1
2
3
4
5
Next

Read Discussion
Reply to All

1

Is it time for a 'Fat Tax'?

Forums: Health
Email this Topic • Print this Page

There have been many news stories recently about the effects on health of obesity and being overweight. Here's a recent one from the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3496918.stm.

The line that caught my eye was this: If current trends continue, then obesity will shortly overtake smoking as the single biggest cause of preventable deaths in the United States. I assume that (as in many things unfortunately) the UK is not far behind.

Here in the UK, tobacco is taxed to the hilt by the government. Around 70-80% of the retail price is taken by the Government, as VAT (sales tax) and excise duty. This heavy taxation is the main reason for cigarette smuggling into Britain from mainland Europe. In certain areas of the country up to 1/3 of all cigarettes smoked are smuggled, and therefore untaxed. It costs the Government £billions, and this annoys them, obviously.

It is claimed (quite rightly IMO) that this heavy taxation is needed to fund the National Health Service's treatment of smoking-related diseases. Fine. I smoke, I pay the heavy taxes, and if/when I develope a smoking-related disease, I'll get the treatment I've paid £00,000's for over my life. It's a choice I make everytime I light up.

My major question to you all is this:

Why shouldn't the greedy, gluttonous or lazy members of society (around 60% of Americans and 40% of Britons) who allow themselves to become overweight (to the point of developing a weight-related disease which will cost the economy more than smokers) pay in the form of a heavy tax on unhealthy foods? By making unhealthy foods expensive, it may also encourage people to eat more healthily in the first place, reducing their chances of getting a weight-problem.

PS. I don't believe myself to be a body-facist, just a realist.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,884 • Replies: 81

No top replies

The main problem with this is that it assumes that person A and person B, given the same eating habits and exercise regimen, will be about the same weight.

That is not true.

There is a large genetic component, and all sorts of other aspects. Person A can eat tons of junk food, slump on the couch watching TV all evening, and drive everywhere, and still not be overweight. Person B can eat put a lot of effort into eating correctly, exercise, and have a generally healthy lifestyle, and still be overweight.

0 Replies

If overweight people are taxed because they're fat, how long will it be before depressed individuals are taxed because they're depressed?

Instead of taxing people with problems, just because they have problems, why not offer them some help?

0 Replies

Re: Is it time for a 'Fat Tax'?

Grand Duke wrote:

Why shouldn't the greedy, gluttonous or lazy members of society (around 60% of Americans and 40% of Britons) who allow themselves to become overweight (to the point of developing a weight-related disease which will cost the economy more than smokers) pay in the form of a heavy tax on unhealthy foods?

Because we actually help the economy by dying earlier, thereby reducing the strain on the Social Security budget. Even our impact on medical costs is probably favorable. Obesity makes otherwise healthy people get sick more often, but it also make sick people die earlier. The first part of this increases healthcare costs, the last part decreases them -- especially because less obese people reach old age, when medical costs are highest. The net impact of both effects could go either way in principle; in practice, all the studies I have seen say that the net effect is to reduce costs.

So my answer is that the premise of your question is simply incorrect. There is no good reason to tax fat, except for the never-ending desire of puritanism to wag its bony index fingers and tell everyone what to do.

(Full disclosure: The author of this post stands 5'6", and he currently weighs 240 pounds.)

0 Replies

Sure! Why not? If tax alcohol and tobacco can be taxed using the justification that the higher cost is a benefit to society in reduced use and that the use of these increase medical care costs we can justify taxing food too. I wouldn't just tax unhealthy foods though. Tax all of 'em. Oh, and prohibit people from eating and drinking in resturants and bars too. That second hand crumb exposure might be deadly. Wink

Wink

0 Replies

Okay, I knew this bullshit with the smoking was going to lead to this eventually. Five years ago, when I first started hearing the statistics of how much obesity costs the taxpayers and the insurance industry each year, I knew they were getting ready to attack another easy target.

First of all, taxes shouldn't be used to penalize a person's lifestyle. You are so used to them doing it to you, that you end up falling right into the trap of thinking "Well, if they're doing it to me, then what about those guys over there!", which is perfect for the scum of the earth who just love to tax and tax and tax. When the hell is this crap going to end?

