Economics focus: Waist banned | The Economist
Shared via AddThis...
As I think about the growing health issues in America (and around the world), I wish we as a society would understand the necessity of a little balance in our lives. Why can't we as individuals take some personal responsibility for our health?
While I understand that not everyone may be as health conscious as I am, nor do they like activity as much as I do, I have a problem with people who make excuses for their behaviors. Hello America, it's time to not drink sugar-filled drinks with every meal. It's time to plan out effective eating habits. If you let your weight become an issue, learn to manage it...because it is the most important thing you have. A healthy eater is a healthy person.
So, should we really depend on the government to tax "junk food"? Heck no. As the brilliant authors at the Economist ask, "Would a fat tax affect behaviour"? No. People must change their personal behavior to lose weight, which means tossing in some fruits, vegetables, and maybe a 30-60 minute workout a few times a week.
It's just that simple.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
But why WOULDN'T a tax affect behavior? Certainly The Economist has been one of the biggest advocates (along with Al Gore, interestingly) of a carbon tax, precisely because it would affect behavior, including the amount we drive.
ReplyDeleteTariffs are a form of tax, especially designed to make certain products (in the case of tariffs, imports) more expensive so as to change behavior by pushing people towards more domestic consumption...
Why wouldn't doubling the price of Coke make people buy it less? I'm not advocating for the tax - there is more to this issue, of course - but I do expect that it would alter behavior.