It is clear to many people that the combined eating habits of a majority of Americans are lacking in better judgement. The overall health of the country has become, and continues to be, a deep issue in which people are beginning to take a stand against. In Mark Bittmans ' article "Bad food? Tax it, and subsidize vegetables," he makes the argument that it is the governments duty to the people to look out for their well-being by taxing "bad food," such as chips, sodas and other fatty foods, and with the extra money generated, create a program that benefits the American diet. Many people may disagree, this is a stance in which I side with due to many reasons.
Although this is not happening, the benefits clearly outweigh the "damages" that people think will occur. People may argue that increasing the price would be "unfair" to the poor population, which it may seem like at first since maybe all they can afford is the cheap fatty foods. In the long run though, with the more money that is generated from the taxes, the expensive, healthier foods will eventually lower in price, therefore benefitting the poor financially and physically. Other people may "resent" this idea
…show more content…
The fact that this will also not just be a "blanket tax" across all junk food but rather calculated by experts about which foods should be taxed and exactly how much the tax would be should be a comforting thought to those who fear this will put a burden on buying their favorite snacks. However all the experts are busy with more "pressing" matters such as "ethanol subsidies." I believe that the people who are against this proposal are the one who are not struggling financially but are just saddened that they wont be able to go out for a cheap midnight snack with their