Fat Tax

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_1...-10391704.html

Denmark now taxes foods that are high in saturated fat. A move designed to reduce obesity and the social issues it causes, or a blatant money maker?

Similar to booze and fags it would seem that incentivising people to be healthy is not as attractive as punishing them for being unhealthy (cos saturated fats are bad :/).

Rather than lower tax on healthy foods the danes are increasing the cost of basics such as butter, milk, cheese, meat etc etc.

Personally I'd flip out if such a tax was introduced here under the guise of "increasing citizens healths".

The US government is or was considering something similar. IMO, my weight and choice of food is none of the government's business, so Congress can put their plans for this where the sun don't shine.

They gotta pay for that public healthcare somehow :)

I'll tell them where they can put that as well ;)

Lol ordray, how much do you weight?

All of 145 pounds, but that's not the point :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_1...-10391704.html

Denmark now taxes foods that are high in saturated fat. A move designed to reduce obesity and the social issues it causes, or a blatant money maker?

Similar to booze and fags it would seem that incentivising people to be healthy is not as attractive as punishing them for being unhealthy (cos saturated fats are bad :/).

Rather than lower tax on healthy foods the danes are increasing the cost of basics such as butter, milk, cheese, meat etc etc.

Personally I'd flip out if such a tax was introduced here under the guise of "increasing citizens healths".

---

It makes sense.

If their healthcare is public, people who make bad life choices will help shoulder the financial burden those bad choices will put on the state.

Ideally, you should try to limit the amount of garbage that you eat which should in turn limit the amount of taxation you will be for such food.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ordray

The US government is or was considering something similar. IMO, my weight and choice of food is none of the government's business, so Congress can put their plans for this where the sun don't shine.

---

Depends on your healthcare system I guess, but if it is public, some of the health choices that you make are government's business to the extent that you'll make yourself more of a burden on the state through your actions.

It's one thing to suddenly get cancer when you live healthy. It's another to get one when you smoked heavily all your life (hence the heavy taxation on cigarettes).

It's the same thing for having an heart attack (or the miriad of other health problems you can get by being overweight), because you ate crap.

It's brilliant. Rather than forcing everyone to pay for the poor life choices that some people make, you make the particulars pay and rather than force them to foot a crazy bill for it when poor health strikes them, you stretch the payment over a long term period through taxation before they get sick.

And should it be that even the stretched out taxation become too much of a burden on the concerned individuals, they can just kick the unhealthy habit, which they could do without to being with.

It makes public healthcare more viable.

Besides, junk food companies spend a fortune trying to push their goods on you. A higher price on the goods in question would help to counterbalance that (well, it's a start).

sure but lets not forgot who mass produced all these horrible products that are now being taxed heavily after ppl are addicted to them.

While I disagree with this on it's face, Magn has a point. These people wanted socialism, now they've got it. If I am having to foot the bill for people's food and medical care, you're damn right I should have a say in what they are allowed to shove in their body.

However, I do believe this should be done as a 'voluntary VAT' type tax, but with an out. As in, you eat this crap, you pay for it, BUT we will allow you to skip the tax if you completely forgo the social medical system. Hell, I'd jump on board that part...then again, I hate the principle of socialized medicine to begin with, so perhaps I am a bit biased.

If the U.S. government would allow me to avoid paying anything into Medicaid, and skip all taxes on cigarettes for example, if I were willing to sign a waiver keeping me out of the Medicare/Medicaid programs for life, I'd be all over it.

Its abit like how it is in the UK. Tax payers in effect pay for the services of people who are not working and on benefits, and when they themselves need to use the services, they are faced with long waiting times because the system is overloaded.

Fat tax is bullocks, it is just another way for governments to steal money from people. If they really want to stop obesity they should mass breed hyenas and then release them around the towns of their countries so that the populace has to become swift and healthy in order to survive. Either that or governments could simply mind their own business and feed the starving rather than concern themselves with the weight and appearence of the well off. Personally i think both of my ideas have merit, the idea of a fat tax is pure bullocks however.

Hyenas ftw! Punitive taxes are balls though, i agree to that - reducing the tax on healthy foods would be better and would not affect the poorer sections of society so adversely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scorpio86

Fat tax is bullocks, it is just another way for governments to steal money from people. If they really want to stop obesity they should mass breed hyenas and then release them around the towns of their countries so that the populace has to become swift and healthy in order to survive. Either that or governments could simply mind their own business and feed the starving rather than concern themselves with the weight and appearence of the well off. Personally i think both of my ideas have merit, the idea of a fat tax is pure bullocks however.

---

The only issue with this is that in most countries that do not qualify as third world, it's not the well off who are blimps. The US is a prime example. I couldn't help but laugh one day when I stumbled across an article with the headline 'Mother and Three Children Live On $150 A Month in Foodstamps'...and they were all morbidly obese. Imagine that. Just further proof that the 'poor' aren't exactly starving here, for the most part. There are of course exceptions.

I would agree with you Bishop, provided people actually had a tendency to do what was best for them. I think my new favorite website is You're Fat Because You're Stupid. Makes some very significant points, in a very not so nice way. It's designed to be crass, but it makes a strong case against all of the arguments that the obese tend to use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gallowmere

I couldn't help but laugh one day when I stumbled across an article with the headline 'Mother and Three Children Live On $150 A Month in Foodstamps'...and they were all morbidly obese. Imagine that. Just further proof that the 'poor' aren't exactly starving here, for the most part. There are of course exceptions.

---

It's because in the US of A, crappy food (think McDonalds) is worth what you pay for it, which is close to nothing. Fresh vegetables, fruits, and other things generally considered healthier for you, on the other hand, cost quite a bit more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barbrolie

It's because in the US of A, crappy food (think McDonalds) is worth what you pay for it, which is close to nothing. Fresh vegetables, fruits, and other things generally considered healthier for you, on the other hand, cost quite a bit more.

---

I can actually state this as false, considering that I have lived on regimens of both, depending upon my life situation at any given time. What often makes fast food seem cheaper is the convenience vs. cost factors. For example, if you want to go totally bottom of the line, the best you could do at McDonald's is the dollar menu, which will net you some things that, while horrible for you, won't make you a blimp, unless you buy large quantities of them. If you can afford to do that, you probably should have spent that $5 on something along the lines of say, a small bag of rice, and apple, and some peanuts or a couple of eggs to help with the protein content. It's people's choices, not what they have available.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that some people are so poor that they can't afford transportation to the nearest real grocery store, which could be upwards of 10 miles away in some parts of some cities. But even in that case, it comes down to choice. If you can't afford a $1.25 bus fare, chances are good that you don't have a job. In which case, spend the time to walk that 10 miles. You can say it's impractical all you want, but it's not. I knew a man who lived in the middle of nowhere, never owned a car, and walked/ran close to 20 miles per day, occasionally hitching rides for longer trips he may have needed to make. Oddly enough (or not), he died at the age of 106, if I remember correctly.

Point being, it all comes down to the choices that people make. Most people in this country are homeless by choice, and many of them will admit to that. There are plenty of shelters and food banks; and state food assistance is always available. Everything anyone can come up with (in most cases) to explain why people are blimps is nothing more than an excuse for the poor choices that individuals make. If people are happy being whales, more power to them. I truly hope that they enjoy their lives, though I know I couldn't, in their condition. It's just time that we stopped trying to find scapegoats and added in a new dose of some old medicine: personal accountability.