The Fat Tax

Recently media outlets have been reporting the possibility of a "fat tax" that would add a small percentage onto the cost of unhealthy foods, like sodas and cheeseburgers. Twenty years from now, when my children are asking what a classic 21st century America problem was, this will probably be it. But all snark aside, there are several different issues and ideas that come into play when thinking about this possibility.

First is the question of whether people should be taxed for lifestyle choices. In one sense, our nation's government sees it as their responsibility to protect their people, even if that protection is from themselves. Think the legality of assisted suicide, age requirements for drinking, driving and enlisting in the army and of course government organizations like the FDA. But then again, who is my representative, senator or governor to tell me that I can't do something that may or may not hurt or kill me? After all, it's legal to sky-dive, enroll in controlled drug trials and lay on the beach without sunscreen. How are the risks of engaging in these activities any different than consuming a fatty food?

But then you have to consider that the government already controls certain risky activities that could potentially impact people aside from ourselves. You can't drink and drive, not just because you could injure yourself, but because you risk hurting others as well. Smoking is becoming more and more regulated (and taxed), not necessarily because it can slowly deteriorate your own health, but because second-hand smoke can hurt others too. And then everyone's favorite argument, abortion. There are some risks for the mother, but the real issue is what's happening to the child/non-child (depending on who you ask).

So where does the obesity "epidemic" in the United States fall into this? Is it a lifestyle choice that the government should have any control over, even if it is just in the form of an 80 cent tax on a four dollar cheeseburger? Can it be considered something that impacts others, given that your lifestyle choices might influence those of your progeny? Or would even that small infringement on man's right to gorge set a precedent that the government can prevent us from doing anything they conceive to be risky?

The brat/healthy-eater/frequent exerciser within wants to invoke some Darwin philosophy and let the fat people be fat and face the consequences. And that's probably what the average social conservative would say about this issue as well. But the impact that taxation on tobacco has had on its consumption, something that does slowly, but surely compromise your health, makes it hard to argue that a "fat tax" isn't a good idea. If not because of the lives it may or may not save, then because of the money that it has brought in from those people who will smoke no matter how much it costs. And in a nation that is simultaneously hungry for money and food and sick of handing their income off to Uncle Sam, why not choose a blanket solution?

But the argument I can see against it is how this kind of ruling could impact future laws. For instance, if there becomes a "roller-coaster tax" because riding roller-coasters leads to heart attacks or an "SPF tax" because using sunscreen with less than 45 SPF puts you at serious risk for Skin Cancer, then we'll have a serious problem. And in a country that is so clearly grasping onto any legal/constitutional precedents possible to navigate through modern-day issues, this kind of evolution of government influence is something that could easily become real.

So, what think you, french fry lovers and quinoa consumers alike? Let them eat cake or let them eat cake at a price?