 | Fat Tax |
 Alabama is considering levying a tax on overweight people. It's being dubbed a fat tax.Obesity is a lose/lose scenario: Obese people generally are worse off for being obese (medical problems, shorter lifespan, activity restrictions, etc.) and Alabama pays more to care for the obese. Alabama, which has the second highest obesity rate in the country behind Mississippi, might be starting a trend: 64% of the U.S. adult population is considered obese, which is defined by measuring body mass, a relation of height and weight: a BMI over 30 is considered obese. The percentage of obese children in the U.S. isn't far behind the adult population either, and this can and is leading to a sicker society that will increase health-care costs for us all. We need to get healthier. Similar to its tax on smokers, Alabama's plan to charge $25 more a month to people considered obese (or who have high blood pressure, high cholesterol or high glucose) only applies to state employees, about 37,000 people. But the proposition applies to society as a whole. Questions to consider (although there are dozens of angles to look at this problem):
|
 | Re: Fat Tax |
|
Booyah! First Post Japan has implemented a similar plan to reduce waistlines within their borders. The government is supposed to measure waistlines of people from 40-74yrs old as part of yearly check ups. Fines for people overweight go through their company or local governments, which puts pressure on the institutions, but not individual behavior unless other pressures are applied. 2. I think this is a realistic solution to the problem, though a better one always exists. I believe that the implementation is very difficult, as it would require everyone to take a yearly physical, many people which don't, and there could be a general outcry about the medical industry passing this bill for its own purposes. A plausible form of implementation would require people to submit a physician's review along with their yearly taxes, the penalties for not doing so higher than the fat tax itself, to make it in people's best interest, even if they are overweight, to take the physical, though the cost of the physical itself should be examined, maybe a tax refund. Of course this could lead to corrupt physicians signing fake reports if the fine is high enough to merit the risk. Either way, it should be a very effective method of curbing a country with such high obesety rates. |
| Re: Fat Tax |
|
Imposing a "fat tax" on obese people is not only unfair, it's unethical. People do not chose to overeat and become obese. It's because of how their brains are structured differently that they have a longer "eating fuse" than normal people do. Putting this tax is attacking the symptoms of obesity, not the problem itself. Answers to questions: 1. Most obese people are not those who are in the wealthier classes. Rather, they are obese because they can only afford low quality, high calorie foods such as hamburgers. If most of these obese people are so because they are poor, it would be irrational to assume that they have the money to pay for more health care while not having food to afford high quality food. Simply put, obese people should spend more on health care, but they cannot realistically afford it. 2. As I mentioned before, the fat tax is a bad way of fixing this obesity issue. A better way would be to put an externality tax on high calorie foods (burgers, pizza, ice-cream, etc) while putting an externality subsidy on healthy-low calorie foods (rice, vegetables, etc). If this kind of tax can actually be put to work, people's diet may gradually shift from high-calorie to low-calorie foods. Eat healthier (low-cal) foods, and shed some weight. Convincing people to change to a healthier diet the solution. ^*Of course, there's probably some side-effect that would happen from using this plan, or else we'd already be paying extra taxes to eat burgers. |
 | Re: Fat Tax |
|
^^ Yup, I agree with Tae; it is unethical. Obesity is an eating disorder. Obesity can also be hereditary. Would it be fair to place a tax on anorexic people too? The problem begins when parents don't put some time in teaching their kids how to eat healthy. Taking their kids to McDonald's every day is certainly not going to help them develop healthy eating habits in the future. Maybe taxing parents for bad nutrition habits? I don't know. But taxing fat people is not the solution. |
| Re: Fat Tax |
|
I could not disagree with you more. Obesity is something that can be controlled. Despite any mental or physchological pressures, it is always someones choice to eat that 12th doughnut, or to indulge in another Big Mac. What incentivates people? Money. Just as you clearly stated, obese people decide to eat food that is less nutritious and higher in calories because it is cheaper than, say, a banana and a salad. However, this saving of a dollar or two at the supermarket is producing a very negative externality on the health care system in the US and on cooporations that employ obese workers. So, to answer question one, obese people should absolutely be taxed. Why? Because money incentivates people. Right now the choice is that unhealthy foods cost less so therefore, leaves more money for shopping, nintendos, and any other purchase that people may want to make. This is a very appealing choice to a consumer. But if obese people are taxed, then they will begin to make different decisions. If they have to pay more for health care, risk losing employment (due to greater risk of heart disease, early death, and other general sicknesses), then they will begin to act in their own interests. The majority of obese people will realize that the benefit of eating a Big Mac (happiness, satisfaction) will come at too great a cost. Therefore, they will make the adjustments in their lives to be healthier. Rather than indulge in the pleasures of sweets and junk food, obese people will spend a few more dollars at the grocery store to purchase vegetables, fruits, and other healthy products because these will ensure less money being spent on health