I'm in Illinois, 31 year old male and married. I was laid off a few months ago after working for close to five years at the same job. With overtime I my yearly salary was close to 60k. I'm collecting 365 plus 144 for my son plus 25 from stimulous per week electing to pay taxes later. My wife is employed and I get medical insurance through her company which also covers our son. For my situation, getting laid off was the best thing. To be honest I haven't been looking for a new position because to me the unemployment check over 1k every 2 weeks plus the time I spend with my 3 year old son is invaluable. We are definitly not scrambling and we even save money each paycheck. I know everybody situation is different, but I wanted to let you know mine.
Spare me the tired list of neo-con talking points and dated tropes about the perils of "big government."
The "freedom" to be exploited by profiteers and corporate interests is what brought us the current global economic crisis. Now it's manifesting in an obesity crisis that threatens to overwhelm the treasury and lead us even further down the path to fiscal ruin.
This uncritical reverence for "essential liberties," "personal responsibility," "choice", etc has gone on for long enough, and it's long past time to put the experts in charge instead of letting the corporate foxes guard the public henhouse.
The problem with the "fat" tax is that nutrition science changes all the time and also depends greatly on the individual. Ok slap a tax on fast food joints. Those business owners are hurt and those who travel frequently end up paying more in taxes. Now, do they start taxing the items in the grocery store that you can use to make fast food? Does ground beef suddenly become 8 or 9 a pound? Is that really fair to those who need to eat meat? (Iron deficient or whatever). What about candy? It's not good for you, but diabetics often carry some in case of a severe blood sugar drop. When this doesn't solve the obesity epidemic (there will always be people with thyroid problems or other issues) do they start putting a limit on how much healthy food you can buy without being taxed? Way too slippery a slope for me. It's pretty established that smoking gives you cancer and endangers others around you (second hand smoke), and so does alcohol (drunk driving, people who become violent when intoxicated, etc.) but "fat" food is too vague for me.
I can't help but agree with your conclusions. I think that the current political dynamics would make any scheme that overtly penalized or stigmatized the obese impracticable - if for no other reason than that they constitute a numerical majority that it would be difficult to control through democratic processes. I think that things might be different once a single-payer system is established, and the fiscal burden that their "freedoms" are imposing on the public treasury become both explicit and impossible to bear.
In the meantime, I think that at a minimum, the majority of Americans would accept measures that impose stiffer penalties - including criminal penalties - on those who profit at the public's expense by exploiting habits that the majority of people are neither responsible for, nor control. Putting obesity profiteers behind bars wouldn't end obesity all by itself, but it'd eliminate one more obstacle that stands between us and a healthier public.
1) I can't help but shake my head at our new idea of a "free country." Once we could debate the right and wrong things to do with the conclusion that we were free to disagree with each other because "it's a free country!" Now, though, the debate is what is the right and wrong thing to FORCE OTHER PEOPLE to do. Free country?
2) Love the dichotomy of raising a tax to reduce the behavior, then praising the money raised. Remember, you get what you pay for. What would be really being paid for here? More Bureaucracy!
3) As others have said, I admire your omniscience in determining which food is healthy for everyone. Certainly people are all identical in their health needs, and of course we should all be governed as if we conform to the physical norm.
4) Naturally, more taxes on more activities will result in a more ordered society, instead of a more sneaky, subversive, manipulative society. Hasn't it worked everywhere it's been tried?
5) And of course, how about trying to REDUCE taxes to accomplish the same goal? Take government out of food production so that less processing actually costs less! Why are corn and other crops so heavily subsidized that they are processed to unrecognizability for ubiquitous use in place of better foods that are only more expensive because they aren't subsidized?
I can appreciate that you want to impact the health of those around you in a positive way, but holding a gun to people's heads is generally a bad way to do it. Remember, attitude is the most important part of health, and my attitude isn't improved by your strong-arm approach. Would yours be?
