The Fat Tax: A Controversial Tool in War Against Obesity.

[Johnboy60]

WEDNESDAY, Jan. 11 (HealthDay News) -- In America's ongoing battle of the bulge, one strategy to combat the nation's obesity epidemic has generated more than a decade's worth of attention and controversy.

Popularly known as the "fat tax" or the "Twinkie tax," the concept first gained widespread attention in 1994 when Yale University psychology professor Kelly D. Brownell outlined the idea in an op-ed piece in The New York Times.

Addressing what he called a "dire set of circumstances," Brownell proposed two food-tax options: A big tax, in the range of 7 percent to 10 percent, to discourage the purchase of unhealthy processed foods while subsidizing healthier choices; or a much smaller tax to fund long-term public health nutrition programs.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/2006011...2nVJRIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

 

[InnerPhyre]

Keeping us thin is not the government's responsibility. If someone wants to kill themself with big macs, that is their choice.

 

[tel0004]

I agree. Although I do spend a lot of money on food since healthy food is expensive, I still think its a dumb idea.

 

[Voegelin]

This proposal isn't a "tool" in a war against "obesity". Those behind this could care less if people are fat or not.

What we have here is a den of trial lawyers laying the groundwork for lawsuits. Nothing more.

 

[momalle1]

What's next? Tax people who drive cars that don't get five-star crash ratings? Hikers that don't wear the proper hiuking shoes? Tax morons that cause undue stress and hardship by creating new taxes to enforce their "healthy choice" beliefs on everyone?

 

[Selznak]

One big problem is that money collected through fat taxes has typically not been earmarked for obesity-prevention programs or healthy food subsidies; instead they were often used to cover budget deficits.

Wow. I never would have imagined anything like this ever happening. This is an absolutely dreadful idea.

 

[Vylo]

Sounds like a terrible idea simply aimed at grabbing money and not at addressing the problem.

 

[JPPT1974]

I agree. Although I do spend a lot of money on food since healthy food is expensive, I still think its a dumb idea.

It is a dumb idea
I just would buy fruits and veggies from a can
Or from the produce isle.

 

[neverforsaken]

a tax is a bad idea. instead, maybe there should be health care incentives for being healthier. since the risks of heart problems and diabetes is substantially lowered when practicing healthy eating, maybe certain tax breaks can be given to those who need to go to the doctors office less often. just an idea off the tip of my tongue, probably has flaws abound.

 

[Cerberus~]

I think we have enough taxes.

 

[Selznak]

I think we have enough taxes.

I think we have too many!

 

[MichaelFJF]

1. Any new tax is a bad tax.
2. Who's going to administer it? Thaaaaat's right - 500 incompetent govt. employees.

 

[MsAnne]

...A big tax, in the range of 7 percent to 10 percent, to discourage the purchase of unhealthy processed foods...

It worked so well discouraging cigarette smokers.

 

[Moros]

I think it's a good idea. Taxing crap, that is. Govt. subsidation of anything is a massive beaurocratic failure. Just slap an extra tax on garbage and call it good.

 

[MadeInOz]

Never going to work.

 

[Phylogeny]

They tax cigerettes, so it's not like it hasn't been done before....but I disagree that it's people's own responsibility for being fat--fat is a big problem because it costs us money in health care and creates losses in worker productivity so we are all going to be indirectly affected by an unhealthy population.

I, for one, won't mind seeing higher prices on junk food, there's nothing nutritious about cheetos and chips, and overly processed foods and people often buy more of them because they are relatively cheap and yummy to eat. Make them more expensive and perhaps there may be a reduction in junk food intake.

I think it's interesting there's such an anti-smoking bias to the point that people want to ban it everywhere but as soon as they hear the same treatment on junk food, people are aghast. Neither is healthy, and both will kill if consumed in large portion. Both also costs society a money in terms of sick and dying consumers.

I am an advocate of moderation in everything. I don't mind if someone smokes, or if someone eats junk food, but I think it's terribly unhealthy to do either in excess. I don't know how well the cigerette tax is working to deter smoking, but I think whatever treatment we mete out to cigerettes, we should do something similar to junk food. I know that smoking is slightly different in that it can affect others via second-hand smoke, but aside from that difference, both habits, if taken to excess, can be expensive to society. Tax away, I don't care, just means one less bag of cheetos for me !

 

[comana]

Where's the logic in the current tax situation with food anyway? Why do I have to pay sales tax for batteries- a necessity (bad, bad, bad... turn your dirty minds off now ), but no tax on my m&ms- certainly not a necessity?

I have always thought they should tax junk food if they are gonna tax my batteries.

Better yet, quit taxing the stuff I buy.


I don't think it will do anything to fight obesity though.

 

[UberLutheran]

This may be a minority opinion (or not), but most adults are capable of figuring out what might be good for them and what might not be.

Most people know what the dangers of smoking are.
Most people know what the dangers of drugs are.
Most people know what the dangers of overeating are.

Given that: if someone chooses to smoke, use drugs, or overeat -- it is certainly their right to do so.

However, knowing the dangers of smoking (emphysema, heart disease, cancer) or drugs (accidents, overdose, death), or overeating (diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, cancer) if someone chooses to engage in these kinds of behavior, they really shouldn't much in the way of pity from society if they damage their health -- nor should society be expected to pay for these peoples' decisions.

 

[MichaelFJF]

nor should society be expected to pay for these peoples' decisions.

Ahhhhhh, but there's the crux of the problem. In our largely (it pains me to say this) socialist way of thinking, we want all the perks of freedom, but if we're stupid, we want the government to bail us out. I would be fully on board with any idea that would prevent my tax dollars from going to any medical programs that aid people with problems that could have been prevented with good common sense. I don't think I'll ever see it though.

 

[Manakin]

Agreed, more or less. I'm still working out my own philosophy on this. I think that government does have a role to play in health care, especially in areas where extremely expensive illnesses come up unavoidably. But I think there should be some acknowledgement of people's lack of caution in some activities. For instance, if you overeat, you have a larger co-pay (or whatever) if and when you develop heart disease. Or if you smoke, then you have to pay a larger amount when you develop lung cancer.

Basically, I view government (and humanity as a whole, incidentally) as a system. You can add feedbacks to it to attempt to improve the behavior. This sort of thing is just another attempt, in my opinion, to improve America's experience with its government.

-M