There has been a lot of controversy recently about a so-called “fat tax” that would essentially discourage people from buying products, such as soft drinks (with generally consist of more than 99% high fructose corn syrup), that are known to be high in empty calories and low in nutritional benefits. One of the main proposals right now would place a penny per ounce tax on soft drinks, which would raise about $15 billion per year for obesity prevention programs. Check out the following video for the full story:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/23/weighing-the-fat-tax/
I like the idea. Raising $15 billion for obesity and physical education, as well as physical environmental improvements that would encourage exercise, would go a long way in improving Americans’ quality of life. And that’s just from soft drinks. Imagine how much more money could be raised from candy, chips, sugary cereals, frozen dinners, high-fat restaurant foods, and (as much as it pains me to suggest) desserts. This is not the most popular idea, however. Many people are against adding any more taxes on American consumers, even ones that would likely be of significant benefit to us. It is seen as interfering with the market and making our current economic hardships even tougher.
There’s something to the economic hardship argument, but not in the way most people who argue for it are thinking. These high-fat foods are, by and large, the cheapest foods one can find at the grocery store. They also do not require a lot of time and energy to prepare. These foods are priced and ready-made for people of low-incomes. This is the reason why so many people living in poverty are also over-weight, a paradox that draws criticism from many people who don’t live in poverty because of the false belief that those people in poverty remain so partly because they spend so much money on extraneous food. In reality, people of low-incomes lack the resources to obtain extraneous foods, but they have just enough to obtain foods with extraneous calories, such as the ones mentioned in the paragraph above. They do not, however, have the resources to purchase the healthier foods that are priced at a premium and require time (which comes at a premium to people of low-incomes) to prepare. So, placing a tax on high-fat foods would essentially price people of low-incomes completely out of the food market.
Here’s what I would suggest: tax the unnecessary food items, such as soft drinks, candy, and (cringe!) desserts, and give tax credits for purchasing healthier items, such as fruit, raw vegetables, and whole grains. There are already government and private programs to visually mark foods as healthy. We could add a process to the system which would allow people to sign up for “credit cards” which can be swiped after each food purchase to keep track of healthy food credits. Those credits could then be cashed in during tax season. For people of the lowest incomes that cannot afford to wait until a tax credit comes, we could use some of the money raised from the “fat tax” to add more nutritious items to the food stamps allowances, which are currently sorely lacking. The credits could also be paid for by the tax, which would, unfortunately, leave less money for obesity prevention programs, but at least it would be a sensible solution that would likely work and appeal to both conservatives and liberals.
But my proposal seems too simple for someone not to have thought of it (and dismissed it) before. Am I missing something? What do you think? I would like your critical feedback.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hi there, it's BIG DADDY. Long time no comment so here goes.
If only a program that simple would actualy work. I think the flaws though are somewhat evident in our societal actions, and the end result of the tax collected. Let's take smoking as an example. Very many low income people smoke. Even though the tax is very high they continue with the bad habbit and sacrifice a meal ie; coffee and a cigarette for breakfast. I'm afraid the same would happen with the high calorie low cost junk food. People are addicted to sugars both in what they drink and eat. Additionally, 15 bill. dollars is a lot of money.
Being the sceptic that I am, my guess is that very little of that money would go for education and a lot would go into big pockets. Again, look at cigarette taxes. I see less if any smoking deterent adds on tv and in fact seeing more and more smoking in tv shows and movies. It's making a comeback!
Where's that tax money going?????
Big Daddy is right-on again!!!
Good points, Big Daddy. Habits are tough to break, and sugars are known to be addicting, but not nearly at the same level as nicotine. A significant enough tax can break a habit, such as Britain did with levying a $6 per gallon gas tax and $10 per hour downtown parking fee. The Brits now import a tiny fraction of the oil that they used to, have much fewer traffic congestion problems, and have cleaner air than any downtown in America. While addictions require therapy, habits only require enough pain for the person to decide its not worth feeding that habit anymore.
The money collected from the tax would definitely need to be funneled through a regulator to make sure the money is going to what it is intended for. I'm also skeptical of where money goes and how well it is being spent. I'm a big believer in taxing for good reasons in order to bring about a greater good, but it only makes sense if the money is spent wisely. Many times it is... often it is not.
I don't have a TV right now, and while I like that I'm not tempted to be distracted by stupid programs and commercials, I do miss my sports! I live for my daily dose of 2 minute highlight reels on yahoo sports! But the point is that I don't have any perspective as to how well the anti-tobacco campaign is going. I suspect that many of those people have much bigger fish to fry with the healthcare debate. But I did hear somewhere that tobacco use has been down significantly in the past few years. Maybe something is working.
Post a Comment