A Proposal To Enact A Federal Fat Tax


In economics there exists a measure known as social cost. A social cost exists when an activity generates negative externalities – for example, when a power company causes environmental pollution, or when a plump stranger decides to sit next to you on the bus.

Both of these situations cause irreparable damage, yet only the former is taxed. This tax is known as a Pigovian Tax, and it already exists in a variety of markets.

Should the obesity market be next?

Before we condemn fatties to paying their true price we must examine the facts. Are they a source of negative externalities? And, if so, which ones?

Below I offer a humble list of four costs that healthy, fit members of society must pay as a result of our larger counterparts.

1. Space infringement

space infringement

Due to their wider nature, obese individuals tend to take up more space.

Yes, I already hear the chunkies mumbling. So do tall people. And muscular people.

But it is not the same. The imprint of your ass and the circumference of your belly is the cause of the distress. Ask yourself: how let-down are you when you navigate your way to your seat on the airplane only to have Big Molly’s flabby love handles strewn halfway across your seat?

2. Weight Considerations

weight considerations

Most furniture is not made to support an elephant.

So what happens when big old Carlos decides to plop his behind down onto your bed? The box spring caves in, never to return to its original position (true story). Yet another cost we all must pay.

3. Health Costs

health cost

A lot of money goes into the diagnosis and treatment of obesity induced diseases and illnesses. No, we don’t have to suffer diabetes. But the health insurance we all pay is raised to treat the neighborhood fatty. This cost is not like the others, it is measured in actual dollars and cents.

4. Dating Supply


Dating is a game of supply and demand, just the same as any other market. And skinny people don’t date fat people. This constitutes a decline in the supply of potential partners. We demand compensation!

And So I Conclude

I hope the list above assists you when considering the cost obesity places upon society as a whole. A tax to balance these negative externalities is only logical.

In fact, one was proposed in 1942 by psychologist AJ Carlson to counter some of the externalities listed above as well as to provide more food for the war effort. Denmark and Japan have already begun the official war on fat with limited measures that tax unhealthy foods and waist-sizes.

I propose a tax not upon unhealthy foods, but on waist size or body fat percentage. 1% income tax for every 1% of bodyfat over an obesity determined baseline. Make them pay…

Read Next: 3 Reasons Why America Can’t Afford Obesity

28 thoughts on “A Proposal To Enact A Federal Fat Tax”

  1. 4. Carbon Tax
    It takes more resources in the form of animals, human labor and gas for transporting food/them. Also they use more water for bathing.

  2. Like the concept, but your implementation needs tweaking to account for all the fatties on welfare and / or depending on a man to support them. I suggest:
    Every adult American must report to a track every 6 months and run an 8-minute mile (time may be adjusted based on age and sex). Those who can’t:
    A) are ineligible for all forms of public assistance
    B) have their entire -household- income taxed at the highest marginal rate.
    This way, fatasses of all incomes (or no income at all) will have incentive to put down the goddamn Doritos and shape up.

      1. I addressed the age thing. The tiny portion of people with debilitating injuries can be exempted and the benefits of the program remain. Done and done.

    1. As a thin guy with a decent amount of muscle but who abhors running and doesn’t want to bust his knees up like many of the older runners he knows who’ve been told they can’t run anymore by doctors, I’d simply relocate my business and myself permanently overseas to get away from an oppressive tax regime like this that was going to force me to go be a runner instead of a lifter and a moneymaker.

  3. It’s logical and more easily justified than a carbon tax, for sure. And besides, what good is it saving the planet if we’re too fat to use it anymore?

  4. Why shouldn’t larger people be as comfortable as any other human being? You can’t just force people into what you think is right and wrong (unless you are a dictator, which you guys seem to be acting like), some people like themselvs being fat and some like being thin and fit.
    I agree that furniture are not made to hold elephants but they should at least hold 1 or 2 humans.
    Some find larger people attractiv. (It’s as logic as someone would find a thin person attractiv.)
    About your ideas on taxes; I think that unhealthy foods should be taxed more not obese people. I’m just guessing that you want taxes on obese people and not food so you can eat as cheap as you’ve always done. fatty.

    1. “Some find larger people attractiv”
      It’s either a fat fetish or guys who are so inept at getting a decent-looking woman that he’ll take anything he finds.

    2. Nothing wrong with larger people being comfortable. The problem is when their comfort directly infringes on mine.
      Have you ever sat next to a fat asshole on a plane or in the theatres? I did once, and I swore I would never fly in economy class again if I could afford not to, and I haven’t so far.
      If they want to be comfortable, they should pay MORE since they take MORE space, or they should slim down to fit in the chairs like the rest of us.
      This is why we are against fat people. They want everything without giving nothing up. Sure, you can be comfortable. But when your comfort is at a cost to mine, considering we paid the same amount to be on that plane and bought ONE SEAT each, and I find your lard ass overflowing in mine, I am rightfully pissed.
      This sense of entitlement is really what drives us nuts. You don’t realize how much of a nuisance you are and that there is a social cost, tangible and intangible to your eating habits, and when people point it out, you immediately claim they are hating and discriminating.

