Fat Tax?

[drain.you]

here goes a convo I had with a guy on msn, we are both called Aaron so may cause confusion, I am the one whose name is "Aaron- <3 Heather"


Aaron - <3 Heather says:
you want to tax people for being fat? Surely people should have the right to be fat if they want. And some people&#39;s bodies are built in a way that they will naturally be fat, you want to punish them? Its like saying that people should be taxed for being hairy or something

Aaron - fat tax, what a good idea says:
i didnt come up with it government did

Aaron - <3 Heather says:
you support it

Aaron - fat tax, what a good idea says:
put it this way if their simply fat for the crack, then their taking up too much of the NHS&#39;s time with fat related illnesses, which we can barely afford to keep going as it is, and it doesnt give them enough time for them to see to people who arent killing themselves

Aaron - <3 Heather says:
its hardly a decision to get fat and most people try to slim anyway. why should people have to change their lifestyle for the state anyway? surely their should be tax on everything that could possibly effect someones health as well if thats the way you are arguing this. tax vinegar caus its not good for the blood, tax mobile phones since they rumoured to give off radiation

Aaron - fat tax, what a good idea says:
this exactly like the time i said their shudnt be inheritance tax

Aaron - fat tax, what a good idea says:
obviously u believe in diferent things to me, and were not going to change anything by arguing about it so whats the point

Aaron - <3 Heather says:
i just want to know why you think that

Aaron - fat tax, what a good idea says:
yeah well thats why, its not fair, and ur right about taxing everything, but thats not the point their taxing things which cause the biggets problems


At first I was certain fat tax is wrong but would it be justified to tax things that are draining money from the NHS which could be avoided? Or should the government pay for our health regardless of our lifestyles?
Seems to me to be manifesting a question of communism against anarchy. Do we want the state of control our health and provide it for us or do we want to be individual where state doesnt exist and we have greater say over our health. I am in deliberation between a strong state and no state at all. I know its a big difference but I&#39;m confused. Sometimes I believe state should control everything and has a responsibility to provide for everyone and sometimes I think it shouldn&#39;t exist at all.
Think I&#39;m merging two topics at the min so just go with the fat tax thing lol.

[The Grey Blur]

What

The

Fuck

...

?

:(

I propose a Fat-Cat Tax wherein we tax the rich and feed the poor

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I would be against a fat tax for the simple fact that some people, regardless of their diet, do not get fat. This renders the Fat Tax as a method of curbing increasing obesity useless. It does however do wonders for lining the coffers of the government.

This "tax it if it does anything bad" attitude is almost as bad as the "ban it if it moves" attitude, and is equally counter-productive.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 11:14 PM
I would be against a fat tax for the simple fact that some people, regardless of their diet, do not get fat. This renders the Fat Tax as a method of curbing increasing obesity useless. It does however do wonders for lining the coffers of the government.

This "tax it if it does anything bad" attitude is almost as bad as the "ban it if it moves" attitude, and is equally counter-productive.
agreed some poeple dont get fat while some get fat from a glass of water.

even if this can be overcome then you get the problem of making sure this tax money will actually be used entirely for health care.
the dutch have been paying 25 cents for a liter of fuel since erm 1994 or something used to further the construction of highways and maintenance of roads.
but only the last few years the government has made the dutch infra structure a real priority.
im certain most of this money was used for other things.

[RebelDog]

I remember a story in the UK last year in which a hospital trust was going to ban people who were too fat from recieving surgery. The real reason behind this was simply that the hospital did not have enough money to carry out all the operations and so they just picked on overweight people and said they couldn&#39;t have operations. The disgrace of NHS underfunding was turned in to a story about over-eating&#33;

Never mind taxing people by how fat they are. Tax them on how rich they are.

[Tekun]

The stupidity of some ppl

Fat tax? Next they&#39;ll wanna tax physically handicapped individuals, if they don&#39;t tax em already

Not fitting into society&#39;s definition of what beauty or perfection is, now brings upon a monetary penalty? Discrimination if I may say so

[TC]

Well...if you have public universial health care...there is actually a defacto disproportional tax on thin people and non-smokers, in that they pay a higher rate of taxes in proportion to the public services they recieve, as they recieve fewer public services...so taxing smokers, for instance, at a higher rate for health coverage so that its pegged to the services they recieved...wouldn&#39;t really be a &#39;smokers tax&#39; it would be a risk adjusted insurance rate. The same would be true to a lesser extent with obesity.

I&#39;m not saying tha they *should* do that but only that there is a certain logic behind it. There are certaintly reasons why it would be a bad idea to do it.