care- better long term effects. So, what Japan is doing is actually a brilliant idea because the government is taking measures to better ensure healthy workers. This cannot take place with simply asking or lecturing obese people to change their eating habbits. There must be an incentive to do so. And in this case, the incentive should be that they will save higher payments on health care, since heart disease (which is related to obesity) is the number one killer in America. And for all those obese people that do not know where to start, there are agencies everywhere that are willing to help them make these important life changes. Logging on to a local grocery store website, a customer can find several plans to start eating healthier. Or they can pay money to start diets that have worked for millions of Americans, such as Weight Watchers. So the point that I'm trying to make is that there are always options- eating healthy or crappy- and the difference between these options lies in the outcome of each decision. Make eating healthy a more appealing outcome (ie less taxes and less health care payments), then consumer, who act in their own self itnerests, will definitely respond. Of course, not every obese person will consider these consequences sufficiently enticing and some may continue in their lifestyles, but these taxes will influence the majority of the obese population in the US. This sounds like win-win to me. |
 | Re: Fat Tax |
|
I support what both Pedro and Tae say, that obesity is a mental problem and that people shouldn't be charged more on medical insurance depending on how much food they it. But I also want to point out that yes the problem can be reduced, because as Camila said, "it is always someone's choice to eat that 12th doughnut." And as she says, money motivates them to continue eating. I don't think people should be charged more for medical insurance for what they eat because maybe they will be unable to change their eating patterns, and maybe the insurance is too high for them to pay, so what do we want, the death rate to go up? I don't think so, but if instead of taxing the medical insurance, the government taxes, let's say junk food, which is what causes people to be obese, people might change their eating habits, because now instead of getting 12 doughnut at $2 each, they will get 8 at $3 each. Obese people will still be able to pay the medical insurance, but they will probably change their eating habits because the food the so dearly like has gotten more expensive. People will probably end up being less obese, so the same effect wanted will be accomplished, but in the case there is an emergency, obese people are still able to pay for their medical insurance. |
| Re: Fat Tax |
|
I have to agree with what Pedro, Tae, and Jose Angel have said. It is plain simple wrong to tax people do to their weight. It is not just a case that some people can't afford healthy food or have a mental problem and just eat a lot. Some people have very slow metabolism. This makes them fat. Something that they cannot control and should not be taxed. Concerning the question posed by Pedro. Anorexic people should also be taxed than. They are also at a higher risk of medical treatment just like the obese people. In my opinion a better solution would be to put taxes on unhealthy foods such as Mcdonald's and the government subsidizing healthy organic foods. After a few years a decrease in obesity should start showing up. |
| Re: Fat Tax |
|
-Its understandable why health insurance companies would decide to raise obese peoples payment on health insurance plans. I mean, its like giving regular car insurance to vehicles which participate in demolition derby's. I believe that just how our market adapts when things tend to get too expensive, obese people will adapt to new, healthier lifestyles in order to keep that extra change insurance companies would otherwise deduce from their pocket money. -I believe that the fat tax, if implied upon the citizens, will be forced to be repealed becuase of discrimination against the obese. Personally I believe that the best way to get rid of obesity, is to tell the obese people the consequences of being obese and the dangers involved and then offer them motivation. Believe it or not, i read an article that mentioned that most obese people are aware that obesity is bad, but don't know the true consequences of being obese(which is because they have been obese for so long, they don't remember what easy mobility and the ability to run felt like). |
| Re: Fat Tax |
|
Finally, people concern, when the problem is already too big. Definetly i agree with Pelayo, Tae, etc. Peopl should not be taxed only by their looks, they must be examined first. As Pedro says, it is undestandalbe why health insurances would like to raise taxes on the obese people, but it seems to be, that in act of greed for money, they are taking irrational decisions. As pelayo said, it would be much better to tax the unhealthy food, as it should have been long time ago. Therefore those people who are fat beacuse of a slow metabolism, are not faced to pay taxes, of which they are not "guitly" of. Even ice creams can be taxed, this way children are raised not to eat unhelthy food. With the subject about anorexic people, they should simply be helped, by everyone around them. The tax on unhealthy meals may even work as an incentive, because they can still eat heathly, non-faty food, for a good price. Hopefully pedro, with these taxes obese people (by choice), will probably begin to understand. |
| Re: Fat Tax |
 1) Solid work thus far by everyone. Please keep it up. 2) Let me acknowledge those that are citing previous posters. This is exactly what we want: an intelligent debate and conversation. Take a look at Jose Angel's post as an exemplar. He quoted Camila's statement, opined on the previous replies, and then went on to give a cogent summary of his own opinion. Nicely done. 3) Great solution proposed by Jose Angel Tae to tax not obesity, per se, but unhealthy foods such as "burgers, pizza, ice cream" and doughnuts.
