Fat Tax
Government intervention has often been loathed in many instances throughout history through tax resistance. Stretching from ancient to recent history, the governed have often resisted unfair and costly taxes enforced by those of authority. This pattern extended from taxes such as the Stamp Act and Sugar Act from the Revolutionary War to post Greco-Persian War Taxes which soon led to the fall of the Persian Empire. The use of a similar tax, a "fat tax", is now being debated between the walls of Congress. This fat tax would be met with much resistance and would have many unintended repercussions. Although a fat tax would aid in deterring many from some unhealthy foods, introducing this tax would result in a heavy societal tax and be maladdressing this sensitive and complex issue.
…show more content…
Yet the problem lies in, not the idea, but the practicality, application, and implications of such a tax. The tax on these "fatty foods" would face many questions such as which foods would be considered fatty. Considering that the foods that would be taxed would be those high in fat, the type of fat would be another question which arises. According to Laura Salahi, foods such as nuts that are high in unsaturated fat provide many benefits such as the lowering of blood pressure and the reduction in the risk of heart disease, while Dr. Walt Willett further stated that unsaturated fats eaten in moderation may even help lead to healthy weight loss. Additionally, the failure of a fat tax can be seen in a country such as Denmark who instituted their fat tax on saturated fats
Taxing junk food isn’t as bad as people may think. “ In 1972, U.S consumers spent $3 billion a year on fast food; today we spend more than $110 billion.”, said Cummins . If only we put a tax on junk foods this number would go up and the tax money could be used for all of the collateral damages it causes. Another reason why taxing junk food isn’t as bad as people may think is because “ junk food kills”, stated Cummins. The junk food industry is in a similar position that the tobacco industry was once. After many decades the truth is finally becoming crystal clear.
As an American I love my fair share of greasy foods. Like most Americans I enjoy eating at food fattening restaurants like Chick fil- a, Sonic Drive-in, and not to forget Mc Donald’s. Almost every other week would be spent at Mc Donald’s where I would usually get the 10 piece chicken nuggets with medium fries, a sprite, and five different dipping sauces. Many people who follow the same routine do not suffer from high blood pressure or obesity, which brings me to the issue that taxing obese people for being overweight is an idea, but may need to be reevaluated as a solution. After looking into the article “The Fat Tax: A Modest Proposal” by Johnathan Rauch from The Atlantic he mentions the fact that many fast food companies are increasing the rates of being obese by instituting larger cups, food portions, and serving more buttered bread.
There is what has been referred to as "obesity epidemic" in Australia today. This trend affects everyone it the society; whether it be directly or indirectly. One particular concern within the "at risk" segment is children. The young in our society do not have the capacity, either mentally or the physical resources, to make their own informed decisions about their dietary consumption. Children are generally dependent upon their parents or institutions to provide them with the foods that they consume. Therefore, this group above all others deserves some level of protection against a lifestyle that can potentially have negative consequences for their health that can stay with them for a lifetime.
One of the main groups that would be negatively affected by a fat tax are the diabetics. Those who fight hypoglycemia occasionally need candy or soda to raise their blood sugar levels. Why should diabetics have to pay more for something that could potentially save their lives? They already have to pay extremely high costs for their insulin to keep their glucose levels from reaching too high. At Diabetic Care Services and Pharmacy, a box of five Humalog pen Kwikpens cost $339.29, which is extremely expensive, especially if the buyer does not have health insurance. The cost of living is very high for someone with diabetes and they might have very little money left out of each paycheck, after taxes and medical bills, for groceries. “Calorie for calorie, junk foods not only cost less than fruits and
Who has not eaten junk food at least once? I did it, and to me, as to many Americans, the junk food is the most delicious type of food. However, I know it is the unhealthiest food and the main cause of obesity in the United States. On the other hand, the U.S. government feels that is important to intervene in junk food lover’s lives to help them to improve their health and their food choices. In order to combat the obesity and other health problems that junk food causes, the U.S. government has been looking for many ways to prevent and decrease the number of obese people in the country. They believe that adding taxes to the junk food is a great idea that might help people to
In the case of the Fat Tax, the body that will be given power is both the Minister of Health Susan Ley and Assistant, Fiona Nash. The two will play a critical role in ensuring that the idea, if proposed as a law and passed, is successful. They will have the power to make it compulsory for all businesses that market junk food and sugary drinks, to have a health star rating. They must also determine that the wide spread marketing of junk food and sugary drinks to children is eliminated.
