Paying to be Big
A fat tax is defined by a tax placed upon foods that are considered fattening such as; soda, cheeseburgers, etc. many of these taxes are being considered to be placed upon fast food restaurants. The basic idea of a fat tax was first brought up in 1942 by U.S. physiologist A.J. Carlson- he suggested that for every pound of being overweight that there be a fee on the person. This Idea was shot down due to the fact that America was in the midst of World War 2 and had other more important things to focus on, such as war efforts. Recent 2010 poll by CBS news show that a fat tax or so called junk food tax is opposed by up to 72% of America.
The actual use of a fat tax is currently occurring in Denmark as of October 2011, the tax applies to; butter, milk, cheese, pizza, meat, oil and any other item that contains 2.3% or more saturated fat. Many governments look at this as a solution for the obesity epidemic in their own country- Britain’s prime minister David Cameron was reported saying that he was considering introducing a fat tax to solve Britain’s current obesity issues. American along with many other European countries are considering placing such a tax on unhealthy food to better their countries
health.
An example of such a tax working to solve health issues is with cigarettes and alcohol. According to forbes: “Taxing some subset of people, such as the obese, might be unappealing for politicians who are periodically seeking reelection from those very same people. A natural alternative would be to fight obesity the way American policy makers have fought smoking – tax the substance, not the abuser. In smoking’s case, the current average tax on a pack of cigarettes is approximately $2.46, $1.01 of which is Federal tax). Smoking is an easy target as it essentially one product and one ingredient.” (http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmaris/2012/04/19/is-a-tax-on-obesity-in-americas-future/). This generally states that the food tax would be presented as a tax on the substance and not the abuser of the product containing the substances. For example Jim buys a two liter of soda and a bag of potato chips every day and he is well over weight pushing 300+ pounds. Jim’s government places a tax on saturated fats- both the
soda and chips contains saturated fat. This tax therefore ups the price on Jim’s two liter of soda and his bag of potato chips, of which then makes Jim unable to afford his product day to day forcing him to buy cheaper products that are generally healthier, Jim then is unconsciously put onto a diet and begins to lose weight. This is the general concept behind a fat tax and how it works and will work.
In conclusion a fat tax would help the abuser of the substance and forcing them in a way to buy healthier items. In the long run of things the fat tax would force soda companies, potato chip companies and other companies that produce food with something like saturated fat to produce healthier products of which will then help the company get more revenue. The fat tax is necessary in many ways in America at the moment due to the fact that as a country we truly
have an obesity epidemic. The only true question is why tax the substance rather than the abuser when some don’t abuse the substance and are not obese what so ever.
The actual use of a fat tax is currently occurring in Denmark as of October 2011, the tax applies to; butter, milk, cheese, pizza, meat, oil and any other item that contains 2.3% or more saturated fat. Many governments look at this as a solution for the obesity epidemic in their own country- Britain’s prime minister David Cameron was reported saying that he was considering introducing a fat tax to solve Britain’s current obesity issues. American along with many other European countries are considering placing such a tax on unhealthy food to better their countries
health.
An example of such a tax working to solve health issues is with cigarettes and alcohol. According to forbes: “Taxing some subset of people, such as the obese, might be unappealing for politicians who are periodically seeking reelection from those very same people. A natural alternative would be to fight obesity the way American policy makers have fought smoking – tax the substance, not the abuser. In smoking’s case, the current average tax on a pack of cigarettes is approximately $2.46, $1.01 of which is Federal tax). Smoking is an easy target as it essentially one product and one ingredient.” (http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmaris/2012/04/19/is-a-tax-on-obesity-in-americas-future/). This generally states that the food tax would be presented as a tax on the substance and not the abuser of the product containing the substances. For example Jim buys a two liter of soda and a bag of potato chips every day and he is well over weight pushing 300+ pounds. Jim’s government places a tax on saturated fats- both the
soda and chips contains saturated fat. This tax therefore ups the price on Jim’s two liter of soda and his bag of potato chips, of which then makes Jim unable to afford his product day to day forcing him to buy cheaper products that are generally healthier, Jim then is unconsciously put onto a diet and begins to lose weight. This is the general concept behind a fat tax and how it works and will work.
In conclusion a fat tax would help the abuser of the substance and forcing them in a way to buy healthier items. In the long run of things the fat tax would force soda companies, potato chip companies and other companies that produce food with something like saturated fat to produce healthier products of which will then help the company get more revenue. The fat tax is necessary in many ways in America at the moment due to the fact that as a country we truly
have an obesity epidemic. The only true question is why tax the substance rather than the abuser when some don’t abuse the substance and are not obese what so ever.