Is a flat tax on junk food beneficial to the well being of our society?

Question

Before you post an aswer consider the following aspects to make it worth its while:

-Obesity and all the health implications caused by it account for billions of dollars being spent in our healthcare system

-Canada's social sector is overburdened by the healthcare costs bourne by the individuals

-Canada's universal healthcare system is sustained through high taxation

-Think about the Kyoto protocol in Europe and how its increase in fuel prices through the tax shifted the market to an increased level of efficiency.

And for your info, a more efficient social sector requires less taxes which benefits individuals more so than if junk food is readily available.

Answer 1

Flat tax would hert the magga rich folks. And Make all those accountents work at places like Mc Donalds and Jack in the Box. Rich people don,t pay taxes, thats tradition. Also fat people would not be able to afford Pork rinds and freto lay corn chips. And they won,t need a Gym membership. So what seams to help one person may hurt the other.

Answer 2

The question is based on the premise that there is a linkage between junk food / obesity / health problems which then translates to higher medical expenses which puts further strain on the healthcare system, which in Canada's case, is mainly funded by the country.  -  That logic is fine.

Now looking at the possibility of a "flat tax", or in the case, "fat tax".  The starting questions is what is the main purpose of the tax ?  Is it to:

a) be a source of funds that can be used to subsidise the healthcare system, and do to more educational work;  or

b) to reduce and deter the consumption of junk food ?

I feel b) is unlikely to happen.  Junk food consumption is a habit, and it is not possible to impose a tax so high that would actually cause people to start thinking about consuming less.

As far as a) is concerned, it will only help to reduce the financial burden (if the collection and use of that tax can be properly accounted for), but not solve the root problem.

I don't think there will be any swift solution.  It will take years, even decades, to change the behaviour of a whole generation and their offsprings on what to eat.  We cannot eliminate the whole industry because of the ripple effect.  The best that we can do, and should do, is to transform the junk food industry in tandem with the increased education and hopefully gradually changing eating habits.

Working against this is of course the political system.  Policies that is required will need to continue over the office of a few Prime Ministers.

As far as fuel prices are concerned, I think your logic may be flawed.  No doubt the increased fuel prices have driven an increaed level of efficiency, but that would happen regardless of Kyoto protocol.  Surprisingly, even with the price of oil being sustained in its current level, I haven't really seen any major push to accelerate the research and implementation of alternative cleaner energies - hybrids, hydrogen....