|
| Re: Fat Tax |
|
"ouright rejection of a reform is based on one of two assumptions: (i)the status quo is perfect; or (ii) the options we face are between reform and no action at all" -yes, this came from my SEE...what i mean by it is that a imperfect solution is better than no solution at all.
I beleive the notion of taxing "junk food", as it were, is ridiculous. It's people's personal choice to eat unhealthy fast food. Its no surprise that i completely disagree with the law suit that 2 girls sued McDonalds for "making them fat". Also, it hurts other people who may buy it once a month. The effect is that of the coach making everybody run a lap because one team member was late, except you can't beat him up in the locker room afterwards. Fair? I don't think so. I'm also a non-supporter of psycological explinations for obesity, i beleive their extent is limited. I'll buy in on the metabolism issues, but one must always account for hypothyroidism when drafting a fat tax. As for anorexia, it is clearly a psycological problem, because people starving themselves are not rational, thought they may believe they are. Taxing anorexics would lower the self-image of an already dangerously insecure person. On the matter of obese children, parents will instruct their children as they instruct themselves, kids were given to parents, not governments ( I think Bill Clinton said it...); obesity can only be adressed in terms of adults who can be held accountable for their own actions. Sorry for the length, but I felt since me and Camila were the only ones in support I had to come in and level the fight |
| Re: Fat Tax |
|
"I'm also a non-supporter of psycological explinations for obesity, i beleive their extent is limited." -Brian P. What I've learned last year in Psych tells me otherwise. Because obese people have a smaller ventromedial hypothalamus, they cannot regulate caloric intake like we do. Nature confirms this http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v11/n1/full/oby200310a.html "Rather than indulge in the pleasures of sweets and junk food, obese people will spend a few more dollars at the grocery store to purchase vegetables, fruits, and other healthy products because these will ensure less money being spent on health care- better long term effects. " -Camila A. Here I agree with you, but then, putting an externality tax on junk food, and subsidizing "vegetables, fruits and other healthy products" will "ensure less money being spent on health care." better than a fat tax could. Why is taxing the actual junk food (and subsidizing healthy food) more effective than taxing the number of inches of the fat people's waistlines? First, there are the moral implications. People shouldn't be punished by how they are. Second, there are the legal implications. It is a violation of a basic rights to tax people considered obese (which, by the way, is arbitrary. What if someone is just 1mg above/below the cutline?). If Alabama gets the right to tax obese people (under the pretext that obesity kills), they could also tax many other things, ranging from sex (http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/an-immodest-proposal-time-for-a-sex-tax/) to breathing. Last, there are the economic implications. A monthly tax of $25, in my opinion, is not a dis-incentive enough to discourage obese people from eating. Think about it this way: most obese people are shunned by society. They are often target of ridicule. They have few friends, and many tormentors. If such social implications cannot discourage obese people from overeating, a mere $25 a month will barely make a dent in obese people's decision to eat that 12th doughnut. |
| Re: Fat Tax |
|
Firstly, This is Maxi Arias not Caroline C. I just don’t have a cms account. But its cool she left me steal hers. Anyways, OMFG taxing people for being fat is totally ridiculous. Let me fill you in on what is known as a weight range. Humans have a natural, GOD Given, weight range which they can not control, no matter what you say. Heres how it works: IF you lose a significant amount of weight out of your weight range, of say 200-215, then your body will increase your hunger, decrease your metabolism, and decrease your energy levels in order to conserve calories with the sole intention of having you gain back that weight. Likewise, if you gain weight, your body will work to lose it. Thus, Fat people do not choose to be fat, but their body just works that way and they can’t help it. This is why in things like weight watchers or Jenny Craig programs, in order to keep the weight off you must live in a permanent, consistent diet. Once you break it, your bodys hormones kick in and BOOM you’re fat again. Hence, why all weight that is lost is eventually regained unless stuck to rigorous excerise and eating habbits. Second, I think the solution would be to subsidize exercising activities in schools for children as well as providing healthy foods in the cafeterias. This does not mean that this will eliminate the obesity issue but it will tackle the healthy issue, which is the core. By eating healthy and exercising, you will be healthy but the does not guarentee you will be skinny. Moreover, I agree with Tae and the such, in regards to how fastfood should be taxed in order to discourage such eating. Although, as Brian says some people who rarely eat such crappy food will suffer the consequences, but in the end if they choose to buy the meals, then they are agreeing that the extra money they spent is worth the food. |
