The amount of revenue generated by a tax on fattening food would be very small in comparison to the costs of healthcare. I don't have the statistics at hand, but I believe the cost of healthcare is about 4000 per person each year. I will error on the side of caution and assume that figure is actually 4K per family (I'm absolutely certain that is very conservative).

I pay about 120 a week for food for my family. About 25 percent of that would be snack food, which is probably average to high for most Americans. 30 dollars a week. We might go out for fast food occasionally but it isn't more than about 50 dollars in junk (I hope not quite that high ) Assuming 200 dollars in direct junk a month, around 2400 (YICKS!) a year in chunky chews, how much are we going to tax that food? The suggested one percent only yields 24 dollars a year in revenue, for the entire family. Ten percent? Double? How much would we have to charge before the money generated would make the tiniest perceivable impact in healthcare cost? The cost of food would be astronomical by that point.

Let me make clear I do not support government involvement in healthcare, just that if government is going to provide a service; user fees, or something approximating it as closely as possible, is the fairest and cheapest way to implement it.

Okay, look at it this way. You reckon that you spend about $2400 per year on "junk" food. Let's say that there was tax added to the JUNK food (but not the ordinary groceries and fresh produce you spend the other $90 per week on), that made it cost half as much again. $300 a month, not $200.

You could either carry on as normal, paying $1200 a year in extra tax that you don't pay now, which might be hypothecated to go towards your family's own healthcare costs, but more likely would just go into the big government pot.

But you wouldn't have to do that. You could also cut down (or out) on the junk food and instead buy more fresh produce and ordinary groceries. If you cut out fast & junk food altogether, your food bill stays the same or goes down. (By the way, it would do that even without any tax changes - it is junk food because it is produced cheaply - all the additives and fat and sugar and preservatives and flavourings are there to disguise the poor quality of the ingredients, so it can be sold at a bigger profit margin by the vendors and manufacturers.)

Your family eats about the same physical quantities of food, if not a little MORE than now. And because you aren't eating crap, you all end up being somewhat healthier and you need to spend LESS on your healthcare (or, indeed the state needs to spend less on it, if that's the situation you find yourself in).

Now you may have pragmatic objections on the grounds that it wouldn't work, or that you don't trust the government to pass on the overall tax savings (as several people have mentioned), but I don't see how the idea can be opposed on principle at all, except on the principle that there should be no taxes at all for anything. This is not one I would agree with, but fair enough.

Let's say five percent, just because it's a nice round number. Three or four cents per candy bar, a quarter or so for a meal at McDonalds, $120 per year for your family. That's hardly crippling, and yet it is enough to make a difference in healthcare costs. Multiply it out by the number of people in the US, and you get over half a billion dollars. That's nothing to sneeze at. Note, BTW, that you should be paying $120 less in income tax (assuming your habits are average) so the actual cost to you is zero.

Look at it another way. Let's say there's a guy who eats a lot more junk food than you do, by ten candy bars and four Big Mac meals (or equivalent) a week. That's $1.35 per week or a little over $60 per year or $1800 more that he pays in the thirty years between when he starts paying taxes and when he has that bypass we keep talking about. That's $1800 more that he's paying toward his own healthcare, which otherwise would have come out of other people's pockets via income tax. Multiply that out by the number of people who have similar behaviors (let's say 20%), divide by the number who don't, and the latter group gets to save $450 each. Again, nothing to sneeze at.

The numbers are small, but they add up, and that's the problem with so many of the costs we as a society have to bear. Any one uninsured motorcyclist driving recklessly probably won't impose any extra cost, but if you have several thousand statistics will catch up with you and the hospital bills footed by the taxpayers will reflect that. Actuarial science is all about these same sorts of aggregations of small probabilities, and it's a mature field. While perfection remains unattainable, we can still do a lot better than to spread costs evenly over the entire tax base regardless of who's actually incurring costs.