With obesity rates increasing at an exponential rate, a tax on fat foods and specifically high sugar beverages of 20% or about 1 cent per ounce could reduce obesity rates by 3.5%, bringing the rate down to 30% among adults (Kalaidis). While 3.5% may not sound like a lot, if you take an approximate U.S. population of 350 million people, suddenly that mere 3.5% turns into over 12 million Americans who would no longer be considered obese. Marion Nestle, a well-respected expert in food policy, recently conducted a study investigating the impact of a junk food tax through predictive modeling. Her study revealed that 2,600 deaths, 9,500 heart attacks, and 240,000 new cases of diabetes could be prevented with a simple 1 cent per ounce tax on sugary beverages (Satran). A junk food tax of this kind could greatly increase the health of the American public as a whole by reducing death rates and healthcare
A fat tax would plague producers and outlets. Such was the case with the world’s first fat tax introduced in Denmark. This tax on foods high in saturated fat was dismissed after less than a year and left many consequences in its wake. It has been guilty of “increasing prices for consumers, increasing companies' administrative costs and putting Danish jobs at risk," as stated by the Danish tax ministry. As a result, the planned sugar tax has also been abandoned. As well, the tax was a costly procedure and failed to change the eating habits of people in general. A fat tax on fast food would have the same limitations and ultimately lead to failure.
* Discourage consumption of poor foods through a "fat tax," earmarking the funds for nutrition and recreation.
But, public law is not an all-inclusive category, and it does not include personal health. A favorable government tries to protect the well-being of its citizens, and their constitutional rights. So, a government should be concerned with a matter as alarming as obesity, but be mindful of the free choice of people. Obesity is not an urgency for the government to limit the choices that people have to lead an active or inactive life. As a matter of fact, the American design was “founded on the idea that individuals have basic freedoms. Among these, certainly, is the right to choose what we put on our plates” (Manson). If requirements were to be embedded on eating choices to lower the risk of obesity, where would the government start or end? About 30 cities and states have considered taxes on all sugary drinks, but these “fat taxes are surely aimed at raising more revenue than at helping people live healthier lives” (Herrera). A price increase for fattening foods is not supported by a drop in the cost of decent foods. But the fat tax, backed by by those who taunt the healthy habits this law supposedly encourages, creates worthwhile earnings for the government. This fat tax is only intended for foods, but the major cause of obesity is not mainly the unhealthy diet, but people overeating, and under exercising is an underlying cause (Manson) Realizing the cost of trying to switch this input output
Economic costs of obesity are increasing and will continue to do so if nothing is done. Healthy Communities for A Healthy Future state that the estimated annual health care costs related to obesity are 190 billion dollars. This is 21% of total health care costs. This includes direct costs, such as preventive and treatment services, while indirect costs include income lost to days debilitated or future income lost to death. On an individual level, an obese person will cost 42% more in health care than a person of healthy weight. A tax directly related to products known to cause obesity would offset the cost of health care, and hopefully result in less obesity in the Nation.
* There is speculation over the government introducing a new ‘fat tax’ on fast food served over a counter. This will add on another 20% to the current price in taxes. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/16/fat-tax-unhealthy-food-effect
With a growing epidemic of obesity in America, some states and lawmakers have resorted to taking unconventional measures in order to counter the growing issue. Many legislators are debating the effectiveness of a “fat tax” would be on limiting the consumption of soda, high fat foods, and high sugar foods, and ultimately reducing the rate of morbidity and mortality due to obesity. The idea is that long term consumption of high fat, high sugar foods and drinks lead to many health problems, so making them more expensive and less accessible should decrease the health issues related to their consumption.
“Sin” taxes have been proven as a way to curtail known unhealthy behaviors. Soda taxes are most accepted if taxes collected are earmarked for health specific programs (Chaufin et al., 2010). The cons are the consumers are the voters and taxing may equate to loss of votes, taxing may not be equitable to individuals that do not have the disease, and finally, an undue burden may be placed on lower socio-economic demographics as these groups often have limited access to food vendors that primarily sale what would be considered taxed foods. Though these sin taxes are proven to work well with tobacco and alcohol consumption, altering a persons’ diet needs to be more individualized and realistically approached. Lower socio-economic individuals should not feel added burden as a tax; which would be a negative impact (Kuchar et al., 2005). Legality issues are regarded as low, but would require state government support to enact. This would likely not be popularly accepted and have a minimal impact for any increase in tax rate.
The implementation of a “Fat Tax” is a topic that has been considered before in the UK. This is an additional tax on junk food, seeking to reduce the consumption of products containing high levels of fats, sugars and cholesterol. One of the primary considerations for such a tax is the scale of the obesity problem in the UK. Today’s obesity level in the UK is three times the 1980s level, currently 24.9% and is the highest in Europe (Nhs.uk 2015). The extent of the UK confectionery market size, which is expected to grow to £6.64 billion (bn) by 2019 (www.foodmanufacture.co.uk 2015) is a major contributing factor to the obesity rate and can be considered a market failure due to the associated negative externalities and its nature as a demerit good. Consequently, this causes market failure as it is over provided and readily available, creating deadweight welfare loss (DWL) . This essay endeavours to investigate the welfare and efficiency implications of the, colloquially known, ‘fat tax’ on junk foods and sugary drinks. Such a tax will, evidently, have an affect on both the consumers and producers. Through economic analysis, this essay will discuss who faces the greatest tax incidence.