UBC students make case for “fat tax”
“Fat people are a huge cost to society.”
So goes the opening line of a paper prepared by four UBC students for an economics course.
While stating that they intended to make this politically incorrect pun, authors Aaron Kwok, Patrick Crawford, Matt Morley, and Dennis Wong also pointed out that they are trying to address what they see as a big problem these days: obesity.
According to the authors, people can be influenced to make healthy choices through one policy: a fat tax.
No, this tax isn’t meant to collect levies based on people’s weight or other measurements of obesity.
Much like taxes on alcohol and tobacco, two products that are proven to have adverse effects, a fat tax would cover food items that are considered unhealthy.
“This is not a proposal against fat people,” Kwok told the Straight in a recent phone interview. “This is an incentive for people to think about their choices, and say, ‘If you decide to have a consistent diet of unhealthy food, you have a cost to everyone else—to you, to me, to taxpayers who fund our health care system.’”
In the paper, the four students note that according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, one in four Canadians is now obese. That is double the obesity rate in 1981.
They also wrote that obesity is a $7.1-billion burden on the economy. That includes health and medical costs for conditions related to obesity.
“The first, and very important decision that must be made in the intervention process is determining which aspect of poor quality food is the best factor to attach the tax to, whether it be saturated fats, sugars, calorie counts or other factors of the food,” the students wrote. “The approach and method of implementation of a ‘fat tax’ would be similar regardless of the ingredient we choose to combat, but scope and level of the tax would depend on the ingredient chosen.”





Economics is not a Science; it is an Art...and apparently not a very enjoyable one at that.
That's the point. It may deter them, but it probably won't. But in the latter case they help pay the taxes to cover the costs of their own health care.
The best answer to the obesity crisis is creating better resources for citizens to live healthier lives. The government would save a lot of money in the long run by promoting healthy lifestyles. It is also key that we be giving children the tools in school which will allow them to live happy and healthy lives.
Some things the government could promote/subsidize/create include healthy cooking/eating, forms of exercise, consultation with medical professionals, and creating community discussion around the issue.
They are in fact way too idealistic and out of touch with reality. Your hurting the poor/middle class even more at this crucial time and destroying jobs that people are barely holding on.
Taxing the way outta of this recession and problem is clearly a disastrous route. Its like throwing money and more money till the problem is fixed and believe me that is not the solution.
I suspect most of the people objecting to this are sitting at Burger King right now.
In the same light, some provisions should be made to make healthier food cheaper & more accesible ... only fair.
i ride a bicycle and eat ten chocolate bars a bar/ thats chocaolte not candy and i got a beautiful body, jelous, have i destroyed your stats??
Well here's a batshit crazy idea for you:
The incentive for "healthy behavior" could be that you don't have to pay for medical services you don't use.
The disincentive for "unhealthy behavior" could be that you have to pay for medical services you do use.
But that would be an evil capitalist tyranny right?
Wanna help Canada? Become a high bracket taxpayer yourself, doctor, so for a change we get to enjoy the benefit you'll provide.