As the new year approaches, several states contemplate adding "sin taxes" on chocolate.
Taxes on cigarettes have helped to cut smoking in recent years, and perhaps also to defray the public costs of health care for smokers. Can a tax on sweets do the same thing?
Washington State legislators estimate that their proposed tax on candy and gum could raise $28 million next year for this cash-strapped state. Illinois got in early with a late 2009 candy tax: an extra 8% for candy -- but nothing extra for sweets containing flour. Arkansas's Joe Carter made headlines by lobbying for special taxes on vending machines and fast food.
"We have a culture that is fat, sedentary, and depressed," he says. "Our attitude is, 'I wannna eat what I want, do what I want, and get a pill to take care of it.' If we're going to reform health care, and not just argue about who writes the checks, we need to make changes." One of those changes, Carter says, ought to be taxes on junk food.
Carter also confided that he likes to make s'mores with his sons, so even he is a chocolate fan.
And that is the question: should a sin tax on empty-calorie foods include chocolate? Consider these facts:
- Dark chocolate contains ten times the antioxidants of dark fruits and vegetables.
- Chocolate is the best natural source of magnesium (highest levels), and an excellent source of many other minerals, including iron, phosphorus, potassium, and calcium.
- Cocoa butter has no negative effects on cholesterol levels, and has positive effects on dental health.
- Chocolate has a higher rate of flavonoids than red wine.
- Recent studies show beneifts for both heart and brain health in chocolate.
