zlacker

Subsidizing the cost of health foods and adding a tax on sugar are exactly equivalent due to how monetary policy works.

>>pclmul+(OP)
How are they roughly equivalent, let alone "exactly equivalent"? It seems to me that are vast differences any way you compare them.

Economically, there are major differences in who pays them, There are differences in impact/cost. There are also huge moral differences between subsidizing desired behavior, and penalizing undesirable behavior.

>>pclmul+(OP)
Subsidizing the cost of health foods would actually be a lot more expensive. In fact, ideally it'd include increasing the accessibility of healthy foods while a tax on sugar would be much easier to implement.

It'd result in more people eating better though (instead of just eating slightly less worse, or eating worse differently while still not getting enough healthy food) and so there'd also be savings in the cost of health care and improvements in productivity.

>>s1arti+8f
Subsidies increase the amount of money in circulation and taxes decrease it. The price of goods is set relative to the amount of money in circulation (this is what inflation does). Hence, exact equivalence of taxing sugar and subsidizing foods without sugar.

>>pclmul+a61
Seems like a very narrow definition. If I take $100 from your wallet, or give $100 to your neighbor, is that exactly the same to you?

>>s1arti+C91
No, the effect is amortized over everyone. If you elect to take $100 from half the country or give $100 to the other half it's pretty much exactly equivalent. We saw this experiment with COVID helicopter money causing inflation. You weren't seriously suggesting taxing or subsidizing only one person, were you?

>>pclmul+Ko1
taxes are generally levied on a small portion of people and subsidies normally go to even smaller portion.

Taxes and benefits are extremely unequal in their application.