Nowadays I am rarely in regular stores other than grocery and drug stores! The thing bringing me to malls for my mallwalks is coupons for FREEBIES. Then, perhaps, I might find another deal - as I did in sale scarves - or in the dress I got at the sale rack in Target with my $10 gift card!! One always has to have a mental shopping list - as in the thrift shop purchase last summer in the heat - of a bronze vinyl raincoat for ONE DOLLAR which I finally wore with pride yesterday in the rain...
My boyfriend and I plan to happily spend whatever is necessary on cats for our entire lives. We will also be donating to animal charities wherever possible.
Where we will save money is not having children, or donate to any charity that benefits human beings. We figure that even given a worst case scenario with our pets, we will come out ahead of anyone who has a child. And be happier, too.
Yes, you did say that a fat tax should be used to subsidize healthy food, however that subsidy doesn't get at the core issues for why poor people are unable to go to buy healthily in the first place.
Unless your fat tax is...
--also building grocery stores in poor neighborhoods
--subsidizing bus tickets so poor people can take mass transit to grocery stores
--paying for community education so poor people can learn about better nutritional choices.
Then it fails. Your fat tax subsidy would penalize the people who already have the fewest options.
While it may make more sense to tax obesity itself it's not something that anyone is going to do because it is political suicide. It seems like you're attacking a specific group of people when you do that, like taxing Jews, or Asians or something. Even though it really isn't it is perceived that way. Therefore taxing the thing that makes people fat is the next best solution.
So many comments - and from a standpoint I would not have expected. Except that I disagree with most of the comments and agree with the posting - I do believe junk food should be taxed. Will the government do it perfectly? I doubt it as they seldom get stuff right. But I think that it is right up there with alcohol and tobacco. And I think it is a great idea to subsidize healthier foods. Is it regressive? I have read over and over on frugal blogs that it is possible to eat healthy on not a lot of money - but yes, it does take some thought.
"Let the government tax our fatty treats, and let them use that money to pay off some of the debt, or create new jobs, or rebuild the crumbling bridges and infrastructure."
Do you honestly believe the government would use a tax for its intended purpose? What comes to mind was Al Gore's famously fraudulent claim that he would put social security money in a "LOOOCK BOOOOX".
It seems there is no lack of do gooders out there, who think they can "engineer" social behavior. If we're really going to go down that road, let's make it simple - the government takes 100% of what we make, and we let them decide where we live, what clothes we wear, what car we drive, what job we have, and what we eat. Oops - they're already trying that with dear leader mao obama. And it was already tried in communist Russia - the result - 60 MILLION people put to death.
But then what do I know? I'm simply one of those greedy capitalists who actually remember there is a Constitution.
Make/buy costume pieces that can be recycled as well as using for dress-up. A peasant blouse and skirt can be used for a gypsy, belly dancer, pirate (female) or 16th century peasant with the right accessories.
The problem with your support for a tax is that the foods you want to tax aren't bad for you, in moderation. A hamburger, a few fries are not bad for you. SuperSizeMe did a nice job of creating a false perception. Sure if you eat McDonalds every day for every meal and eat 5000 calories a day, you will get ill. Duh? Eating a McDonalds hamburger with a glass of water or non-sugared beverage and an apple is not a bad for you meal.
Yes, I agree. It is crucial to have core health insurance. But it is important to be a smart consumer. I was shocked at how high the deductible was for my group health insurance. I decided to keep my individual insurance. And, I have also decided to pay for my dental and vision out-of-pocket for the very reasons you listed. My visits to the ophthalmologist are covered under my medical insurance, not vision insurance.
It'd be much more efficient, and lucrative, for the government to impose a tax on excess weight.
Simply have the government scientifically determine what is, and what is not a healthy weight, and require an annual weigh-in at a government clinic. Those who exceed the guidelines can be assessed a penalty that increases in direct proportion to the health risks associated with a particular weight. In practice, this means that the scale will be non-linear.
Offenders who lack the income necessary to pay the penalties can either have the amount withdrawn from their public income (tax-refunds, welfare benefits), or be be sentenced to work-off the amount of the fine in various projects that the government determines have the highest social value.