  5. Airfares should be based on weight. I think there is a huge opportunity for profit if an airline were to implement this concept.
    Let’s say United Airlines, for example) starts calculating airfare based on total weight (passenger + luggage). Fatter people will look to fly other airlines, as fares are cheaper for them. More fit people will look to fly United as fares are maybe cheaper for them. Even if fares on United aren’t cheaper though, thinner people will still want to fly with them because they know they’ll have more space.
    Also, thinner people are generally more attractive. People generally like to be around more attractive people (think about clubs, people want to go to the clubs that the hot people go to, guys pay a premium to go to the clubs that have the hottest girls, etc). This behavior pattern will cause even more demand to fly United. #WinningBusinessIdea

    1. Continuing this idea, other airlines that charge a flat rate will see their costs rise, as it is a fact that heavier planes burn a lot more fuel, and the fatties who won’t pay the fat premium on United will gravitate to the other airlines. Some of those other airlines might gain the reputation as the “obese airline”, the airline you fly if you are flat. This will further torpedo their margins as physically fit people AND people who are merely overweight won’t want to fly “Obese Air”. Eventually “Obese Air” will be forced to change their policy to charge by weight as well, or they’ll have to hike up their flat rates which will also drive passengers away.

      1. Samoa Air have in fact implemented this concept since earlier this year, I believe.
        From their website http://www.samoaair.ws/
        A world first: The “Samoa Air System” of pay by weight ‘Pay only for what you weigh’!
        Welcome to the fairest system for payment of carriage of anything by air. The world is now aware that charging by weight is the fairest way of paying for carriage. Whether its people, baggage, freight or anything which we might want tot take or consign by air.
        At Samoa Air we will do our best to ensure that every passenger is afforded the same level of comfort and travel throughout their flying experience. We want to bring back Air Travel as an enjoyable experience, where you, and your baggage will always travel together. No more excess fee’s are charged and no more discrimination, because as we know: A kilo is a kilo is a kilo!
        The Sky’s the Limit!

        1. That’s probably because 75% of Samoans are obese and 95% of Samoans are overweight. Although I suspect the vanishingly few thin Samoans are pumping their fists in delight… while all the fat Samoans roll around in anguish at their new higher flying fees.

  6. Pussies! Yes, you. Likely impotent, too. Fag. It would be wise to use rational and independent thinking skills once in a while. Then you might unravel the faux legal system, help recreate a splendid republic under national socialism, and perhaps even get to the behavioral/psychological root causes of fat chicks.

  7. Down with taxes of all kinds. Government blows at solving problems and I’m sick of it tapping every goddamn revenue stream to fund its unrelated nonsense.

  8. Sure, let’s tax fat people.
    But let’s not stop there. Let’s tax people with long hair. After all, to wash long hair requires more water and soap than shorter hair. Soap that causes harm to the environment and the water used could be put to better use. Let’s also not forget that hair dryers use a good amount of electricity. These are also social costs, after all long hair is not a necessity of life.
    Let’s also tax pets. Do people really need their cats and dogs? Exceptions can be made for seeing-eye dogs and sheep dogs. In all other cases, pets are wholly unnecessary and should be subject to taxation. An annual fee should suffice.
    What’s next? A bachelor tax? Adult websites? Cosmetic products? Professional sports? Anybody could make an argument that each and every one of these has a social cost.
    The moment that these kinds of taxes are enacted, then the door is opened to all sorts of foolish taxes. Just because you agree with a fat tax, doesn’t mean that you’ll agree with the next tax. The government will always be eager to increase their grip on their slaves, I mean citizens and it doesn’t take an enormous leap of logic to convince the populace to do it. Resistance should always be mounted against the government getting more involved in the lives of people.

    1. Actually people pay more “taxes” when they use more water and electricity via utility bill.
      Pet owners also pay inconvenience charges, vaccination/registration fees and are restricted on where they get to live. They are also subject to lawsuits when their pets act out.
      They also have bachelor taxes in the form of no tax reduction when it comes to child care and other marriage benefits.
      Adult websites is subject to sin tax and professional players and owners are also taxed. What you are confusing is double taxation.
      If we’re talking about fairness then obesity should be discouraged and taxed in the form of higher insurance and transportation costs because more weight = more resources wasted on gas = contribute to global warming.
      You pay extra for heavy luggage, why shouldn’t airlines charge less? Or are you against free market capitalism and businesses decide their client base?

  9. This website should really just stick to game advice. The quality of other articles on here is just appalling.

  10. There is a libertarian slant to most of the manosphere, but to me it is clear that excessive individual freedom has led to rampant fatness, out of control sluts, single mothers, and waning masculinity.

    1. The McGovern Commission, Aid to Dependent Children and WIC are not examples of libertarian individual freedoms.
      Libertarians want the freedom to work, not freedom from work.

  11. I’m glad that you referenced the Japanese “Metabo Law,” which has been in effect since 2008. While there are no individual penalties for failing to meet the waist measurement standards (33.5 inches for men, 35.5 inches for women), employers can be forced to make higher health insurance payments when a certain percentage of their employees fail to meet these standards. The individual is basically referred to counseling.
    The threat of a 10% increase in health insurance payments has led to some employers offering free gym memberships and special diet plans to their employees. Another result, no doubt, is that fat applicants are being discriminated against in the hiring process, and fat employees may be [legally?] fired for being overweight.

Comments are closed.