Why shouldn't there be a "Fat Tax" for the overweight?

Uh, how would you levy the tax? Scales at the IRS offices? I don’t think it’s feasible.

Taxes are better levied against small groups for safety’s sake… their are just too many fat people in power right now… look at France and Greece; the French government changed pensions and the Greeks introduced Austerity measures and major riots happened….the governments “bit off more than they can chew”... if you don’t mind the pun

I do not think penalizing lifestyle choices will cause people to live healthily or reduce the shared expense of healthcare costs. Taxing lifestyle choices, such as overeating, would lead to taxation of every preventable disease (e.g. certain types of mental illness, lung cancer, liver cancer, skin cancer) and accidents (e.g. broken bones due to careless activity). Punishment never works to minimize preventable consequences.

Instead, to create a level of fairness for all sharing healthcare costs, there should be incentives for healthy lifestyles. Similar to accident-free auto insurance premium reduction, those who consistently receive a clean “bill of health” each year could have their share of healthcare costs reduced. I think this would inspire many to consider ways to improve their self-care in order to reduce their cost of living.

A “fat tax” seems incredibly silly to me. Might as well add a “stupid tax” too.

Honestly, I think instead of taxing things like that ..there should be incentives for living healthy.

@prolificus – that’s a really good idea, I like it! It makes sense to me to have higher premiums for those who make a lot of claims, but I am sure some would find that discriminatory.

Paradixically, people who lead unhealthy lives generally impose fewer costs on health systems than those who lead healthy lives. This is because they tend to die earlier from diseases that kill them relatively quickly, such as cardiac failure, strokes, cancer etc. The healthy, meanwhile, live on and succumb to diseases of old age, such as Alzheimers, Parkinsons etc., which take far longer to progress, and ultimately cost more to treat.

Like @talljasperman says-there are too many fat people to pick on. They and their sympathizers will be able block the attempt to tax them by putting up numbers at the ballot box.
If you want to screw somebody with the tax code, it has to be a small constituency, that nobody likes-“the rich” for example.
Then they can’t defend themselves at the polls.
You would have to start by splitting out sections of fat people to pick on- say those that make over a million dollars. That is the old divide and conquer strategy that has worked for ages.

Completely ridiculous, try fixing the problem instead.

So basically you think people should be bullied into living a certain way by being taxed heavily if they don’t comply. I’m glad you don’t run society.

I’m going to play devil’s advocate

@Mikewlf337 in any society, aren’t you going to always have some people who are “bullied” into living a certain way?

@phaedryx Doesn’t make it right.

No there’s should be an additional tax for unhealthy food. Like what we got for alcohol and nicotine.

how do you avoid anarchy if you don’t have behavior restrictions?

Telling people what to eat and how to live their life is wrong no matter how you put it. It won’t result in anarchy if you allow people to live their lives peacefully the way they want to.

If we went with that premise than why don’t we tax bad drivers more or take away their licenses.
Lets us also tax parents of uncontrolable children who waste teachers time.
Let us also tax people who borrow too much credit.
Let us tax people who don’t drive a smart car.
Let us tax people more who order a big mac or a steak instead of a salad.
While we are at it. Why don’t we do like the eskimos and send our elderly a drift on a block of ice. Why don’t we stop all medical care once someone reaches 65 because we know they are only going to go downhill from there and cause premiums to go higher.
So to save on medicade and social security, we can pass on to everyone at age 65 a cyanide pill and they don’t have to take it so long as they can still contribute to society without being a drain.
In case you don’t realize I was being facetious.
Last I looked this is a free country. Not everyone who is considered overweight is unhealthy. So do you give everyone a yearly physical or will it be just based on what a scale says.
According to charts. My healthy weight would be 105 to 118. I feel my best at 120–127. At 125 I am considered overweight. Why would I pay extra because someone has it in their mind that 125 is overweight.

In addition to the reasons that others have stated, there’s the issue of “how fat is too fat?”. Also, how would one determine that some obese people “deserve” to pay a tax while others do not? While it’s true that the majority of obese people can blame their size on a sedentary lifestyle and bad eating habits (i.e. factors over which they have complete control), there are others with medical conditions who come by their obesity honestly.

