Can people be taxed into adopting better health habits?

It's a fascinating idea, and it seems to be the primary goal of Philadelphia's Mayor Michael Nutter, who wants to impose unprecedentedly high taxes on soft drinks:

Mayor Nutter, balking at cutting "core services" and running out of ways to raise money, is expected to balance next year's budget with a steep tax on sugary drinks and a $300 annual residential trash fee, sources familiar with the plan said yesterday.

City Councilman W. Wilson Goode Jr. said he anticipated a 2-cent-per-ounce tax on sweet drinks as part of Nutter's 2010-2011 budget, to be presented tomorrow. That's $2.88 on a 12-pack of soda cans

Nutter would not comment on details of the budget yesterday, but did say: "The major tax sources are not really available."

That's because the property tax still relies on notoriously inaccurate and inequitable assessments that are at least two years away from being fixed; the city raised the sales tax 1 percentage point last year; and Nutter and others remain opposed to increases in income or business taxes, whose receipts have plummeted in the slow economy.

Combined, the trash fee and soda tax likely would raise enough revenue to wipe out the city's 2010-2011 deficit, which has been projected at $125 billion to $150 million.

Can't wait for the high fat tax to implemented on a pizza, burgers and hot dogs next. This is all getting a little too out of control, food and liquids are a necessity and the government has no business increasing prices on what they decide is the healthier or non-healthier choice.

Imagine that.

The best way to fight this sort of thing might be to remind them that the policy will hurt the city economically. On that point, those affected in business and labor seem to agree:

"Philadelphians already pay the highest sales tax in the state, and this would increase the cost of the beverages they enjoy by as much as a staggering 100 percent," said Tony Crisci, legislative counsel of the Pennsylvania Beverage Association (PBA). "This proposal is unfair to Philadelphians, who already are being gouged by the city's high taxes. And, without question, this plan could have a significant impact on the family-sustaining jobs offered by our industry."

Danny Grace of Teamsters Local 830 in Philadelphia agreed.

"If the government drives up the cost of the products our members deliver, there will be a direct impact on jobs," said Grace. "The math is simple: Less production and distribution will mean fewer jobs available for those who work in an industry that actually has ADDED jobs throughout the ongoing economic downturn. In these economic times, Philadelphia can't afford to bleed anymore middle-class jobs."

Crisci noted that the beverage industry in Philadelphia is strong, and, in fact, added jobs at a time when Philadelphia's unemployment rate climbed to more than 10 percent. All told, about 2,000 Philadelphia-area jobs are directly attributed to the beverage industry.

"It's hard to understand why anyone would lay out an idea that not only would heap new burdens on Philadelphians when they can least afford it, but also put the city at a competitive disadvantage, especially in these still challenging economic times," Crisci said.

The mayor claims this new tax plan will help make the city's residents healthier. But Philadelphians aren't falling for it. They know that taxes don't make people healthier; diet and exercise do that.

Besides, the City of Philadelphia cannot handle the money it now has. Any more just goes down the rat hole. A new program like a soft drink tax will almost certainly cause the hiring of more administrative staffers, whose salaries will eat a good chunk of whatever increased revenue is raised.

Even the Philadelphia Parking Authority, which ought to be a cash cow, manages to spend it all on administrative salaries, while being completely unaccountable. But that sort of thing so typifies big cities and government in general that it's unremarkable.

Over a year ago, the number of government employees surpassed the number of jobs in manufacturing and construction, and Fabius Maximus posted this graph:

If you ask me, that looks unhealthier than soft drinks. If a graph like that illustrated a similar imbalance inside a patient's body, you can be sure that a responsible doctor would want to do something about the serious and growing problem.

The problem is that it's the serious and growing problem -- government -- which wants to be our physician. Those who eat out our substance are telling us that we are sick, and that if we just give them even more money, we will then be healthier.

Sorry, but that's too much like saying that cancer cures cancer.

MORE: Here's another unhealthy looking chart which shows the average compensation of the Federal Civilian workers versus the U.S. private sector workforce (as of 2004):

(Copied from a CATO article titled
"Federal Pay Outpaces Private-Sector Pay.")

It used to be that government jobs paid less (which they should, for a variety of reasons).

Are we getting what we pay for?

UPDATE: My thanks to Fabius Maximus for linking this post, and more importantly, for updating the post I linked with additional data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

* Good-producing employment peaked in 2000 at 24.6 million.
* Since then the number of goods-producing workers has dropped by 1/4, to 18.6 million.
* In 2007 for the first time both groups were equal (22.2 million).
* Since 2007 private sector employment has dropped by 7.0 million, over 1/2 of that from good-producing industries.
* Since 2007 the number of government employees has risen by 2% (by 326 thousand).