Cutting A Tax On Junk Food

Eating healthy has become a thing of the past. In the essay by Mark Bittman “Bad Food? Tax it, and Subsidize Vegetables Instead” offers an idea on how to change the Standard American Diet: making healthy food cheaper and fast, processed food more expensive. Calculating the tax to increase one penny would make a difference in the price and the decision for the people as to whether or not the people are will purchase processed foods. He explains that taxes on carbonated drinks and processed foods should increase due to the amount of money it would bring into the government, and the benefits of a healthier American. Bittman’s results remove chronic health diseases that reinvent the way we eat. In “Nickle and Dimed on Not Getting by in America,”

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.

Whether or not a person wants a burger and french-fries’ or a salad from the salad bar, the decision should be up to him/her. Two articles share views on food, “What You Eat Is Your Business” by Radley Balko and “Junking Junk Food” by Judith Warner. These two authors wrote articles about how they felt about food and how it’s related to obesity. However, Radley Balko would not approve of Judith Warner’s views on food for the reason that the two authors have different viewpoints on the aspect of the government helping people to make better food choices. Warner and Balko also has different views on the ideas which are that eating is a psychological matter; and eating healthy should be a personal matter.

In an article published in the New York Times, journalist Mark Bittman explores the common misconception that junk food is more cost efficient than buying and preparing your own food. In the article “Is Junk Food Really Cheaper?” Bittman attempts to unravel common arguments revolving around the affordability and convenience of fast food and proposes some alternatives to what he deems as a contributing factor to obesity in America. Though Bittman makes an understandable argument in the article the general tone and method in which he chooses to build his argument may seem contemptuous at times and at some points lacking in informative evidence and relevant statistics.

In the beginning of his article called “Is Junk Food Really Cheaper?” author Mark Bittman does a spectacular job capturing the reader almost instantly just within the first paragraph. He brazenly begins his argument to express his thoughts indirectly, but directly of why the “overweight” and “low income” population cannot afford, access, or choose healthy food options.

In the essay by Mark Bittman “Bad Food? Tax it, and Subsidize Vegetables Instead,” Bittman offers an idea on how to change the Standard American Diet: making healthy food cheaper and fast, processed food more expensive. Calculating the tax to increase one penny would make a difference in the price and the decision of the people as to whether or not the people will purchase processed foods. With taxes on carbonated drinks and processed foods, profits from the proposal should increase due to the amount of money it would bring into the government and the benefits of a healthier American. Bittman’s results remove chronic health diseases that reinvent the way we eat. In “Nickle and Dimed on Not Getting by in America,” Barbara Ehrenreich

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

The main conflict in "Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables“ concerns the change of average Americans poor diet through economic encouragement. Mark Bittman's idea to put a high tax on unhealthy foods such as cookies, potato chips, french fries and soft drinks in order to subsidize healthy foods like vegetables is a great idea. As he points out, "A 20 percent increase in the price of sugary drinks nationally could result in about a 20 percent decrease in consumption, which in the next decade could prevent 1.5 million Americans from becoming obese and 400,000 cases of diabetes, saving about $30 billion." This is why I’m fully on board with the program Bittman outlines because such a program can save people's health and the well-being of

Eating unhealthy foods is one of the major causes of obesity today; but should there be a higher tax on all soft drinks and junk food? Should people be punished for eating what they want? Yes, there are health risks involved with an unhealthy diet but is a higher taxing on these foods the right alternative? With the price of healthcare raising maybe the extra tax could help alleviate it, maybe not. Perhaps the higher tax will turn people away from buying unhealthy foods and drinks. Consuming unwholesome food can lead to clogged arteries, heart attacks and many other fatal illnesses. Buying the healthier substitute may help our

Article Number 2 spoke of a 20% increase in price would create a 20% decrease in consumption, and it was also mentioned that the saving of junk food by mass order from schools, the money could be returned to communities or even other programs at the school, since out of the $9 billion spent for school meals, the average amount of money will cost about 20 cents a meal. Regardless, the taxing of food is around the same throughout all three articles. Money-wise, integrating a one percent increase in tax will save about $1.5 billion a year, and a penny-tax increase would save $3 billion on health care and prevent 37,000 cases of diabetes (page 160, paragraph 26) as said by Y. Claire Wang, an assistant professor at Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health. Each article brought in an expert to further prove their case and were brought back to the point that taxing unhealthy foods, while it is not capable of happening overnight, it may decrease the ever-growing rate of diabetes and obesity that is not only prevalent in the United States but also evident on a global scale, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. The proposition of adding a much need tax on unhealthy could possibly lower low-income obesity rates, as noted Mark Bittman in the first article.

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.

The fat tax in America; an attempt to improve the obesity epidemic using the legislature. The fat tax will not cure obesity in America however, one idea is it will be used as an incentive to help improve the eating habits of Americans. The revenue collected can be used to enhance education as well as implement programs to teach healthy lifestyle tips such as exercise, and even implementing gyms in places like community centers. Another suggestion is to reduce cost of healthy foods using some of the tax money. As a result of the healthy habits of the population, Medicare and Medicaid may be less stressed resulting in less expenses. This could lead to less government debt as well as a healthier population. The percentage of obese adults doubled in the last thirty years, and obesity in children tripled. The cost of obesity annually is 100 billion dollars due to medical issued.

Paying taxes is something everyone does. We pay taxes on cars, property, and on our income. What about the junk food we consume? This has been debated for years that it will or will not work. How do we educate the public? Why should we do it? Where will the money be going? What groups will it serve? Prices are already high, so where is the money coming from? Everything that is done must be motivated because if not, it becomes a fad - here today and gone tomorrow. Only things that are done repetitively are made into habits. As a person, all things can be done if we have a desire and a need. Taxes on junk food and soda will not work unless everyone is educated on the utilization of revenues, health advantages, and motivated sufficiently to make a more healthy change.

A tax on someone's favorite food may upset them, but it may not stop them from buying it still. Unless the price of foods went up by an extraordinary amount, it wouldn’t really stop people, who really wanted it, to stop buying.

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.