[LSD]

Well...if you have public universial health care...there is actually a defacto disproportional tax on thin people and non-smokers, in that they pay a higher rate of taxes in proportion to the public services they recieve

Statistically speaking, probably, but that&#39;s a remarkably oversimplified analysis of the situation.

In reality, after all, the single biggest users of public health services are sick people. Thin, fat, smoker, non-smoker, if you&#39;re healthy, you don&#39;t need to go to the hospital.

Someone with, say, AIDS however, regardless of their weight/activities, will need to routinely utilize public health resources.

Is this "unfair" to the healthy people? Sure, if we choose to look at healthcare from a "market" perspective. Economically speaking, after all, the healthy are "paying" for a "service" at an "unequitable rate". And if they happen to be rich and healthy, it&#39;s a vastly unequitable rate&#33; :o

It would seem, therefore, that the only "fair" alternative is not to tax fatty foods or cigarrettes but to only tax sick people; I imagine that the simplest way would be to keep a record of all procedures and then bill the individual for them.

Hey, I know&#33; We could allow for private companies to do it so that there would be "competition" and a "fair market"&#33; :)

Oh wait... <_<

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by drain.you+--> (drain.you)Or should the government pay for our health regardless of our lifestyles?[/b]

Since when has the Government payed for out healthcare? When I was a kid, and needed to go to the Doctors, it was free alright....but the Government didn&#39;t pay for it, they taxed my mother and she payed for it. The State can&#39;t "pay for our health", because the State doesn&#39;t create any wealth....it can, however, take other peoples money and manage it.


Originally posted by drain.you+--> (drain.you)Seems to me to be manifesting a question of communism against anarchy.[/b]

Uh, nope. The question you pose between "a strong state and no state at all" could be a number of different comparisons, but it&#39;s not "a question of communism against anarchy"....because neither of the potential social orders have a State.


Originally posted by piet11111
agreed some poeple dont get fat while some get fat from a glass of water.

GCSE PE here: some people are ....morphs, other people are ....morphs, and others are another kind of morph, ....morph. And, essentially, the body forms are genetically coded....a skinny guy, no matter how much he works out, won&#39;t put on that much muscle mass. Though, he could always use the "four fingers method"....but that&#39;s cheating. <_<


[email protected]
Well...if you have public universial health care...there is actually a defacto disproportional tax on thin people and non-smokers, in that they pay a higher rate of taxes in proportion to the public services they recieve, as they recieve fewer public services....

No there&#39;s not. Smokers, in Britain at least, pay a shit load of tax on smokes which more than covers any potential health costs. I mean, even after they&#39;ve been brought into the country and the sellers added a markup, European cigarettes cost like £2.50 for 20....where as British cigarettes cost upwards of £4.30. So it&#39;s not like we don&#39;t get fucked over yoga gestapo already. (And I&#39;m not sure, but I think there is VAT on "fatty foods"....and tampons, thanks to old Margaret.)


TragicClown
There are certaintly reasons why it would be a bad idea to do it.

Well, if the current consensus is correct, then smokers die like 10 (?) years earlier than non-smokers....so that&#39;s 10 years of saved pension payments.

As Alan Sugar would say, the cost is offset&#33; :P

[Noah]

A fat tax is stupid&#33; There are many factors that will decide the outcome of a person&#39;s weight; genetics and metabolism are two of alot.

It is obvious that a fat tax, could even alienate fat people from society making them feel even worse than most of them do to the media&#39;s constant feeding of unrealistically thin and beautiful people. This would increase eating disorders such as bullimia and anorexia, maybe even a slight increase in suicide&#33; But hey, the market would see a boom in weightloss products :rolleyes: .

It&#39;s not easy avoiding food if your fat...I know for a fact because i&#39;m quite &#39;large&#39; myself :D . Shouldn&#39;t it be the fatcat companies and companies that advertise on televisions (although they are aware their foods are unhealthy) be paying the tax as they are the cause of people being obese in the first place?

Seriously, I know some fat working class people. They&#39;re not fat because they have too much money, they&#39;re fat because fatty foods give a wonderful &#39;fulledupdeness&#39; sensation, they&#39;re usually very cheap and very quick to make...To be brutally honest people working long hours, got kids, a house to clean and other things to pay may have no time for a different lifestyle.

So basically...If the governments taxed the fast food and chocolate producing fatcats the problem would be sorted as they could probably pay for every fat person in the UK .. 5 times over collectively?