If I washed my clothes on a rock instead of using a machine, I would derive health benefits from the exercise. I don’t think washing machines should cost twice as much to pay for the health costs incurred by my more relaxed lifestyle. (I do think your idea about having to drive less than a mile should be taxed is good, but not if you have two toddlers and live in a 105 degree environment, as I do)

The point is, prepackaged, ‘junk’ food is easier. A single working mom can place chicken nuggets in the microwave and have a meal for the kids (adding carrots and fruit, or something) in minutes. She COULD simply buy bags of rice and vegetables and live frugally off of that, as I did in college...but it is kind of a quality of life issue which I don’t think I should have to pay 1.5 times the amount I currently do for (unless that is required for packaging, shipping, manual labor, ect) to give to the government to ‘moderate’ my behavior. Honestly, this tax would disproportionately charge a family the most for SUSTENANCE, arguably at a time when they need the money the most- when the children are in the house. The highest cost for eating unhealthily is incurred by the sedentary OLD.

side note...LOL! Okay, Platypus! I'll pay five percent (didn't see your post up there) FINE! Sold! Now...can I hang the politicians if they don't use that money in the way we've agreed ?

Here's another article about the fat-tax idea. It's a little light, but it does bring up some interesting points. Here's one part for which I wish sources had been provided:



If these figures are at all accurate we're talking about a third of a trillion per annum, or 3% of GDP, much of that cost spread among all taxpayers including those with healthy eating and exercise habits. Just something to chew on.

I agree there should be not ax on items such as candy bars or McDonalds cheese burgers. Government cant tell kids dont get fat. America is rich and we can do that if we want. The Parents however can put a stop on such items if deemed necessary

From Platypus' last article:



We should tax people for getting older. It is an undeniable fact that getting older is the single largest contributing factor to increased medical expenses. Instead of making seniors pay for a larger percentage of their health costs (as is advocated for fat people), we SUBSIDIZE them more. Counter-intuitive, by logical means. Of course, it is also mean-spirited to take such an attitude.

If the "fat tax" is an appropriate kind of "user tax", should we implement taxes on ALL possibly destructive behavior?

as of right now it costs more to eat healthy than it does to eat junk...healthy foods are more expensive.

I dont think I'd support a 1% tax tho because I think that people will eat what they eat anyway and its just another ridiculous revenue scheme rather than an actual plan to help people. America is fat but taxing the fattening goodies isnt going to trim the waistlines of its citizens.

I do think that the idea mentioned in the article above "The politics of fat" where you put health warnings on foods would be interesting and possibly a good move. The question is who decides what is healthy and not healthy. I guess they'd be talking about foods with high saturated fat content and lots of processing or ones that contained high levels of mercury or other substances which are proven to impact health negatively...

Doesn't each state have different tax rates anyway? Where would this tax go into effect? Deleware for instance has no tax and MD has 5%. I know things such as cigarettes have higher taxes...I confess I don't know very much about how items/products are taxed...Could anybody link a useful article on this?

I don't think that's true at all. Sure, there's a specialized "healthy foods" market that's quite expensive, but champagne and truffles are expensive too. However, eating healthy doesn't have to mean submitting to health-food-industry marketing. Just cooking at home from simple common ingredients is both healthier and cheaper than eating out or relying on prepared food. My wife and I do that, and it doesn't even take all that much time if you don't mind cooking every second or third night and eating leftovers regularly. I'll bet our eating habits are both healthier and cheaper than average, without any extraordinary effort on our part.

true to some extent (I wasnt talking bout specialized healthy foods markets...I was taking about your everday basic good foods)...what I meant was produce tends to cost as does lean meats (both of which are key parts to healthy eating). Buying fruit and vegetables on a weekly/bi-weekly basis is expensive as that type of food is more apt to spoil fast (than the less expensive junk you could eat). It takes time and money to eat right. I personally invest the time and like to cook but many people would rather spend less time and get less nutrition. Trust me, thats why so many college students end up eating like crap...top ramen is not my idea of good food.

And yes you can make it economical (leftovers are great) but it takes some practice and fine tuning to your budget, figuring out which foods are economical AND healthy,...not to mention you have to like leftovers

edited to redirect back to the topic: a 1% tax on junk food would not really effect significantly the difference in cost of eating well (time + expense) vs. eating poorly (quicker and arguably cheaper)...I wouldn't support it, I dont think it would make people eat any healthier.

You hit that right on, Platypus. "Health foods" are by no means the only healthy foods.

What I don't agree with is taxing food that some see as "junk food". Why not simply raise the health insurance costs for obese people? Taxes don't always work in the manner in which they are marketed.

