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.
“Obesity in the U.S. is now at epidemic proportions. As Americans have increased their girth, rates of obesity-related illness such as heart disease and diabetes have also skyrocketed. Children and teenagers are joining the ranks of the overweight and obese in greater numbers too. And they are at much higher risk than ever before for obesity-related diseases” (O’Brien 9). America is being attacked by fast food and sugary foods and to control this problem the government wants to regulate our wallets. A fat tax is a tax applied to unhealthy foods, such as candy, fast food, or soda, to discourage consumers from ingesting foods that are not good for their health. The problem with obesity is that unhealthy food is much less expensive than healthy food. Some individual’s might argue that everyone is responsible for what they consume and not the products. To encourage healthy eating, higher taxes should be imposed on unhealthy foods because the percentage of obese people in the U.S. has been increasing at an alarming rate, children are at risk of obesity and obesity is affecting the low-income population.
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.
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
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
This submission is put forward on behalf of the obesity policy coalition and implores that the Australian Federal Government allow the proposed Fat Tax to be brought to action as soon as possible. The proposed Fat Tax provides the Australian public with a substantial chance at combating the obesity epidemic as well as providing funding for public health initiatives and facilities that educate and help prevent the spread of
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.
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.
This bill will reduce the number of deaths caused by the effects of obesity and reduce the number of obese and overweight adults and children in America with a $0.01 tax on all sweetened beverages for sale.
Two-thirds of Americans are overweight. This fact is known that we need to do something about our health and obesity rate. An option that has been brought up time and time again is the Fat Tax. This would be a small tax applied to fatty and unhealthy food. Ideally, this tax would decrease consumption of things like fast food. Despite the well intentioned idea, things like this don’t always work. The Fat Tax would cause impoverish people to fall deeper into financial trouble and cost the government more on welfare as well as well as barely decreasing the actual obesity rate.
* 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
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.
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.
Imagine you are traveling by air and have already paid for all your traveling expenses, when you get to the airport you have to pay more money for being larger. People that live an oversize life should not have to pay extra when people just underweight do not. Larger people should not have to use more of their hard earned money due to the fact that it is unconstitutional, can lead to “fat taxes” in other industries, and can increase “weight” before boarding a plane.
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.