Fat Tax Rebuttal

In 2009, a prestigious think tank in Washington, D.C. proposed a 10% tax on what they called “Fattening food of little nutritional value.” They stated that based on their study, such a tax could raise 500 billion dollars in tax revenue over 10 years, which could be put towards paying off America's ever expanding national debt (Waist). Americans spend an extremely disproportional amount of money on health care costs related to lifestyle diseases. In recent years, Americans spent $190 billion on healthcare related to obesity, which is over one-fifth of total annual healthcare spending (Baird). Because Americans would have more money to spend, a tax on fattening foods and beverages could promote economic growth for private businesses and an increase in revenue for the

Taxing junk food isn’t as bad as people may think. “ In 1972, U.S consumers spent $3 billion a year on fast food; today we spend more than $110 billion.”, said Cummins . If only we put a tax on junk foods this number would go up and the tax money could be used for all of the collateral damages it causes. Another reason why taxing junk food isn’t as bad as people may think is because “ junk food kills”, stated Cummins. The junk food industry is in a similar position that the tobacco industry was once. After many decades the truth is finally becoming crystal clear.

The United States of America is known for having a high obesity level. According to David Frum from CNN, except for Mexicans, American citizens are more likely to become obese than any other nationality. Some obese countries have enforced an extra high tax on fast foods and other high calorie foods, and many people believe that the U.S. should adopt the fat tax as well. According to Dictionary.com, the fat tax is “a tax imposed on or proposed for high-fat or otherwise unhealthy foodstuffs”. Although a tax on junk food could reduce obesity, the low prices could protect low income families from going broke, and therefore a tax on junk food would not be beneficial to America.

Every second we lose someone to a one of the most dangerous killers in America; obesity. To tackle our obsession with food, it has been proposed that our government should start to regulate the type and amount of food we eat. This has received shock waves of controversy from our US citizens to whether or not it's even constitutional to set regulations on such items. Sadly, this unnatural obsession with sugar, salt, and fat has landed us on the list of one of the fattest countries in the world. These bans and regulations might cause us to lose a very small bit of our constitutional freedom, but based on the proposals, the health of our country is well worth it.

Obesity and diet related disease like diabetes are one of the biggest challenges today in America. The situation continues to worsen every day; obesity becomes a serious health crisis. Cities like Philadelphia and Berkeley, California, are sounding the bell of danger by imposing a tax on the consumption of soda and sugary beverages to cutback sugar consumption; which is a major contributor to the obesity epidemic. Some people say that tax on soda and sugary drinks aren’t beneficial to society and don’t generate any positive effect on public health. Others say that it is a powerful weapon against the obesity epidemic invading the American population. I agree with the later. Taxes on sugary

The United States of America, a nation that is known for it’s power, independence, and obesity. In the past few decades, this country has been suffering from an epidemic of obesity and diabetes. The government should increase the sales tax on fatty and high-sugar junk food to encourage healthy eating and help the American people. The revenue raised could be used to support greater causes and pay for health care reform. This might be the solution this country needs.

Congress hereby finds and declares that the United States of America has experienced a dramatic increase in the number of obese people and the number of deaths caused by the symptoms of obesity. Obesity is the leading cause of preventable deaths and accounts for 18% of all deaths in America (Fox 2013); thus, a one-cent-per-ounce tax on sugary beverages will decrease consumer rates and lower the obesity level. The rise in sweetened beverage consumption is parallel to the increase in obesity rates. Soda and other sugary substances are the largest contributors to sugar and calorie intake; soft drinks, energy drinks, sweet teas, and sports drinks are considered the top most consumed beverages in America (Kickthecan 2014). The annual medical costs due to obesity and overweight Americans is also staggering. The proposed solution will not hinder the necessary diet and nutritional value of one 's meal, but rather improve it by reducing the amount of sugar American 's consume, especially since sugary beverages are a large factor of obesity that can be costly and life threatening.

Obesity has been a problem in the United States for far too long, and it is time for the government to take action and protect the health of its citizens. This could be accomplished by taxing junk food and subsidizing healthy food, such as fruits, vegetables, and meats. The easiest foods to find and the cheapest foods to buy are foods that contain large amounts of calories and few nutrients (“What’s Behind the Obesity Epidemic”). This means that obesity disproportionately affects poor families (Mitchell, Catenacci, Wyatt, & Hill). In order to redress this issue, the government should put extra taxes on foods with high amounts of calories with few nutrients to act as a deterrent and keep people from buying them. The money gained from the taxes

“If and when the public chooses to use government power to offset the factors that promote obesity, we can do so. A day may come when we decide to limit advertising of unhealthy food, strengthen lifestyle teaching in schools, and create stronger financial incentives to adhere to lifestyle recommendations. The more eager we the people are to fight the obesogenic environment, the more responsive and effective our governments will become” (Medscape General Medicine, vol. 9, no. 4, 2007).

With a growing epidemic of obesity in America, some states and lawmakers have resorted to taking unconventional measures in order to counter the growing issue. Many legislators are debating the effectiveness of a “fat tax” would be on limiting the consumption of soda, high fat foods, and high sugar foods, and ultimately reducing the rate of morbidity and mortality due to obesity. The idea is that long term consumption of high fat, high sugar foods and drinks lead to many health problems, so making them more expensive and less accessible should decrease the health issues related to their consumption.

There are better alternatives for preventing obesity than a fat tax. The policy-improving RAND Corporation examined twenty international programs which offered subsidies for fruit and vegetables. Study author Ruopeng An wrote: “All but

Although there are many reasons why a person could get taxed on, a future reason why a person might get taxed is for being obese. Raising the prices

Economic costs of obesity are increasing and will continue to do so if nothing is done. Healthy Communities for A Healthy Future state that the estimated annual health care costs related to obesity are 190 billion dollars. This is 21% of total health care costs. This includes direct costs, such as preventive and treatment services, while indirect costs include income lost to days debilitated or future income lost to death. On an individual level, an obese person will cost 42% more in health care than a person of healthy weight. A tax directly related to products known to cause obesity would offset the cost of health care, and hopefully result in less obesity in the Nation.

Obesity has become a serious problem with more than one third of adults being obese in the United States. Obesity is seen as a self-destructive behavior accompanied with smoking and use of other drugs thus, government officials and other business bureaucrats expressed the need to impose higher health insurance premiums on the obese. Obesity is not always due to the personal behavior of people and can be linked with the environment and genetics; I personally feel that obese people should not pay a higher health insurance premium compared to those that aren’t. Government officials and other business bureaucrats

The growing problem of obesity is becoming an issue in the United States and it has prompted calls for government action, including the imposition of a “fat tax”. Whilst many of the population are at odds with this potential policy; morbidity, mortality rates and health care costs continue to rise. This article will compare microeconomic theory with that of a cost-benefit analysis in order to explore the pros and cons of a fat tax. This literature will apply theories of rational and irrational consumer decision-making to obesity-related consumption decisions and present a simple supply and demand model to suggest the likely consequences of a fat tax.