Once we get single-payer going, this scheme will be much easier to implement. If the public is bearing the costs of your lifestyle choices, then clearly the public should be in a position to control them.
Except that not everyone who enjoys "bad/fat" food is fat or obese. I enjoy junk food & fast food. I happen to exercise in addition to being blessed w/high metabolism. Why should I have to pay extra money to enjoy what I do, just because other people choose not to exercise and/or aren't blessed w/good genetics?
@Guest - The e-book industry is a curious one; the average price for an e-book of this sort is $30-60US. Although it never gets bound & has no shipping costs, it is usually written for a specific audience to attain a specific goal, and contains practical steps to get you there (unlike conventional books, which often cater to a larger audience by necessity). And when the end-goal is to make money (or more money, or different money), the price point is justified as a means to an end.
Although you have to pay for the information, the alternative is that you could possibly waste a whole heap of your time (and money, circuitiously) learning their lessons on your own and reinventing the wheel yourself.
And yes - the authors are making money. But I see value and inspiration in their products, and recognize that there was a lot of time and effort that got put into it. If you don't see the value though - don't buy! (smiles)
I love getting gift cards. I have family members who ask for a list but then completely ignore it, opting to instead purchase random crap that I don't need. I only WISH they'd get me a gift card instead.
I think implementation on such a tax would be the problem.
Where do you draw the line between the 'good' food and the 'bad' food? How do you define "fast food"? Is ground beef between bread inherently bad? I don't think so. But if McDonalds sells it then its a vice that allegedly kills people? I don't think so.
We do NEED food. And any food in moderation is not unhealthy.
Tobacco and alcohol are inherently different. You do not *need* either of them in any amount and its easy to draw the line to define what is / isn't tobacco or alcohol.
I am a huge proponent of letting people do what they want but only as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. If our country is 60% obese, that's hurting everyone, not just the fat people. Our military has less and less young people to choose from who are within weight standards for joining, fat people cost airlines more to ferry across the country, fat people use more gas in their cars, and they require more health care dollars throughout their lives. I agree that there should be a tax on fast foods. We'll see the poor in our country becoming a healthier weight because it will no longer make sense for them to buy high fat foods as they will no longer be a cheap option.
Why are people so quick to infringe on individual liberties? The government should not tax unhealthy foods. It also should stop having increased taxes on liquor and cigarettes.
Let's tax Internet usage. You would be okay with that right? After all, people should quit surfing the Internet and go exercise. Internet addiction is problem for some in our country. In can be a debilitating problem that causes people to lose jobs and ruin marriages.
Let's tax extra marital affairs. While we are at it, let's also tax unprotected sex, foul language, and people who don't go to church. In these instances, I have the feeling that most reading this would say that the government has no business regulating these private affairs.
I thinks it is an excellent idea. We plan to do just that to buy a new home. I can't believe all the naysayers here. We have to do something, and take some risks. If we just sit back with folded arms while shaking our heads, we will continue to sink deeper.
...that the fat tax should subsidize healthy food so that it becomes the cheaper option? Junk food should be the luxury, not salads and fruits. I want poor people to have cheaper, better food. For those that can afford the crappy food, good for them.
I am guessing you have plenty of money to pay a fat tax and that is why you are suggesting it. Most of us who eat at those fattening, lower priced places do so because we have no choice. When we are out and need a bite to eat (and forgot to bring a PBJ sandwich), that is the only thing we can afford.
I understand your logic but I think its misguided. If I had the money, I would not frequent these places. And I think that in this tough economy, many others are in the same place as I am.
Lets give the poor a break. Or maybe you could give us a subsidy so that we don't need to eat at these places? I wouldn't mind that.
Hmm.
Go ahead. Try it.
Can you tax the raw materials, knowing what they'll be used to make?
Don't think so.
Don't believe me?
I make my own alcohol - I got tired of paying taxes on the stuff.
If I smoked, I'd grow my own tobacco too (it's legal in my country - Canada - to do that).