I AGREE BUT the tax as you suggest it is improperly regressive.

Many of the people who suffer the effects of obesity and pass the costs of it to society are those that can’t afford to do any better. The cheapest foods are the ones that are the least healthy for us. Fast food restaurants are the most populous in areas that have the lowest income. Those with the lowest incomes are the least likely to have the insurance necessary to pay for the problems. They also are the ones most likely to have single or no income households, and be with children and working and therefore don’t have the time to cook for themselves.

The problem is not with obesity, per se, but the dietary value of the food that we can eat and afford. It’s not about personal choice if the choice is between something you can afford and something you can’t. That’s the illusion of choice.

The cost should be spread, I agree – but to those that are most responsible for the problem as well who can afford it. Therefore, there are a few ways that I think we can deal with the problem that aren’t about increasing costs to those who can afford it the least, and are essentially victims already:

(1) Begin transferring corn and soy subsidies (corn derivatives are a big cause of the health problems, as well as associated environmental problems) to fresh vegetable subsidies.

(2) Tax GMO production.

(3) Advertising penalties (whether in tax form or otherwise) for those who promote junk food sales.

(4) Zoning restrictions for fast food franchises in low-income areas.

There are more solutions, but that’s some of the beginning.

I would say it’s because that is unbelievably discriminatory. To increase the amount of money in taxes a person should pay because of a quality of their person is just absurd. Some people are overweight for medical reasons. Some people are overweight because of the way they learned how to eat from their parents. At some point it probably partly becomes their responsibility, but it is not an easy thing to overcome. Trust me. I did it.

I personally think a good utopian solution is food should cost based upon the caloric content therein. Maybe a penny, or half a penny per calorie. That way your 20, or ten dollar McDonald’s value meal is no longer cheaper, easier, or more efficient than your seven dollar home cooked meal for your entire family.

I agree with @mattbrowne.

Wow, I am glad you are not in charge of society. Where would you go next?

Tax people who don’t agree with your politics?

Tax people of a certain religion?

You have no unhealthy habits? How f***ing self righteous can you get?

Fat Tax, for the obese, would be discrimination.

Using duct tape would be a better solution for the obese and politicians.

@iamthemob said it all. GA. A lot of fat people are fat because they can’t afford to eat healthily. Taxing them will only make the situation worse.

@iamthemob A pound of apples is still cheaper than a pound of potato chips. Skim milk is no different than whole in my store. Basic fresh vegetables are generally cheaper than anything similar in a package with grease, sugar and salt. What do you mean they cannot afford good food?

@josie – one cannot live on apples alone. As an example of what I’m talking about, see this, which is just one example. It talks about a University of Washington survey that showed that although fruits and vegetables are rich in nutrients, they also contain relatively few calories, and foods with high energy density, meaning they pack the most calories per gram, included candy, pastries, baked goods and snacks – and that the higher-calorie, energy-dense foods are the better bargain for cash-strapped shoppers. Energy-dense munchies cost on average $1.76 per 1,000 calories, compared with $18.16 per 1,000 calories for low-energy but nutritious foods.

Most of the low-priced carb based snack food is the junk food that is the main problem. This is also the kind of food that is most heavily marketed, particularly to kids and in low-income areas.

When you average it out, the sensible thing budget and time wise often ends up being the big mac instead of baking some lean chicken and some broccoli.

@iamthemob Being short of time and cash is not uncommon these days. It certainly applies to me. And I live where there are plenty of fast food restaurants and single parents. So how come I am not fat?

@josie – said it all, it is much cheaper to eat healthily than to eat prepackaged processed food. That stuff is exhorbitantly expensive on a per pound basis. But to buy fresh and prepare it yourself takes time and effort and some would rather just open the box.

I like @john65pennington ‘s suggestion as well and I can think of a few other groups who would benefit from the duct tape approach!

@rooeytoo – Do you have any data on that? Everything I’ve seen (including the citation) suggests the opposite…

@josie – That’s not evidence, though – that’s anecdotal. I’m not discounting that some people are just lazy, and stupid. What I’m saying is that the tax is regressive and not targeted at those who both (1) are profiting from the problem, and (2) can afford to have cost spread to them. We also need to up education generally, bring fitness programs back into schools on a serious basis, make sure our public lunches are healthy ones, etc.

