Proponents argue that childhood obesity is a major concern and that parents and children need to be educated on how to eat healthily and the tax could could go toward education costs.
Opponents contend that a 1% tax is not high enough to deter anyone from buying unhealthy foods and that there is already a tax on foods. They also point out that many people eat snack/junk foods without ever getting fat so why should they be penalized for those who do gain weight?
My opinion is that such a tax is ludcrous for a variety of reasons.
First of all, why do we need to spend more money on education? The basic food groups are taught as part of the basic cirriculum in elementary school. Any adult who is unaware of this probably has immigrated from another country ... why not simply make basic nutrition a part of their citizenship requirement? If they are not citizens, then why should we be taxed to pay for their education anyway? Middle schools and high school offer electives of Home Economics, Foods and Nutrition. Why not just make it a requirement? No extra money is required for any of this.
Secondly, I agree with the part about not everyone getting fat from eating the same foods. Metabolism is key. Also, there are several diseases and conditions that cause obesity. Person A may be extremely overweight from a thyroid or even an ovary condition --anything that throws off the body's natural chemical balance-- and may rarely eat junk food while Person B may have a great metabolism and eats it constantly and never gains an ounce. So, how is a tax on junk food fair?
IMO ... it isn't and I don't really want the government controlling what I can and can't eat.
If you feel strongly either way about this issue, you can vote at http://www.vote.com/vote/60132206/index.phtml and the results are passed on to your local lawmakers. So far, over 53m people have voted ... including me.
