Hacker News Reader

An easier starting point would simply be shifting meat subsidies to fruit and vegetables:

> According to recent studies, the U.S. government spends up to $38 billion each year to subsidize the meat and dairy industries, with less than one percent of that sum allocated to aiding the production of fruits and vegetables.

https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/removing-meat-subsidy-our-cogn...

Broadly it would keep food prices stable and encourage healthier alternatives.

Edit: Sorry, I assumed this is a US conversation which may be incorrect. I understand UK is similar, but don't know about the rest of the world.

An easier starting point would simply be shifting meat subsidies to fruit and vegetables:

Assuming your goal is to raise meat prices, the problem is if the US for example stops subsidizing meat it will just mean that people will buy more non-US meat, unless you at the same time slap on an import tariff (which is tricky to do). Taxing meat at the point of sale solves all those problems.

That being said, you should probably also look at shifting subsidies towards making fruits and veg cheaper.

That 38b claim is unfounded.

The source in that article goes to the writer of Meatonmics. On their site, they just claim that number without pointing to where or how they get that number.

In 2019 the gov pumped out 22b in subsidies to all farmers across the board. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/12/31/790261705/fa...

So where's this 38b data coming from? Since the meatonmics agenda is to get rid of meat production, sourcing from them is the same as the health benefits claimed by the The Tobacco Institute.

I'm not OP and I think you're right, but subsidies are not often direct cash injection. It can be bailing farmers out of debt, stripping taxes for slaughterhouse, or even workers compensation for incident on meat plants.

BLM land access is one area that could be a large subsidy not counted as a direct subsidy. That can't really be shifted to fruits and vegetables (I don't think the land is suitable). There are grazing fees (though not everyone pays and they have trouble enforcing them), but it sound like they could be considerably lower than market rate. See "State and Private Grazing Rates" in:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21232.pdf

It is a huge political issue going back hundreds of years as ranching was arguably the largest driving factor behind the European colonization of the Americas.

Do you have any kind of sense of the deeply dangerous and toxic tyrannical intent behind your proposal of an "extreme tax on red meat". You are literally also describing the slippery slope of "just this time because tobacco is so damaging" leading to "extreme tax on food because they don't eat what I want them to eat and I want to control it and make it painful for them so only the ruling class can afford it".

This kind of mentality is very much what is going to lead us all down a path of calamity, if we aren't already irreversibly on that slippery path already.

How about a more reasonable approach like making industrial farming practices illegal or just tax those to prevent the abhorrent practices that I also do not like, instead of trying to command and control what people can eat because you don't like it.

Again, I implore you to reexamine what you are espousing and your clearly authoritarian mentality and approach to things because no matter how it manifests itself, it simply will not end well, no matter how it ends.

Animal agriculture is already very heavily subsidized. Moving said subsidies from animal to plant based food production would greatly increase the cost of animal proteins, while allowing plant farming the opportunity to embrace regenerative practices.

https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/removing-meat-subsidy-our-cogn...

OMG or we could somehow figure out how to get the federal government to "just"stop subsidizing corn.

Same effect as the tax (it would allow the actual price of meat to rise closer to what it should be), and VASTLY less coercive and prone to being gamed by well-lawyered insiders.

Ending the corn subsidy ends the indirect meat subsidy. It would allow so many problems to start self-correcting.

I agree with others - a tax to make food more expensive is inhumane and immoral. Please update your view on red meat.

Taxes ("sin taxes") disproportionately hurt the poor and financially constrained.

That you're even suggesting making meat 7x more expensive shows that you're not remotely concerned about your ability to provide food for yourself.

Nobody concerned about the ability to feed themselves should rely on or even have to consider red meat; red meat has historically always been a luxury product, not a staple food. That industrial farming, externalized impacts en perverse subsidies has made you consider red meat to be a staple food available cheaply and unlimited to all is what is really worrying.

I would personally rather see much stricter rules and regulations on animal welfare and industrial farming, combined with an import ban on countries that don't have similar rules (perhaps with a mechanism where individual producers in those countries can apply foe exception to the ban if they can prove that they are up to standard). And then let producers compete freely under these new rules without additional taxation or subsidy.

Of course the big downside is that this would effect the poor to a much greater extent, since they are primary purchasers of this cheaper meat that would disappear from the market.

Even just removing the meat subsidy in the US (or replacing it with one subsidizing plant-based alternatives) would go a long way.

I found this to be a well-written article about the topic: https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/removing-meat-subsidy-our-cogn...

A tax is only a tax for poor people.

Meat is an important part of a balanced diet, and by raising the price via taxes it becomes unobtainable to those for who meat already is an expensive luxury.

Also your math is weird.

Comments like this are why people hate vegans.

I'm neither a vegan nor a vegetarian

Making food prohibitively expensive is not cool. Leave what other people eat alone. >:-|

Another excellent use of the tax money from this could be subsidising non-meat foods which makes more food cheaper.

Anecdotally my own experience switching to a diet with less meat is that food costs have gone down.

Red meat is a luxury item, isn't it? What the parent poster is suggesting is similar to a soda tax or cigarette tax.

It's food and food should never be a luxury. Historically it has often been a luxury unfortunately.

Are all food items necessities? I don't know, maybe? Are ice cream, trans fats, soda, candy, filet mignon, alcohol, etc. not luxuries?

I empathize with the position that any tax on a food item will disproportionally impact the poor. And I agree, everyone should have a baseline level of housing and food accessible to them regardless of their circumstances. But if a food item has huge negative externalities, surely we should do something to limit its appeal and consumption, right?

Yeah, this is what the environmentalists don't really get.

Cheap meat available to the masses isn't going away. Pandora's Box has been opened, we have to deal with that. The only thing accomplished with making meat prohibitively expensive is pissing meat-eaters off (thus them resenting any environmental reforms even more), and most importantly, making it accessible only to the wealthy.

It's fine to offer healthier alternatives, but don't expect to be moving mountains. Focus more money and effort on lab-grown meat.

I think that if this was done slowly with a tax that increases year by year(like the Australian tabaco tax) and with some of the money being invested in lab grown meat reasearch we'd get to the lab grown meat future much faster. I suppose I should have been clearer on the fact that I didn't meant a jump to 7x the price over night.

There are still health concerns around a diet heavy in red meats, but at least it would address the environmental issue.

Are you healthy ? Can you post a picture of your body or training regimen ?

I was never a regular meat eater and have quit completely for over 3 years. I can do 110kg deadlifts. I am 42 with a sedentary job.

You are not the author I was replying to.

I don't see why my health in particular matters when there are olympian athletes who are entirely vegan and additionally many who are vegetarians. You seem to be implying that a plant based diet would not support a an active and healthy lifestyle, but the fact that all those people exists refutes that.

As for me, I could probably stand to gain a few kg of weight and exercise more but yes I am generally healthy. My health hasn't changed significantly since I started eating less meat for what it's worth.

> I don't see why my health in particular matters

There are a lot of people who have no idea about a profession or field and still have opinions (strong ones at that).

> when there are olympian athletes who are entirely vegan and additionally many who are vegetarians.

The point is I don't care that "there are some people that do x without y", you have that in every field in medics system.

"My grandpa smoked till 90 and didn't die." I don't care about your grandpa.