Tax on fatty foods to pay for health care? A modest proposal – Pros and cons

Contributing to various health problems such as cancer, stroke, diabetes, and high blood pressure, obesity has become an epidemic, affecting almost half of the US population. The number of obese people has doubled since 1985, leading to a 30% increase in health premiums. The overall financial costs of obesity are greater than those of alcoholism or smoking. The annual cost of treating obesity-related health problems is estimated at more than $100 billion. The reduction in health costs over time will not occur if obesity is ignored.

Why more taxes?

Two reasons; The first and most obvious is to raise part of the money for what is being considered as universal health, an issue that carries with it a separate debate. The second reason, and probably the most important, is to raise awareness about what we eat and how it affects our body. The American public is woefully ignorant about nutrition.

what to tax

There have been dozens of proposed “sin food” taxes, from a penny per can of soda to 10% on all fast food items. It probably needs to be more inclusive than that. Packaged foods with lots of sugar and starch probably contribute as much to the problem as the entire fast food industry. It could well be a sliding scale for all foods except fresh produce, based on grams of fat and sugar per 100 grams or per serving.

What is the Tax Rate?

The Department of Agriculture has suggested that for “sin food” taxes to change the way people eat, they may need to equal at least 10% to 30% of the cost of food. It is estimated that a 10% federal tax on fattening foods would raise $530 billion over 10 years. There should also be a tax subsidy program to encourage the purchase of healthy foods like fresh fruits and vegetables. This, of course, would lower the gross income a bit.

Opposition response

Most of us are opposed to more taxes, myself included, but there are other oppositions to such a tax. Here are some of the most common.

• I’m not fat and I don’t want to pay for someone who is and I like my sodas and Dorritos. You can still eat what you want. Paying $1.10 for a 99-cent bag of Dorritos may be the cheapest way to pay for this trouble. It is inevitable by the magnitude of this social problem that it will not cost you in some way.
• The government needs to stop trying to legislate our behavior and pick our pockets. Sorry buddy… too late. In such a complex and generally prosperous society, everything we do, in some way, affects everyone else. “No man is an island.” The only way for the government not to do something is to completely abandon the idea of ​​universal health care. How good is your imagination at making that happen?
• It is a regressive tax that unfairly affects the poor. This seems to be true at first glance. Low-income people eat fast, starchy foods in an attempt to stretch their food dollars. As mentioned above, there should be a tax subsidy for making healthy food choices. More public health money needs to go into nutrition education and awareness. With the right information and a little help, low-income people can have healthy diets.

One of the flaws in pursuing a national health care problem is the political evasion of accountability and personal responsibility. We have been tricked into depending on the government, a condition that is difficult to reverse, and the government seems to appreciate its role. Individual responsibility is the ultimate solution; until then everyone pays one way or another.