Food Citizen: Tax Rebates Can Nourish Communities
By Jennifer Wilkins
TimesUnion.com
May 4, 2008
Available online at:
The relationship between income and happiness isinteresting. Once basic needs are met, how people choose to spend their moneyis at least as important as how much they make. Specifically, spending onothers makes people happier than spending on one's self.
This was the conclusion of a study published recentlyin Science magazine. After rating their happiness in the morning, studyparticipants received $20, which they were asked to spend by 5 p.m. Some,randomly assigned to the "personal spending" group, were instructedto spend the money on an expense, or a gift for themselves. Others, in the"prosocial spending" group, were instructed to spend the money onsomeone else or a charitable donation.
After 5 p.m., participants again reported theirhappiness. The results were striking. Those who spent on others reportedgreater post-windfall happiness than those in the personal spending group.
If we generalize these findings, then Americans willsoon have an opportunity to truly increase their happiness. Tax rebate checksare on the way as part of the government's effort to jump-start our sputteringeconomy. The idea is that we'll use the money to buy more stuff, and corporations,in turn, will hire more people.
For a growing number of people, however, this moneywill go toward unpaid heating bills and overdue rent payments -- basic needs.But many others still have the luxury to make less immediate choices.
If spending the extra money on more stuff forourselves won't make us happier, what else might we do with this money?
The food citizen in me can't help but see this as anopportunity to make our communities more vibrant, nourishing and, yes,economically stimulating places to live.
Instead of responding to the tacit "It's yourmoney" message inherent in the tax rebate let's see it as our money. Whynot set up Food Citizens Funds? Here's how it could work:
A proportion of the more well-off married couples --say, half the households with incomes of $100,000 plus -- would each donate$1,000 of their $1,200 rebate to their community or county food citizen fund.Based on household income statistics for Albany County, such collectiveinvestment could amount to more than $8 million.
Putting the $8 million in a one-year money marketwould allow fund investors time to engage stakeholders in an assessment of thecommunity food system and identify needs for improving food security, nutritionand access to healthful foods throughout the county.
The fund (earning thousands of dollars in annualinterest income) could help pay for much of the infrastructure and equipmentimprovements in public school food service operations needed to shift back fromconvenience foods to cooking with whole foods, and to enhance the cafeteriaenvironment.
Cafeteria managers could apply for grants from the fund toincrease purchases of nutrient-rich locally produced foods. A vegetable gardencould be started at every school and area youth could be hired to mentoryounger children in the basics of planting, tending and harvesting. The fundcould buy development rights to keep land in agriculture.
A $1,200 rebate is enough to buy a home garden fortwo low-income households. "With $600, our program provides seeds, plants,three seasons of mentoring, compost, indoor and outside compost bins, andgarden installation," says Deb Lippoldt, executive director of GrowingGardens, in Portland, Ore., which has installed more than 500 gardens forlow-income families.
Recipient home gardeners report eating more fruitsand vegetables and enjoy a 50 percent reduction in food bills during the gardenseason. They also spend more time out doors being physically active, share theharvest and their interest in gardening with neighbors, and acquire invaluablehealth-enhancing skills.
Increasing fruit and vegetable intake can help reducethe annual $200 billion bill paid by society in medical expenses and loss ofproductivity stemming from diet-related diseases. By investing our tax rebatestogether in the health and well-being of our communities, instead ofindividually buying more stuff (99 percent of which is trashed within a year),a collective response could yield long-term social, environmental, and healthbenefits.
Does such a scheme have merit on economic grounds?"The traditional behavioral model predicts that people will spend theirwindfalls in purely selfish ways," says Robert Frank, Cornell Universityprofessor of economics and author most recently of "Falling Behind."
"But recent evidence suggests that for well-offconsumers the gains from such spending will be fleeting at best. Pooling taxrebates for the greater good may be an idea whose time has come," Franksaid.
Jennifer Wilkins studies the connection between health andthe food and agriculture system in the Division of Nutritional Sciences atCornell University. Her e-mail address is jlw15@cornell.edu.