Put a tax on fried food, well, I just won't buy fast food anymore. In fact, I rarely do.
When I make it at home, I can fry it in *animal fat* because it tastes better :)
I'm in Illinois, 31 year old male and married. I was laid off a few months ago after working for close to five years at the same job. With overtime I my yearly salary was close to 60k. I'm collecting 365 plus 144 for my son plus 25 from stimulous per week electing to pay taxes later. My wife is employed and I get medical insurance through her company which also covers our son. For my situation, getting laid off was the best thing. To be honest I haven't been looking for a new position because to me the unemployment check over 1k every 2 weeks plus the time I spend with my 3 year old son is invaluable. We are definitly not scrambling and we even save money each paycheck. I know everybody situation is different, but I wanted to let you know mine.
C3:
Spare me the tired list of neo-con talking points and dated tropes about the perils of "big government."
The "freedom" to be exploited by profiteers and corporate interests is what brought us the current global economic crisis. Now it's manifesting in an obesity crisis that threatens to overwhelm the treasury and lead us even further down the path to fiscal ruin.
This uncritical reverence for "essential liberties," "personal responsibility," "choice", etc has gone on for long enough, and it's long past time to put the experts in charge instead of letting the corporate foxes guard the public henhouse.
The problem with the "fat" tax is that nutrition science changes all the time and also depends greatly on the individual. Ok slap a tax on fast food joints. Those business owners are hurt and those who travel frequently end up paying more in taxes. Now, do they start taxing the items in the grocery store that you can use to make fast food? Does ground beef suddenly become 8 or 9 a pound? Is that really fair to those who need to eat meat? (Iron deficient or whatever). What about candy? It's not good for you, but diabetics often carry some in case of a severe blood sugar drop. When this doesn't solve the obesity epidemic (there will always be people with thyroid problems or other issues) do they start putting a limit on how much healthy food you can buy without being taxed? Way too slippery a slope for me. It's pretty established that smoking gives you cancer and endangers others around you (second hand smoke), and so does alcohol (drunk driving, people who become violent when intoxicated, etc.) but "fat" food is too vague for me.
I can't help but agree with your conclusions. I think that the current political dynamics would make any scheme that overtly penalized or stigmatized the obese impracticable - if for no other reason than that they constitute a numerical majority that it would be difficult to control through democratic processes. I think that things might be different once a single-payer system is established, and the fiscal burden that their "freedoms" are imposing on the public treasury become both explicit and impossible to bear.
In the meantime, I think that at a minimum, the majority of Americans would accept measures that impose stiffer penalties - including criminal penalties - on those who profit at the public's expense by exploiting habits that the majority of people are neither responsible for, nor control. Putting obesity profiteers behind bars wouldn't end obesity all by itself, but it'd eliminate one more obstacle that stands between us and a healthier public.
Wow. So many things to say here.
1) I can't help but shake my head at our new idea of a "free country." Once we could debate the right and wrong things to do with the conclusion that we were free to disagree with each other because "it's a free country!" Now, though, the debate is what is the right and wrong thing to FORCE OTHER PEOPLE to do. Free country?
2) Love the dichotomy of raising a tax to reduce the behavior, then praising the money raised. Remember, you get what you pay for. What would be really being paid for here? More Bureaucracy!
3) As others have said, I admire your omniscience in determining which food is healthy for everyone. Certainly people are all identical in their health needs, and of course we should all be governed as if we conform to the physical norm.
4) Naturally, more taxes on more activities will result in a more ordered society, instead of a more sneaky, subversive, manipulative society. Hasn't it worked everywhere it's been tried?
5) And of course, how about trying to REDUCE taxes to accomplish the same goal? Take government out of food production so that less processing actually costs less! Why are corn and other crops so heavily subsidized that they are processed to unrecognizability for ubiquitous use in place of better foods that are only more expensive because they aren't subsidized?
I can appreciate that you want to impact the health of those around you in a positive way, but holding a gun to people's heads is generally a bad way to do it. Remember, attitude is the most important part of health, and my attitude isn't improved by your strong-arm approach. Would yours be?
