After researching smoking taxation and alcohol taxation- both behaviours that increase the burden on our hospital and health systems- I was thinking perhaps we should impose a tax on processed foods over a certain % of fat.
It would work similarly to income tax- the first 12% of fat is tax free, the next 10 is taxed at a low rate, then the next 10 grams is taxed at a medium rate etc.
Ideas?
In our system, there is this little thing called "competition". Big companies that can figure out how to save money (for example by using less electricity) can reduce their prices - or make better products - or spend more on advertising.
Of course in some markets there isn't a lot of competition (Sydney Airport comes to mind) so this breaks down.
But taxes like the Carbon Tax work do work.
No. The carbon tax didnt work because it got watered down and made pointless.
Id be all for a Soft drink taxing. At least it could bring the price of bottled water down below or at parity compared to soft drinks.
Food is a fundamental necessity for living. Fresher and healthier foods I would imagine generally involve more preparation and costs and need to be better kept - also more wastage in ingredients if you're looking at the stuff that isn't packed full of preservatives.
Because of the savings (generally) involved with not just high fatty foods but many unhealthy foods, they can be mass produced and sold to the public for cheaper. I'm not trying to say that it's a good thing but if you tax these products you're essentially reducing the availability of the cheaper alternatives. There are people who for various reasons only survive by eating cheaper - often processed - foods, this forces many who were relying on this into a more expensive market for food. Not that all processed foods are cheaper but you will impose on the cheap market even if its unintended.
Putting a tax specifically on this could potentially increase the price of all foods.
So a food production company wishing to reduce their target fat levels (or whatever the target of the tax is) will put more budget to ensuring the targets are met. Because of an increase in costs for production one would expect the cost of the now healthier product to be increased.
Likewise for a company who doesn't wish to meet the target, there will be a tax and the product will still cost more.
People don't want to buy cheap and dirty food for the same price you can get a decent meal. So either the rest of food prices can increase their prices based on demand and the cost of living goes up, or the cheaper foods are no longer worth trying to sell and the market dies out. In which case seeing as there is one less reason to compete with cheaper foods either a new equally as less nutritious food will become available for cheaper or the general cost of living (in regards to buying food) will increase.
It's just one scenario but in that case I bet a whole new set of health issues would arise which could equally or worse affect the demand on the costs to the health system.
While it seems like a good idea to make the population healthier there are a lot of things in the balance and unless there's a reasonable enough chance that it will actually make things better enough to out weight the costs and efforts of creating, implementing and enforcing new rules.. chances are it wont be done.
Either way, I'm sure that health is not the main reason for alcohol and tobacco tax. It's probably more about money.
Just my thoughts anyways :)
"Food is a fundamental necessity for living. Fresher and healthier foods I would imagine generally involve more preparation and costs and need to be better kept - also more wastage in ingredients if you're looking at the stuff that isn't packed full of preservatives."
Not really. Processed foods require just as much costs whether they are healthy or not.
(This is only hypothetical; I'm bit over-weight too)
There should be a 'Fat tax' applicable on flights atleast. A nicer term such a 'Health Surcharge' may sound better.
Any person above a certain BMI would have to pay the surcharge, which could be used to offset the carbon emission, or medical bills of the flight company, perhaps. The tax could be progressive rate.
Thin people and normal people don't pay the tax, but overweight and obese are taxed.
When you check in at the airport, for example, you also check in your weight, which determines the excess surcharge payable at the check in counter. Or your weight range could be entered online at time of booking.
People could be matched with others and preference to tickets allocation can be specified or prioritised too. (eg. no 2 fat passengers sit next to each other if travelling single!)
This could allow the passenger next to you breathe comfortably.
Also, the more you weigh, the more you burden for the flight carrier to carry, hence justifying the fat tax.
Also, if you know your weight, you can perhaps work towards getting fitter. And helps you know where you are at health-wise.
If the government can levy taxes on smokers and alcohol consumers, so can one tax over-weight people.
