If You Don't Eat Your Meat, They Can't Have Their Taxes

Michelle Minton from the Washington DC based Competitive Enterprise Institute, has a great post up on our taxpayer funded multimillion dollar nanny state industry's latest proposal: the meat supertax.

It's well worth a read in full, particularly how it demolishes both the health argument:
"While there is evidence that eating a plant-based diet (specifically, the Mediterranean plant-heavy diet) is great for health, grain-based diets appear harmful to human  health (specifically, non-traditionally prepared processed grains). What are the chances that Aussies will turn to vegetables instead of grains? Well, if price motivates food choices—which the meat tax assumes—then they are far more likely to increase their grain intake since grains are generally cheaper than veggies." 

Michelle also presents a great analysis of the unintended negative side effects on the environment through new crop cultivation techniques and the import of more food from overseas.

But I especially loved the conclusion:
But solving problems isn’t really the point, is it? These researchers aren’t motivated by green politics, they’re motivated by greed politics. The political entrepreneur doesn’t profit by serving customers better than the competition, they profit by convincing the government to steal resources from one group and give it to those with political influence. The average Australian probably won’t notice the extra $100 they spend on meat in a given year. And that’s what political entrepreneurs count on—concentrated benefits and dispersed costs.


As I said, well worth a read in full. 

Join ATA on Social Media:

Share our message of less taxes,
regulation and wasteful spending