Are you ready for the meat tax?

I heard on the news that, in Germany, a meat tax is up for consideration. It will be similar to luxury taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. It is part of their effort to address climate change.

Burger King is carrying Impossible Burgers to get us used to NOT eating meat.

I would be happy with that, and I like chicken and fish...but my doctor says I HAVE to eat beef. There's some sort of chemical in it that helps your kidneys to function better.

What are people like me supposed to do when they tax beef beyond our budgets?

BlueVeins · 22-25

I'm very glad that Germany is taking positive steps to tackle the looming environmental and public health problems. It may cost people more at the grocery store counter, including -- rather unfortunately -- the small minority of people who are obligate omnivores. But at least it will save even that minority money in terms of healthcare costs and property values. At least they'll be less likely to contract asthma from the emissions of toxic gasses and less likely to recieve permanent brain damage from tainted shellfish (which is frequently caused by algea blooms, which are, in themselves caused by intensive farming).

It's impossible not to feel at least a little bit bad for someone who's getting shot in the wallet for reasons they can't control, but meat consumption in the western world has spiraled so far out of hand that it's literally killing people and will continue to so if nothing more is done. Maybe this will help spur on the development of affordable synthetic supplements that can help aleviate this problem altogether. As for now, 19% is a reasonable cost for the benefits reaped. My only real complaint is that other animal products (such as dairy and eggs) aren't also getting taxed more, despite relying on the exact same industry.

BlueVeins · 22-25

@4meAndyou I considered bringing up heart disease, but as you know, heart disease has a lot of causes and only some of them are related to meat. It wouldn't really be fair of me to say that 23.5% of deaths could be attributed to meat because that would discount the role of candy, malnutrition, sedintary lifestyles, sleep deprivation, depression, etcetera.

There's also an obvious qualitative argument to be had on the subject. Is it really the same for a young adult to die from a bullet wound versus a 60 year old man to die from having to much lard on his body? I'd argue that the answer is no. And I don't necessarily consider numerical comparisons to be relevant in this particular case, since our ability to reduce deaths from meat overconsumption isn't ultimately related to our ability to reduce deaths from drugs and weapon misuse.

curiosi · 61-69, F

One way or another they are determined to redistribute the wealth. Call it "climate change" so they don't know they are getting screwed.