Go to the Globe and Mail homepage

Jump to main navigationJump to main content

Report on Business

Economy Lab

Delving into the forces that shape our living standards
Best Business Blog, EPPY awards, 2011 and 2012

Entry archive:

Economy Lab has moved

Only Globe Unlimited members will now have access to a wide range of insightful commentary
and analysis on the economy and markets previously offered on this page.


Globe Unlimited subscribers will be able to read these columns,
written by some of Canada’s most deeply respected economists,
such as Christopher Ragan, Sheryl King, Andrew Jackson, and Clement Gignac,
as part of our ROB INSIGHT section.


All of our readers will still be able to browse the Economy Lab archives and read our
broader coverage of economic data and news by accessing their 10 free articles a month.


Learn more about Globe Unlimited and how to subscribe.

Our current tax code already makes a distinction between food that is good or bad for you. The GST/HST makes a distinction between basic grocery items, which are untaxed and “junk food” such as candy, which is taxed. (Moe Doiron/The Globe and Mail)
Our current tax code already makes a distinction between food that is good or bad for you. The GST/HST makes a distinction between basic grocery items, which are untaxed and “junk food” such as candy, which is taxed. (Moe Doiron/The Globe and Mail)

Why junk food taxes should be increased Add to ...

A recent Globe and Mail editorial argued that “Slapping a tax on junk food is still a bad idea”. This is not a new idea: Junk food taxes already exist in Canada.

Given the fiscal externalities (third-parties paying for decisions made by others) that arise from junk food consumption, existing junk food taxes should be increased, not scrapped.

More Related to this Story

The piece says that “food is a necessity that is neither inherently good nor bad for you… [a] surtax on foods identified as ‘junk’ would be a punishing measure”.

Our current tax code already makes a distinction between food that is good or bad for you. The GST/HST makes a distinction between basic grocery items, which are untaxed and “junk food” such as candy, which is taxed. The law is far from perfect; a single muffin is considered a sweetened good and is taxed, whereas a package of six or more muffins is a non-taxable grocery item. The intent of the law, however, is clear – that junk food should be taxed more heavily than basic groceries. A junk food tax would simply increase these taxes, by either increasing the GST/HST rate, or by taxing soda based on its sugar content.

The editorial correctly points out that such a tax, by itself, is regressive. A regressive tax is also not novel, as alcohol taxes are regressive, with tobacco taxes especially so. Regressivity in taxes is easily solved, as some of the revenue could be returned to low-income households in the form of a rebate. This is also not a novel solution: Rebates are used to combat the regressive nature of the GST/HST. A junk food tax can, in fact, be made progressive if the rebates are structured appropriately.

The existence of public health care creates a number of fiscal externalities. If I engage in dangerous activities and break my leg, I impose a cost on other taxpayers. Obesity, partially caused by consumption of junk food, costs taxpayers billions of dollars each year. We could pretend this externality does not exist. We could ignore it. We could eliminate the public health care system to rid ourselves of these pesky fiscal externalities. Or finally, we could decide as a society that we care about fiscal externalities and work to solve ones created by the health care system. A junk food tax is one such solution.

Follow Economy Lab on Twitter

Follow on Twitter: @mikepmoffatt

In the know

Most popular videos »

Highlights

More from The Globe and Mail

Most popular