Tax on unhealthy food: Fat chance?

Yahoo! ^ | 072809 | Allison Louie-Garcia

[Artemis Webb]

Can there be a way to help Americans fend off those junk-food induced cankles while simultaneously reducing the cost of Obama's trillion-dollar health care overhaul? Some researchers are saying yes, and they're calling this panacea of a proposal the "fat tax".

A new non-partisan study done by the Urban Institute and the University of Virginia, claims that a "fat tax"—adding a tax to fattening, unhealthy foods—would not only curb obesity by discouraging people from buying and consuming these types of foods, but would also generate a good amount of revenue for the government. According to the study, implementing a 10% tax on fatty foods could raise $522 billion over the next 10 years, and a 20% tax could raise $937 billion.

(snip)

The group encourages policymakers to be inspired by the successful campaign against tobacco use, that over 40 years, halved the number of adult smokers. In addition to excising a tax, they propose "placing simple, graphic nutrition labels on the front of packages, requiring restaurant chains to put nutrition information next to each menu item, and banning the advertising and marketing of junk food."

[freedomconservationist]

I think you’re at least partially right. If you always shop around for deals, you’re going to find really good deals. Most people who are on welfare would have more time to do so. However, I tend to think they lack the work ethic and intelligence to do so. This probably has a lot to do with their food selection too. I’m sure they never read the labels looking for trans fats and high-fructose corn syrup in all the groceries they buy, or read the nutrition facts at burger king. So, I guess it follows that the more people one get on welfare, dumb and happy, the more people he can get to vote for him without looking at his intentions.