Multipronged approach. Multipronged.

@iamthemob But “we” do not have to up education generally, bring fitness programs back into schools on a serious basis, make sure our public lunches are healthy ones, etc..
Only fat people need to do that.
If you tax them, maybe they will.
It would not be the first time politicians tried to control the masses with taxes.
Single prong – more efficient and to the point.

Doing all of that isn’t to address obesity only. It’s to ensure that our children are not only not fat, but healthy besides that.

You don’t have to be fat to develop the kinds of health issues associated with an unhealthy diet. Obesity is more strongly associated with them, it’s true. But you don’t avoid them simply by not being fat.

Aside from any of that – a “fat tax” will not happen. There really is no way to clothe that so that it’s anything but a class-focused law. If a large percentage or a majority of the population is obese or at least fat – let’s see how fast that gets passed. Let’s also see if it would stand up in any way to constitutional muster.

We should NOT because we are in AMERICA and people should have the freedom to get as fat as they want!

Rectal cranial inversion costs more in lost revenue than my fat ass will ever cost anyone. And just for the record my fat ass occured after I broke my back and started to develop degenerative joints.

@Joybird brings up the practical problem with the application of the tax. It can’t be weight based, because weight problems are not universally based on behavior – and weight isn’t universally linked to the poor health problems that accompany obesity (one can be fat and have a perfectly healthy lifestyle).

However, it can’t be isolated solely to those who have obesity associated health problems that stem from behavioral issues…because that would require health record disclosures that would almost certainly violate HIPAA.

The death penalty doesn’t stop psychos from murdering and raping kids, does it? :/

@prolificus Taxing lifestyle choices, such as overeating, would lead to taxation of every preventable disease (e.g. certain types of mental illness, lung cancer, liver cancer, skin cancer) and accidents (e.g. broken bones due to careless activity). Hardly, many if not all of those one has a genetic disposition to get. It is one thing not to do something like use sun screen if you have skin cancer in your family tree and another to actively contribute to the problem happily one scoop at a time. I do not see 60% American getting Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Parkinson’s, or emphysema, etc.

Instead, to create a level of fairness for all sharing healthcare costs, there should be incentives for healthy lifestyles. I could go for that, something like $3,000 off your tax for being in your target weight to height.

@rooeytoo I like it! It makes sense to me to have higher premiums for those who make a lot of claims, but I am sure some would find that discriminatory. It is really no different than those who have more vehicle accidents, work in risky professions or live in tornado ally or a flood plane pay higher premiums. They are not discriminated on, they were either too careless or chose to live in high risk areas, no one made them do it.

@Mikewlf337 We get told what and how we can control our bodies all the time. It is my body but if I was short on cash and felt I didn’t need two lungs I’d be damned if I could sell it to some one who needed it or put it up for bid to the highest bidder, and It is my lung, I own it yet I can’t do with it as I please…….so…….

@Katexyz Some people are overweight for medical reasons. That is why I was careful not to say all.

At some point it probably partly becomes their responsibility, but it is not an easy thing to overcome. Trust me. I did it. I did, and I did not know dieting from shinola, but I knew if I looked at my body like a checking account and the calories like cash if I spent more than I took in the body would have to take from the fat cells as overdraft protection. I did not give up what I liked with some whacky diet I could not stay on, but I could eat it a lot less and get my bones moving.

@marinelife Where would you go next?
Tax people who don’t agree with your politics?
Tax people of a certain religion?
You have no unhealthy habits?
Not agreeing with my politics or religion don’t cost any money, not to me directly or indirectly through my health care. And I Was fat until I got out of the shower and looked down and could not see my toes or my Robert Earl because there was too much me in the way. I still have some unhealthy habits but most I have gotten rid of. It is not rocket science, if you really set your mind to it is doable.

@iamthemob We also need to up education generally, bring fitness programs back into schools on a serious basis, make sure our public lunches are healthy ones, etc. Won’t work, PE classes and equipment would cost money and if the state could not foot the bill the feds won’t help; they might have to give up some cruise missile, or unmanned drones, etc. Healthy lunches won’t taste good enough and the kids won’t eat it and the state will see getting junk into the kids at lunch time is better than getting nothing into them at lunch time because they toss it out.

