Do you think that if there was a higher tax on junk food then people would not buy it as much? It could potentially help with the huge rise of obesity that we are seeing now days I think.
I can not believe no one has been on here yet. I thought it was an interesting topic and people would for sure have something to say!
Hi Angie, I would have responded to this post sooner if I had seen it because this is something I've been discussing with some of my friends already. I once thought that it would be a good idea to impose something like a "sugar tax" and put the revenue towards healthcare to offset the added cost due to the effects of obesity. I even did some rough calculations to figure out how much tax would be needed, but the results were far from what I was hoping for. I found some research that estimated the added cost to healthcare for each pound that a person is overweight at about $19.39 per pound. A pound of fat contains about 4090 calories, which is equivalent to about 2.25 pounds of sugar. So this works out to about $8.62 cost to healthcare per pound of sugar. For a 5 pound bag of sugar, this would be about $43 in tax! So I thought that pretty much killed the whole theory. Then I realized that I didn't take into account the fact that if a tax was added to sugar, consumption would decrease. This means that you would need much less of a tax to offset the added burden to healthcare since people would consume less sugary foods and would be more healthy. Another study I read about suggested that a penny-per-ounce tax on sugary soft drinks could reduce consumption by 10%. But on the other hand, this strikes me as a pretty heavy-handed way of making people healthier, and I think would be too "nanny state" for my tastes. A better way to make people live healthier (in a perfect world) would be education I think - people need to understand the effect of a high-calorie lifestyle on their health, and understand how to live healthier. It's a tough issue though. I'm still not sure where I stand, even though I've given it a lot of thought. I don't think I could ever be a politician - I'm too idealistic and I would get discouraged too easily with the sacrifices that would have to be made when forming public policy.
How would one set the parameters? Some people can eat like horses and gain nothing while others just put on the pounds. If you wanted to get really strict about it you'd see prices at fast food joints going up a lot as well as mom n pop diners. I don't think it would work at all other than increasing food costs. Gasoline, booze and smokes all get heavily taxed already. Is cosumption plummeting?
Yeah it would be a difficult thing to execute I agree. However, obesity is skyrocketing in developing countries like Mexico and India, and this has been determined to be at least partially linked to excess consumption of sugary soft drinks. For many people in the emerging middle-class of these countries, soft drinks are a cheap alternative to healthier drinks like milk or fruit juices, so consumption is rampant. I don't think it is fair to compare the effects of taxation on sugar to that of gasoline or tobacco. In one case, the commodity is an essential purchase for many people (gasoline), and in the other the product is highly addictive (tobacco) so I wouldn't expect taxation to have a huge impact on consumption. Sugar is hardly addictive, and there are alternatives to it (sugar-free sweeteners, diet soft drinks, etc.) And despite this, there is still a direct correlation between taxation on tobacco and a decline in smoking. Smoking declines as taxes increase - USATODAY.com So to answer your question, yes, comsumption does plummet with higher taxation.
It is a tough issue. I guess I never thought about some of your standpoints. I did not think that a five pound bag of sugars taxes would be that much! WOW.
Yeah I don't even know why I brought up that original calculation, since it was clearly misguided. The point of an excise tax on sugar should be to reduce consumption, not to offset healthcare costs with the revenue. That's why my calculation turned out so bad!
Pk. I know my comparisons were not the greatest but my overall point is the amount of foods and businesses that would potentially see their business affected. I could stand to lose a few pounds. I have no one to blame but myself. MANY places (even fastfood chains) offer low fat, low calorie etc. options. It's up to the consumer to make the choice. If I eat at Wendy's for example, I can get a nice healthy salad with no fat dressing or a doulbe with cheese. I generally opt for the double with cheese and the nutrition (or lack thereof) information is readily available on their website. Obesity starts at home as far as I'm concerned. Parents "let" their kids make the wrong choices too often. I know when I was a kid eating at fast food places 5 times a week was unheard of. Maybe once every two weeks or so. I put on weight as an adult by knowingly making the wrong choices. It is soley up to me to change my habits.
I agree, that's what I was referring to by "nanny state". However, if a tax will reduce excess consumption, and thereby increase overall health, as the research I found suggested, why would you be against it? It may not change your eating habits, but if it is changing the eating habits of some for the better, why not do it? Yes, it will cost you a bit more, but it will be your choice to make.
YOu do not think you would be more likely to buy something that is better for you than spending a lot on a box of twinkies?
