Fat Tax

The United States of America is known for having a high obesity level. According to David Frum from CNN, except for Mexicans, American citizens are more likely to become obese than any other nationality. Some obese countries have enforced an extra high tax on fast foods and other high calorie foods, and many people believe that the U.S. should adopt the fat tax as well. According to Dictionary.com, the fat tax is “a tax imposed on or proposed for high-fat or otherwise unhealthy foodstuffs”. Although a tax on junk food could reduce obesity, the low prices could protect low income families from going broke, and therefore a tax on junk food would not be beneficial to America.

The point is to hinder people from making poor food choices. To be healthier, would people agree to sign a fat tax bill? Seems unlikely, but for example, think about the reduction in smokers because of the limited public smoking areas, the Surgeon General’s warning on every pack of cigarettes and the sky rocketing prices. There are a lot less smokers now then before these changes. If the government can foster the same idea in food education, rather than just saying “eat healthy and exercise,” there may be positive results to the obesity epidemic. Now it is realized that something more drastic must be done.

A bag of potato chips, for example, contains 10 grams of fat, 170 grams of sodium, and only 2 grams of protein. A whole pineapple, on the other hand, has 1.1 grams of fat, 9 milligrams of sodium, and about 5 grams of protein. The chips have about 10 times the fat, 18,889 times the sodium, and about half as much protein as the pineapple. Which is healthier? The pineapple, it is a no-brainer, right? Actually, 66.7 percent of the 18 people surveyed in a private poll would rather choose a $5.00 pineapple over a $2.50 bag of potato chips. Therefore, it would be smarter to raise the tax on junk foods, just like the government raised the tax on cigarettes. “Significant increases in tobacco taxes are a highly effective tobacco control strategy and lead to significant improvements in public health,” according to Chuck Marr and Chye-Ching Huang, authors for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Meaning, raising the tax on fatty foods would encourage people to choose healthier options, limiting the amount of junk food consumption. Just like increased taxes on cigarettes decreased the amount of smokers. Both are bad for you, so it would make sense. So, by increasing the tax, people would be even more inclined to purchase healthier

The United States of America, a nation that is known for it’s power, independence, and obesity. In the past few decades, this country has been suffering from an epidemic of obesity and diabetes. The government should increase the sales tax on fatty and high-sugar junk food to encourage healthy eating and help the American people. The revenue raised could be used to support greater causes and pay for health care reform. This might be the solution this country needs.

Obesity has been a problem in the United States for far too long, and it is time for the government to take action and protect the health of its citizens. This could be accomplished by taxing junk food and subsidizing healthy food, such as fruits, vegetables, and meats. The easiest foods to find and the cheapest foods to buy are foods that contain large amounts of calories and few nutrients (“What’s Behind the Obesity Epidemic”). This means that obesity disproportionately affects poor families (Mitchell, Catenacci, Wyatt, & Hill). In order to redress this issue, the government should put extra taxes on foods with high amounts of calories with few nutrients to act as a deterrent and keep people from buying them. The money gained from the taxes

There is an epidemic striking the United States. This epidemic, one of obesity, can contribute much of its growth over the last half century to one common link: junk food. Michael Thomas, correspondent for U.S. News and World Report, doubts the effectiveness of imposing a “junk food” tax in an attempt to curb obesity. With support from respected scientists in the nutrition field, like Dr. Oliver Mytton, Mr. Thomas could not be more wrong. While people like Thomas believe there is little hope to solve this problem, in reality a junk food tax is the best approach we can take. If the government intervenes with taxation on unhealthy foods, there will be a less consumer demand for this food group and would mark a significant step in controlling the obesity epidemic.

Obesity is a problem in America, as it is in other Western countries. The population of a country is always a reflection of its government, so our government decided that it’s time to dip their hands into this problem and come up with possible solutions to our growing unhealthy population of people. The solution that is discussed in the articles “Bad food? Tax it, and subsidize vegetables” by Mark Bittman and “Meddling in other people’s diet is ‘fun’ and ‘inspiring’” by Jacob Sullum is that we should (or shouldn’t, in Sullum’s case) place a tax on unhealthy, processed foods. Although relatively strong arguments are presented in both articles, they both miss the point entirely and wouldn’t solve the problem of rising health issues in Americans.

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.

The obesity epidemic is rapidly advancing in the U.S., leading to physical and mental health problems as well as having financial impacts. Although there are existing federal programs and policies that address the obesity problem, these policies do not seem to account for the urgency of the current situation. It is essential to examine new policy strategies to combat the growing threat of obesity. Policy strategies explored in this paper include implementation of federal subsidization of healthy meals and taxation on fast food.

While some believe that creating a calorie tax will promote healthy eating lifestyles and decrease obesity rates, the idea of imposing a tax on what people eat is very irrational due to there being better alternatives, many consequences and reverse effects, and also this tax was meant to target obese people, not average weight people. Calorie taxes are being introduced to the US because it can potentially help people save money, reduce calorie consumption, and also it can decrease obesity rates. Sadly this calorie tax also has many flaws, there are many other alternatives to this and also there being no drop in obesity rates in several years. Also, this calorie tax can actually increase calorie consumption rather than decreasing it, not only

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.

So, while there are many reasons we should implement this fat tax there are also many reasons we should not. A few reasons include it being socially unacceptable, it will cause longer waiting times, the airlines will lose money, and the airlines will also lose

As a country, we are very accustomed to having everything needed readily available to us. In most cases, we can easily drive a few minutes out of the way and be able to find a selection of various places to shop or eat at. Despite the food being fast and easy to access, we tend to compromise our health in turn. In a recent study conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture, it is believed that 1 in 4 Americans eat fast food for at least one meal of the day. Since this is such a controversial topic, most people differ in opinions. In this paper, I am going to discuss two articles that argued different sides on the controversial topic of taxation upon fast food purchases.

It would be more effective if unhealthy foods were taxed because then the people that are eating all the unhealthy foods wouldn’t be able to eat as much of all those unhealthy choices. All those things that are being taxed are the healthy foods that are good for you. This is one of the things that is becoming a big problem with all the people who are getting sick from all the unhealthy foods they are eating.

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.