Serious Eats - seriouseats.com

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

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)

@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

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?

@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.

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.

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.

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 ...?

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'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.

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 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.