Nowadays I am rarely in regular stores other than grocery and drug stores! The thing bringing me to malls for my mallwalks is coupons for FREEBIES. Then, perhaps, I might find another deal - as I did in sale scarves - or in the dress I got at the sale rack in Target with my $10 gift card!! One always has to have a mental shopping list - as in the thrift shop purchase last summer in the heat - of a bronze vinyl raincoat for ONE DOLLAR which I finally wore with pride yesterday in the rain...
My boyfriend and I plan to happily spend whatever is necessary on cats for our entire lives. We will also be donating to animal charities wherever possible.
Where we will save money is not having children, or donate to any charity that benefits human beings. We figure that even given a worst case scenario with our pets, we will come out ahead of anyone who has a child. And be happier, too.
Great article.
Yes, you did say that a fat tax should be used to subsidize healthy food, however that subsidy doesn't get at the core issues for why poor people are unable to go to buy healthily in the first place.
Unless your fat tax is...
--also building grocery stores in poor neighborhoods
--subsidizing bus tickets so poor people can take mass transit to grocery stores
--paying for community education so poor people can learn about better nutritional choices.
Then it fails. Your fat tax subsidy would penalize the people who already have the fewest options.
While it may make more sense to tax obesity itself it's not something that anyone is going to do because it is political suicide. It seems like you're attacking a specific group of people when you do that, like taxing Jews, or Asians or something. Even though it really isn't it is perceived that way. Therefore taxing the thing that makes people fat is the next best solution.
So many comments - and from a standpoint I would not have expected. Except that I disagree with most of the comments and agree with the posting - I do believe junk food should be taxed. Will the government do it perfectly? I doubt it as they seldom get stuff right. But I think that it is right up there with alcohol and tobacco. And I think it is a great idea to subsidize healthier foods. Is it regressive? I have read over and over on frugal blogs that it is possible to eat healthy on not a lot of money - but yes, it does take some thought.
"Let the government tax our fatty treats, and let them use that money to pay off some of the debt, or create new jobs, or rebuild the crumbling bridges and infrastructure."
Do you honestly believe the government would use a tax for its intended purpose? What comes to mind was Al Gore's famously fraudulent claim that he would put social security money in a "LOOOCK BOOOOX".
It seems there is no lack of do gooders out there, who think they can "engineer" social behavior. If we're really going to go down that road, let's make it simple - the government takes 100% of what we make, and we let them decide where we live, what clothes we wear, what car we drive, what job we have, and what we eat. Oops - they're already trying that with dear leader mao obama. And it was already tried in communist Russia - the result - 60 MILLION people put to death.
But then what do I know? I'm simply one of those greedy capitalists who actually remember there is a Constitution.
Make/buy costume pieces that can be recycled as well as using for dress-up. A peasant blouse and skirt can be used for a gypsy, belly dancer, pirate (female) or 16th century peasant with the right accessories.
The problem with your support for a tax is that the foods you want to tax aren't bad for you, in moderation. A hamburger, a few fries are not bad for you. SuperSizeMe did a nice job of creating a false perception. Sure if you eat McDonalds every day for every meal and eat 5000 calories a day, you will get ill. Duh? Eating a McDonalds hamburger with a glass of water or non-sugared beverage and an apple is not a bad for you meal.
Yes, I agree. It is crucial to have core health insurance. But it is important to be a smart consumer. I was shocked at how high the deductible was for my group health insurance. I decided to keep my individual insurance. And, I have also decided to pay for my dental and vision out-of-pocket for the very reasons you listed. My visits to the ophthalmologist are covered under my medical insurance, not vision insurance.
It'd be much more efficient, and lucrative, for the government to impose a tax on excess weight.
Simply have the government scientifically determine what is, and what is not a healthy weight, and require an annual weigh-in at a government clinic. Those who exceed the guidelines can be assessed a penalty that increases in direct proportion to the health risks associated with a particular weight. In practice, this means that the scale will be non-linear.