Since it is well-documented that unhealthy eating is prevalent among the poor, let's take a person already on government assistance as an example. The fat tax cost is passed on the the government anyway. It defrays none of the cost of increased health care if this guy becomes (or is) obese to have him pay a fat tax.

For those not on government assistance, why not directly pass the costs on via (as stated above) higher premiums?

The problem I have is that not every instance of junk food eating is unhealthy. Some use it as a reward. Some indulge (as stated by another poster) in the worst eating habits and never get fat (I might be occasionally guilty here ).

If being fat is identified as a public health risk (and it is very close to that point, politically), then why use a tax?

I don't think of it so much as behavior modification, and in fact I don't believe in artificially manipulating prices to change people's behavior. For me, the crucial part is recovering the costs currently borne by all taxpayers - even the healthy-eating ones - for a national junk-food habit. I realize other people who favor such a tax more than I do often put forward different motivations, but matching revenue to expenditure is the extent of it for me.



That might work if health insurance were mandatory, but it's not. In fact, the people least likely to be insured often have the unhealthiest eating habits. If health-insurance costs were tied to obesity we'd probably just see a lot of insured healthy people and a lot of uninsured healthy people placing an even greater burden on public facilities (e.g. indigent emergency-room patients). Also, just as some people eat junk food without becoming obese, some people become obese without eating junk food. How to keep from ripping them off? A modest tax on the foods that contribute the most to risk seems to be the best way to recover increased health-care costs proportionally and without undue administrative burden. Maybe it's still not workable and we're all stuck with the bill, but the idea still compares favorably to the alternatives (including the do-nothing alternative) I've seen suggesting.

taken from this article:
http://blueprint.bluecrossmn.com/topic/obesity

I was looking for other articles but its thundering so I have to shut down my computer....in any case I think the argument is that adding a 1% tax would make healthy food as economical as bad food if not more...I dont think that's the case. I think a 1% tax wouldnt make a significant impact on cost differences.



yeah understandable, I tend to agree with you that it wouldnt change the behavior...I dont think that the aspect of the issue you bring up has been mentioned all that much in the news reports though on it. Maybe it should be.

edited to add a bit at the end

No, I am against more taxes on food of any sort. We're all paying too many taxes on what we eat.

But I would like to see encouraging, supportive public service announcements to help people in their struggles to develop and maintain self-discipline in their eating. They've done it for smokers. If that doesn't sound feasible, how about limiting and perhaps eliminating a lot of the fast food commercials. You know, like they did with cigarette advertising on television?

All we see are either fast food ads or commercials for various fat-burning drugs and elaborate exercise machines purveyed on the tube.

I agree with Platypus here. You can eat quite healthily at a lower expense, especially with more fruits and vegetables.

not at all true about the fruits and veggies... most of these foods are weighed and cost more. Have you ever gone to buy a prepackaged thing of fresh blueberries or raspberries? the price is absolutely outrageous, the only way to get those things cheap is to go to an orchard during picking season and pick your own. Unless you're talking canned fruits (which are of significantly less nutritional value)... its WAY more expensive to eat healthfully. According to a chart I found (from same website as below but a PDF format document) Fruits and Vegetables have led retail price increases (1982-1997). Furthermore fresh fruits and vegetable prices have increased almost double as much as processed (which is less healthy). These charts can be found in this PDF document (theres a lot of charts about trends)

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/sb965/sb965o.pdf



http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Consumpti...xpenditures.htm

and as was stated earlier Low income families tend to eat the worst nutritionally, there is a reason for that...

(same website as above)

it costs money to eat a balanced diet... most people dont have the time or the money to spend...gosh I feel like i'm getting off topic, but I wanted to assert that my statement was indeed correct. I was NOT talking about specific "health specialty foods" I was talking about your everyday produce...

the 1% tax increase would not in my opinion significantly balance the difference in cost between healthful foods and non-healthful. As that has been the primary reason for proposing such a tax (as I am to understand from reading various news websites including the one I linked earlier). I think a better alternative would be to make efforts to lower to costs of nutritionally sound foods OR as this website I've listed above has suggested offer food aid to lower income families.

I agree with Paladin E.