[Communism]

I don&#39;t see it as unfair at all, it is all based on choice. Whilst a person can choose which foods they eat and how much they excercise a person cannot choose if they get an illness such as cancer (unless you are a scientologist :P) which is why a fat tax is not as victimising as it first seems. Fat people may drain resources from the NHS and take doctors time away from patients who have become ill through pure chance and not eaten too much food etc. The same could be said for smokers, they could be taxed as they may have given themselves lung cancer rather than getting it because they have been unlucky.

[Reuben]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 06:10 PM
The same could be said for smokers, they could be taxed as they may have given themselves lung cancer rather than getting it because they have been unlucky.
newsflash - in the uk out of every pack of 20 cigs uk that costs £4.50 about £3.50 goes to the exchequer.

[Noah]

I don&#39;t see it as unfair at all, it is all based on choice.

It really isn&#39;t one must recognise the factors.

Fast food and ready meals are cheap, fact, large in quantity and pumped with stuff to make you feel good .. perfect for the average working person?

Also, schools feed ready made high fat foods to schoolkids because it&#39;s affordable children are nurtured to eat these foods from a very young age. When they sit to the TV they are barraged with Mcdonalds and various chocolate ads...From a very young age their lifestyle is set.

Of course the fat person can always get off their backside and burn so fat, it&#39;s not as simple as it seems though there are many problems with this for alot of people&#33; If you&#39;re working all day and you come home tired and hungry, the last thing you want is to work out. You need comfort, which can come in the form of food.

The main causes of obesity...Is the companies the begin selling to children from the day they enter school and the amount of advertising.

Not all fat people are fat because they&#39;re greedy and like to eat lots and lots...In this society eating cheap, chemical-pumped, quick cook food is a way to escape the depression that exists today.

There&#39;s plenty of money within the government, the tax from smoking can pay for the education system 6 times over&#33; What needs to stop is spending the money like pillocks and taxing fat cats more.

[Janus]

The discussion here is confusing me a bit.

It seems that some believe that a fat tax is an actual tax on fat people. I always thought that a fax tax was simply a tax on certain dairy products, fast food, sweets, etc. Therefore, it targets everyone who buys those products though it does target obese people more.

I don&#39;t like the fact that the government is getting involved in the affairs of the people but it could be potentially useful to combat heart disease, etc. It could get people out of the habit of buying those products but in the end it should really be their choice.

[Noah]

It seems that some believe that a fat tax is an actual tax on fat people. I always thought that a fax tax was simply a tax on certain dairy products, fast food, sweets, etc. Therefore, it targets everyone who buys those products though it does target obese people more.


That&#39;s a good idea...But there is already a tax of some sort on fast food...from what I know..

[Janus]

But there is already a tax of some sort on fast food...from what I know
It may be but as far as I know, a full fat tax is still in the works.

One thing I don&#39;t like about it is that it will affect lower income families more and that it basically creates the impression that people can&#39;t think for themselves and needs the government to coax them into reducing weight.

[Noah]

Why I was thinking about this too.

But I still stick with my original conclusion that it should be the fatcats paying much much more tax generally because if places like McD&#39;s ... set 3 square meals a day, knowing that their unhealthy but still selling them to people. They should pay taxes so those people can be repaired...But I guess they&#39;d just raise prices again and that would bring us back to the same problem about low income families :blink: .

[Sabocat]

Fat Tax = discrimination. Plain and simple. I don&#39;t see how any Communist could be for it.

What&#39;s next? A special tax for skateboarders and skiers because the sport is inherently dangerous?

How about a tax on drinkers? They are much more likely to incur liver damage and subsequent medical treatments.

[Intifada]

If the government can afford to wage war on a country and follow it up with an occupation, they can and should damn well pay to treat fat people.

[Janus]

OK, someone has to answer this question.

Is a fat tax a tax on obese people which is something that would be very difficult as body fat would have to be measured regularly

or is it a tax on fatty foods?

[drain.you]

@Janus : I believe this guy was proposing taxing people who are fat in order to pay for NHS supplies and operations given to people because they are fat. Its basically saying that people&#39;s taxes aren&#39;t going to pay for the NHS to treat problems that only occur because you are fat.

[Janus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 10:59 PM
@Janus : I believe this guy was proposing taxing people who are fat in order to pay for NHS supplies and operations given to people because they are fat. Its basically saying that people&#39;s taxes aren&#39;t going to pay for the NHS to treat problems that only occur because you are fat.
Oh okay. So it was simply something that he proposed? I have only heard of governments proposing taxing fatty foods.