| Re: Fat Tax |
|
I agree with Maxi, Jose Angel, etc. No tax on the obese people! As Maxi already stated, people do not necessarily choose to be skinny or fat, they are born with a certain weight range which our bodies will try to maintain as much as possible. As for a solution to this problem I agree with taxing the fast-food companies like McDonalds and Buger King and subsidizing healthy foods, especially organic foods, which are insanely expensive because it is becoming sort of a trend to be "organic" and green. By subsidizing healthy foods and providing incentives for these foods while providing disincentives to unhealthy foods (like fast food chains), the obesity in Alabama will probably decrease in the span of a few years. Some people do take it too far though by eating way too much. Like Camila said, "it is always someones choice to eat that 12th doughnut," meaning that people are able to control what they eat even though they might not be able to control their weight range. This is why it is important to tax food like donuts. Exercise and healthy activities should also be subsidized in some way. If a person has a balanced diet and is exercising then the chances are that person will get healthier. But people have to remember that being healthy does not necessarily means being skinny. Concerning the question about the no tax at all or an imperfect tax: aren't both situations like win/lose? I mean, none of the two are win/win situations so is one really better than the other? |
| Re: Fat Tax |
|
Well, after finally scrolling down and reading all the posts I must say the following: Brian, I don't agree with you, Tae, I don't agree with your psychological explination, and Pelayo I don't agree with your statement, "Some people have very slow metabolism. This makes them fat. Something that they cannot control and should not be taxed." Before you start saying I'm ambigious as to what side I take in this arguement, I must say I completly agree with what Maxi says. Obviously you can't tax people according to their weight or waistline because people come in different shapes and sizes. Imagine taxing a professional athlete a "fat tax" because they weigh over 200 lbs claiming this "fat tax" will promote a healthier society (that's contradicting isn't it?) It would be more logical to tax them according to body mass index, but that wouldn't be the case because for as much as I think one can control their obesity, taxing people for being fat isn't the best solution out there. Let me start by saying that people don't buy fastfood because it is cheaper (sorry Tae), as a matter of fact it is cheaperto buy food at the supermarket and cooking it in your house. Next tim you go to the supermarket compare the price of the hamburger patties to your last big mac or whopper. The reason people buy these fastfoods is because of the time they save. It is much more time efficient for you to buy a a whopper than have to go to the supermarket, go back to your house, store the food, eat it before it rots, cook it, and finally serve it on your dinner table.
I wonder what comes more epensive, the whopper or that salad... My solution to the obesity problem is not to impose taxes on the obese, nor externality taxes on fastfoods, but like Maxi said, promote healthy food and activity in schools, after all, they are the future and the ones who will set these values for future generations. But that is not the only thing that can be done. Health insurrances (some of which are already) promote physical activity by providing money that can be spent at the gym as part of their costs (after all it's a win-win since your healthier and they make more money by lowering your medical bill). The key is in promoting physical activity, because without it, where are you going to spend the calories you get from salads and other healthy food? By increasing physical activity, you raise your metabolism aswell as burn more fat (once again Pelayo, it can be controlled). |
| Re: Fat Tax |
|
I disagree with you Victor, on the very point that healthy food is cheaper. Obviously, simply looking at specific organic products and saying that "Organic Salad" sold at the supermarket is cheaper than junk food in general is a rash generalization of healthy food being supposedly cheaper than junk food (See http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/a-high-price-for-healthy-food/ and http://www.newsweek.com/id/76929) My research says otherwise (that is, that healthy food is overall more expensive than junk food) Again, I have to disagree with you where you "don't agree with [my] psychological explination." Though I can't really get more specific beyond giving you that article from Nature journal to prove my point, let me put it this way. Let's say that I wanted to gain some weight. If weight control was as easy as it was, I should be able (according to you) to increase my weight even up to 200 pounds (right now I weight about 145 lbs). Now, I've really tried gaining some weight for months, and whenever I eat even a little bit more than my usual died, my stomach shuts me off, and I can't eat anymore, no matter how much more I'd like to eat. So far, the most weight I could ever add up, was 5 pounds. For the past 3 years (as far as I remember) I've weighed within a 15-pound range. Those days when I burn a lot of calories, I happen to mysteriously have a very good appetite and eat way more than usual (after a soccer practice, for example). In other words, our brain constantly regulates our caloric intake to try to keep our weight at our natural weight range. Though i disagree with you in these two points, I really liked the idea of promoting physical activities than actually taxing obese people (thanks Maxi and Victor). Though the natural weight range of people can hardly be changed, exercise can keep even the obese healthy and at least a little bit less obese. The question for me is how one could effectively promote exercise among the obese. |
| Re: Fat Tax |
|
I agree with what Camila says. As we learned in class today, one of the principles of economics is that people respond to incentives. Taxing obese people could truly motivate them to become not only skinnier, but much healthier (no matter what you think). Although everyone says that obesity is a problem that could even be hereditary, it is probably hereditary because maybe no one in the family responds to what they should do to their bodies; exercise and healthy food, for example. Whatever happened to Mama's cooking? Mama turned into a commercial fast food chain that gives you 1,500 calories (http://www.bellybytes.com/busters/mcds_value_meals.html) and virtually no nutrients whatsoever. Tae said that obesity occurs because poor people can only afford cheap fast food. Is this true? Last time I checked the supermarket, vegetables and fruit are much cheaper than McDonald's and cookies. It is evident that they are obese because of choice, not because of obligation. Subsiding the vegetable and fruit companies even more could be a further conclusion and positive change towards the United States (the farmers would be really happy because of this as well -- it's a win/win situation), because fruit and vegetables are quite cheap already. (I had written this before Victor had said this, and let me say now that I completely agree with what Victor claims -- and the picture is pure evidence!) The majority of you responders have kept insisting that taxing obese people is immoral, however, taxing them now could a) make them (obviously) skinnier, and b) prevent them from future costs of possible hospital visits due to disease or surgery. And anyhow, the obese are raising the prices for health care costs, which is unfair for us -- the lemons, as Hartford would claim: we eventually would not be able to afford health care anymore. If we tax the obese it would really be a positive change for the fast food nation, unless they want them to become like the Wall-e people.  |
 | Re: Fat Tax |
|
Sorry Eliz! I disagree with your point of view! Obese people shouldn't be taxed. The reason why I say that people shouldn't be taxed is not only because it is impractical, but immoral! WHO ARE WE TO DETERMINE TAKE OVER PEOPLE'S FREEDOM AND RIGHT TO BE FAT? People are obese because they want to, because they enjoy to eat, A LOT. This is an option people have, and they do it because they believe in the opportunity cost, their health, is not as valuable as their pleasure to eat. Controlling people to what they eat is like controlling people with what to wear. Aside from this, it would be EXTREMELY difficult and impractical to have an accurate account of who is obese every single month. It would be like doing a census every month as the monthly bills come in. Time, and money are in sake. Who says every obese person is solvent to pay $25 dollars every month!? Gosh, let fat people be fat! I agree with Tae in the fact that many people are obese because cheap, yet delicious food, are fattening. Just look at the Happy Meals and the DOLLAR MENU! Like dude, who gets a hamburger, fries, and coke for just 3 dollars. And don't forget the apple pie! That is ridiculous! My solution to this is the government to subsidize healthy food. In order to solve this problem, there has to be a stronger healthy lifestyle movement than there is now. More gyms are needed, more healthy food marketing to balance out with junk food marketing (McDonalds is everywhere!). Cool, see you guys tommorow! |
| Re: Fat Tax |
|
PRINCIPLE NUMBER 4 OF ECONOMICS: People respond to incentives! Too much emphasis is being put on the phychological and other mental aspects of obesity. If people know that they have bad genes (heavy weight runs in their family) or they know of a specific condition that makes them more prone to obesity, then they should be a lot more conscious of the decisions that they are taking, rather than eat 3 buffets worth of food and then blame it on a pre-existing condition. As we learn in Econ, EVERYTHING is a choice. Our daily lives are made up of choices. Today we just learned about opportunity costs and actual costs. So while some people are obese just because they eat a lot, some have a disadvantage but they are still making a choice. Back to incentives, if obese people are taxed, they will decide that the cost of resuming with their current eating habbits is too high, so they will make some adjustments that may be more expensive in the short run (buying expensive organic food, etc) but more beneficial in the long run (less healthcare costs). As Brian said, and imperfect solution is better than no solution, but taxing these fast foods restaurants is dealing with the problem indirectly. That would only be ruling out McDonald's, Burger King, KFC, and those big chains. But what about Lays chips? Marie Callendar's pies? Mrs. Fields cookies? There are too many fattening foods to tax ALL of them. It is too unpractical and way inefficient. In closing, what Jacinto said is that it is morally their choice. Yes, but it is causing an externality. Companies are less willing to hire someone that they will have to pay to have "sick days" due to problems related to obesity. Since they have a lower expected life time, their health care rates are lower than those of healthy people, driving "the healthy people" policies way up. Any action that comes with an externality should be taxed in order to fix that externality, which is why obese people should be taxed. Not because they are inferior or they have preexisting conditions, but taxing them will be the only way to get a response. |
| Re: Fat Tax |
|
TKwon, you bring up an interesting point. I would like to propose one last solution. Since you mentioned that healthy food seems to be a luxury good, then maybe subsidies should be provided to producers of healthy foods, such as organic farmers and such. This could be well funded by the "fat tax". |
| Re: Fat Tax |
|
Well, since NOBODY in the AP Economics class is OBESE all of us are completely biased because it's pretty easy to say "go fat-tax!!!" coughcough* Elizabeth, Camila, and Brian coughcough* when the government doesn’t come to you each year for an extra slice of the dough. But, it’s just too weak to say “you can’t tax people on their looks” because the government does have a role in taking care of their people; and obesity is a serious problem in United States of America society (especially Texas and Alabama and Illinois and Mississippi, and various other states). So, what to do?
Before I point out some amusing statements made by fellow classmates let thy say that: 1.) Fat-Tax…. No go. 2.) Solution is in EDUCATION / INFORMATION. Letting people know that if they choose to “eat the 12th doughnut” (jaja) they will become obese and develop some serious health issues. (This is just a given fact). Keep reading… 3.) Why was the United States of America formed? Let’s keep it simple and summarize: “Liberty, Freedom and justice for all”. That’s right, citizens of the USA are free to do and say what they want. If Joe wants to eat doughnuts until he gets fat then that is his choice, and reprimanding Joe for making his own decision is just utterly against what the USA constitution defends. So don’t mess with that. 4.) And WHY will you stress obese people out and tax them for being obese when STRESS is a proven factor to why people become FAT.
So what do thy PROPOSE to you today?
The state of Alabama (along with the rest of the states) should use the human capital they have and use incentives (Yes Elizabeth, people do respond well to incentives) to promote businesses in the nutrition and health areas to expand. What is better than having a new health center in your neighborhood with a gym, pool, playground, basketball court, soccer fields, etc. The government could even subsidize businesses in these areas and use the money for publicity and advertising (information). And as these facilities grow and more entrepreneurs invest in the nutrition and health sector everybody wins, because people will be motivated to be healthy, business makes profits, and the government receives their share of the dough too… it even provides jobs.
Ok Tae, Maxi, and Pelayo – good luck lobbying in Washington on getting those “fast food taxes” in order.
Tae – an average Burger King meal is between 4 and 8 dollars. That is enough money to buy salads for a week at the supermarket. People decide to buy at burger King because they are lazy and don’t want to cook or are just too busy. It’s not like poor people don’t have a choice and are left with high calorie foods to eat. Also, where are your facts behind your statement that poor people are generally fatter than rich people? If anything, rich people are the fat ones because they can evidently afford to eat so much (it’s in the history books bro).
Victor and Eliza – I agree with your statements on healthier foods being cheaper than “junk-food” because it’s just flat out true.
Camila and Eliza – check out #4: WHY will you stress obese people out and tax them for being obese when STRESS is a proven factor to why people become FAT.
Brian - check out #4: WHY will you stress obese people out and tax them for being obese when STRESS is a proven factor to why people become FAT. And you said it yourself: “the implementation is very difficult, as it would require everyone to take a yearly physical, many people which don't, and there could be a general outcry about the medical industry passing this bill for its own purposes.” It’s a hassle.
Maxi – I agree with your statements on promoting exercise and healthy diets.
Nice reading all this. Peace.
***Japan is Japan and the West is the West… Lets leave it at that fat-tax supporters. |
| Re: Fat Tax |
|
This is interesting... History of obesity... http://ezinearticles.com/?The-History-of-Obesity&id=357342 And so is the menu at Burger King... http://www.bk.com/#menu=2,-1,-1 |
 | Re: Fat Tax |
|
Hello everyone! Answers to the questions: 1) obese people should pay more for health insurance 2) this time, serious solutions: - place a tax on high calories / unhealthy foods – so not only obese people but everybody can think about their spending on such food which will only give one a momentarily pleasure, but have other big, long-term negative consequences. This applies to both healthy and unhealthy people, as the producers (firms) of such foods are only concerned about making money, which is totally fair in free market, but not good for us, the consumer. This is a vicious cycle which needs to stop. So, the government subsidizing for on low calories / healthy foods - which will promote people to buy healthier food because it’s cheaper, would solve the above problem, as Tae said. So, on the contrary to the fast-food restaurants which are popular not only due to its cheap price, but because it’s time saving. Then, one should open a healthy restaurant (vegetarian, organic etc.) where people can also take out, that way, the owners are going to make money and the clients will be happy. (yay problem solved). However, these could be difficult in certain countries like the DR, because the food here are soo GOOD - another solution is for the government to subsidize sports institutions, like gyms, then people would go there and lose weight, get healthier, better metabolic cycle (then, little exercise = more calories burned - so, the calorie’s controllable!), would get tired at night, so sleep well and early, so wake up early etc. – so a great cycle. Or , the government can oblige food manufacturers, restaurants, to present accurate labels on calories etc. - information about the food, and products. (problem of asymmetric information solved:D) Also, this whole thing, the problems and solutions, as everybody and I have mentioned, should be informed and taught to everybody, especially children, so those who are suffering can improve their lives and the lives of those around them , and those innocent children would know what to do before it’s too late. VOILA MERCI BEACOUP.  |
– wow, you guys are good!
- as they are more likely to use the insurance due to diseases such as diabetes, high blood pressure, disabilities that will need further assistance (which is going to cost in the long-run), early death etc. 
as Brian said. Therefore, it is natural that they pay for their actions. 
However, (government, companies etc.) and those at risk, can reduce their burden with the following solution: my favourite, the HEADSTART Theorem!
This would be ideal, but, probably, wont quite work 
– as the tiger woods example. Then, should we ask professor Sherman Klump 
(played by eddie Murphy in the movie: Nutty Professor)? To share with us, that blue drink that transformed chubby prof to a handsome romantic guys: Buddy Love
? Or should we think in terms of economics? 
, (just kiddin), tostones, mangu, habituela con arros, (piramide from cuchara de madera )
, but are not healthy, but is difficult to ban, as they are the traditional Dominican food - it’s part of their culture. I had a hard time sleeping in japan, when I went back this summer for 2 months, without delicious Dominican food (scarce – as in japan there’s no platanos!), regardless of unlimited Sushis and other great Japanese foods. 
ARIGATOU GOZAIMASHITA.
| Re: Fat Tax |
|
Tae, yes "junk food" is cheaper than healthy food, obviously a bag of ruffles and 12 pieces of chicken breast are going to differ in prices, but when I mean fast food, I mean the kind of food you eat at a restaurant that offers you pre-cooked food that are served to you in less than a minute. Now Tae, it would be somewhat obvious that a food that consists of mostly sugars, carbohydrates, and fat is going to cost less dollars per calorie, after all, 12 Ruffle chips already give you 10% of the energy your going to use all day "Energy-dense munchies cost on average $1.76 per 1,000 calories, compared with $18.16 per 1,000 calories for low-energy but nutritious foods. " Now I'm not sure I would want to have Doritos for lunch everyday (since clearly a whopper is not something you can buy in a super market, which is where this survey was done) And Shun, that's what happens when you stop being physically active. |
| Re: Fat Tax |
|
Here's to all of you too nice to offend any people who may be considered obese: To anyone thinking obese is a relative term: if obesity were to be defined at 30 BMI as proposed, I, Brian, would have to weigh 210lbs at my current height to be considered obese. Of course this is a rough estimate. BTW, I’m 150...Victor, BMI, when calculated correctly, is a measure of fat in your body, not simply your weight and height. Marcos: I appreciate you proving my point "People decide to buy at burger King because they are lazy", obesity, accounting for the few with hormonal disorders, is a product of bad nutrition habits and lack of exercise. And if taxing people will cause a stress on them so great as to promote further obesity, hell, we should trash the entire IRS, which I’m sure people would support except for entirely different reasons. Also, details about implementation are not what we’re