I'd call that an extremely non-representative sample. Some might even call it cherry-picking. Sure, berries are expensive, but they're truly the truffles and caviar of the fruit world (and they're not all that nutritious). Choice of what to eat is never infinite, and trying to stay on the healthy side will inevitably limit choice further, but there are plenty of things to eat that are palatable, nutritious and inexpensive.


http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Consumpti...xpenditures.htm

I don't know why you cited that; it doesn't seem to support your position at all. More information is always good, though, so thank you.



Yes, there is a reason, but it's not what you think. Low income people also play the lottery more, so they're obviously capable of counterproductive choices. Junk food is often a bright spot in what can otherwise be a very dreary day for a poor person, and it's a bright spot all but the very poorest can afford even if it's still not the most cost-effective or healthy way to eat. There are other possible explanations as well, but as long as a Big Mac costs more than the same or better ingredients bought and cooked at home I don't lend much credence to the "fast food is cheaper" theory.

granted berries are more expensive than some other fruits, but fruit in general tends to be expensive,...I did cite sources for that, my example was bad granted. If you take into account the fact that fresh produce spoils quickly and must be eaten within a short time or go to waste whereas packaged/processed food does not (and is less nutrtional) I think you'll see what I mean.

I linked that because that is where I got the quotes from, not because it necessarily supported my argument, I thought it was an interesting website and had some things which shed light on the food in america issue. I think that the quotes do support my argument. They said food aid programs help to make healthful food more economical and thus exand low income family food budgets.

I agree that there are multiple reasons for why low income families eat poorly but I think one is the cost of nutritional food (especially if you're trying to go for variety) AND the time to prepare it. Probably more a time issue nowadays.

as to the part I selected to quote above from your post...lol fast food in the longrun is more expensive, I agree, especially for a family (tho it IS cheaper to buy a cheeseburger at McDonalds than to buy the beef, buns and condiments at a grocery store...they're what 49cents nowadays?, even if you multiply that times 2 because they are small its only a dollar). Fast food is not the only bad food...

anyway point taken, perhaps its more of a time issue than an economic one (tho I still think its partially economic)... Hypothetically Lets say it is the same cost to eat poorly or healthfully a 1% increase in the food prices of bad foods isnt going to do much to stop people from eating those foods. You'd have to make nutritional foods signifiantly cheaper than the bad foods people crave to eat.

I found an article on ivillage (lol) which discusses how it costs more to eat nutritiously.

http://www.ivillage.com/diet/experts/wlcoa...3_50745,00.html


(it reminded me of this debate where I had asserted this).

I still think a 1% fat tax would not really benefit anybody just because it wouldn't really level the playing field.

Of course convienance is also important. I can throw a couple hotdogs in the microwave squeeze out some mustard and spoon out some relish in about a minute. You can buy a pack of 8 for under a buck. I do not know of a healthy alternative that matches the price, taste and convienance. They have fat-free hotdogs, but they are more expensive ( Don't taste as good either). You can eat healthily and cheaply, it just takes more work.

You seem to be assuming that a preference for hot dogs over other foods is universal and immutable, when in fact neither is the case. Food preferences and expectations are very personal, and at least in part dictated by culture. Would you eat a grub? Some people do, and love them. Those same people might really dislike your hot dog.

Let's look at a more concrete (and less exotic) example. A 10-pack of the hot dogs I happen to like costs $3.49 right now. The buns I like are $1.99 for 8. Mustard and relish are harder to quantify per hot dog, but we're probably looking at a cost of about 70 cents for your snack. Someone else might prefer a container of yogurt instead, for about 75 cents. A third person might prefer a nice juicy plum for 60 cents. A fourth person might enjoy about 25 cents worth of crackers and peanut butter. All of these options are healthier than the hot dog, and none require more work (or a microwave).

It might be impossible for a healthier and just-as-convenient alternative to match the flavor of a hot dog for you...or for me, because I also love hot dogs. That doesn't mean it's impossible for everyone, though, or that we should continue to instill habits and tastes in our children that make it impossible for them.

Since food is primarily for sustenance, I believe we should probably also look at caloric value as well as nutritional versus the price of food. Usually, nutritious food has less caloric value than its non-nutritious equivalent per dollar.
Two peaches aren't going to get a person nearly as far as a hotdog. Nuts and their derivatives, as well as oil (unless that's considered 'junk' too) are about the only types of healthy food which come close, pound for pound and dollar for dollar. I suppose cheese would also, but that's a nebulous area of 'sort of' junk food.

