Serious Eats - seriouseats.com

Taxing junk food or taxing by weight would affect lower income people - so it's not going to happen.

I also agree that this would (unfairly) tax low-income people. Also, I think taxing based on BMI is ridiculous not only because BMI is a flawed indicator but also because genetics plays a significant role in weight. A better way to combat obesity is to educate people about cooking and eating and to make fresh, whole foods available and accessible. Of course, that wouldn't pay for healthcare. But it sure would keep it cheaper in the long run.

People are obviously not going to stop eating garbage because it's bad for them. It would be nice if those who did such things as smoke and live at Burger Rot or McSodium were taxed to the hilt on these horrible habits. I'm in excellent health (knock wood), exercise 5x/week minimum and eat well. Why should I have to pay through the nose for health benefits?

Whoa. I can think of many, many arguments against this. Full disclosure - none of this affects me personally except that I am really really sick of the moral panic around body size.

1) accurately measuring body fat is difficult and expensive. Inaccurately measuring it is cheap, but highly inaccurate (i.e. taxing based on BMI would be an incentive against healthy exercise, which often decreases body fat but increases weight due to muscle).

2) as monkeyboy mentioned, it's regressive. High body fat is correlated with low socioeconomic status, so this would disproportionately affect those least able to pay for it. I guess one could argue that better for poor people to eat less than eat junk food, especially if the person saying that isn't going hungry.

3) I know there's a lot of uncertainty as to how much body size and shape is influenced by genetics vs. behavior, but it's hard to deny that there are some conditions and medications that cause weight gain. Do we really want being stigmatized and taxed to prevent people from taking steroids to treat autoimmune diseases or those with serious mental health issues from getting treatment? Or even quitting smoking lest they gain the typical 10-15 pounds?

4) Large-scale studies in several developed countries (200K participants in the US, 50K+ in Canada and Japan) have shown that it's beneficial to be "overweight" or at least in the upper part of the "normal" range. Being underweight is as much of a hindrance to health as the highest levels of obesity. Where's the argument for taxing underweight people?

Large amounts of soda or packaged junk food isn't good for anyone, regardless of their body size. I can understand the reasoning behind making those foods less incentivized (though I think removing some of the implicit subsidies to them is a better place to start) and between tax deductions for things like gym memberships. Those are healthy behaviors that should be encouraged in everyone. But to start taxing people based on their size, which is a function of far more than just how many chips they eat and how much exercise they get? The idea makes me kind of queasy (but, hey, maybe that's the idea).

As has already been noted here, BMI is junk science and shouldn't be used as any kind of indicator (nor can we seriously consider taxing people based on how obese they are, the logistics of that are mind-boggling, let alone the ethical implications). However, it's likely that the reason why obesity and poverty are so clearly correlated has to do with just how CHEAP crap food is. So the thought of artificially inflating the cost of food that isn't good for you to pay for subsidies on the food that IS good for you...there's something to be said for this. I'm not sure how it could be implemented, though. And unfortunately, there are many businesses out there who profit on selling people awful food at reasonable prices. Far be it from us to hurt any business's profits as long as there's public demand, right...? *rolls eyes*

Interesting idea, theoretically, but would NEVER work.

While I do accept the concept of a "junk food tax," I think our resources would be better spent ensuring that safe areas to exercise and easy accessibility to healthy foods and fresh produce are available to all.

One man's junk is another man's nirvana

A BMI tax may be the stupidest idea I have ever heard. As well as the facts mentioned above, BMI can fluctuate wildly on a monthly or even weekly basis as a result of diet, exercise, etc, so when would it be measured? There are a million reasons why it would be a terrible idea.

Junk food should not pay for health care, but a junk food tax would be a great idea to subsidize healthy food. If we can make healthy food the obvious economic choice for both consumers and producers/manufacturers, the health care costs will go down on their own.

