Fat Food Tax to Pay For Health Care? A Modest Proposal - Pros and Cons

Obesity, which contributes to several healthgross income somewhat.
problems like cancer, stroke, diabetes and highOpposition Response
blood pressure has become epidemic and affectsMost of us are opposed to more taxes, myself
nearly half the U.S population. The number ofincluded, but there are other oppositions to a tax
obese people has doubled since 1985, which hasof this kind. Here are some of the most common.
led to a 30% increase in health premiums. The- I,m not fat and I don't want to pay for
overall financial costs of obesity are greater thansomeone who is and I like my sodas and Dorritos.
those for alcoholism or smoking. The annual costYou can still eat whatever you like. Paying $1.10
of treating health problems related to obesity isfor a 99 cent bag of Dorritos may well be the
estimated at upward of $100 billion. Reduction ofcheapest way for you to pay for this problem. It
health costs over time will not happen if obesity isis inevitable because of the magnitude of this
ignored.social problem that it won't cost you in some
Why more taxes?way.
Two reasons; First and most obvious is to raise- The government must stop trying to legislate
part of the money for what is being proposed asour behavior and picking our pockets. Sorry
universal health care, a subject that carries with itfriend...too late. In a society this complex and
a separate debate. The second and probablygenerally prosperous, everything we do in some
most import reason is to raise awareness ofsmall way affects everyone else. "No man is an
what we are eating and how it affects our bodies.island." The only way for the government not to
The American public is woefully ignorant aboutdo something is to completely drop the idea of
nutrition.universal health care. How good is your imagination
What to Taxon that happening?
There have been dozens of "sinful-food" tax- It's a regressive tax that unfairly affects the
proposals from a penny a can for sodas to 10%poor. This appears to be true on the face of it.
on all fast food items. It probably needs to beLow income people eat high starch and fast foods
more inclusive than that. Packaged foods with ain an attempt to stretch their food dollar. As
lot of sugar and starch probably contribute asmentioned earlier there should be a tax subsidy
much to the problem as the entire fast foodfor choosing healthy foods. More of the public
industry. It could well be a sliding scale on all foodshealth dollar needs to go to nutrition education and
except fresh produce based on grams of fatsawareness. With the right information and a little
and sugar per 100 grams or per serving.assistance, low income people can have healthy
What is the Tax Rate?diets.
The Department of Agriculture has suggestedOne of the glitches in pursuing a national health
that, for "sinful-food" taxes to change the waycare problem is the political avoidance of personal
people eat, they may need to equal at least 10%accountability and responsibility. We have been
to 30% of the cost of the food. It is estimatedlulled into reliance on government, a condition
that a 10% federal tax on fattening foods wouldwhich is hard to reverse, and the government
raise $530 billion over 10 years. There should alsoseems to cherish it's role. Individual responsibility is
be a program of tax subsidies to encourage thethe ultimate solution; until then everyone pays in
purchase of healthy foods such as fresh fruitsone way or another.
and vegetable. This of course would reduce the