Offenders who lack the income necessary to pay the penalties can either have the amount withdrawn from their public income (tax-refunds, welfare benefits), or be be sentenced to work-off the amount of the fine in various projects that the government determines have the highest social value.
Once we get single-payer going, this scheme will be much easier to implement. If the public is bearing the costs of your lifestyle choices, then clearly the public should be in a position to control them.
Case-closed.
Except that not everyone who enjoys "bad/fat" food is fat or obese. I enjoy junk food & fast food. I happen to exercise in addition to being blessed w/high metabolism. Why should I have to pay extra money to enjoy what I do, just because other people choose not to exercise and/or aren't blessed w/good genetics?
@Guest - The e-book industry is a curious one; the average price for an e-book of this sort is $30-60US. Although it never gets bound & has no shipping costs, it is usually written for a specific audience to attain a specific goal, and contains practical steps to get you there (unlike conventional books, which often cater to a larger audience by necessity). And when the end-goal is to make money (or more money, or different money), the price point is justified as a means to an end.
Although you have to pay for the information, the alternative is that you could possibly waste a whole heap of your time (and money, circuitiously) learning their lessons on your own and reinventing the wheel yourself.
And yes - the authors are making money. But I see value and inspiration in their products, and recognize that there was a lot of time and effort that got put into it. If you don't see the value though - don't buy! (smiles)
I love getting gift cards. I have family members who ask for a list but then completely ignore it, opting to instead purchase random crap that I don't need. I only WISH they'd get me a gift card instead.
I think implementation on such a tax would be the problem.
Where do you draw the line between the 'good' food and the 'bad' food? How do you define "fast food"? Is ground beef between bread inherently bad? I don't think so. But if McDonalds sells it then its a vice that allegedly kills people? I don't think so.
We do NEED food. And any food in moderation is not unhealthy.
Tobacco and alcohol are inherently different. You do not *need* either of them in any amount and its easy to draw the line to define what is / isn't tobacco or alcohol.
I am a huge proponent of letting people do what they want but only as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. If our country is 60% obese, that's hurting everyone, not just the fat people. Our military has less and less young people to choose from who are within weight standards for joining, fat people cost airlines more to ferry across the country, fat people use more gas in their cars, and they require more health care dollars throughout their lives. I agree that there should be a tax on fast foods. We'll see the poor in our country becoming a healthier weight because it will no longer make sense for them to buy high fat foods as they will no longer be a cheap option.
Why are people so quick to infringe on individual liberties? The government should not tax unhealthy foods. It also should stop having increased taxes on liquor and cigarettes.
Let's tax Internet usage. You would be okay with that right? After all, people should quit surfing the Internet and go exercise. Internet addiction is problem for some in our country. In can be a debilitating problem that causes people to lose jobs and ruin marriages.
Let's tax extra marital affairs. While we are at it, let's also tax unprotected sex, foul language, and people who don't go to church. In these instances, I have the feeling that most reading this would say that the government has no business regulating these private affairs.
Individual liberty is worth defending in America.
I thinks it is an excellent idea. We plan to do just that to buy a new home. I can't believe all the naysayers here. We have to do something, and take some risks. If we just sit back with folded arms while shaking our heads, we will continue to sink deeper.
...that the fat tax should subsidize healthy food so that it becomes the cheaper option? Junk food should be the luxury, not salads and fruits. I want poor people to have cheaper, better food. For those that can afford the crappy food, good for them.
I am guessing you have plenty of money to pay a fat tax and that is why you are suggesting it. Most of us who eat at those fattening, lower priced places do so because we have no choice. When we are out and need a bite to eat (and forgot to bring a PBJ sandwich), that is the only thing we can afford.
I understand your logic but I think its misguided. If I had the money, I would not frequent these places. And I think that in this tough economy, many others are in the same place as I am.
Lets give the poor a break. Or maybe you could give us a subsidy so that we don't need to eat at these places? I wouldn't mind that.