Maybe we could tax foods with high-fructose corn syrup and produce that crosses state lines when it could be produced locally, and make sure those tax funds only go towards subsidizing the price of organic and locally grown foods. Make less-processed, local foods the cheapest and you will not only help people eat better, but also help the environment by cutting down on chemical processing, transportation, and unsustainable large-scale farming.

I eat at crappy places but am not overweight. I just substitute the fries for a side salad and use vinaigrette instead of ranch. And I usually drink unsweetened tea or water. I don't want to be taxed because other people are overindulgent. Take some personal responsibility, people.

Taxing BMI is ridiculous for all the above cited reasons. Even as someone who occasionally consumes fast/junk food, I would not be opposed to a small additional tax on that. However, with the fact that junk food tends to be cheaper, a tax would place further, undo, economic pressure on lower-income families, which has the potential to cause other, apparently unrelated, issues.

A BMI tax?!?!

Great, because there is not enough shame and fear surrounding body shapes and sizes already.

Taxing BMI is the most politically stupid thing any politician can do. I want to see the politician who has the cojones to say that we should tax people's BMI. I can hear the lawsuits coming now.

The only thing taxing will do is raise revenues for the gov't and I'm all for it. And it's not too much gov't because they are not telling you what to drink. Listen, if millions of people are willing to pay the ridiculous markup of junk food when they go to the movies, a sports game, amusement parks and $5.00 coffee with foamy milk, they can pay up to 10% more tax on junk food.

I think taxing by weight is wrong because skinny people can also be unhealthy (my family is full of skinny people with heart disease).

I think junk food/soda should be taxed just to encourage people to not eat that crap. And yes it might affect lower income people. I am one of those low income people and I think that government nutrition programs already guide people towards healthy foods (you can use SNAP at farmer's markets but not at McDonalds) so it's just another step in the right direction.

What a super idea, gang!

Here are some other great ideas:

A tax on people who have cancer -- they must have made mistakes in their lifestyles so they're using up medical resources that should properly go to others.

A tax on organic food -- since foodies don't really have an effective lobby, it's an easy way to raise revenue without endangering re-election for the pols who vote for it.

A tax on coffee -- everybody drinks it, and it can subsidize a national heathcare plan -- single payer option, of course!

A tax on couples who have children -- talk about using up the earth's resources.

A tax on anyone who goes on food Internet sites -- to help organic farmers who can sell the food to people who then get taxed to help achieve healthcare reform -- except for cancer patients, who should be taxed.

I'm pretty ok with taxing soda, if nothing else. It's part of changing a norm that drinking soda on a daily (if not more frequent) basis is part of normal/healthy lifestyle, I mean, look at how many schools have vending machines in them! And yeah, soda is possibly one of the most unnecessary things ever. Junk food is cheap and popular in lower SES homes because you have to eat. But soda? You can turn on a faucet and drink water, you can't turn on your faucet and call it dinner.

Taxing fast food makes sense too, but working in the public sphere, I'm all too familiar with how big of a migraine trying to define it would be. BMI tax is stupid as well given how flawed of an indicator the BMI is (my bf is technically underweight most days, but he's super healthy).

And seriously, am I the only person tired of hearing about how we need to make healthy food more affordable? It is affordable! It just takes time, effort, and some basic skills. Unfortunately, a lot of folks don't have all three of those things at their disposal on a daily basis. I would totally support anything that would help remedy "food desert" issues though, as I know that's a big deal in some areas.

Junk food tax--are you going to tax fruit juice, USDA prime beef, olive oil, etc? What makes one food "junk" and another not? How do you define it in a legislative way?

BMI is BS, as already pointed out. Athletes with any sort of muscle bulk would end up paying more, despite the fact they're among the healthiest people around. Manual laborers by the same token.

If someone is underweight, should they pay a surcharge on low-calorie, low-fat, healthy food? Being underweight also costs more to the health system, you know.

