Fat Tax should be implemented

I will be representing the Con side of the debate and will be arguing that: the proposed "fat tax" should not be implemented. I will begin by building the Con argument in 4 main points. I will refrain from rebuttal until the second round as a gesture of good will for my opponent and to level the debate. I) There are no objectively unhealthy foods- Not all fatty food is inherently unhealthy. Fat is a necessary part of someone's diet though it should be consumed with moderation. The same is true of sugar and sodium and other components of food that when consumed in excess, have negative effects on health. As an example, the McDonald CEO went a full year eating nothing but McDonalds and actually lost about 20 lbs by eating a variety of things on the menu, controlling his portions, and exercising more. You can eat food usually considered unhealthy and maintain fairly good health if you are willing to try. (1) What is healthy and what isn't is subjective because it is based on many factors like level of activity, an individual's rate of metabolism, various health conditions (anemia, diabetes, etc. ), and even someone's environment and the weather they are exposed to. There is simply no principled method that can possibly set blanket standards that will be healthy for everyone. This becomes apparent when we assess initiatives like Michelle Obama's school lunch efforts where portion sizes were decreased which is bad for growing teens/children that are involved in heavy physical activity like sports. Sugars were also largely replaced with artificial sweeteners that can be equally unhealthy. These measures are ineffective at best and have a negative effect for many. II) Exacerbates crony capitalist corruption- The proposed tax adds to an already overcomplicated and messy tax code. This same tax code is so convoluted that the upper class and large corporations gain advantages through loopholes. This tax also give incentive for food industries to lobby for themselves and against competitors to promote more favorable dietary guidelines in regards to defining unhealthy/fatty foods. For instance, a corporation might seek to support officials that will determine their competitor's food unhealthy due to a particular dietary factor. They would also have incentive to lobby for officials who would protect dietary guidelines that placed taxes on their products. It is also worth noting that these various dietary regulations will hurt small businesses more than large corporations that are more equipped to lobby for favorable standards, engineer their food to meet standards, and take a hit economically from decreased demand. When small business suffers so does competition and our capitalist economy that relies on it. III) Discriminatory and regressive- This is a highly regressive tax because "fatty foods" are generally more affordable source of food and is more heavily consumed by the poor. This tax discriminates against impoverished groups that more heavily rely on cheaper "unhealthy" foods. This will exacerbate wealth inequality and hurt impoverished minorities. IV) Fails to create a healthier society- Unhealthy foods are healthier for the poor then not being able to afford food or skipping meals. This bill would particularly hurt many college students who rely on quick, easy food and would have to pay more or go with less. This bill does not incentivised eating healthy foods it only incentivised not eating unhealthy food. V) Not the government's right- The government has no moral right or Constitutional authority to decide for individuals what choices they should be making about their own health. Under this argument we should tax couches, computers, and chairs for contributing to an unhealthy lifestyle for some. 1) . https://www.usatoday.com...