Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

So, if a cigerette tax is ok........................

How about a Junk Food Tax?

Let's cut the obesity rate down, while also paying for healthcare and place a 125% tax increase on junk foods, fast foods, ice cream, twinkies, soda, candybars... You name it. Tax it all to pay for healthcare. Afterall, if people weren't obese they wouldn't need as much healthcare.
The US is the most obese nation. The US is the most expensive health care nation. Might this solve both problems. Some states do it. Why not a FEDERAL FAT TAX?!?!?!

Answer Question

Asked by Anonymous at 2:55 PM on Apr. 13, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

Answers (58)
  • Because fat tax would be considered discrimination, though im not against it.

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:59 PM on Apr. 13, 2009

  • Our state is actually talking about doing this. They want to increase tax on "junk food" like candy, cokes, etc. I think it's ridiculous!

    Answer by DDry at 2:59 PM on Apr. 13, 2009

  • Sure, I'd go for it.

    Of course you could make the argument that people NEED food, and you dont NEED ciggies.

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:59 PM on Apr. 13, 2009

  • I have no problem with that idea! But as you know when the government gets used to a certain amount of tax generated revenue, and then begins to lose said tax revenue (as people begin to adopt healthier lifestyles, and no longer buy the foods that are taxed), then the government begins to look for other things it can tax.

    Answer by LoriKeet at 3:00 PM on Apr. 13, 2009

  • I don't think junk food can be compared to cigarettes. Many people/children can eat all day and not gain an ounce! People who are obese, do not effect my health in any way.
    Smoking is Not good for anyone, plus second hand smoke hurts innocent people.
    You want to smoke, you must pay the price! It's your choice.

    Answer by Grandmarga at 3:01 PM on Apr. 13, 2009

  • Sounds good to me. I would love it if they taxed the shit out of the junk food. And that would NOT be discrimination. What the heck is discriminatory about that? Just like people CHOOSE to smoke, people CHOOSE to eat fatty, disgusting junk food. Either one, you're screwed...with smoking you wind up with lunch cancer...with junk food, you get fat. Both are bad.

    Answer by Anonymous at 3:01 PM on Apr. 13, 2009

  • I, personally, don't have junk food in my house. So the tax would not effect me, but I don't think you can compare cigarettes to junk food.

    Answer by Grandmarga at 3:02 PM on Apr. 13, 2009

  • ANON 2:59PM
    People don't NEED fried, greasy, fatty calorie laden food. They need more healthy, unprocessed foods, which are surprisingly inexpensive compared to prepackaged and convenience foods, and are a better means of stretching your dollars--especially those on government assistance and fixed incomes!

    Answer by LoriKeet at 3:03 PM on Apr. 13, 2009

  • Yes you NEED food BUT-You don't NEED junk food. I think this is a GREAT IDEA... I would support it 110%. HOWEVER, I think they should have the tax for 5 years BEFORE dispursing any tax revenue so there can be a gage on how much $ is actually generated. A trend can be observed and a "surplus" can be established BEFORE the program begins.


    Answer by grlygrlz2 at 3:04 PM on Apr. 13, 2009

  • I have actually started working that agenda with loca government changing groups and school lunch issues in our area and have been in favor of that for quite some time. But no more than 10% tax on any food that does not meet nutritional guidelines in the grocery stores and restaraunts, and concession stands.
    The US is too fat in general and I do favor a junk food tax, an alcohol tax, cigarette tax, and additional taxes on luxury items not essential to daily living.

    Answer by akinbottom2 at 3:04 PM on Apr. 13, 2009

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.