Mexico to tax soft drinks and junk food

Mexico has passed the US in terms of obesity, with seven of 10 adults now categorized as overweight or obese.  President Enrique Pena Nieto is proposing a series of tax increases to fund increased spending.  WSJ reports part of the package is a one peso tax on sugary drinks.  LA Times reports that there also is a five percent tax on packaged food which has more than 275 calories per 100 grams.

Predictably, the tax is already getting slammed both by citizens upset with the higher cost of simple pleasures and by the companies whose products are being taxed.  From an economic perspective, taxing food to combat obesity is similar to the logic behind taxing alcohol and tobacco.  It would make more sense to have a generalized calorie tax combined with rebates to help the less fortunate.  However, such a tax would have all food companies up in arms, so there is a certain divide-and-conquer element to the government's strategy.  Also many of the leading packaged food and soft drink producers are companies headquartered outside Mexico, e.g., Coca-Cola and Nestle.

Denmark tried a similar tax in 2011 but repealed it after one year after there was no change in eating habits and a lot of junk food smuggled across the border.  Other countries will be keeping an eye on how the junk food taxes work in Mexico.  

More on tax deductions for part-time MBA

Today's Bucks blog on the NYT website runs a story that explains in more detail the circumstances in which MBA tuition becomes tax deductible. The key issue is that the MBA student must prove that the degree "maintains or improves the skills required for the taxpayer's current trade or business."

It turns out the rules for M.B.A.’s depend on whether individuals can prove that they were already established in a certain trade or business before going to get an M.B.A. and that the degree will help them maintain or improve their skills in that specific trade or business.

If they can demonstrate both, they can deduct whatever tuition costs their employer didn’t reimburse or offer to reimburse. And if they can’t — say they are switching careers or didn’t have qualifying work experience before heading to school — they can’t.

MBA tuition now tax deductible?

Last weekend's WSJ reports that a Maryland nurse won a case in US Tax Court that will allow her to deduct MBA tuition from her federal taxes. The IRS ruling cites the finding that the MBA was necessary for her current job, as opposed to some future position, as the decisive factor. This could be a tremendous boost for part-time and executive programs. ADVICE TO NC STATE MBAS: Please read both articles and strongly consider consulting with a tax accountant or attorney before claiming your 2009 MBA tuition as a tax deduction.

Two different takes on job creation

With unemployment at 10% despite the biggest stimulus package ever, there is more and more talk in DC about a second stimulus focused on job creation. In the last few days WSJ has run two op-eds from very highly respected economists that approach policies to create jobs from very different frameworks. Alan Blinder of Princeton (and former vice-chairman of the Fed) examines public employment and a tax credit for new jobs. Blinder points out that the tax credit would be very hard to implement because there would be countless ways for employers to game the system (e.g., fire workers and hire them back). Michael Boskin of Stanford (and former chief economic adviser to Bush 41) advocates a six percentage point cut in FICA tax. Boskin claims this will create much more stimulus than the package approved last February at half the cost.

What does the GDP report really mean?

News that GDP grew by 3.5% in the third quarter is definitely welcome after four straight declines. A careful look at the major components in NYT and WSJ shows that stimulus has played a role. Consumption increased with a big help from cash for clunkers; investment grew because of an uptick in housing ($8k tax credits at work) and restoration of inventories. Net exports fell, whereas federal spending was up (no surprise there). More details are available in the Bureau of Economic Analysis press release.

There is still plenty of room for concern. Cash for clunkers boosted sales in the short term, but many economists (myself included) believe that the program merely accelerated purchases that car buyers were going to make anyway -- which is not good news for the next few quarters. The employment news continues to be bleak, as noted in a recent post. But +3.5% beats a negative number!

Using cash incentives to encourage fertility

Japan has a birth rate of 1.37 children per woman and near zero immigration. The demographic math is simple -- Japan is going to have a rising percentage of its population aged 65 and older. With declining numbers of citizens in their prime working years, who will pay for the social security and medical care of a rapidly aging population? Also who will service the massive debt that Japan has accumulated?

WSJ reports Japan's new government has decided to provide economic incentives to parents: cash payments of $6000 at birth plus another $3300 a year through age 15 plus state-supported day care and tuition waivers. Japan is not the first country to go this route and, to date, the evidence of its effectiveness is mixed. Wonder why?

Results have been mixed, dividing researchers who study government enticements. They generally agree on one point: Money goes only so far. Other major factors governments need to consider, apart from a greater role for fathers at home, include the acceptance of working mothers and a supportive corporate culture.

Without other major changes such as shared responsibility for child rearing, "All the money in the world may not make a long-term difference," says David Coleman, a professor of demography at Oxford University.