Denmark Institutes First-Ever ‘Fat Tax’

[ShyGuyInChicago]

Denmark Institutes First-Ever ‘Fat Tax’ - TIME NewsFeed (http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/09/30/denmark-institutes-first-ever-fat-tax/)



Would you think twice about indulging in Chubby Hubby if you had to pay more for a pint? Denmark hopes you will.
Even though less than 10% of Denmark's population is considered clinically obese, which is lower that the European average, the country is tackling the ever-worsening issue of obesity by instituting the first-ever “fat tax (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8796522/Denmark-taxes-fatty-products.html).”
Starting Oct. 1, Danes will see a price increase in products that are high in saturated fats, which researchers at Denmark's Institute of Food and Resource Economics have attributed to the cause of 4% of the country's premature deaths.
(MORE: Can FoodCorps Get America to Eat Healthfully? (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2089995,00.html))
Butter, oils, and high-fat dairy products will see the biggest price increases (http://www.cphpost.dk/component/content/52175.html?task=view); products with more than 2.3% saturated fat will be taxed 16 kroner per kilogram ($2.90 USD) of saturated fat. Shoppers should be ready to pay up to 30% more for a pack of butter, 8% more for a bag of chips, and a liter of olive oil will cost 7.1% more than usual.
The results of this tax will no doubt be closely watched by Britain, as more than 20% of the British population is obese. According to a 2007 study by Oxford University's Health Promotion Research Group, if this fat tax were instituted in the UK, with tax breaks given on fruits and vegetables, up to 3,200 lives could be saved.
Could a tax like this fly in the U.S.? We've seen improvements in healthier school lunches and all sorts of initiatives to encourage exercise and healthy eating for kids, but a nationwide tax on unhealthy foods would be the most drastic—and maybe most effective—measure in fighting obesity. The world will be watching Denmark to see whether monetary incentive will make for a healthier nation.
MORE: Arizona's Flab Tax (http://swampland.time.com/2011/04/01/arizonas-flab-tax/)
Aylin Zafar is a contributor to TIME. Find her on Twitter [email protected] (http://twitter.com/#%21/azafar). You can also continue the discussion on TIME's Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/time) and on Twitter at @TIME (http://twitter.com/#%21/TIME).

11 (http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/09/30/denmark-institutes-first-ever-fat-tax/#comments)


http://s0.wp.com/wp-content/themes/vip/timenewsfeed/images/comments_btn.gif?m=1308178302g (http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/09/30/denmark-institutes-first-ever-fat-tax/#comments)
http://s0.wp.com/wp-content/themes/vip/timenewsfeed/images/icon-print.gif?m=1308178302g http://s0.wp.com/wp-content/themes/vip/timenewsfeed/images/icon-email.gif?m=1308178302g
174
Share
1digg

MORE




READ OTHER RELATED STORIES ABOUT THIS:


Denmark taxes fatty products (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8796522/Denmark-taxes-fatty-products.html)(The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/))
Bulge battle will wallop your wallet (http://www.cphpost.dk/component/content/52175.html?task=view)(The Copenhagen Post (http://www.cphpost.dk/index.php))



[/COLOR]

[Amnesiac]

I would strongly disagree with anything like this being implemented in the U.S.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

I would strongly disagree with anything like this being implemented in the U.S.

Do you also disagree with tobacoo and alcohol being taxed?

[User Deleted]

I would strongly disagree with anything like this being implemented in the U.S.

But I think encouraging people (not through taxing) to eat healthier and exercise would be a good thing. As in more than they already do. The only problem with what they do now is that it isn't greatly influential. And most anything influential enough is too drastic. Maybe if they made a day like "international health awareness day" and made it well known.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

But I think encouraging people (not through taxing) to eat healthier and exercise would be a good thing. As in more than they already do. The only problem with what they do now is that it isn't greatly influential. And most anything influential enough is too drastic. Maybe if they made a day like "international health awareness day" and made it well known.

It could be a good thing, but it could be argue that whether people live healthy lives or not is not the business of the government, and that taxing unhealthy foods is punishing people for putting what they want in their own bodies. I am not sure how I feel on this, but I can understand both sides of the argument.

[User Deleted]

It could be a good thing, but it could be argue that whether people live healthy lives or not is not the business of the government, and that taxing unhealthy foods is punishing people for putting what they want in their own bodies. I am not sure how I feel on this, but I can understand both sides of the argument.

Sometimes the parent gives the child bad habits, so if they are used to eating certain foods. So is spending a little tax going to stop them? I have my doubts. Also I feel the government shouldn't add more tax onto fatty foods, what if someone exercises more and needs the extra weight? They would be creating the issue of some people being underweight or spending more money they may not be able to afford. Lastly wouldn't they simply get a good portion of their money used on a fat tax returned during tax refunds? (assuming they file out the papers correctly)

[Amnesiac]

Do you also disagree with tobacoo and alcohol being taxed?

Yes.

But I think encouraging people (not through taxing) to eat healthier and exercise would be a good thing. As in more than they already do. The only problem with what they do now is that it isn't greatly influential. And most anything influential enough is too drastic. Maybe if they made a day like "international health awareness day" and made it well known.

I agree. There's nothing wrong with encouraging healthiness, however, forcing it via taxation is simply wrong.

I don't really care if other organizations encourage the people to exercise – and it's pretty evident that they already do – but it's simply not the responsibility of government to tell people how to live. If someone wants to be a fatass, let them. Taxation to "encourage healthiness" is way too much. It just puts more of a burden on consumers and companies who'll see a fall in sales. Sure, the government can encourage healthiness, but it should never force it.

