The Fat Tax Essay

In 2009, a prestigious think tank in Washington, D.C. proposed a 10% tax on what they called “Fattening food of little nutritional value.” They stated that based on their study, such a tax could raise 500 billion dollars in tax revenue over 10 years, which could be put towards paying off America's ever expanding national debt (Waist). Americans spend an extremely disproportional amount of money on health care costs related to lifestyle diseases. In recent years, Americans spent $190 billion on healthcare related to obesity, which is over one-fifth of total annual healthcare spending (Baird). Because Americans would have more money to spend, a tax on fattening foods and beverages could promote economic growth for private businesses and an increase in revenue for the

“In 2001, the Surgeon General 's ‘Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity’ identified obesity as a key public health priority for the United States. Obesity rates were higher than ever, with 61% of adults nationwide overweight or obese (Brownell and Novak).” “ At present, approximately nine million children over 6 years of age are considered obese”(Koplan and Liverman). With the gravity of this situation well known, according to the public’s acknowledgement in these surveys, it is apparent and an accepted notion that things must be changed. Presumably one might think that it is as simple as that; that just like that things will change. In 2008 childhood obesity ranked number one of the biggest issues for problems concerning children in numerous states including New York. In conclusion ideas came about such as financing special menus and labels that publicize the health factors of food, but later polls show that “although 83 percent of New York State residents agree that childhood obesity is a major problem, more than a third refuse to pay even $10 a year in higher taxes to cut childhood obesity in half” (Cawley). These programs and new policies require excessive funding not even including publicizing them and enforcing them. This will inevitably lead to a tax increase or in addition money being drawn from other pressing issues. Money will be coming out of the pocket of each citizen from taxes along with an expected decrease in fast food and other

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,”

According to the WHO (World Health Organization) the health of the people in the United States has not always been the greatest. With an obesity rate of 33.9 percent, which translates into over 106 million obese Americans, this has caused many problems to arise and impact the daily lives of Americans. Many have tried to help in regards to this issue by improving school foods or attempting to encourage more physical activity. Unfortunately, these may have helped but only in a small scale. However, a fellow at the Union of Concerned Scientists, Mark Bittman believes that he may have a definitive solution. On May 25, 2016, in “Taxing Sugar to Fund a City” New York Times food journalist, Mark Bittman, by using the taxing of sugary beverages in Philadelphia - America’s poorest big city - earnestly

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

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.

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 government can make money by taxing unhealthy fast food and use it for education and less expensive gym memberships. If there was money invested in more education about healthy eating, young adults would have a better understanding of what is healthy. The teachers could teach the class on how to eat healthy and what kinds of healthy foods there are. The extra money could be used for a nutritionist or a chef that specializes in healthy foods. The less expensive gym memberships would mean that more people would afford to join. The nutritionist expert believes that putting in more money into school programs would increase the healthy food intake. Mark Bittman, author of Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables states, “Rather than subsidizing the production of unhealthful foods, we should turn the tables and tax things like soda, French fries, doughnuts and hyperprocessed snacks” (35). Most would believe that unhealthy food should be taxed rather than healthy food. If the the government wants the people to eat healthy, then start taxing the unhealthy food, so the healthy food is cheaper. A hamburger cost $1 and a salad costs about $5. Which one would the people want to buy? The hamburger because it is cheaper and delicious. The salad may be healthier, but the hamburger is way cheaper. A study has shown that a penny-per-ounce tax on unhealthy food would generate about billions of dollars in income and it

Obesity and diet related disease like diabetes are one of the biggest challenges today in America. The situation continues to worsen every day; obesity becomes a serious health crisis. Cities like Philadelphia and Berkeley, California, are sounding the bell of danger by imposing a tax on the consumption of soda and sugary beverages to cutback sugar consumption; which is a major contributor to the obesity epidemic. Some people say that tax on soda and sugary drinks aren’t beneficial to society and don’t generate any positive effect on public health. Others say that it is a powerful weapon against the obesity epidemic invading the American population. I agree with the later. Taxes on sugary

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.