@Symbeline It stops some of them, and the ones too stupid not to do it it keeps them from doing it again.

@Hypocrisy_Central Yeah, but my point is, it doesn’t stop the problem. I don’t think a fat tax would help much at all.

@Hypocrisy_Central – you’re right that you’ll see some of that. But when you say “Won’t work” and then give those reasons, you ignore current examples where it has started to work. Also, you make claims without a lick of backup, which doesn’t really mean that you’re saying anything but “I don’t like it.”

@iamthemob Also, you make claims without a lick of backup, which doesn’t really mean that you’re saying anything but “I don’t like it.” Ohhhhhh..lets not get into playing “Stat Nazi”. I could have asked you to come up with backup or substance that proved . If we tried to dig up every last stat to post simply to prove something is true above common knowledge no one would have the time to read the answers much less respond. ;-)

@Hypocrisy_Central – But you’re making an absolute claim. You gots to back those up with something. ;-)

As a fat person (or I suppose the politically correct term would be ‘mass challenged American’), I honestly have no problem with a “fat tax”, if I understand the term to mean an additional sales tax on unhealthy foods. However, I would prefer a slightly different approach. It seems to me that even if one tries to eat healthy, it’s a) difficult because it’s hard to find food that tastes good but isn’t too bad for you, and b) more expensive, because garbage is cheaper to produce than real food. A big reason for this as I see it is our farm policy, particularly farm subsidies for growing corn, which basically is what makes up about 95% of the American diet. EVERYTHING is made with corn in some form or another, it’s just given a million different names so you don’t even know that if you buy 50 packaged items in the supermarket, 49 of them probably have some corn in them.

I say, why not let market forces decide the price of the things that are BAD for us, and if the government subsidizes anything, it should be healthy, wholesome food and ingredients, so you don’t have to take out a second mortgage to shop at the coop, while you can get a 64 cent hamburger at White Castle.

@iamthemob No..not anymore more absolute than The cheapest foods are the ones that are the least healthy for us. Equipment cost money, that is fact. Nutritious food don’t sit well with a good many kids, common knowledge and backed up on Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution. The feds might step in to help the schools but not with out a lot of kicking and screaming if that much. Do I need to go back over years of public records and news segments about schools being closed for lack of money? The part about needing more drones or missiles was basically sarcastic, I don’t know if that is a reason, even if they do want tons more of them things. Believe me, if I intend to be absolute I will have the good and flaunt it with impunity.

@Hypocrisy_Central – perhaps we could fund schools with a little bit of the farm subsidy money that @dalepetrie brings up, and discussed earlier…

The idea that we can’t do any of these programs because it’s too expensive for schools speaks not to whether or not they would be effective but rather that we need to pour more money into and make more effective the school system itself. If we prevent the costs, we don’t have the costs. If there’s going to be a tax that will prevent people from being fat, I am confident that more long-term benefits will come from getting our children educated and on a healthy behavioral path than charging people when they get fat to try to offset health costs.

@josie : a pound of apples is cheaper than a pound of potato chips, true. However, potato chips are a bad example for a pound by pound comparison.

Comparing food by price per serving, I would say a better comparison to illustrate how poor quality food is cheaper than “good for you” food, I would say a box of mac and cheese is about 50 cents, and can be a meal (I am not defending this type of eating nor saying this is what I eat or feed my child, by the way) compared to buying some fresh vegetables, which are usually a few dollars per pound. Another example: you can go to a restaurant and get a burger and fries for about 6 dollars, whereas to get a salad is usually at least 8 and up.

@iamthemob – go to the grocery store, you will see all the proof you need. I can buy 2 kilos of hamburger for about 13.00 find me any processed, packaged food where you can buy 2 kilos at that price. Throw in a can of tomatoes and a pack of pasta for about 3 more dollars and you can feed a pretty big family. But it takes work and I don’t think folks want to bother.

That sounds like a large amount of CAFO meat, sugars (canned tomatoes), and lots of high-calorie, low nutrient carbs.

And…that’s how we get fat.