I think that perhaps the Economist reader is merely using hyperbole to illustrate how intrusive government already is in affecting how we make our own decisions ...?

The last thing we need is more taxes. Whatever happened to making an attempt to be responsible for one's own fate and an effort at self-sufficiency? Sadly, although the original intent of the Economist reader's remark was hyperbole, but there will be some taxaholic politician who will think this is a great idea. If they're so bent on providing government health care, why not force Congress members to use the program (since they voted themselves out of it), and cut enough government programs to coverthe cost? Let's start with cutting congressional salaries.

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read. The right to privacy has been chipped away at a lot over the years but it still exists. Forcing individuals to periodically get on a scale for the federal government is a clear violation of those rights. As such, taxes based on BMI are a non-starter.

Also (to some posters here) -- please don't make this an illiterate economics discussion. There is already enough misinformation out there.

@sloppy - Like the misinformation that we have a right to privacy in this country?

To add to my earlier point... I think that the taxes should help pay for health care. As should the taxes on cigarettes and alcohol (paying for stadiums is a bad bad bad idea). There are already government nutrition programs trying to promote good/healthy eating.

My health insurance company used to offer discounts if we joined a gym or a nutrition program because those lead to better health. Thanks so skyrocketing costs of health care they've discontinued this part. So now I either have to pay for these things out of pocket or not do them at all. I think if we give people incentive to exercise (like not having it cost $900 a year to use a treadmill and yes I know I could run outside on the broken pavement through the streets of SWPhilly with my pepper spray in fear) and join diet programs then they'll do it.

41% as of 2006
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1410.html
43% as of CBS April 2009 Story
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/15/politics/otherpeoplesmoney/main4945874.shtml?

@esarn - thanks! Sounds like that number is heavily influenced by the child-tax credit, which is interesting since I always feel a little jipped by the w4, where being married and having kids seems to equal a government stamp of approval of life choices and cash handout. I know kids are expensive and all, but it always peeves me a little that you get to pay less taxes because of it /soapbox :P

I agree with 99% of the posts here: taxing BMI is stupid. Even the analogy the poster from the Economist is bad: products are bad, so we tax the product. The poster mistakenly tries to apply this same logic to BMI, not realizing that BMI is not a product one can buy, but a result of a product.

a junk food tax is interesting, although I think would be too hard to pin down on semantic definitions. I think we all here might agree that soda is pretty much empty calories and should be taxed as junk food, but I'll bet Coke would disagree. They might even point at their competitors products ... "Why aren't Lay's Potato Chips being taxed as junk food? They are worse for you!" (Lay's is partnered with Pepsi) ... and the potato chip makers might point at the candy makers, who might point at the donut makers, who cry fowl at the cake and pastry makers ... imagine the carnage of a hundred bakers holding hands as they march on congress, throwing eggs in protest (The police, when they show up to break up fights, promptly ruin the eggs by pouring ketchup on them ...).

Needless to say, the whole situation gets out of hand, and is a little crazy.

It sounds like congress is trying to squeeze a little cash from overweight people. A better idea:

Regulate the price of gasoline and raise it to $8 / Gallon.

People would seriously re-consider their modes of transportation and getting around. More people would walk and bike to work and to the store, turning them into healthier people. In addition, as demand for oil drops, we would greatly reduce the amount of foreign oil we import, dropping our national debt; and we would greatly reduce the amount of green-house gases cars emit in the air.

Three national problems - obesity, economic debt, and the environment - solved with one little solution.

You're welcome :D

(This post brought to you by the makers of humor and sarcasm)

I don't think a fat tax is very practical - there are several things wrong with Pigouvian taxes in general. They are hard to calculate because it is impossible to determine the exact amount of externality caused, in this case by obesity, and they affect different people in different ways! Here is an article about why a fat tax wouldn't work: http://www.mindreign.com/en/mindshare/Global-Economics/Fat-Tax/sl35291137bp387cpp10pn1.html