VeggieBoards banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,090 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Alleged terrorist group PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) "is advocating an excise tax on each purchase of meat, poultry, and fish in the same way that other public health groups have successfully advocated taxing cigarettes and alcohol. Dr. William Harris, author of The Scientific Basis of Vegetarianism, estimates that Americans spend at least $123 billion a year to treat heart disease, strokes, cancer, obesity, and other diseases directly related to meat and dairy consumption. "

For more information visit http://www.taxmeat.com

[From PETA News, April 15th]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
452 Posts
I think a better way to approach the problem is to attempt to remove the benefits the government extends to the meat industry. If the water the meat industry uses wasn't subsidized, and higher fees were charged for public grazing, it would make the price of meat much higher without having to resort to economic gimmicks like tariffs.

Bottom line, less people eat meat. More people eat meat alternatives. When a burger costs $15, people wouldn't be as anxious to stop by McDonalds on the way home. Companies would develop soy-based meat alternatives within a year indistinguishable from the real thing. The meat industry would be relegated to the niche market where it belongs, and Californians would be able to water their lawns more than once a week.

Unfortunately PeTA doesn't seem so keen on working with our Senators and Representatives like an effective lobby group should. Between the cattle industry's lobbying dollars and PeTA's antics, I don't know of many government figures keen on taking a photo op with Ingrid Newkirk.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
412 Posts
I agree, Fenguin. We should be removing the government interference that props up the meat industry and so many others, not adding more laws and loopholes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,804 Posts
has the tax on cigarettes stopped anyone from smoking? probably not, would a tax on meat stop people from eating meat? probably not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,192 Posts
Majake, in Canada I would say a lot of people have quit smoking due to the price of cigarettes. I think in Nova Scotia, around here specifically, cigs are something like $8.50 per pack.

I was talking to a police officer friend of mine who told me "cigarette theft" has been dwarfed by "patch theft"... thieves are apparently stealing the patches now more than the cigarettes.

But I hardly think a meat tax would work. The meat-eating population is huge as compared to a relatively small minority of veg*. I think even the mention of a "meat tax" would appear to meat-eating population as some sort of radical notion by that weird PeTA crowd.

I'll bet most politicians would probably never even entertain the idea of a meat tax just based on the fact veg* is such a minority.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,374 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Fenguin

I think a better way to approach the problem is to attempt to remove the benefits the government extends to the meat industry. If the water the meat industry uses wasn't subsidized, and higher fees were charged for public grazing, it would make the price of meat much higher without having to resort to economic gimmicks like tariffs.

Bottom line, less people eat meat. More people eat meat alternatives. When a burger costs $15, people wouldn't be as anxious to stop by McDonalds on the way home. Companies would develop soy-based meat alternatives within a year indistinguishable from the real thing. The meat industry would be relegated to the niche market where it belongs, and Californians would be able to water their lawns more than once a week.

Unfortunately PeTA doesn't seem so keen on working with our Senators and Representatives like an effective lobby group should. Between the cattle industry's lobbying dollars and PeTA's antics, I don't know of many government figures keen on taking a photo op with Ingrid Newkirk.
Ditto on every point you made.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,211 Posts
I dunno about a tax on meat. I think that food is food and food should not have excess tax on it, such as "meat tax" or "Carrot tax."

But I do think that subsidies on meat and dairy should be cut. It's annoying how our money goes towards funding animal agriculture. The expense should be passed on to the consumer, IMO. Meat is already quite expensive. A roasting joint that my mum got cost £10.79. With this money, i could buy something like 8 kilos of chickpeas. Well, you get the idea. The problem is that these subsidies aren't likely to be cut, because cheap meat is something that people have come to accept. A gradual reduction in these subsidies might work though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,549 Posts
This reminds me of the part of the Green party's (at least the one here) plaform that has a tax scales based on social and environmental costs. This means that things like bikes that are good for the environment woudl be ahev reduced or lower taxes and products that are harmful to people and/or the environment (ie meat) would be taxed higher. I support this type of legislation and it;s one reason why I voted for the Green party in the last provincial election here. I think thta it should be imposed on a larger scale than just meat.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,022 Posts
Everyone here is aware that all agricultural products, including fruits, vegetables, and grains are heavily subsidized, correct?

The Green Party legislation is nonsense, as the environmental and social costs of all goods are debatable, and often are a matter of perspective.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,549 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Tame



The Green Party legislation is nonsense, as the environmental and social costs of all goods are debatable, and often are a matter of perspective.
This is true of everything. We interpret meaning through our own filters. This does not mean that we should not take any action.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,549 Posts
If you want to have a political and or philosophical debate about these things, we shoudl probably do it on the compost heap. I was just bring up a similar perspective if someone here was interested.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,022 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by triumvir

This is true of everything. We interpret meaning through our own filters. This does not mean that we should not take any action.
Yeah, well my position is that your interpretation of what is good for me shouldn't affect my wallet.

I completely disagree with the concept of "sin" taxes.

The only benefit I see to this push is that the moralizers among the Green Party would most likely get burned by the wishes of the majority if their idea passed. *That* would be absolutely hilarious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,374 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Tame

Yeah, well my position is that your interpretation of what is good for me shouldn't affect my wallet.

I completely disagree with the concept of "sin" taxes.

The only benefit I see to this push is that the moralizers among the Green Party would most likely get burned by the wishes of the majority if their idea passed. *That* would be absolutely hilarious.
I'm no Libertarian, but I agree with you on the concept of "sin" taxes, including for cigarettes, which I don't smoke. But, then, I'm even more idealistic than the Greens. My feeling is that we should be preventing people from smoking in the first place instead of taxing the cigarettes to help (in part) offset the medical costs of smoking. It's so bass-ackwards!

Realized this got moved, but I'll leave it here, since it is a response to the foregoing. Happy debating.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top