SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Like tobacco, carbon emissions and sugar, we can expect the harm to human health and the environment caused by the production and consumption of meat to be mitigated by 'sin taxes'in the next five to ten years.
"Sin taxes" on meat to reduce its huge impact on climate change and human health look inevitable, according to analysts for investors managing more than $4tn of assets.
The global livestock industry causes 15% of all global greenhouse gas emissions and meat consumption is rising around the world, but dangerous climate change cannot be avoided unless this is radically curbed. Furthermore, many people already eat far too much meat, seriously damaging their health and incurring huge costs. Livestock also drive other problems, such as water pollution and antibiotic resistance.
A new analysis from the investor network Farm Animal Investment Risk and Return (Fairr) Initiative argues that meat is therefore now following the same path as tobacco, carbon emissions and sugar towards a sin tax, a levy on harmful products to cut consumption. Meat taxes have already been discussed in parliaments in Germany, Denmark and Sweden, the analysis points out, and China's government has cut its recommended maximum meat consumption by 45% in 2016.
Would you pay a "meat tax" or would you change your eating habits?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 12 2017, @12:35AM (8 children)
Yep. I'm not interested in a third of that and actively oppose another third of it. Regardless, taxes are not collected here on a voluntary, usage-based basis. They're collected under threat of death or imprisonment. So your entire "but you get stuff" argument is irrelevant.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @01:45AM (6 children)
The IRS is equipted with AK47s, right?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 12 2017, @02:07AM (4 children)
Dunno. They sure bought a hell of a lot of ammo over the twenty-teens though.
Regardless, try not paying your taxes and see what happens. I guarantee you'll meet up with armed men wanting to imprison or kill you, depending on your reception to the idea of imprisonment.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @03:32AM (3 children)
The flat tax seems like a good option, paired with probably a few other things. Know why we can't easily play around with such models? The insanely rich don't want to rock the boat.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Tuesday December 12 2017, @06:28PM (2 children)
I thought the problem was that legislators from the Democrat party consider a flat tax "regressive", and prefer the current system of tax percentage increasing with income?
As I understand it, the reasoning goes that poor people are already spending the largest fraction of their income (compared to the middle class and the rich) for essentials like food, housing, and transportation. There simply isn't much left for them to give taxes from. A flat tax would spread the class divide further.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:28PM (1 child)
Interestingly, many plans that claim to be a "flat tax" are some of the most deviously *progressive* systems I've ever seen. Basically, you do a flat tax with an exemption -- for example, you might pay a 50% tax rate, but pay no taxes on the first $50k earned. So if you earn less than $50k, you pay nothing; if you earn $100k, you pay 25%, if you earn ten million, you pay 49.5%. That's the best proposed tax plan I've ever seen, assuming reasonable values for the exemption and percentage. Wipe out all other exemptions and brackets and replace the whole tax code with one simple equation -- taxes owed = (total income - 50k) * 50%
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:41PM
That's no longer a flat tax.
It's a two-bracket progressive tax.
You might as well do away with income taxes at that point and use sales taxes, with exemptions for basic necessities such as food and medical items.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @03:14PM
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2017/10/20/why-are-federal-bureaucrats-buying-guns-and-ammo-158-million-spent-by-non-military-agencies/#661a0e7064a1 [forbes.com]
AR-15s, but close enough.
(Score: 2) by https on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:55PM
It's OK if you don't want to be a citizen, you do you better than anyone. But you really should be honest with yourself (and others) about it.
You are mistaking government for business. This is the fundamental error made by neoliberals, neocons, and fascists. While both normally deal with money and services, they have different reasons for existing. I repeat, money is a different raison d'être than service.
Offended and laughing about it.