Taxing the Fat Cats
No, not the rich. A New York State assemblyman wants to tax junk food, video games, and TV commercials to fund an obesity prevention program. Can't we have some kind of tax on politicians for introducing nanny-like legislation instead?
UPDATE: The Brits are on this as well, proposing an additional tax on saturated foods. They raise a point I was thinking about on my way to work this morning -- Cheaper foods tend to be the ones that are highest in carbs and fat. Poor people are more likely to eat cheap foods for obvious reasons. Therefore any "fat tax" will have a greater impact on the poor than on the wealthy.
A levy on fatty foods would be widely perceived as a regressive tax because people on lower incomes tend to eat proportionally larger quantities of cheap, high-fat food.
"We need to educate people about the benefits of eating healthy foods and make them more responsible for their health," said Belinda Linden, Head of Medical Information at the British Heart Foundation.
"We also have to be sure that a fat tax does not just end up penalizing the poor without actually changing eating habits."
But Breach said the tax would hit food manufacturers hard and have little effect on the poor.
Dr. Breach is talking through his hat. The food manufacturers would raise their prices to offset the increased taxes they would be paying. It would absolutely have an effect on the poor; simply not a direct one.
It strikes me that if the government wishes people to eat better, it might better incent them by offering tax credits or deductions on good behavior. If, for example, someone joins a gym or buys exercise equipment, there might be a tax credit for the amount paid. It could offer insurance companies tax credits or deductions in return for the insurance companies lowering premiums for people who are fit. This type of program would have the benefit of not penalizing poor people by making their food bills higher than they already are.
Comments
And if the government was that concerned about our health (which they aren't of course, there are many many people who are fit and fat so this has nothing to do with health but with fatphobia) perhaps they'd do things like legislate healthier foods so that all these chemicals and preservatives didn't find their way into our systems and screw with our metabolism...
Posted by: Elayne Riggs | June 11, 2003 05:07 PM
And if they're worried about what kids are eating, maybe they ought to consider not serving fast food in school cafeterias and removing the junk food vending machines from the school hallways.
Posted by: Lesley | June 11, 2003 05:34 PM
This product specific taxing and using the tax code to steer people away from "unacceptable" choices is the logical conclusion to a healthcare system increasingly funded by taxpayers.
Making the taxpayer responsible for the consequences of unhealthy actions ultimatly leads to the taxpayer making or influencing the decisions about the "unacceptable" choices.
Now if the republicrats get their way and pass a health care plan with the universal qualifier attached to it that means you and I are responsible for the consequences of a lifetime of choices, and we will now have the right (and obligation) to influence people's lifetime worth of choices.
How do you and I influence choices? We vote and petition our representatives to get the government to pass laws that infringe upon the ability to choose to do things, like enjoy an oreo cookie.
It it isn't resolved by the legislative and executive branches then it's on to the courts. We already have a precedent set. If the states (or feds) are responsible for the costs (that's us) then anybody who chooses unacceptable products would be liable (higher taxes) or the providor of unacceptable choices will be made responsible (civil litigation and settlements).
Posted by: Justin | June 11, 2003 06:48 PM
Actually fatty foods tend to be more expensive than any other kind and the poor seem to prefer it. Thus not only do the poor spend more dollars for food than higher income groups, they eat the foods that are not good for their health. So a tax on unhealthy food will hit the poor the hardest.
The healthiest foods are usually the cheapest. So higher income groups are spending less dollars on food and eating healthier.
Go figure.
Posted by: Jake | June 11, 2003 09:09 PM
I think Jake is correct in that fatty foods tend to be those most convenient--think microwave--and most expensive.
If politicians really wanted to attack obesity, they would tax fat itself. Fat people would pay a so much per pound levy over the healty weight limit. It is a perfectly fair tax, in the same sense that lotteries and tobacco taxes are fair. The person has control over his weight and can avoid the tax....and save money on food in the bargain.
Posted by: timd | June 13, 2003 03:10 PM