Posted 4:14 p.m. Tuesday, Aug. 6, 2013
UW-La Crosse Assistant Professor of Economics Adam Hoffer makes a case for not taxing “unhealthy” foods like Big Macs and soda in a recent column in USA Today.
[caption id="attachment_25291" align="alignright" width="288"]
Adam Hoffer, UW-L assistant professor of economics.[/caption]
UW-La Crosse Assistant Professor of Economics Adam Hoffer makes a case for not taxing “unhealthy” foods like Big Macs and soda in a recent column in USA Today.
The opinion column “Big Brother declares war on consumption” explains how taxes on foods deemed unhealthy affect the poorest members of society the most because these people don’t have easy access to alternatives. Co-authored by Hoffer and two professors at Utah State University, the column was published in the online opinion section Sunday, Aug. 4.
According to the article, when taxes increase on the cost of a Big Mac, it may not make economic sense for someone on a limited budget to drive to the nearest “organic” grocery store to prepare the meal at home.
“Because America's poor are mired in miserable circumstances, the solution is not to increase taxes and raise prices on their relatively few options,” Hoffer and co-authors write. “Instead, the solution should be to make it easier to escape poverty altogether.”
America is experiencing a new wave of “selective" taxation with proposed taxes on products such as soda and Big Macs. If these industries lose their battle with government, pizza, bacon and hot dogs are likely candidates to be next on the chopping block, he explains.
“I believe that economic policy is taking the wrong approach to dealing with consumption-related issue,” says Hoffer. “Restricting choice is almost never the best approach to take and always has negative, unintended consequences.”
Hoffer, who has expertise in behavioral economics and tax policy, researches consumption taxes. He looks for answers to questions such as “How do consumers respond when their consumption is taxed?” and “What are the consequences of those consumer responses?
Read the full story.
Adam Hoffer, UW-L assistant professor of economics.[/caption]
UW-La Crosse Assistant Professor of Economics Adam Hoffer makes a case for not taxing “unhealthy” foods like Big Macs and soda in a recent column in USA Today.
The opinion column “Big Brother declares war on consumption” explains how taxes on foods deemed unhealthy affect the poorest members of society the most because these people don’t have easy access to alternatives. Co-authored by Hoffer and two professors at Utah State University, the column was published in the online opinion section Sunday, Aug. 4.
According to the article, when taxes increase on the cost of a Big Mac, it may not make economic sense for someone on a limited budget to drive to the nearest “organic” grocery store to prepare the meal at home.
“Because America's poor are mired in miserable circumstances, the solution is not to increase taxes and raise prices on their relatively few options,” Hoffer and co-authors write. “Instead, the solution should be to make it easier to escape poverty altogether.”
America is experiencing a new wave of “selective" taxation with proposed taxes on products such as soda and Big Macs. If these industries lose their battle with government, pizza, bacon and hot dogs are likely candidates to be next on the chopping block, he explains.
“I believe that economic policy is taking the wrong approach to dealing with consumption-related issue,” says Hoffer. “Restricting choice is almost never the best approach to take and always has negative, unintended consequences.”
Hoffer, who has expertise in behavioral economics and tax policy, researches consumption taxes. He looks for answers to questions such as “How do consumers respond when their consumption is taxed?” and “What are the consequences of those consumer responses?
Read the full story.