There could be a weight concession provided. For example, for medical reasons or age reasons, your doctor may issue a card, or this exemption could be mentioned on your medicare.
Just a concept for a healthier world and some convenient flying!
This is already discussed. BMI isn't great at determining the health of somebody. And men and women have different BMIs due to fat composition and musculature differences. This will ultimately lead to discrimination lawsuits.
Rather than using BMI system, perhaps use a 'Body fat percentage' system (or similar) which is a result of science, study and investigation…
Yep, just see it now.
You get a card giving your BFP (or BMI) then you save the tax.
But hey now what happens if someone else buys the food for you, who gets taxed and how much?
Go on crash diet to get cheaper card
And how current does the card have to be. Do you get one for life, or get one for 12 months?
Mother at checkout has to produce card for each of the family and tell the check out cashier that the fries are for jimmy BFP 23% while the avocado roll is for Jane BFP 35%. Cashier declares that she looks a little shifty, and may be lying so calls the police.
The mind boggles at some ideas - anyone for some instant pink batts? :)
not a card giving your BFP (or BMI), brother. basically, if you have a (medical or reasonable) justification/exemption to be over-weight, then you don't pay the 'fat tax' when flying…
Completely unworkable some some quick thoughts
Think out your "plan" cover all the possible rorts then you might get some traction but at the moment its not going to work. BTW I am only 2% over weight based on your BFP so I am not defending this based on my size
I had a German friend visit me who said that if he didn't claim anything on his version of Medicare, he would get a rebate at the end of the year in cash (I think it was around 200 euro).
Why not introduce a similar scheme here, then we wouldn't be targeting how people remained healthy, just if they did or not.
Because sick people might not go to the doctor if they need to..
Vs Healthy people who go to the doctor because they can
Sometimes we do need for people to make choices and if it does reduce the cost of providing the services, then there will be more for those who really do need the service.
But I can accept that at the last month of the year some may put off going based on their desire for the bonus. Like everything there are line ball decisions which may not be wise
Everyone is so obsessed with taxing bad things these days. How about subsidising better options instead? Why does bottled water cost more than a coke? Why is a bag of chips the same price as a Fuji apple?
Lets face it. The solution is not to make bad things cost more, but to make heathy things cheaper. That's a win for all socioeconomic groups. Of course subsidies have to come from somewhere though, but that's another bag of chips altogether.
Because taxing guarantees the cost will be passed on to the consumer. A subsidy guarantees more profits.
Whilst I agree with this mindset, I think changing attitudes through education as well as providing more opportunities for healthy options would be more effective.
A better alternative to bottled water is to have plenty of water fountains and bottle-refill stations in public areas- especially in food courts (which other countries like Japan and SKorea have done) where, when faced with the choice between soft drinks and water, many would choose the former. Having a free water option would definitely sway many people to just drink water.
There are many cheaper options out there already anyway- you can buy cheap bottled water and apples at any supermarket- it's just that people aren't taking these options.
When you look back at the past decade, obesity rates have increased tremendously- but I personally don't think there's been a huge change in the types of foods available. Junk food has always been there, it's just the attitudes that have changed- from being a 'treat' to becoming the norm. Coupled with people becoming much more inactive, with many becoming so obsessed with their gadgets/computers that they simply sit behind their computers all day then go home to do the same, it's no surprise that waistlines have been expanding.
I am a cheap bottled water connoisseur - 1.5L coles water costs $1.15 (fluctuates, sometimes Ice house brand is 3-5 cents cheaper), 1.5L woolies water costs $0.85. Flavoured fizzy drinks from Kirks are often priced at the $1.00 mark, often cheaper than bottled water!
But I have to agree with education and improving access. How many children out there actually know what a kilojoule is on the McDonalds menu? How many adults know what a calorie is? What the heck is a carbohydrate, sounds like a bad thing!
No tax is ever aim at the consumer they say.
We are just collateral damage they never say.
Just look at the carbon tax. Why big company would go through the headache of reducing their carbon foot print when they can just charge people more for the same result: Money
That is why tax like this will never work as intended.