170

Opinion

Opinion | A tax everyone wants to see cut

October 4th, 2012


This article is more than 12 years old.

One year ago this week, the ‘fat tax’ came into effect. The tax – technically a surcharge – enjoys little popularity, and the anniversary of its inception was celebrated by few.

Since 1 October 2011, Danes have paid more for butter, cheese, cold cuts and hundreds of other types of food. A poll of 1,042 randomly selected consumers showed that 70 percent felt the fat tax was either ‘bad’ or ‘very bad’. The poll also gives an indication of why the tax has been so difficult to swallow: 80 percent of respondents said it had not caused them to change their shopping habits. Some 70 percent questioned whether it had made them healthier.

We at Dansk Erhverv (the Danish Chamber of Commerce) and Landbrug & Fødevarer (the Agricultural & Food Council) also have significant doubts about the health benefits of the fat tax. The concept is logical enough: by making it more expensive to buy foods containing unhealthy saturated fats, we can get people to eat less of them and in turn improve their health.

The problem is that the tax is applied to nearly all types of food, from lean chicken to jalapeños. By setting it up that way, you wind up applying a minimal surcharge to an enormous number of products, and the primary effect has been to add an administrative burden to the food industry.

The way the fat tax is applied doesn’t actually encourage people to make healthier choices. What it has done, on the other hand, is encourage more Danes to shop in Germany. Our poll showed that, while in February 2011 one in three Danes shopped in Germany, the figure is now one out of every two.

When asked about why they shop outside Denmark, one in three named the fat tax as the primary reason. Long known as the place where Danes shop for booze, cigarettes and sweets, Germany, thanks to the fat tax, large discounts and professional marketing, has now become a place where Danes also shop for food.

German stores now send their brochures, proudly proclaiming “No fat tax here!”, to homes in the vast majority of Denmark. The savings come on top of what Danish consumers could already save in Germany due to a lower VAT and the generally lower price level there.

Denmark ought to be worried about the rapid rise in the number of Danes shopping in Germany. When Danes buy abroad, they take profits away from Danish stores and jobs away from fellow Danes – hardly something we need in an economic downturn.

In addition to benefiting Denmark’s competitors, and thanks to a complicated web of regulations that even legal experts have trouble unravelling, the fat tax directly harms the nation’s companies. Prior to the legislation coming into effect, we used time and effort to help companies – especially small companies – prepare. Those companies are still spending hours upon hours figuring out just how much they need to pay the state. This time could be better used working their way out of the economic slowdown.

The anniversary of the fat tax comes just two weeks after the Business and Growth Ministry released its report on the nation’s competitiveness, and it wasn’t good. Denmark has become less competitive since 1995 in a number of key areas, including productivity, relative wages and the country’s ability to attract foreign investment.

When it comes to wages alone, Danes received an average wage of 291 kroner per hour, while German employees received 200 kroner per hour. When it comes to consumer taxes Danes pay 3 kroner in VAT and other surcharges for every 2 kroner Germans pay.

According to our calculations, the fat tax alone has cost 1,300 jobs – and this is in addition to the impact of other taxes companies are levied for things like emitting nitrous oxides, the environmental impact of their packaging, sewage treatment, power consumption … the list goes on, and it is getting longer; soon companies will be paying a sugar tax, an advertisement tax and a transport tax.

If the fat tax has benefitted neither people’s health nor the nation’s economy, has it helped anybody?

As far as we can tell, no, it hasn’t. Parliament, too, seems to be coming around to this fact. Over the past month, MPs from both sides of the aisle have expressed their support for abandoning the fat tax, meaning this could be one regulation that doesn’t live to see a second anniversary.

Søren Gade is the managing director of Landbrug & Fødevarer and the former defence minister. Jens Klarskov is the head of the Dansk Erhverv.

About


Share

Most popular

Subscribe to our newsletter

Sign up to receive The Daily Post

















Latest Podcast

A survey carried out by Megafon for TV2 has found that 71 percent of parents have handed over children to daycare in spite of them being sick.

Moreover, 21 percent of those surveyed admitted to medicating their kids with paracetamol, such as Panodil, before sending them to school.

The FOLA parents’ organisation is shocked by the findings.

“I think it is absolutely crazy. It simply cannot be that a child goes to school sick and plays with lots of other children. Then we are faced with the fact that they will infect the whole institution,” said FOLA chair Signe Nielsen.

Pill pushers
At the Børnehuset daycare institution in Silkeborg a meeting was called where parents were implored not to bring their sick children to school.

At Børnehuset there are fears that parents prefer to pack their kids off with a pill without informing teachers.

“We occasionally have children who that they have had a pill for breakfast,” said headteacher Susanne Bødker. “You might think that it is a Panodil more than a vitamin pill, if it is a child who has just been sick, for example.”

Parents sick and tired
Parents, when confronted, often cite pressure at work as a reason for not being able to stay at home with their children.

Many declare that they simply cannot take another day off, as they are afraid of being fired.

Allan Randrup Thomsen, a professor of virology at KU, has heavily criticised the parents’ actions, describing the current situation as a “vicious circle”.

“It promotes the spread of viruses, and it adds momentum to a cycle where parents are pressured by high levels of sick-leave. If they then choose to send the children to daycare while they are still recovering, they keep the epidemic going in daycares, and this in turn puts a greater burden on the parents.”