Taxing people based on obesity would be take up too much time. They would have to do regular measurements of people&#39;s body fat and store it somewhere.

[praxis1966]

How about this: Tax the shit out of processed foods, foods containing high amounts of high fructose corn syrup, foods containing refined sugar, Doritos, soda, etc. In other words, make it too expensive for people to get fat in the first place. After all, obesity is primarily the problem of the poor as all of these goods are alot cheaper than their fresh counterparts. Conversely, you give tax credits to people who by healthy foods, making eating properly affordable.

Wow, I think I just solved the first world&#39;s obesity problem.

[Commie Rat]

Im assuming NHS is a health insurance like Medi-Care and Medi-Bank Private? Its just a premium on an insurance which means that you pay more if you are more likely to die, which fat people are. Its like car insurance for bad driver, if they crash alot they lose their rating, if you can&#39;t keep you body healthy then you pay more, smokers do, extreme sports men do, heck, people with family histories do.

to summrise

A Tax on Fat people would be impractical
A Tax on fatty foods already exists
It costs more to insure people that are fat, or have a family history of obesity

[Reuben]

Originally posted by Commie [email protected] 6 2006, 11:51 AM
Im assuming NHS is a health insurance like Medi-Care and Medi-Bank Private? Its just a premium on an insurance which means that you pay more if you are more likely to die, which fat people are. Its like car insurance for bad driver, if they crash alot they lose their rating, if you can&#39;t keep you body healthy then you pay more, smokers do, extreme sports men do, heck, people with family histories do.

to summrise

A Tax on Fat people would be impractical
A Tax on fatty foods already exists
It costs more to insure people that are fat, or have a family history of obesity
np ots not just a form of health insurance. The NHS is predicated at least in theory on the universal right to healthcare for those in need.

And no the fact that some people use or need public services more than others is not synonymous with a &#39;de facto disproportionate tax&#39;

[Amusing Scrotum]

Emphasis added....


Originally posted by Communism+--> (Communism)Fat people may drain resources from the NHS and take doctors time away from patients who have become ill through pure chance....[/b]

Don&#39;t you think it would be advisable to know for definite?

And what makes an illness one of "pure chance"? Is "chance" any less a factor in the "fat person" who has heart disease when compared with the driver who has a car crash? Or what about the "skinny person" with lung problems? Surely they should have moved out of the polluted city? I mean, that would have reduced the "chance" of them getting bad lungs, wouldn&#39;t it?

"Chance" is a factor in virtually every medical problem....as does lifestyle choice. In which case, unless you know of an efficient system of measurement to objectively determine whether "lifestyle choice X" is more damaging than "lifestyle choice Y", then I don&#39;t see how you&#39;d be able to have a system of taxation that fairly targets various lifestyle choices.

Of course, it&#39;s rather strange that those who envisage a society without taxation should be promoting various forms of taxation, but that&#39;s a whole other issue.


Originally posted by Janus+--> (Janus)I always thought that a fax tax was simply a tax on certain dairy products, fast food, sweets, etc. Therefore, it targets everyone who buys those products though it does target obese people more.[/b]

If that is the case, then the tax is possibly even more objectionable. This form of taxation would represent a direct attempt by the "yoga gestapo" to use the State as a means of lifestyle dictation....leading to a needless infringement on personal liberty.

I mean, I like a cup of tea and a cigarette for breakfast, not whole bran cardboard....and therefore, I personally object to those that would try to place my breakfast choice outside of my economic capabilities.


Originally posted by Janus
It may be but as far as I know, a full fat tax is still in the works.

I&#39;m pretty sure VAT, 17.5% on "non-essential" products, affects "fatty foods"....it certainly infringes upon most pleasurable activities.


Originally posted by Disgustapated
How about a tax on drinkers?

Seen the price on a pint these days&#33;

Funnily enough, if I remember correctly, the recent tax increases on various drinks excluded certain alcoholic drinks....those usually associated with the ruling class. These drinks, of course, aren&#39;t always served in your average Pub, so your left buying a Jack and Black that costs like £3.00. Shit, even water these days costs upwards of £1.50 a bottle....and I&#39;ve heard of some clubs turning the water off to the taps in order to force people to buy more bottles of water; this policy, more often than not, is one of the main causes of people getting ill while using certain substances.


[email protected]
Wow, I think I just solved the first world&#39;s obesity problem.

And additionally, made a diet of "fruit and veg" almost compulsory. Yet, some folks, just don&#39;t like "fruit and veg"....and unless you desire the State to dictate peoples lifestyles, I don&#39;t see how the policy you proposed could be in any way beneficial.