Most people get far more food than they require for sustenance, so the signficance of calories can vary. For example, I will definitely go for high-calorie food when I'm hiking up a mountain, but when I'm sitting at my desk the low-calorie alternative would be more appropriate. For snacks, calories are less important than a feeling of fullness and satisfaction. For that you also have to look at things like whether the calories come from fat or carbs, fiber and water content, glycemic index, etc. That peach might be just the right thing to tide me over if all I'm doing is sitting at my computer posting to AD. The hot dog would be overkill, and caloric overkill means weight gain. Then again, since I'm planning on working out later I felt perfectly OK eating a jelly donut. My blood sugar should be peaking just about the time I get on the machine, where I will burn every one of those calories and then some.

Getting back to the point, part of the problem is that people don't know this stuff. They don't know about how their body reacts to various foods - which is very personal and not readily learnt from books. They don't even know the difference between real hunger and the "fake hunger" that occurs when you're too used to having your stomach 100% full at all times and it drops to 90%. They eat when they're really thirsty or bored or tired or anxious, which doesn't help at all and sometimes even makes them feel worse. We could teach these things, even though some people think physical education doesn't belong in the schools, but how would we pay for that? One way would be to pay for it out of a tax on the foods that are most frequently abused. That sounds to me like putting the cost where it belongs.

The whole concept of taxing someone because of their physical appearance was done away with years ago, but apparently some politicians haven't realized that yet, and so not only are they going to tax you when you buy the food, they are going to tax you for having eaten the food, out of your own right to choice, which is morally wrong, and legally unjustifiable.

Did you even try to read the rest of what has already been said here before posting, Liberty? This isn't about taxing people because of their appearance, or even "for their own good". This is about reducing a cost that society already bears, in the form of increased direct healthcare costs and decreased tax revenues (from reduced productivity and lifespan attributable to obesity-related illness). Who should pay for your coronary bypass? You, or me? Do you have a problem with people paying in proportion to the risk or burden that they create? Can you think of a better way to assure proportionality than to levy taxes on the products that are closely associated with that risk or burden? No man is an island, and the right to choose cannot be absolute when others are helping to bear the cost of that choice.

You might not agree with the justification, but that doesn't mean it does not or can not exist, and it doesn't mean it's morally wrong according to any standards but your own. Strawmen and unsupported assertions about morality don't contribute much to the debate.

I should pay for my bypass. It’s no ones responsibility but mine – not you, my neighbor, and not the people I work with. Why should you pay for MY lifestyle choices? Why should you be penalized with a higher tax because I have no self-control? Sorry for debating by question, but I think it can get the point across at times.

When talking about a product like cigarettes, I support a sin (used here because that is how it’s referenced) tax. If I smoke, I should have to pay more taxes for the health problems those around me and I will incur, later in life.

But a tax on junk food because some people can’t their eating habits? You know, what is junk food to some may not be to others. What is fattening to you might roll off me like water off a duck’s back. In addition, how will we define “junk food”?

Let’s look at chocolate. Nothing like a hot fudge sundae, dripping with hot chocolate. How about chocolate ice cream or a nice piece of plain Hershey’s Dark Chocolate. A recent study indicates that dark chocolate raises antioxidants.



So basically a little dark chocolate is good for you.

I don’t know what the answer is but I do know that punishing the masses is not the answer.

I haven't read this entire thread, so I may be reiterating a point that was already made, and if so, excuse me. But what's the difference between taxing cigarettes and taxing a double whopper with cheese? They're probably about equally bad for you. I smoke and am willing to accept the outrageous levies placed upon cigarettes as fair in light of the fact that I could wind up in a government-supplied iron lung thirty years from now. Why is it unfair to ask people (especially morbidly obese people) to pay extra for junk food? I fail to see any difference. And no, the argument that not everyone gets fat from eating junk food doesn't work, because not everyone gets sick from smoking cigarettes, either.

Um, you get taxed because YOU smoke cigarettes. I'm not obese, or even overweight for that matter, what would the justification be for taxing me for eating double whoppers??????
I skydive, so my supplemental life insurance is higher, should everybody else's be also, just because I am placing my life in more danger???

