Against A Highly Regressive “Meat Tax”

Some economists want to make it more expensive for the less well-off to enjoy aclear revealed pleasure: eating red and processed meat.The  average household in the poorest fifth of the income distribution dedicates 1.3 percent of spending towards it. That’s over double average household spending in the richest quintile. Yet meat is now a new “public health” target. Once, lifestyle controls stopped at smoking and drinking. They recently expanded to soda and even caffeine. Now, even the hallowe d steak is not sacred.Last week,  a report by University of Oxford academics calculated supposedly “optimal tax rates” on red meat (lamb, beef and pork) and processed meats (sausages, bacon, salami etc.) For the U.S., the recommend rates were as high as 34 percent and 163 percent, respectively. Such taxes, the report claims, could save 52,500 American lives per year.To an economist, this approach might make theoretical sense. If the World Health Organization is right that eating meat increases risk of heart disease, cancer, stroke and diabetes (in some cases,very much disputed claims), then consumption could increase healthcare costs. Some of these costs will be borne by others, through higher government spending or healthcare premiums. Imposing a tax equal to the true external costs of the next steak, lamb chop or burger patty one eats forces consumers to face the full social costs of their eating decisions. In turn, then, the tax will somewhat reduce consumption to a supp...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs