The FAT TAX is coming!

[belgareth]

The Fat Tax: A Controversial Tool in War Against Obesity By Alan

Mozes

HealthDay Reporter

Wed Jan 11, 2006

WEDNESDAY, Jan. 11 (HealthDay News) -- In

America's ongoing battle of the bulge, one strategy to combat the nation's obesity epidemic has generated more

than a decade's worth of attention and controversy.

Popularly known

as the "fat tax" or the "Twinkie tax," the concept first gained widespread attention in 1994 when Yale University

psychology professor Kelly D. Brownell outlined the idea in an op-ed piece in The New York

Times.

Addressing what he called a "dire set of circumstances,"

Brownell proposed two food-tax options: A big tax, in the range of 7 percent to 10 percent, to discourage the

purchase of unhealthy processed foods while subsidizing healthier choices; or a much smaller tax to fund long-term

public health nutrition programs.

"The American food system is set up

as if maximizing obesity were the aim," Brownell told HealthDay. "So the idea was to tax either certain classes of

foods -- like soft drinks or fat foods -- or to just tax specific foods high in calories or low in nutrition. Then

you use the income from such a tax to subsidize the sale of healthy foods in order to reverse what is the

unfortunate reality now: that it costs more to eat a healthier diet."

The tax, said Brownell, would be a pro-active response to a food industry and consumer culture that

increasingly promotes high-fat/low-nutrition products as the cheapest, tastiest, most convenient and most available

dietary options.

Brownell emphasized that, if properly implemented,

fat taxes could yield major benefits. For example, slapping a single penny tax onto the cost of soft drinks across

the country would generate almost $1.5 billion annually -- a figure that far exceeds the budgets of current

government-sponsored nutrition programs, he said.

The non-profit

Washington, D.C.-based Institute of Medicine (IOM) reports that, in recent years, levies of this kind have, in fact,

been imposed -- with states such as Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington creating "fat taxes" on soft drinks

sold within their borders.

Other states such as California, Maine and

Maryland have also experimented with hefty "fat-tax" legislation, Brownell said. However, all the levies were

ultimately repealed, highlighting several practical problems with the fat-tax concept identified by both Brownell

and the IOM.

One big problem is that money collected through fat

taxes has typically not been earmarked for obesity-prevention programs or healthy food subsidies; instead they were

often used to cover budget deficits.

Concerns have also been raised

that such a tax is inherently regressive, meaning it punishes poorer people who must spend much of their limited

income on food.

And although the fat tax appears to have gained

popularity as a theoretical approach to weight management, deciding exactly which products are unhealthy, taxable

foods is a tricky practical matter.

Nonetheless, while the IOM has

remained neutral on the fat-tax issue, some legislators across the country are moving full-steam ahead to get

food-related levies on the books.

New York State Assemblyman Felix

Ortiz, a Democrat from New York City, is one such proponent of the fat tax.

For three years Ortiz has championed a bill that would ding any foods high in calories, fat or carbs --

including perennial favorites such as potato chips, candies and french fries. The bill would also add a one-cent

surcharge on video games.

The taxes would generate an estimated $50

million a year, and all the money would be used to augment the state's $1.5 million budget for the Childhood

Obesity Prevention Program. The program, established in 2001, is designed to promote healthy eating habits among

children and adults through family physician interventions and after-school dietary and physical activity

workshops.

"We have a very chronic epidemic regarding obesity," said

Ortiz. "And we think the food tax is part of the solution. This will be a vehicle to fund the obesity prevention

program that can provide the services needed to assure that our children and the working families of the state of

New York will get the proper information on healthy lifestyles. It will save lives and the next

generation."

[Icehawk]

I like it. Everyone knows

dieting dosent work...

[belgareth]

Neither does government

taxation/regulation. If you want proof look at prohibition or the drug laws or prostitution. It also opens doors to

harsher, more intrusive methods down the road.

They make a few good points though. Healthy eating is more

expensive and harder to do. Go to the grocery store and walk down the aisles. Row after row of fast, easy and cheap

fat and salt laden foods. Go out to eat almost anywhere, same thing. And guess what? People buy that trash like

crazy.

Changing the laws, taxing and adding more government has never worked and will not work now. There's

also the obvious question of how does the government have the right to force people to be healthy? They don't. You

can educate and offer the best options but so long as the government is forcing people to eat, act or believe in a

certain way it is wrong except in the case where the person is harming another.

[DrSmellThis]

People are indeed free to choose their diets, and should be.



This natural state of humanity gets spoiled, however, as huge corporations produce, market and manipulate human

"needs", artificially creating needs, only for the short term maximization of profits ("brute force cybernetics").

It's sort of like giving rats cocaine. You can get any rat to kill itself, very reliably, by giving it an easy and

unlimited supply of the white stuff. That's just the reality of the way rats are. Humans are similar, and

reality-based policy is always best. There are other aspects too in this case, of course, such as teaching the

subject to believe it needs the unhealthy stuff, encouraging it to abandon the healthier alternatives, and

restricting these alternatives.

Corporations have an extraordinary amount of power over culture. So there is a

responsibility there, which goes along with the unnaturally huge power and priviledge that corporations can and do

have -- the gift of "artificial personhood".

For me the solution is perhaps for communities to expect some

responsibility from corporations in return for the power and priviledge. After all, that was the original idea when

corporations were invented.

The moment where that exchange takes place in our society is the chartering process.

That is the precise, logical place.

To the extent corporations get huge and rich, and enjoy powerful lobbies,

they owe the communities that grant them all that something in return. It's not just a matter of, "they earned all

that wealth and power fair and square;" and are providing jobs to the people. The fact that people get a wage when

you use them as a human asset for your corporate profits is not enough to give back. The fact that people get more

"choices" (in terms of absolute numbers of them) of goods and services, when they give you their money is not

enough. Those are just the minimal benefits that accrue to the community by default. That default model, which

requires no values other than wealth maximization, is not working.

It cannot be just a matter of "maximizing

shareholder wealth" as the corporate world's only value. There has to be a yin and yang there, where wealth-seeking

is balanced with the needs of the community. Otherwise corporations become cancers, and will eat forever,

unsatiated, until they kill their host and ultimately, themselves. (It's no accident that cancer is the disease of

modern life.)

In this case, reasonably priced alternatives and community education might be expected. Otherwise

they lose their charter, or have their power and priviledge reduced incrementally. Otherwise, they are still free to

pursue their business ideas without the legal protections, powers, and privileges of incorporation. Or they can

have their "artificial personhood" reduced incrementally to reflect their willingness to share community

responsibility.

Artificial persons are granted freedom by their creator-god, "we the people". But freedom is a

two way street. We are free as communities too, and are not obliged to grant that power of "artificial personhood"

indiscriminately. This is where our system has a hole in it.

This is a case where "absolute responsibility" does

not in practice, in reality, fall just on the consumer who is presumed to be "absolutely free" to choose, without

examining the practical realities of the situation. There is a shared responsibility, where people are mutually

interdependent; and we must work together to change the reality in question; through a policy based in reality.

[belgareth]

We agree until we get to the

discussion of corporations. A corporation is no more than a legal entity, a fabrication that is nothing in and of

itself. Every action of a corporation, every rule and every policy is an action of one or more individuals.

Certainly, many people surrender their conscience to the corporate mentality but that too is their choice. Making

law2s to hold corporations accountablle mean little until you start focusing on the individuals within the

organization. The same applies to government,, when you get right down to it. They are much alike except governments

tend to be a bit more transparent. In either case though, it is the leadership that makes decisions and who should

be held accountable for their actions. In the case of (our) government it is the president and congress. In a

corporation it is the upper management, board of directors and shareholders.

A corporation or government is

inherently neither good nor bad. It is the people making the decisions that make a corporation and a government what

it is, good or bad. We need to focus on those people if we wish to make changes in how they do business.

[DrSmellThis]

If you disagree with me, then

I guess I disagree with you. I should take your word on that.

But I agree with most of what you just said. I

guess I have to work on feeling more diagreeable. ;) None of what I just said implies you don't hold corporate and

government leadership responsible for their part.

But we create corporations as a community and have the right to

choose how much of that priviledge to grant. It's not completely accurate thinking to think of it as "adding laws

(regulations)." Incorporation is nothing but laws in the first place. You are just being more careful over what laws

you are already adding, by definition. You are reforming law that is already there. Is it possible there was a

misunderstanding here?

I guess I have to disagree that a corporations are "nothing" in and of themselves. We

create them to be something, and they are. Systems have their own reality beyond the bits that make them up.

[Icehawk]

I guess I

have to disagree that a corporations are "nothing" in and of themselves. We create them to be something, and they

are. Systems have their own reality beyond the bits that make them up.

Agree here as well. It's like

god, or paper money, everybody believes in it therefore it exists...:box:


As for the fat tax in itself. Its a

counter culture idea to the junk food culture of US. The government is thinking on jumping onto the bandwagon as

well. Makes em seem important and necessary.

[belgareth]

I think you already know the

point of disagreement but I'll amplify. Despite legal structures imposed on corporations the real villians, if

there are any, are the humans making the decisions. They need to be encouraged or taught to make different

decisions. Every action taken within a corporation is taken due to rules, policies and decisions made by real

people.

The point of the thread however, had nothing to do with the evils of corporations so let's take it

back to the original track. It was about the idea of taxes on foods to force different eating habits. In the end, it

will create more government and more rules and open the door to additional rules later on. It's the same pattern

we've seen time and again. The concept may be well meaning but the implementation is doomed before it starts.



Education is the best tool. The way I see it is that tossing a bunch of veggies and a little meat into a pot can

generate a wholesome meal for about the same price as an equivilant quantity of hamburger helper. One takes a little

more work but not all that much. As a result people feel better and have more energy and healthcare costs can be

reduced in the long term. Education is a good investment in that case. More rules, more taxes and more government to

support is not.

[DrSmellThis]

I think you

already know the point of disagreement but I'll amplify. Despite legal structures imposed on corporations the real

villians, if there are any, are the humans making the decisions. They need to be encouraged or taught to make

different decisions. Every action taken within a corporation is taken due to rules, policies and decisions made by

real people.

The point of the thread however, had nothing to do with the evils of corporations so let's take

it back to the original track. It was about the idea of taxes on foods to force different eating habits. In the end,

it will create more government and more rules and open the door to additional rules later on. It's the same pattern

we've seen time and again. The concept may be well meaning but the implementation is doomed before it starts.



Education is the best tool. The way I see it is that tossing a bunch of veggies and a little meat into a pot can

generate a wholesome meal for about the same price as an equivilant quantity of hamburger helper. One takes a little

more work but not all that much. As a result people feel better and have more energy and healthcare costs can be

reduced in the long term. Education is a good investment in that case. More rules, more taxes and more government to

support is not.Sorry. I thought the thread was also about the problem of the American diet and what we could

do about it, not just whether taxes were the answer. You had first mentioned that broader issue yourself.

I

didn't mean to derail you. I was agreeing that taxes weren't the answer, and offering that incorporation is a

priviledge that needs to be managed more carefully in the case of the food industry.

Who is anyone to

tell my community that we owe it to some big food business to grant them all the powers and priviledges of

corporation and artificial personhood; if they are not going to benefit our community? Then they are going to tell

us we can't even manage that priviledge? What arrogance. They are free to take their business elsewhere or

operate without all the priviledges of artificial personhood.

Incorporation is a priviledge enjoyed by

real individuals, by virtue of a community's good will; a priviledge that goes far beyond the right to do

business. You are hitting those individuals by managing that priviledge in response to any refusal to

contribute to the community. It's consistent with what you wrote.

So I have no idea whether you really heard the

point. But I'll happily bow out, if you want to drop it. I hope someone else found the idea interesting.

[belgareth]

I found the idea interesting

but don't know if it would be workable. However, is that really on the topic of dietary issues or taxes to force

dietary compliance or the possibility of worse and more stringent legal issues resulting from those laws?



Corporations and their evils or structures and problems are a whole area of discussion well worth taking up and

I'd be happy to discuss it with you. But, doesn't it really impact on a much wider area than just the local

community and food prices?

[tim929]

Corperations are for the most

part a method of creating what is typicaly known as "abstract wealth." Corperate board members,CEO's and so forth

earn substantial sums of money.But the greatest sum of money is made by the "corperation," where these folks have

access to,but not ownership of the wealth that is created.In this structure,it is possible for someone like Bill

Gates to live in a fabulously expensive house,fly around the country in a well appointed corperate jet and so

forth...while making a modest paycheck.The modest paycheck means that they can stand up and say "look at how poor I

am!" Despite all the neat bennies they are getting.

In addition,because thier wealth is abstract,they can

influence politics,other businesses,scocial matters and so forth while not looking like "they" are the ones doing

it.

Hence,we get large sums of money deposited into campaigns to tax the living crap out of things like

cigarettes,fat foods,gas guzzling cars,yachts...Corperations that have to pay for the costs of these things use

taxation as a method of generating cash through government to help them to pay for the cost of doing business.Health

care providers and insurance companies,who make enormous sums of money anualy,campaign to jack up cigarette

taxes,then bill the state and federal government for the cost of treating lung cancer,in spite of the fact that we

are all paying high premiums for health insurance.Sort of "double dipping."

It's realy a cool way of doing

business.What happens if the McDonalds cashier demands a gratuity to help supliment thier income?Your double cheese

burger cost you .99 cents,but the gratuity cost you a dollar.Two bucks for something that was supposed be be less

than a dollar.Thier minimum wage job just became a six figure salery and the state only gets to tax a small portion

of it.Corperations do this by demanding that in order to continue providing health care for the masses,they need a

government subsidy in addition to the three or four hundred a month they charge you.They were making a reasonable

profit just from your primiums,but now they are making a very comfortable additional profit from government programs

that you also pay for.

If thier effort to curb whatever activity they are campaigning against succeeds,then

thier cost of doing business goes down but the premiums and subsidies they collect dont.Automobile insurance is a

classic example.Traffic fatalities are down,injuries are down and hospital costs in relationship to traffic

accidents is down...but the premiums keep going up,even though the cost of repairing cars has long ago stabilized.

Health care is and even stickier situation.Lawyers sue health care providers,health care providers charge insurance

companies exorbitent rates,drug companies over charge hospitals and insurance providers and patients,insurance

companies over charge patients and the government,the government taxes the patients and the hospitals and the drug

companies and the lawyers and the insurance companies,then the lawyers sue the drug companies,and...well...you get

the idea...its a sickening example of "abstract wealth" gone very,very wrong.

taxing fat foods is just one more

link in the chain.