It sure as hell beats a box of mac and cheese and is much cheaper by the pound. Fresh fruit and veg if bought in season is also a bargain.

And truly if you only ate hamburger, tomatoes and pasta without the coke and chips and candy, I wager you won’t get fat. I haven’t and we eat the tomatoes and pasta a couple of times a week. Pasta is less than 1 gram of sugar per serving and the tomatoes 4.3 grams per serving.

The problem with many of the examples that you and others are giving on this thread is that the time factor isn’t considered, nor is the fact that there are single meals that aren’t processed that you can make cheaply, but if you have to budget every meal it becomes more likely that you fall into the processed food pattern or simply lack the amount of fresh vegetables necessary for a balanced diet. And if you don’t really have the time because of work to shop, you can’t really take the time to see what’s a bargain, what’s in season, what’s on sale, necessarily…if you know it’s cheap, and you know the family likes it…you go with what you know.

The main issue is that, as cited in the NY Times article above, is that the high-carb, low-vegetable diet is the most affordable diet. However, this has the tendency of flipping the food pyramid on it’s head – we’re getting seven times our grain and 1/7 of the fresh fruit and vegetables.

Then there’s the serving size problem. You can’t compare a pound of pasta to a pound of meat. In terms of servings, a pound of pasta can get you about 2, maybe 3 times as many servings as a pound of beef. And fresh vegetables, depending on whether you cook or serve them raw, may give you only half the servings per pound as beef.

So you load up on carbs. And, depending on where you live and whether you recognize the brand (realize that people are also inclined to go with what they know – brands are safe), these are likely to be highly processed carbohydrates.

Look, I know that it’s possible to figure out how to maintain or get a totally balanced diet on a budget, even a very restricted one. But when you’re feeding multiple family members, on limited time, and with limited energy, it’s less likely that you’ll be able to. In many cases, it’s not that they’re lazy – it’s that they’re exhausted, or they’re misled by “fat free” or other types of advertising.

I think if there were going to be a tax on the overweight, you would have trouble differentiating 1. how much weight is too much and 2. who is fat just for the sake of being fat and who is fat due to health issues that may contribute to overweight, including diseases that cause fluid retention, diseases that make it hard to lose weight (slow thyroid, diabetes for example), ailments that make it hard to ambulate (arthritis, foot and ankle injuries, bad legs, hips, etc.). Some ailments may be due to starting out overweight, but some ailments may cause overweight. Some ailments may be due to overweight, but then cause a snowball effect when a person is heavy but then gets a health issue and gets heavier. so it would be very hard to determine which came first, the chicken or the egg.

A fat tax is one of those things people will do to alter the behavior of the populace. I don’t agree with that. I also don’t agree with the high cigarette tax even though I think people will be better off without cigs. It’s a tool of control and nothing more.

@Mikewlf337

I don’t think it’s a tool of control. I think if we looked at it in all honesty and realistically, we’d admit that it’s just another way for the government to take money from us.

They will tax these things and it might make them look like they care for us, when in reality, the tax is never high enough to get someone to quit smoking, or eat healthier. But it is enough for the government to supplement their collections.

@iamthemob – so people who are eating processed foods and getting fat are doing it because they are too ignorant to shop smartly and too tired to cook nonprocessed foods?? I personally think that is baloney. Most supermarkets take you through the fresh veg and fruit as soon as you walk in the door and whatever they bought cheaply, ie what is in season is on special and in your face immediately. If you don’t want hamburger you can buy a cheap cut of meat, put it into your crockpot with veg and in a couple of hours you have a no fuss tasty meal usually a couple of meals.

If healthy carbs are the culprit then how do you explain that the majority of Asian people who eat huge quantities of rice are not fat?

The point I am trying to make is that it is not cheaper to eat bad food and blame that as the cause of obesity. The real cause is not the cost. It is that people don’t want to take the time or make the effort. We all eat way too much. And there are way too many processed foods loaded with sugar. And way too many soft drinks and alcohol.

And what you eat or drink and how much is a personal choice, not one mandated or forced upon you by the government or madison avenue. I work and I cook (sounds like a bumper sticker) so it can be done.

