The Junk Food Tax

Personally, it seems ridiculous that people do not know that eating 200 Big Macs a week is unhealthy for you. This tax is obviously very controversial because it challenges some key values we hold as Americans e.g. freedom.

The LA Times raises the taxation of liquor and tobacco. However, they do not address the fact these products have age restrictions, so the taxes do not hurt many people because there is already a very narrow market for these products, and smoking and drinking alcohol take a back seat to having something to quench the hunger pangs.

What is your thought?

Los Angeles Times:

The food industry, not surprisingly, has squared off against the idea, arguing that the tax bill is a punitive assault on personal choice.

"The government doesn't have the right to social engineer," said J. Justin Wilson, senior research analyst at the industry-backed Center for Consumer Freedom. "It doesn't have a right to protect us from ourselves."

No? The food folk are correct that this is a way of punishing people for unhealthy behavior. But they're wrong when they say the government has no role to play in prodding people to do better.

The other prominent sin taxes out there, for tobacco and alcohol, raise money for health and education programs, and that's a good thing. But their main purpose is to make these products more expensive and thus less attractive to potential users.

Considering that about two-thirds of American adults and a third of our kids are now overweight or obese, it seems more than reasonable to extend the same thinking to sugary drinks, which researchers say are a key contributor to the obesity epidemic.

That said, soda isn't the sole culprit. If we're serious about shedding all those excess pounds, it'll take more than just making Coke and Pepsi more expensive. More on that in a moment.

First, let's take a closer look at AB 669, the legislation introduced last week by Assemblyman William Monning (D-Carmel). He serves as chairman of the Assembly Health Committee.

The bill would levy an excise tax of 1 cent per ounce on any beverage with caloric sweeteners such as sugar and high-fructose corn syrup. These beverages include sodas, energy drinks and sports drinks.

The estimated $1.7 billion raised by the tax annually would be dedicated exclusively to funding physical fitness and childhood obesity programs statewide that are now facing cuts because of California's ongoing budget woes.

The money would go toward activities and gear at schools and nonprofit organizations intended to get kids off their keisters — sports, games, play equipment. It would go toward providing more-healthful lunch choices and efforts to educate kids about eating right.