Commie Rat
Im assuming NHS is a health insurance like Medi-Care and Medi-Bank Private?

Nah, it&#39;s Nationalised healthcare funded by taxpayers money instead of the money of individual patients. I&#39;m quite fond of it myself, though that it takes it&#39;s policy directly from the State is a definite downside....I had a half hour lecture on smoking last time I visited the Doctors, yet I went there with an eye infection&#33; :blink:

[praxis1966]

A Tax on fatty foods already exists

Well, I was speaking from the perspective of someone who lives in the U&#036;; and it doesn&#39;t here.


And additionally, made a diet of "fruit and veg" almost compulsory. Yet, some folks, just don&#39;t like "fruit and veg"....and unless you desire the State to dictate peoples lifestyles, I don&#39;t see how the policy you proposed could be in any way beneficial.

First of all, I said fresh foods, not fresh vegetables. That could include organic and free range fresh meats, which I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll agree are better for you than frozen dinners or Spaghetti-O&#39;s or Spam.

Secondly, the state already does impose taxes on certain "lifestyle" choices. For instance, in the U&#036;, certain states already impose what are called excise taxes just for owning luxury, sports, and SUV automobiles. Gas has a VAT, which affects people who choose to drive gas guzzlers more than people who drive economy cars. Nevermind item specific taxes on other health-harming consumer goods, such as alcohol and tobacco products. I&#39;m sure you blokes in the UK have most, if not all, of the above as well.

At any rate, I talked this over with EneMe last night, and she seemed to thing it was a good idea, but we both agreed on one caviat. In order for the plan to work, community workshops re-teaching people how to plan a nutricious diet might be in order. A large part of the problem, for instance, is that people don&#39;t know what healthy serving sizes are. Eg, when most people have steak, they usually eat a cut that&#39;s anywhere from 12 to 16 ounces. This is a monumentally proportioned size when you consider that most dieticians agree that a healthy serving of red meat is 6 ounces, or about the size of a deck of playing cards.

[Noah]

First of all, I said fresh foods, not fresh vegetables. That could include organic and free range fresh meats, which I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll agree are better for you than frozen dinners or Spaghetti-O&#39;s or Spam.

Spaghetti-O&#39;s and Spam are quick to make. Really busy people, for example single mothers may not have time to work, cook, clean, look after the kids and so on. So they must make the errands easier by making the easier choices, such as using frozen meals, which would be cheaper than organic food even if they were taxed because they can be very cheap.

It would put the people at the bottom of the &#39;food chain&#39; with a bigger dilemma. I know some people that don&#39;t buy &#39;fresh foods&#39; because they are expensive and tend to have a shorter shelf-life, so frozen foods like chips and burgers are the only foods they can afford...Even if these foods were taxed, they&#39;d have to ration meat if they went organic because it is significantly higher in price.

[praxis1966]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 02:06 PM
Spaghetti-O&#39;s and Spam are quick to make. Really busy people, for example single mothers may not have time to work, cook, clean, look after the kids and so on. So they must make the errands easier by making the easier choices, such as using frozen meals, which would be cheaper than organic food even if they were taxed because they can be very cheap.

It would put the people at the bottom of the &#39;food chain&#39; with a bigger dilemma. I know some people that don&#39;t buy &#39;fresh foods&#39; because they are expensive and tend to have a shorter shelf-life, so frozen foods like chips and burgers are the only foods they can afford...Even if these foods were taxed, they&#39;d have to ration meat if they went organic because it is significantly higher in price.
Yeah, but you could also give tax breaks to companies who produce healthy frozen foods so that people in the predicaments you mentioned could still feed their families. There&#39;s a company called Amy&#39;s in the U&#036; that already produces vegetarian and vegan frozen dinners that are certified organic. There&#39;s no reason why the same couldn&#39;t be done with meat products.

However, I&#39;d wager you&#39;d be hard pressed to find anything like that currently available at your local grocer. Most of the frozen meats you find are veritable Frankenstien&#39;s monsters. They&#39;re what&#39;s left over after corporate farms trim up the stuff they intend to sell as fresh.

At any rate, my point was simple. If you produce an economic incentive for people to eat healthily, I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll see them doing so.

[Noah]

At any rate, my point was simple. If you produce an economic incentive for people to eat healthily, I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll see them doing so.

I agree with this point.

I also agree, that frozen foods could be healthy but they&#39;re just not.

One of the factors as to why people eat frankenstein food, is because there is an economic incentive, which is it&#39;s very very cheap.