A fat tax is a tax or surcharge upon fattening food or fat people. Such penalties have been proposed to encourage more healthy eating and to finance the extra burden imposed by fat people in areas such as air travel and health care.

Contents:
1. Proposals
2. Purposes of the tax
3. Firestorm and Controversy
4. Growing Support
5. References


1. Proposals
The concept was first introduced by Milton Merryweather and P. Franklin Alexander in the late seventies, but pioneered and brought to prominence in the early 1980s by Kelly D. Brownell, Ph.D., director of The Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale. Brownell proposed that revenue from junk-food taxes be used to subsidize more healthful foods and fund nutrition campaigns. It is estimated that a national tax of 1 cent per 12-ounce soft drink would generate $1.5 billion annually, and a national tax of 1 cent per pound of candy, chips and other snack foods would generate revenues of up to $314 million.

In a 1994 Op-Ed in the New York Times, Brownell noted that food costs were out of balance, with healthy foods costing more than unhealthy ones. In subsequent years it has become clear that agriculture subsidies contribute to this problem by favoring calorie-dense foods and neglecting fruits and vegetables. Making healthy foods cost less could be a major tool in improving nutrition.

A different type of fat tax, which has been circulated in academic circles and was initially thought of in Minneapolis, is to tax an individual based upon their body fat percentage (BFP). Generally speaking, the higher an individual's BFP is, the higher their tax would be. It has been suggested that the tax could be income adjusted and the revenue could go towards subsidizing lower income family’s food as well as wellness centers. Additionally, the generally lowering of the nation's weight could assist in lowering energy consumption, assisting in decreasing the nation's dependence on foreign oil. BMI has also been considered as a tool to determine what tax bracket a "fat" person would be placed into.

2. Purposes of the tax
To decrease consumption of unhealthy foods, or at least function as a disincentive to unhealthy eating
To generate revenue earmarked for relevant causes: improving diet, increasing physical activity, obesity prevention, nutrition education, etc.
To be applied in ways that stores can manage and people can understand
To focus on maximizing health benefits, not monitoring dietary choices per se
3. Firestorm and Controversy
The New York Times Op-Ed piece that proposed the "fat tax" elicited controversy and outrage nationwide. Author Kelly Brownell became the focal point of this controversy, especially from Rush Limbaugh, who spoke out adamantly against the tax and the general principle of governmental intrusion into food choices and a possible invasion of privacy.

The major arguments against the so-called Twinkie tax are:

Big Brother argument: Government should not interfere with people’s lives and tell them what to eat and what not to eat
Could affect poor people disproportionately
Interfere with personal liberties and freedom of choice
Additional bureaucracy is undesirable
On the other side of the debate, the junk-food tax generated strong shows of support in other circles. For example, Brownell’s proposal was listed as number seven on the list of U.S. News & World Report's "16 Smart Ideas to Fix the World." Because of this and other work, Brownell was named by Time Magazine as one of the "World's Most Influential People."

4. Growing Support
In December 2003, The World Health Organization proposed that nations consider taxing junk foods to encourage people to make healthier food choices. According to the WHO report, "Several countries use fiscal measures to promote availability of and access to certain foods; others use taxes to increase or decrease consumption of food; and some use public funds and subsidies to promote access among poor communities to recreational and sporting facilities."

Bruce Silverglade, director of legal affairs for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said his nonprofit nutrition advocacy organization welcomed the recommendations and has spent years fighting for measures like a Junk Food Tax. The proposal got even more traction when New York Assemblyman Felix Ortiz proposed taxes on junk food and entertainment contributing to sedentary lifestyles to fund nutrition and exercise programs.

Other advocates of the tax point to the effect taxes have had on alcohol and tobacco use. Five studies published between 1981 and 1998 found that drinking declined as the price of alcohol increased. The same holds for tobacco. In California in 1988, Proposition 99 increased the state tax by 25 cents per cigarette pack and allocated a minimum of 20% of revenue to fund anti-tobacco education. From 1988 to 1993, the state saw tobacco use decline by 27%, three times better than the U.S. average.


http://wapedia.mobi/en/Fat_tax

It's being brought up again!

Keep the DAMN gov't out of my fridge. Rat Bastards.

I think they should tax legumes and beans for their contribution to global warming. A gas tax.

HA HA HA! Good one ;)

I like to stay out of politics. But I think they should tax equally and not just cigarettes and alcohol. Not endorcing any tax increases.

its a proven fact that taxes hurt the econemy.get ready

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of calories, or prohibiting the free consumption thereof; or abridging the freedom of sugar, or of the pretzels; or the right of the people gluttonously to pig out, and to patronize the doughnut shop for circles of deep fried goodness.

Big taxes on cigarettes haven't stopped people from smoking ... big taxes on alcohol haven't stopped people from drinking ... I have no reason to believe that a 'fat tax' would stop people from eating at Micky D's ...

In all likelihood this will never pass, as fast food restaurants will fight it. Let's face it at this point Micky D's has more money than the U.S. gov't.

Taxes like this are just cash cows - they don't typically change behaviour of the masses. I think it would be an uphill battle to pass such a thing with all of that big corporation clout. As you say, not likely...

How about a hot air tax. A@@hole politicians would suffer for that one.

Well, since the majority has no problem taxing me (just to be fair, they say), I see no problem with taxing the fat.

For one, since I have about the same body fat percentage as when I was 20 y.o., it wouldn't apply to me, but it would apply to a majority that has evidently way easier life than I do. So, that's cool. For once!

And secondly, as I have already said before, the only way to stop the socialism is to help it to achieve it's terminal stage. So, let's do it.

Anything that lowers the number of obese, and stops this horrific trend of them being catered to, is a GOOD thing. Only ones who will have a problem with it are the lazy fat people who don't want to be bothered with being healthy. They just don't care about themselves or the rest of society that ends up paying for their gluttony in sooooo many ways.

You can NOT legislate behavior, effectively .....

Interesting perspectives!

or those concerned about the rights of others

when are people going to realize that the insurance companies are getting this crap passed

tobacco tax

seat belt laws

mandatory safety standards in everything

the insurance companies want to collect premiums but not pay claims

did your insurance rate go down when the seat belt law go into effect (i doubt it) but if the law is to help reduce injury severity would that not reduce insurance claim cost

wake up people

just another scheme to get into your pockets

stay out of my/our smokes
stay out of my/our can of soda
stay out of my/our personal choices
stay out of my/our pockets

I bet all this is a show of spite bt some disgruntled smoker.