[Sugaree]

http://500motivators.com/plog-content/thumbs/motivate/me/large/569-fat-people-go-be-fat-somewhere-else.jpg

[CaptainObvious]

Yes. I agree. There's nothing wrong with encouraging healthiness, however, forcing it via taxation is simply wrong.

what part of this involves forcible coercion exactly? yeah, thought not. you can't "force" through taxation, you can merely change the market price to more thoroughly reflect the market cost. this is totally reasonable in a society that pays for medical care, like most of ours do.

I would strongly disagree with anything like this being implemented in the U.S.

why? taxes are the most liberty-respecting form of behavioral change you can implement. everyone is still free to make their own choices, but their choices will now reflect the cost to society.

as a libertarian, i respect this as the most libertarian option for changing behaviors that is available. make people pay the full cost of their choices, and they will make the economically best choice. dunno how you could oppose that, exactly.

[Amnesiac]

what part of this involves forcible coercion exactly? yeah, thought not. you can't "force" through taxation, you can merely change the market price to more thoroughly reflect the market cost. this is totally reasonable in a society that pays for medical care, like most of ours do.

why? taxes are the most liberty-respecting form of behavioral change you can implement. everyone is still free to make their own choices, but their choices will now reflect the cost to society.

as a libertarian, i respect this as the most libertarian option for changing behaviors that is available. make people pay the full cost of their choices, and they will make the economically best choice. dunno how you could oppose that, exactly.

I can see the necessity of having a fat tax in countries where society fully supports the healthcare system. Basically, I agree with you that in societies that pay for medical care, certain steps must be taken to reduce the cost to society. However, that doesn't apply to the United States. Americans who pay for their own healthcare and are independent of health-related welfare shouldn't be made to pay for a "cost to society" that they are not contributing to.

I'm not a believer in restricting the individual to being a member of society. Being a "member of society" should be an option, and those who choose to participate in society's programs should pay to support society. However, those who opt out of societal welfare shouldn't have to cover the costs of any other person, and they shouldn't receive any benefits either.

Bottom line is, if a person's receiving government benefits, they should pay the cost they weigh on society. If a person isn't, they shouldn't. I'm sorry if this is a mish-mashed, mostly incoherent post, but I got 4 hours of sleep last night and it's 1:30 in the morning.

[Sage]

Being a "member of society" should be an option

It isn't an option. You're a member of society the day you're born, and no matter how much you enjoy propping up a myth of self-made status and individual accomplishments, there is not a single facet of your life that is unaffected by other people.

I will agree, however, that it would not be efficient to oppose such a tax in a non-socialized healthcare system.

[Azunite]

I would strongly disagree with anything like this being implemented in the U.S.

The government would be super rich if you guys had this "fat tax"

[Sage]

The government would be super rich if you guys had this "fat tax"

If everyone in the US gave up a dollar for every pound they were overweight...

[scuba steve]

If everyone in the US gave up a dollar for every pound they were overweight...

In Britain they could have the Pound for a Pound scheme :P

[Sage]

In Britain they could have the Pound for a Pound scheme :P

oh you.

[SosbanFach]

In Britain they could have the Pound for a Pound scheme :P

Except that we don't really use pounds to weigh ourselves, we use either stone, or for those of us who are more up to date, kilos :P

[scuba steve]

Except that we don't really use pounds to weigh ourselves, we use either stone, or for those of us who are more up to date, kilos :P

And what unit is used to measure between stone?

[Infidelitas]

When will they start charging us to breathe?

[scuba steve]

When will they start charging us to breathe?

Colonisation on other planets, 10% Oxygen tax on your national insurance.... Jesus >_>

[Sugaree]

When will they start charging us to breathe?

That depends, are you planning on getting a bigger nose?:P

[Azunite]

That depends, are you planning on getting a bigger nose?:P

Hahahaaha, good one.

[butty_92]

The 'Fat Tax' is not going to work. People will not be put off eating unhealty food, they weren't put off by the cigarette labels or the nutritional information on fast food outlet products.

In times of economic downturn, people find it difficult enough to eat food without increasing the prices of certain foods further. Theoretically, it is a good idea but there are huge doubts over it's implication.

[CaptainObvious]

I can see the necessity of having a fat tax in countries where society fully supports the healthcare system. Basically, I agree with you that in societies that pay for medical care, certain steps must be taken to reduce the cost to society. However, that doesn't apply to the United States. Americans who pay for their own healthcare and are independent of health-related welfare shouldn't be made to pay for a "cost to society" that they are not contributing to.

but see that's wrong. almost no americans actually pay for their own healthcare out of pocket. the vast majority of americans are covered by private insurance or government healthcare schemes. more importantly, every single american has the right to public government healthcare through medicare, should they live long enough. given that, a fat tax is equally as justifiable in america as anywhere else.

plus, the "cost to society" isn't just literally the cost of providing healthcare. it includes lost productivity, social problems that arise from widespread poor health, etc. etc. these are completely reasonable problems for a government to attempt to solve via tax incentives. the government already does this for about a million different things - ever looked at the almost countless exemptions in the tax code alone? - and this is the same thing.

The 'Fat Tax' is not going to work. People will not be put off eating unhealty food, they weren't put off by the cigarette labels or the nutritional information on fast food outlet products.

it's microeconomics 101 that imposing an excise tax on a good decreases the quantity demanded of this good. of course it will work. it will decrease consumption of fat food, which is the point. it won't decrease it to 0, but that's not what it's supposed to do.

[Korashk]

I don't think you're really all that libertarian.