Should there be a tax on fatty foods?

Perhaps, if the goal was to offset the strain of medical costs that obesity places on our society, rather than as a dissuasion.

I assume from your phrasing that this is not actually a question?

No. Our tax rate in Los Angeles totals 9.75% – which is ridiculous enough. I don’t want to be forced to pay “extra” taxes for items the government thinks are unhealthy for me to eat. It’s none of their business what groceries I shop for. Keeping fit is my responsibility. How would they even regulate what contains “too much fat”? They would have to create a division for regulating and enforcing the tax, which is a waste of time and money.

Legislation such as this sound better in theory. Tax cigarettes and put that money toward health care! Tax drivers and put that money toward the environment! They rarely work in practice and bring out the grouch in me.

Perhaps tax the manufacturers of high fructose corn syrup.

If we were going to be taxing some entities, I would suggest taxing food manufacturers for the less healthy foods that they produce and sell, and give them tax incentives to produce healthier, safer food alternatives.

@syz It is a question. l just put my 2 cents worth in. I would like to know what everybody else thinks.

The food situation is reversed in Europe from that in the US. Processed foods are expensive, fresh foods less expensive in most countries except for the US.

Hey, NY banned trans fats.
Ultimately it is the individual’s job to control what gets shoved into the pie hole.

What if health insurance costs should had a body mass index surcharge. That might offset some of the added costs.
There are already body weight surcharges for life insurance. Why not for health insurance?

@BarnacleBill It makes so much more sense that highly processed (and largely fattening and unhealthy) foods should be more expensive that fresh food. We’ve got it all screwed up.

it is a slippery slope indeed when our govt. gets into the business of protecting us from ourselves. How much is too much and when would it stop? What others have said… we all are solely responsible for what we do in reference to our well being. ( and really in all other facets of life)

@woodcutter, I tend to disagree after a point. If the government proactively finances businesses creating low-cost products through tax incentives, and the businesses market those products as healthy, then there is a level of duplicity and coercion to which the government is a party. The government needs to get out of the business of supporting harm, and making it difficult to find or choose choices that are in the best interests of our well-being.

But I agree that the government should mind it’s own business—about who marries whom, and what women choose to do with their own bodies. Government should not be interested in people’s sex lives, or determining if women will go to hell for aborting an unplanned pregnancy.

No. I don’t think there should be a tax on any food honestly. I am ok with a tax on things like alcohol. I would argue that sugar is not a fatty food by the way.

“Fatty foods” are abundant because the government has made a policy of subsidizing cheap calories. This is partially in response to the problem of hunger in America that was prevalent as late as the 50s and 60s. It has evolves into something else, of course, but why tax the people for something that is subsidized unless, of course, you are in the business of collecting on both ends.

No, for heavens sake.

I don’t want the government telling me what I can eat. I am for less government intervention in my life, not more.

Sweden goes the other way and, since the 1980s, have subsidized foods light in fat and sugars so they are a little less in price at the grocery store. Studies show that they are saving in national health care costs due to lower instances of early heart disease and diabetes on the other end. One of the many benefits of a single-payer national health care policy.

BTW, this graph shows how smoking has diminished in the US since 1950 from 51% of the population over 14 years of age to 28%. You will notice that the graph takes a huge dip at the time many states began instituting sin taxes on tobacco products. So yes, end-user taxation has discouraged smoking in the US by nearly 50%.

In 1961, 60% of medical doctors in the US admitted to being smokers. Today, only 3% claim to smoke.

@Espiritus_Corvus I think prohibiting smoking in areas has done more to cause people to quit than the cost. An addiction is tough to kick because of money alone. Smokers will find a way to get the money to pay whatever it cost. But, if you can’t smoke in areas, like work place, restaurants, any buildings, or within 100 feet of some buildings, that can have an effect on ones habit. Smoking is directly harmful to the public, eating fattening food does not effect the person standing next to you.

You may be right there. They began instituting non-smoking areas with a vengeance about the same time as they increased taxation. I have no data to refute your argument.

But I do like the way Sweden handled the unhealthy foods thing, rather than taxing food.