What do you think of a beef tax of 40%?

[mercalia]

"Surcharges of 40% on beef and 20% on milk would account for the damage their production causes people via climate change, an Oxford University team has calculated. These taxes would then deter people from consuming as much of these foods, reducing both emissions and illness, the team said."

"The new research found the taxes needed to compensate for climate damage were 15% on lamb, 8.5% on chicken, 7% on pork and 5% on eggs. Vegetable oil required a large tax of 25%, but this was due to the low initial price of the product, making a relatively modest surcharge look high"

40% on beef would mean I never see a joint ever again

The research dont take into account all the fat bankers, politicians and their ilk farting adding to the green house gases do they? They would carry on stuffing them selves with beef and venison at their Pall Mall clubs?
Beef for the rich and Pork for the poor?

I havent had beef for some time - Pork for me most of the time. Glad to know I am on the side of the "enlightened"


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/07/tax-meat-and-dairy-to-cut-emissions-and-save-lives-study-urges

[reohn2]

40% on beef would mean I never see a joint ever again

I haven't smoked the stuff since I was in my 'teens
I haven't eaten meat,red or white for 25 years either,never missed it.
As for dairy products,I do like a bit of cheese

[irc]

Another tax to hit the poor without affecting the behaviour of the better off. Woo hoo.

[syklist]

Another tax to hit the poor without affecting the behaviour of the better off. Woo hoo.

In a fair, just and wealthy society it would be easy to take some of the food production tax collected and redistribute it to the working poor, pensioners and those on benefit as compensation for higher prices.

[Edwards]

Another tax to hit the poor without affecting the behaviour of the better off. Woo hoo.

In a fair, just and wealthy society it would be easy to take some of the food production tax collected and redistribute it to the working poor, pensioners and those on benefit as compensation for higher prices.

The way it works now is just the opposite of the above.

Its the same the whole world over
Its the rich what gets the pleasure
Its the poor what gets the blame
Aint it all a bleeding shame

The poor can not afford meat, so it makes no odds to them.

[[XAP]Bob]

Once petrol is appropiately taxed we can start talking about essentials like food.

[pete75]

Once petrol is appropiately taxed we can start talking about essentials like food.

Presumably if fuel was appropriately taxed the reduction in the cost of fuel used in the transport of food would mean it became cheaper too. It would also lead to many other things costing less as well. Trouble is the government won't give up the revenue they gain from the ridiculously high duty on fuel.

[661-Pete]

Looks more like a 'stick' than a 'carrot', if you ask me (though carrots are a healthy option - in moderation).

My wife and I have renounced meat for some 15 years now, and feel none the worse for it: but that's a personal thing. Yes I would like to encourage more folks to at least cut down on the stuff, but the line I'd prefer is, "try some of these veggie dishes, they're really delicious! No way are you condemning yourself to 'rabbit-food' for the rest of your life...." My line of argument would not be, "stop eating meat, it's murder and you're killing the planet..."

There is some evidence that a sugar tax works, witness experiments in Mexico. But that's a different matter: it's a stick to beat the manufacturers with, rather than the consumers. And the food industry deserves one hell of a hiding....

[syklist]

Once petrol is appropiately taxed we can start talking about essentials like food.

Presumably if fuel was appropriately taxed the reduction in the cost of fuel used in the transport of food would mean it became cheaper too.

Funny, I read that as meaning that fuel duty should go up to compensate for the environmental impact of the production of fossil fuels.

[Vorpal]

We can go back to the good old days, when only the nobility and wealthy merchants could eat red meat frequently.

We know a little more about gout, now.

[PH]

Yes I would like to encourage more folks to at least cut down on the stuff, but the line I'd prefer is, "try some of these veggie dishes, they're really delicious! No way are you condemning yourself to 'rabbit-food' for the rest of your life...." My line of argument would not be, "stop eating meat, it's murder and you're killing the planet..."

I generally agree, we'd be better off on so many levels, health, environment, if we ate less meat. Particularly if we ate less intensively farmed and over processed cheap meat. I was bought up with the idea that the main meal of the day was meat and two veg, I was probably on my late 30s before I shook that idea off and have been better off for it in every way. Even on a low income, I can afford really good quality organic meat, straight from the farm, but it's a treat rather than an everyday staple, the way I can afford it is by not spending money on the junk in the supermarkets.
I don't think tax is the way to get the message across, but at the very least we could stop subsidising the production of stuff that isn't in anyone's interests other than the producer and retailer.
But I know I'm whistling in the wind, quantity rather than quality is the norm. A pack of 8 frozen burgers, that contain who knows what, is the same price as a single quality one and people choose the former. Making own narrows the gap, but how many people do that? It's all part of the consumer society we live in and price is paramount.

[[XAP]Bob]

Once petrol is appropiately taxed we can start talking about essentials like food.

Presumably if fuel was appropriately taxed the reduction in the cost of fuel used in the transport of food would mean it became cheaper too. It would also lead to many other things costing less as well. Trouble is the government won't give up the revenue they gain from the ridiculously high duty on fuel.

Actually, no.

The costs of motoring to be included should be all the climate impacts, the costs to the NHS, and the economy, of pollution as well as incidents.


Last study I saw was that the typical motorist was subsidised to the tune of a grand a year.

Fuel duty is not expensive compared with the actual costs of motoring...

[reohn2]

Sainsbury's 110g bar of Cadbury's £1 almost all processed sugar

It's still a common misconception that you need meat for a healthy diet whilst that outlook persists people will eat meat,the crap fed to animals is common knowledge to those that choose to look.
Organic meat costs far more than Mac meat and so as PH says quality organic meat once a week is a viable option even on a moderate income.The problem is the crap Mac meat that people think they can't live without,the same goes for the Cadbury's and other sugar laden 'treats' that for many aren't a treat at all but a staple.
Capitalism knows's it and plays on it.

[Psamathe]

Once petrol is appropiately taxed we can start talking about essentials like food.

I would agree.

Whilst beef production undoubtedly does much environmental damage, there are currently far bigger issues we are failing to address. In fact a lot of meat production is doing immense damage and not only in terms of pollution but e.g. antibiotic resistance.

Ian

[syklist]

Even on a low income, I can afford really good quality organic meat, straight from the farm, but it's a treat rather than an everyday staple, the way I can afford it is by not spending money on the junk in the supermarkets.

As one of my grandfathers used to say, "I am not rich enough to buy cheap things".