year—that’s up 51.6% from 10 years ago. Meanwhile, taxes have been about stable—roughly 18% of GDP—for the better part of the last 50 years. Compared to the past, we are overspending, not undertaxing.
It should be noted that the proponents of fat taxes aren’t talking about tax reform—they’re talking about tax expansion. Sometimes people say that fat taxes are economically more efficient than other taxes—which is fine, but fat-taxers are talking about adding taxes, not substituting them. Some of the people who encourage fat taxes do so because they want a better country; politicians are doing so because they need to finance their ridiculous spending projects, like bailouts, Fannie Mae, and the ‘repopulate-the-fluffy-bunny-initiative.’
Then there is the question of “how-to-not-get-fat-classes” or “wellness training.” With a staggering public debt, the last thing we need is one more good idea of how to spend taxpayer money. The real lesson from ACORN is that the government isn’t good at running programs, monitoring expenditures, or maintaining control over taxpayer funds.
The good news is that there are common sense ways to make people healthier that don’t grow government. For instance, unhealthy food is much cheaper than healthy food due to wasteful subsidies to sugar and corn producers; government interference has made things worse, not better. Eliminating these subsidies would save the country billions of dollars a year, would help struggling 3rd world economies (and their starving citizens) and would also end the market distortion that makes unhealthy food so much cheaper than healthy food.
In the end, there’s no way to eat your way out of obesity. And there is no way to tax your way into into a healthier country.












Comments
This is the same logic as taxing cigarettes. The idea is to tax cigarettes and then use the revenue from the tax to help pay for health care programs. This deters some from smoking, though not many, however, lets assume that it does what it is supposed to and deters people from smoking. Those people are now not paying the taxes for the new programs that were created. Now there is less money going to the new programs, but like all gov programs, the budget stays the same (or goes up). So now you have an underfunded program and politicians and other group complaining that it needs more money, so then they raise taxes someplace else. Exactly what fat taxes will do, create new gov programs that we don't need and can't afford.
>> TCH Wednesday, October 28, 2009 9:35 AM
“A government big enough to supply you with everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.... The course of history shows that as the government grows, liberty decreases.” Thomas Jefferson
>> R. J. Thursday, October 29, 2009 12:22 PM
I agree with the comment above. I think the proposal of fat taxes is evidence of a larger issue--thinking that government can (and should--ack!) solve all of our problems. The second to last comment of the article shows us that government is, in fact, the problem. Yet we seem to be heading toward a bigger and bigger government by the hour. I want a government to provide me with public services and to protect me from those who would infringe upon my rights. I don't want a government to protect me from my own eating habits. You can't change culture by simple legislation; it's more deeply ingrained than that.
>> Sabrina Friday, October 30, 2009 12:57 AM