Ms. Newkirk is a pretty smart cookie, but I think in the US, a Meat Tax would not be a good idea. Maybe in some countries, like Germany, it would be a good idea.
But in the US (and I'm pretty sure the UK) there is a much easier, and better route.
Most citizens are against new taxes. But most taxpayers agree that we should reduce Government Spending. And if you can reduce government spending in one area, you can either lower taxes or spend more money on popular programs. If you are a liberal progressive you could spend more money on things like schools or health care. And if you are a right-wing A$$Hat, you could spend more money on the military. Or maybe something popular on both sides: veteran health care and benefits.
So instead of a meat tax I advocate an end for the end of subsidizing and regulating the cost of meat and dairy. I also think you should end subsidizing and regulating the cost of corn and soybeans. Something above 40% of corn and soybeans in the US get fed to livestock.
"Each year, American taxpayers dish out $38 billion to subsidize meat, fish, eggs, and dairy. " And that is just the Federal subsidies. Most states have their own programs.
I had trouble discovering the amount paid to corn and soybean farmers, but i think it averages out to something over 5 billion a year.
There are also various ways the Feds subsidize water. And although that helps the veg and fruit farmers, too, the dairy and beef industry probably couldn't even exist without water subsidies.
There are also other ways the US government spends money on livestock and corn. The Dairy Board and the Egg Board are both Federally funded programs that cost taxpayers money.
then there are all those laws that protect livestock producers. Generally called Agriculture Libel Laws or Ag-Gag laws, it makes it an act akin to terrorism to say something bad about beef, or video inside a slaughterhouse.
And don't even get me started on how Big Food controls the USDA and the FDA. Or the external costs of meat - from carbon to health care.
So instead of a meat tax, Ingrid should be lobbying for a decrease of subsidies. I've tried to find a good estimation of the cost of a hamburger without subsidies. And I guess it is pretty complicated. But PETA itself thinks that a burger without subsidies would cost $13. (Does Ingrid not read her own organization's articles?)
I think a meat tax would be very unpopular. I can already imagine Sean Hannity yelling that we are coming for their hamburgers. But a decrease in Federal Spending would be very appealing to those so-called Fiscal Conservatives. (we just have to forget to mention what a hamburger would cost.)
I think you wouldn't even have to pass a new law. Lawmakers could quietly just stop including subsidies in their budget. Maybe a gradual and incremental approach and most people wouldn't even notice.
-----
Further Reading and References
Our taxes subsidize the animal food industry.
www.alternet.org
By government subsidies I mean money provided by the government (presumably originating from taxes) to farmers which artificially reduces the price of beef. This includes subsidies for animal feed ...
vegetarianism.stackexchange.com
“Impressive research, incisive prose, and the passion of a muckraker.” – James McWilliams, Ph.D., author of Just Food Praise and Reviews Animated Video Video Trailer Radio and Podcast Interviews Sa…
meatonomics.com
www.ourhenhouse.org
The meat and dairy industries are full of horrifying secrets. Challenge yourself to learn more about the dairy and beef industry
www.peta.org
EWG's Farm Subsidy Database put the issue on the map and is driving reform. Just ten percent of America's largest and richest farms collect almost three-fourths of federal farm subsidies; cash payments that often harm the environment.
farm.ewg.org
David Robinson Simon says ‘aggressive messaging strategy’ deprives consumers of ability to make ‘independent decisions’ on food
www.theguardian.com