@iamthemob @rooeytoo Maybe we need more of a mindset in this country that it is not what you eat, it is what you keep. It is a simple principal, more going out than coming in and you can’t get fat. When I got tired of coming out of the shower and not being able to see my feet and having to struggle with all my might to touch my own dang toes I knew I had to do something; I had to, no one else. I know what foods I loved and which I hated so trying to stick to some whacky diet that told me I could not eat this or that and I loved those foods was not going to work; I’d have cheated the hell out of it. But like my checking account I know if I spend more cash than I am making I will get to a point there is no more cash, and if I keep spending I am overdrawn. I simply flipped that simple and basic principal to food, eat what I like, shoot for 80% smart and healthy and 20% fun and junky. Then I cut back, because I agree as Americans we eat way to much, because we see food not as something to keep us alive but as entertainment or part of it. We eat because it is an event, a tailgate party, Super Bowl party, wedding, baby shower, reunion, etc, we invent reason to eat big. So, I figure I love mashed potatoes but I can have a scoop and a half instead of my usual 3, I can use better alternatives to season and butter it. I can have 2 flapjacks instead of the usual 5. Then I got my butt up and out and started walking. I couldn’t go more than ¼ of a mile at 1st but I worked up to a half then a mile, then a mile and a half. Then I picked up the weights and started doing that. I only got back down to within 20lb of the weight I started at but that last 20lb was muscle! Even though the scale said I weighed more still, my middle was smaller, I had more stamina, more drive, I felt way better. Chuck the diets, it is not what you eat, it is what you keep. Too many American are just too lazy to find ways to spend the calorie cash quicker than they are saving in their body bank. Once they figure out how to do that and start to overdraft fat cells they will find themselves smaller in size and not grumpy because they are eating lettuce and tofu all day.

@Hypocrisy_Central – nope they are too tired to walk because they work too hard!

Shame on you. I think those who are in families with high occurrences of heart disease and cancer place them at a high likelihood of having either should have an additional tax imposeded. I think those who exercise or run should be taxed more because those injury costs (whether they show up now or later as arthritis) are expensive—not to mention the hip and knee surgeries ex-athletes will inevitably need. Every “stereotype” of person has it’s own health issues. Most everyone has large end-of-life medical expenses. To try to say one stereotype should pay more for insurance is absurd. The fact that insurance companies are already doing it for tobacco users should be outlawed as well.

I also think it has more to do with lack of education, knowledge about food and how to cook food than income. There’s is plenty of affordable healthy food such as apples, cabbage, peas, lentils, oatmeal and eggs.

A lot of processed food also contain flavor enhancer which influence the brain’s reward system. Resisting such food in the future becomes very difficult.

I have an aunt that was never fat one day in her life. In fact, she has been the same weight since high school, and she is now 60. She used to be a professional dancer, and from that, she started an aerobics studio, where she taught most classes herself. This meant years of jumping up and down on her joints. She recently needed both hips replaced. This speaks to what @perspicacious said. Not a fat woman, never a fat woman, needing expensive surgery. Not all expenses go to the obese.

Statistically however, there is no doubt that there are more obesity related illnesses than those associated with being thin or active.

@jca In fact, she has been the same weight since high school, and she is now 60. The oprative word is ahe is now in her 60s, you did not say she had that when she was younger and fit. She recently needed both hips replaced. In her 60s. Not a fat woman, never a fat woman, needing expensive surgery. Not all expenses go to the obese. In her 60s, did she have diabetes has a teen? Did she have bad knees and hips in her 30s because she was near 300lb? Did she have life long heart problems to to clogged ateries and too much fat about the heart or high blood pressure due to being fat? Even couch potatoes have a risk if brittle bones in the 60s and later. On less you are going on the record to say dump excercise and healthy eating and just sit on the sofa with a bag of beans and salsa and hope for the best?

Yes, hyposcrisy. People here are free and have liberty. Each of us has our own things we do that may not be completely healthy or smart—but everyone has them. The most healthy among us may have a prolonged horrible illness incurring millions in medical bills over some years. No one should be taxed for any of this, and no one should pay a higher insurance premium because of it. We never know what will occur in our lives, and how we have lived doesn’t always have a damn thing to do with it.