Um, the justification is that cigarettes and double whoppers are both bad for a person's health. Some people develop lung cancer, some don't - just as some people get fat and have heart attacks and some don't.

And no, not everyone else's life insurance should be higher just because you skydive - only other people that skydive.

Um, okay?

How about this?

• Obesity creates a cost to society, which is divided too many ways to collect on an individual basis but is real nonetheless.
  
  
• Consumption of fat-laden foods such as double whoppers is statistically correlated to obesity, even if the correlation is less than 100%.
  
  
• Recovering the costs of obesity via a tax on fat-laden foods is the best approximation of spreading the cost fairly that is also logistically feasible (fairer than taxing everyone for the over-consumer's heart bypass, as happens now).
  
  

We've been over this many times before. At least countrockula had an excuse for not having read the prior explanations.



No, but would you rule out a fee or tax per dive, or insurance requirements? Should only those who get injured pay? Cost should be tied to risk, even if the correlation between risk and actual incurred expense is not perfect.

Well there we have it...the death knell of individual responsibility.

Some people get sick, so everybody should pay.
Some people ingest toxins into their body, willingly, so everybody should pay.
Some people are idiots, so everybody should pay.

If the lunacy of a fat tax would pass muster, then everything else under the sun that CAN harm someone should be taxed.

We would deserve it.

Sneering never helps a debate, DTOM, and neither does your strawman. Everybody pays for these behaviors right now, even if they live perfectly risk-free lives and never go near a double whopper or a skydiving plane. The whole point of the exercise here is to have the people who incur risks pay more of the cost associated with those risks. It's more personal responsibility, not less. Are you deliberately trying to twist that into something else, or is it accidental? Either way it's disappointing.

I believe actuarial studies indicate that smoking like a chimney saves the taxpayers money. The costs due to illness are offset by savings due to premature death.
link

Perhaps the health costs of Mr Doughboy are offset by a premature deadly heart attack as well.

Yes, Mrs. P makes a great point. Premature death can save the government dollars. The best possible situation is for someone to drop dead of a heart attack the day he retires. Encouraging Social Security recepients to ride motorcycles and skydive could be a positive net gain for Uncle Sam. Sooner or later everyone gets sick and dies.Let us put some numbers here:

Man #1 Eats Double whoppers with cheese everyday. Develops heart disease at 63, drops dead at 65. Total medical costs $50, 000, total SS collected for disability $20,000.

Man #2 Maintains a healthy diet. Gets heart disease at 93, drops dead at 95. Total medical costs $50,000, SS costs $300,000.

Basically if SS is $12,000 a year, Uncle Sam needs a 24% yearly return on that $50,000 to break even.

What we probably need to do is encourage people to take up unhealthy eating after age 55. Tax young people eating unhealthily in order to subsidize old people eating unhealthily.

Well, I believe the premature heart attack would follow many years of abuse. Best to encourage the fat boy unhealthy eating program in infancy.

Of course, Mrs P, there will be people that drop dead at 45 under your eat unhealthy from infancy program. That would leave people dying while they would have normally still been producing revenues for Uncle Sam. Not sure if the costs vs. benefits even out.

What we are speaking of is a regressive tax. Poor people spend a higher share of their income on food and tend to eat less healthily than wealthier people. Some studies indicate that minorities eat less healthily than whites (this may be due to income disparities). A new regressive tax is going to have a hard time getting political support.

I know you're being facetious, here Hugo (or at least I hope you are). Unfortunately, several years back, that was exactly the argument used by a tobacco company for saving government money in the Czech Republic.

Tobacco giant Phillip Morris said cigarette-smokers could save governments money because smokers die early. It specifically looked at the situation in the Czech Republic in 1999, concluding that the Czech government saved money because of the "indirect positive effects" of the early deaths of cigarette-smokers.

The "indirect positive benefits" included reduced spending on health care, pensions and housing for the elderly, which the report said would result in a saving in 1999 of $46 million. The report was prepared by the research company Arthur D. Little International.

When the report made the news, there was a huge uproar by the anti-smoking crowd, and Phillip Morris had to do some serious backpedaling.

Look, no one ever said that Burger King five times a week was healthy. And I have enough heart problems on my own (inherited) that I rarely eat at one of these places to begin with. But why should I have to pay an extra buck or two when I do eat there, for their health costs, simply because they can't push away from the table?