A big fat money grab!!!

There is a movement afoot by the American Medical Assoc. to tax soda beverages. Ostensibly it's designed to combat obesity in America. I believe the doctors have the best intentions since they won't see any money from this, but don't be fooled for a second into thinking that the legislators promoting this "health tax", care one bit about your fat kid, or care that Americans are among the fattest people on Earth, or even care that a tax on sodas would actually decrease consumption...it definitely would if you believe the relationship between price and demand. This is nothing more than a money grab by legislators disguised as a tax "for the common good"...how I loathe that fake sentiment..."for the common good". Legislators always tell you that a tax is for your own good...right before they reach into your wallet.

The first question you have to ask when legislators wage a new tax is where will the money go. All you have to do is follow the money trail. The representatives in Congress are insatiable when it comes to seizing and spending your money. They can never get enough and will never repeal taxes once levied. They will use the money to finance votes for their own re-election because after all, incumbents are in the business of getting re-elected.

Just like with cigarettes, legislators don't want you to stop drinking soda any more than they want you to stop smoking...if you did, the tax revenues would dry up and they would have nothing with which to purchase re-election votes.

Here's a novel idea...let the people decide what is good for them. As obesity climbs up the list of causes of death and disease, insurance companies will raise rates on fat guys...they already do in a lot of cases. This market dynamic will compel fat guys to loose weight in order to save money, or they will pay lots more for insurance than the rest of us. Contrary to liberal thought, insurance companies are not in the business of insuring folks...they are in the business of making money. If actuarial tables tell them that fat guys cost them twice as much money as the non-fat, they should be allowed to charge fat guys however much in premiums it takes to cover their increased health-care costs.

"But Ed", you ask, "what if fat guys decide that their self-indulgent lifestyle is more important to them than saving insurance-premium money and they end up costing the regular citizen more money in health-care costs because they are prone to so many more diseases and health calamities, but have the same coverage as the rest of us? Shouldn't we do for them what they are unwilling to do for themselves (by taxing unhealthy consumption to pay for their additional drain on the system)...not necessarily in their best interest...but in the interest of lowering health costs for the rest of us?"

A well-constructed argument indeed...not bad for a casual blog reader.

Here's the thing however, the AMA (and legislators because they are the only ones who can raise revenue by taxation) intend to, in effect, tax obesity by punishing that which is supposed to cause it. It's the insurance companies who must bear the burdon of additional costs to treat the obese, so shouldn't they be the ones who collect the extra revenue from fat people in the form of higher premiums? The problem is that Congress cannot raise money for itself if insurance companies raise premiums for the obese, so it grabs a share of soda company revenue by claiming that it's taxing soda consumption for the public good.

The sad history in America of government regulation of individual behavior by taxation is long and distinguished...alcohol, tobacco, gasoline, sales, travel, food, you name it...if it can be consumed, it can and will be taxed.

You see, taxation to regulate individual behavior is liberal dogma. To the delight of the liberal, two birds are killed with a single tax stone: first and foremost is the money that comes to the legislator to spend "for the common good" as a result of the new tax; second, and more satisfying to the liberal, is the effect of pressuring people to live their lives as he sees fit. To liberals, they are enlightened and superior in every way to regular Americans, and only they know what is best for us. We are generally incapable of making the "correct" purchasing and consumption decisions for ourselves. This point (Americans forcing other Americans to live their lives a certain way by punishing behavior) is the crux of what is wrong with taxing soda, or fast food, or twinkies, or whatever otherwise legal behavior liberals decide is bad for us. The only exception to that is in the case of indigent individuals who clamor for taxpayers' money in the form of public assistance...but that's for another blogpost.

Americans are already, by far, the most generous people in Earth. We don't mind paying extra to help those that are truly needy, or are sick, or injured, or otherwise incapacitated through no fault of their own. What is wrong is forcing American taxpayers to subsidize bad individual decision making and behavior by punishing what is perfectly legal behavior for everbody else.

If you want to get fast-food, sweets, and sodas out of the schools, fine with me. If you want to get celebrities to do PSA's endorsing healthy eating and exercise lifestyles, fine with me. What is not fine with me is punishing legal product consumption through taxation under the guise of the public good. If I want a Coke, I should be able to purchase one at a price decided upon by the manufacturer, not the government. If a fat guy wants to drink Cokes, even though they're making him fat, that's between him and his insurance carrier. I shouldn't have to pay for his lack of self control, and he should have to pay the costs of his obesity to his insurance company, not the federal government.

Blogger's footnote:
I'll bet Ted Kennedy is the first one to vote in favor of the soda tax when it's introduced. You'd think that a guy whose belt size is like 64 would be embarassed to presume to tell other Americans what' s good for their health.