I don’t believe in “sin taxes” either, but the obesity problem is not as simple as you think it is. HFCS is absolutely part of the problem. If you ever decide to actually research the issue instead of continuing to assume that fat people are just lazy and undisciplined, this would be a good place for you to start:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Judie on October 19, 2009 at 4:03 pm

debbie

What is the difference in taxing fatty foods that cause health risks and the government taxing cigarettes? I’m not a smoker but i’ve never understood why they can tax cigarettes and not unhealthy foods…there is no difference.

M: I agree. I’ve repeatedly written against ciggie taxes on this site. All they do is tax poor and working-class people to finance terrorism (terrorists use the cigarette taxes to sell smuggles cigarettes and finance terrorism). DS

matt on October 19, 2009 at 4:09 pm

Actually, companies use HFCS because of the Sugar Lobby. Sugar price supports keep sugar prices artificially high. HFCS is cheaper. I avoid HFCS because I can taste it and I don’t like it. It’s in everything–even in things you wouldn’t suspect. And correct me if I’m wrong, but HFCS is not Kosher for Passover.

lexi on October 19, 2009 at 4:34 pm

Mexican Coca Cola tastes much better than our Coca Cola because it contains sugar and not HFCS. Only a few Mexican restaurants in the U.S. have these Cokes, but I’m told that Coca Cola makes the sugar (non-HFCS) available in the U.S. for Passover.

As for taxes like this, it’s a slippery slope. Once you add a tax on one food, they tax another food, then another food, then the tax goes higher, and it’s a vicious cycle of more and higher taxes. It ain’t to help our health.

Fortunately, Obama said that those making under $250,000 won’t get a penny of higher taxes, even with a $1.5 trillion annual deficit. People believed that!

Barry Popik on October 19, 2009 at 4:50 pm

I agree with your premise but the reality is worthless politicians wont allow us to make those without “self-control and personal responsibility” accountable for their actions. Have you ever been to a market in a low income area? Do you see what they put in their baskets? A box of diabetes, a package of heart disease, a bottle of cirrhosis. So their bad habits end up in an ER because they didn’t get health care. So if we the responsible consumer don’t buy in those quantities then we won’t be taxed as much. I know it is a sell out of principles, but those who lack the self control and personal responsibility end up winning when they aren’t taxed on their behavior that is causing these problem in the health care.

A possible compromise, would you support those on welfare and food stamps to be limited to less caloric intake (HFCS) and healthy living choices since we are paying for their consumption?

CaliforniaScreaming on October 19, 2009 at 5:11 pm

We need to get rid of HFCS, but let the marketplace dictate it. Processed sugar is really no good for us either or the artificial sweeteners, so why just tax HFCS? I agree with the poster that mentions taxes on cigs. What about alcohol? HFCS may be more unhealthy than cigs and alcohol combined!

Jennifer on October 19, 2009 at 5:32 pm

I don’t like to be told by snobs what I can and can’t eat. Lexi, its not kosher for Passover because corn is a principal ingredient.

NormanF on October 19, 2009 at 5:34 pm

Come on now, I know people who eat more junk food in a week than I can in a year. They don’t exercise and play video games on their time off but they don’t gain weight. I don’t need the government deciding what is good or bad for me. Most of our representatives are sociopaths who run for office for self gratification.
As far as costing the economy money isn’t it odd that the fat guy who pays taxes, and has health insurance is costing the economy money but the stick thin crack addict who doesn’t pay jack isn’t?

Larry on October 19, 2009 at 5:35 pm

another dim-witted, lame idea from one of the “beautiful people”…

BIG IRISH on October 19, 2009 at 6:35 pm

If I’m not mistaken, one reason why HFCS is so common in US foods is an import tariff on sugar that significantly increases its cost here. Once again, taxation is the problem, not the solution.

J C on October 20, 2009 at 12:46 am

I don’t know anyone that actually prefers HFCS products when actual sugar is available. The example of Mexican Coke above, and here in Texas, everyone goes nuts when they can find Dr. Pepper from Dublin, TX. Pepsi marketed a test product line called “Throwback,” (which is marketing so bad I can only assume they did it to “prove” that people prefer the original stuff) and it’s far superior to their usual offerings.

A tax is dumb and unnecessary when we can just eliminate the sugar tariffs/corn subsidies that cause the product to be so widespread and actually have it compete with sugar on a more level playing field.

Moreover, Debs, it’s extremely disheartening to see that the most my conservative fellows can offer these days is criticism. Your argumentation… of course people with high metabolisms who burn thousands of calories a day can pretty much eat what we want. Doesn’t mean it’s a good choice for everyone. And while the gov’t doesn’t have any place mandating dietary habits, there’s nothing wrong with suggesting healthier ways for people to eat and still enjoy themselves. Defending HFCS doesn’t do this.
And there is a difference. DVDs, the internet, magazines – don’t actually make you fatter. Bad food and no exercise makes you fat. I participate in all these activites when smoking, but they aren’t giving me cancer.

JP on October 20, 2009 at 6:24 am

David Zinczenko–YOU NEED A LESSON IN CONSUMER FREEDOM!

http://consumerfreedom.com/

Bob Porrazzo on October 20, 2009 at 6:49 am

I have to say – you find the funniest pictures…

…and of course this idea is stupid. Thanks for spotlighting, I hadn’t heard of it…

Christopher Hayes on October 20, 2009 at 9:08 am

“But the marketplace has decided:”

Deb: I have some bad news for you. The marketplace has NOT decided anything. The U.S. Government has decided.

The rest of the world uses sugar as a sweetener. The US uses corn or HFCS as we like to call it. Ever wonder why?

Ever wonder why sugar has been the sweetener of choice for centuries but the U.S. uses HFCS?

It’s called “CORN SUBSIDIES”. Here in America, we have “price supports” for sugar and “subsidies” for corn; all courtesy of Uncle Sam. Because of government regulations, taxes and subsidies, HFCS is a cheaper sweetener than sugar. One can only guess what would actually happen if a free market were operational.

There is NO Santa Claus on October 20, 2009 at 9:34 am

He looks like a closeted gay. His licking the girl doesn’t fool me.

DS_ROCKS! on October 20, 2009 at 11:47 am

Screw those Food Nazi Czar bastards. I am going to eat and drink what I like. We cannot allow these socialists to take over every facet of our lives. They must be exposed and defeated.

What’s next? A lot of Kentucky sour mash is made with corn. Are they going to put an extra tax on my Bourbon because it uses corn sugars?

Jarhead on October 20, 2009 at 12:23 pm

And even if HCFS was only a little cheaper than sugar companies might use it. But it is five to ten times cheaper than sugar depending on the year, making it near to fiscally impossible to use it.

luagha on October 20, 2009 at 7:02 pm