Fat Chance for a Fat Tax?

Two thirds of Americans are now overweight or obese, costing an estimated $150 billion each year in related health expenses. The CDC figures that we consume 250 calories per day more than Americans did two or three decades ago and 120 of those extra calories come from soda and other sweetened drinks.
Public health advocates argue that if we taxed fatty foods and sodas, the government could discourage people from consuming excessive calories. Furthermore, a new study by the University of Virginia concludes that a 20 percent fat tax could raise $937 billion over a decade. That single revenue source might be enough to cover Obama's one trillion dollar health care overhaul.
One tax that makes us healthier and pays for healthcare? As always, there are those who challenge both outcomes.

Some new studies question whether sin taxes really have much of an effect on consumption, and thereby our overall health, since heavy users don't tend to react much to price changes. That's one why reason why the Economist concludes that new fat taxes have a "fat chance" at winning approval. Moreover, a theoretical paper in the Journal of Public Economics goes so far as to suggest that fat taxes might make us fatter because we would have to spend time finding and cooking fresh foods rather than exercising.

And what about the effect on healthcare costs? There is the rather callous counter-argument that obese people end up saving the system money because they often have shorter lifespans.
Finally, many are simply philosophically opposed to the government telling us how we live our lives.

Please let us know where you stand on the fat tax in the comments section below.