The Seven Deadly Sin Taxes

A few days ago a friend of mine sent me a link to a site called This is why you’re fat. Lest anyone think that my opinions are about to become draconian, let’s start with just one example shall we? Of all the pictures on the site, this is the one that got me the most. Yes that is right, a Bob Evans Sausage Gravy Machine.

Notice that it is sandwiched between an Easy Mac display and a buttered popcorn machine. I sent a note back to my friend saying- “If there is going to be universal health care, they first better make this illegal!”

We laughed, but the more I think about it, the more I can’t let it go. I believe in universal health care. I really do. But why should I pay for the triple bypass of the maniacs who eat Krispy Kreme Bacon Cheeseburgers.

The problem with making this outright illegal is that it would never succeed. We Americans are too proud of our stupidity, as long as it is masked as freedom. I would not eat one of these in a million years. But if they were illegal, I would be cruising under the Burnside Bridge tomorrow looking to score a bag of Krisp (as I am sure it would come to be called). So here is what I am proposing for Oregon. It is not a new idea. Actually, it is a very old idea that has been in the news recently- a sin tax. The sin in question: Gluttony.

In 2005, my home state of Michigan tried to pass a 2 percent tax on fast food. It died on the vine. In 2008, New Jersey Governor Corzine merely floated the same idea. After a firestorm of public ridicule and outrage, it also is failing. Similar taxes across the country have all met the same fate: a lethal combination of virulent right wing attacks mixed with late night talk-show mockery. Everyone hates this tax.

To me, the strongest argument against a junk food sin tax is that it would disproportionally affect the poor. However, if we are going to use “sin” as the defining characteristic of taxing gluttony, then I think there should also be a tax on foie gras, rare caviar, and anything that comes with edible gold leaf. The tax revenue from a single $1,000 Golden Opulence Sundae would equal the revenue from about 500 Deep-fried Twinkies on a Stick. I am sure both are referred to as “sinfully delicious” and I am sure both are exactly half right.

To address this issue (as we should), we should use the sin tax revenues exclusively on low income health care reforms and nutritional diet education. If implemented fairly and consistently, the net societal benefit of having healthier workers and students would outweigh the incremental costs of improving the junk that passes for food.

Additionally, fast food manufacturers and purveyors would be incentivized to make simple changes to their processes and ingredients in order to avoid the costly label of “junk.” As often as not, even small changes can produce dramatically healthier foods.

But I must admit that I am not so much motivated by the desire to provide a funding source for education or an incentive for healthful alternatives. The cost benefit analysis of this sin tax is admittedly arguable. More so to me, if we really are on the edge of universal health care reform, a junk food tax is mostly about fairness. For the good of society I am forced to buy auto insurance, so I expect everyone on the road to have that same obligation. For the good of society I am forced to wear a seat belt, so I expect those who don’t to pay a fine. Just so, if for the good of society I am expected to subsidize universal health care, I expect to see an added tax on Deep Fried Coca-Cola and Deep Fried Snickers Bars (sadly both real). Feel free to eat them, just know that you will have to pay this sin tax up front. Consider it a down payment on your eventual angioplasty.

I admit that I have had mixed feeling about sin taxes in the past. The problem to me was always the way “sin” was defined. Taxing sin is a popular idea with many Americans, but apparently the only sins that we can ever agree on are smoking and drinking. I now smoke maybe two cigarettes a month and I never drink to excess anymore, but over the years I must have personally funded at least two bridgework projects with those habits. Because I am no fair-weather socialist, I never complained. But it always seemed grossly unfair to me. Portland Oregon is proposing a new sin tax on beer and even as a socialist I am very unhappy about it. Why are my sins the only ones getting picked on? Why do we keep going back to these same, tired old vices?

Do not misunderstand me; I tend to be a cognitive moral realist and I am no hippy. People that do not believe in sin seem delusional to me. Rather, I think we are not going far enough. It seems to me that we could easily tax all of the Seven Deadly Sins. Why is there no “wrath” tax on weapon sales? Buying a $1,000 pair of Manolo Blahnik satin sling backs? Vanity Tax Please! A tax on greed? Please, that is too easy. I have not yet figured out how to tax the deadly sin “acedia” (sloth, despair, or depression), but I am sure I could fund the new I-5 Bridge myself with that one.

People will undoubtedly question who will be the one to decide what is and is not “sin.” I have decided to volunteer for that job. What is my expertise in the field to qualify me for this thankless position? Well, to paraphase a comment once made about pornography (and how is that not a sin tax?)- “I might not know how to define Gluttony, but I know it when I see it.” And its motto is, “Everything should taste like bacon”…..