arguing here; hassle? Yes. Impossible? Not at all. Peke: “Let people be fat!” GREAT IDEA! Let people die a slow death and succumb to heart attack and stroke as well as a decreased quality of life with a below average life span! Just because the person doesn’t know he’s drowning doesn’t mean the lifeguard shouldn’t jump in. Tae: Obviously you have not learned how to gain weight. I challenge you to eat nothing but Pollo Victorina for lunch and soda with every meal for a month, as well as sit at your computer and do nothing all day, and then we’ll talk about weight ranges; a special thanks to Victor on this part for premature support on his part. (Sounds like a Dominican version of Supersize Me). Fat people cannot lose weight, or keep it off for that matter, because their problem is not obesity, that is simply the symptom; the root of the evil itself is eating habits (I concede that some, certainly not most, cases may be caused by psychological, and by that I mean physiological, disorders). Maxi: I admire how nice you are to people, but the idea of a God-given weight range landing in the obesity section is ridiculous. If everyone has a weight, which we cannot control, exercise and diets are completely useless, not to mention that working out is pointless since we could never gain muscle weight. Evolution has betrayed us: in a society where physical condition is not a survival factor, obesity has been able to spread. I guarantee you that the Lion will always go for the fat guy. A Final Note on Metabolism: Metabolism is as much individual genetics as body rhythm. Higher levels of continuous exercise, as well as a healthy diet, raises your metabolism, though obviously once you hit 30 (sorry McCullough) you do begin to slow down, making a learned habit of proper eating all the more relevant. I believe teenagers are the hardest people to change their weight, mostly guys I believe, even though girl’s complains of 2 more lbs on your backside may be exaggerated. This is why Tae may have had a hard time gaining fat, though I guarantee he would have a much easier time trying to gain muscle mass with higher testosterone levels at our age. Completely irrelevant yet cool quote: “ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? ”-Juvenal |
| Re: Fat Tax |
|
Peke: “Let people be fat!” GREAT IDEA! Let people die a slow death and succumb to heart attack and stroke as well as a decreased quality of life with a below average life span! Just because the person doesn’t know he’s drowning doesn’t mean the lifeguard shouldn’t jump in. Okay, I must say, you did sorta shut me up there young man! haha whatever dude. the point is if i wanna eat my God Dam Fries at Micky D's, let me! I don't care, let me be obese if I want to because eating is just too good. If i stop eating i will get depressed and suicide myself! I believe that if the government starts to control so much stuff such as eating, then life wont be life. That would be way to invasive. Think of telling "Doña Antonia" she can't eat her "Arepa con Extra Mantequilla". Do you know what that means to her!? Let the lady be fat! Its a free world, gosh! |
| Re: Fat Tax |
| Buenisima Peke, you got me just cuz its so damn funny |
| Re: Fat Tax |
|
Jacinto, it is not a free world! There is no such thing as a free lunch! Yes, you may be making a choice that only applies to you but in reality, that choice affects so many more people. Obese people will most likely have habbits that will lead to raising obese children, continuing a vicious cycle of health diseases and many mroe costs! Hilda: The way you control your weight range is controlling what you eat. It's pretty much a direct relationship. Some people have more leeway in this respect (faster metabolisms) but it should be no surprise that obese people are heavy because they eat a lot. Eat less, they would be weighing less. |
| Re: Fat Tax |
|
Peke. Of course people can be fat. But there's a difference between being fat and being obese. Why the heck would anyone want to be obese? This tax would help them "burst their bubble", so to speak, about their obesity and it would make them realize that the twelfth cookie might not be the best coice. Economics is all about choices, and this fat tax would show that maybe being obese shouldn't be one of their choices in the first place. |
Great job by everyone. The discussion was lively, intelligent, and most importantly, focused on the economic concepts while not neglecting social concerns. All in all, a great start. Congrats. | Re: Fat Tax |
"Victor, BMI, when calculated correctly, is a measure of fat in your body, not simply your weight and height." Brian, go and read what I said earlier please  . If you want to tax on obesity, tax it in relation to the BMI, not the weight. Apart from that, I agree with about 90% of what you said previously (especially the Tae comment). As for Tae, in economics, we assume people to be rational (big mistake sense half the time they wont). However, people don't think in calories unless they are concerned of their weight, they are more concerned about not starving. Now what will fill you up more, a bag of chips (sorry Tae, but junk food are empty calories and that and candy are what supermakets have that would be considered junk food, and if not, please care to mention) or a pound of meat from the deli section? And Tae, the weight classes are so you don't match up someone who weighs 140 lbs to be knocked out quickly by someone who weighs 180 lbs. |