Talk:Fat tax

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation articles

Health and fitness Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

The imposition of a fat tax in Denmark is imminent:

"Denmark is to introduce a tax on saturated fat with effect from 1 October, 2011. The tax, charged at the rate of DKK 16 per kg saturated fat on domestic and imported food, will apply to meat, including chicken and pork, as well as to cheese, butter, edible oils, margarine, spreadable products and other food such as snack products. Products with saturated fat content at or below 2.3% will not be included."

Can someone (possibly Danish) authenticate this and give full details. 193.130.120.206 (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any serious proposals to tax overweight people rather than food products? If not, does it deserve mention in this article? Neramesh (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It is estimated that a national tax of 1 cent per 12-ounce soft drink would generate $1.5 billion annually, and a national tax of 1 cent per pound of candy, chips and other snack foods would generate revenues of up to $314 million." which nation?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARMgjdbY93o Reliefappearance (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Research

I just noticed this incredibly weird sentence in the article: "Taxing soft drinks and pizza can decrease the amount of calories that people consume from these foods." It suggests that the amount of calories are determinant on the price you pay for food. It probably needs to be reworded or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.27.116 (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is strange? In many cases higher prices cause people to buy less of a product. If they buy less of it they generally consume less of it. If they consume less of it, they get fewer calories from that type of food. Zodon (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, manufacturers will reduce the amount of taxable ingredients in their products, because increased prices mean decreased revenues. Plus companies who have smaller amounts (reduced or originally) are given an 'edge' in the market: lower price plus seen to be less unhealthy. Something to fuel competition and steer in the direction desired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.157.96.160 (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pigovian?

Fat taxes aren't Pigovian (or if they are, it's not obvious why and no argument really being made to this effect). There's no claim about an inherent externality that's being corrected; at most, what's being claimed here is that there's another government policy (e.g., healthcare subsidies or income taxes) that have an unintended consequence and that a fat tax might possibly reduce this effect. Not really the same thing. Austinecon (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

While I am not in the position to edit right now, I would like to point out that many of the studies are inconclusive (There are studies that show that the opposite is true) and the article over all seems to support the Fat-Tax. I am currently doing a research paper on the fat tax, and will answer any questions or post any links to useful websites. Just ask Cheers, --71.205.198.123 (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Soft Drink.svg

The file File:Soft Drink.svg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Soft Drink.svg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Soft Drink.svg

The file File:Soft Drink.svg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Soft Drink.svg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Gruber, fat tax advocate

The article asks who:

Other advocates of the tax[who?] point to the effect taxes have had on alcohol and tobacco use. Five studies published between 1981 and 1998 found that drinking declined as the price of alcohol increased. The same holds for tobacco. In California in 1988, Proposition 99 increased the state tax by 25 cents per cigarette pack and allocated a minimum of 20% of revenue to fund anti-tobacco education. From 1988 to 1993, the state saw tobacco use decline by 27%, three times better than the U.S. average.

Jonathan Gruber is one such advocate. I linked a paper that he wrote for the NIHCM advocating the fat tax, using cigarette taxes and alcohol as his example. 96.59.92.70 (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fat tax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]