Secondly, STATISTICS LIE. I guarantee that there is a way to frame a statistical analysis that would actually show how smokers SAVE money for the system.

Don't believe this crap.

0 Replies

Remember how one thing leads to another.

How long before individuals with recessive genes, identified by DNA analysis are taxed if they have children, even if the progeny are apparently normal.

0 Replies

Sozobe - similar to how some smokers develop cancer at 35, and some smoke until they die of old age at 85 with just a slight cough?

Person B will not pay as much 'Fat Tax' as person A, fair enough. But who ever said taxation was fair?

I believe that the majority of overweight people are there because they eat too much and exercise too little. There are exceptions to every rule, but in the minority in the case IMO.

0 Replies

PS: My argument applies to tobacco and alcohol taxes too. They maybe a convinent source of government income, but the belief that they do anything good for the economy is naive at best.

0 Replies

If you look at my earlier post, you'll see that I agree completely with Thomas on this.

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

If overweight people are taxed because they're fat, how long will it be before depressed individuals are taxed because they're depressed?

I don't propose to tax them because they are fat, but rather to tax what makes them fat.

Miller wrote:

Instead of taxing people with problems, just because they have problems, why not offer them some help?

The money from the fat tax could be used to help them, in the same way that money from tobacco taxation is used to campaign against smoking.

0 Replies

Grand Duke wrote:

Sozobe - similar to how some smokers develop cancer at 35, and some smoke until they die of old age at 85 with just a slight cough?

Person B will not pay as much 'Fat Tax' as person A, fair enough. But who ever said taxation was fair?

I believe that the majority of overweight people are there because they eat too much and exercise too little. There are exceptions to every rule, but in the minority in the case IMO.

Sad to say, some individuals develop lung cancer and have never smoked. There is a molecular reason for this, too. Cool

Cool

0 Replies

Grand duke, you're argument, like your nicotine-stained lungs, is full of holes.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Secondly, STATISTICS LIE. I guarantee that there is a way to frame a statistical analysis that would actually show how smokers SAVE money for the system.

Of course there is. See Thomas' comments above. The average smoker doesn't live as long. That means they collect less social security and don't use medicare as long.

0 Replies

fishin' I did see what Thomas wrote. His post wasn't up when I started my post. In the few minutes it took me to write mine, three others had posted before me! Smile

Smile

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

kickycan wrote:
Secondly, STATISTICS LIE. I guarantee that there is a way to frame a statistical analysis that would actually show how smokers SAVE money for the system.

Of course there is. See Thomas' comments above. The average smoker doesn't live as long. That means they collect less social security and don't use medicare as long.

But is this medically correct. What about all the medical care/treatment extended to the cancer patient during the last 2-5 years of their life?

How about hospice care? This is expensive, especially if the patient stays at home during the terminal stages of their disease. Cool

Cool

0 Replies

Miller, this is exactly the point. You can make statistics say anything. Get it?

0 Replies

Re: Is it time for a 'Fat Tax'?

Thomas wrote:

Because we actually help the economy by dying earlier, thereby reducing the strain on the Social Security budget. Even our impact on medical costs is probably favorable. Obesity makes otherwise healthy people get sick more often, but it also make sick people die earlier. The first part of this increases healthcare costs, the last part decreases them -- especially because less obese people reach old age, when medical costs are highest. The net impact of both effects could go either way in principle; in practice, all the studies I have seen say that the net effect is to reduce costs.

So being obese is a good thing? So why do the government health agencies, doctors, dieticians and nutritionists campaign for healthy eating?

Quote:

So my answer is that the premise of your question is simply incorrect. There is no good reason to tax fat, except for the never-ending desire of puritanism to wag its bony index fingers and tell everyone what to do.

I have no desire to tell people what to do. I just believe, as is suggested by what I have read, that people making a conscious decision to become unhealthily overweight should pay more than those who don't, in the same way as smokers do already.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

First of all, taxes shouldn't be used to penalize a person's lifestyle.

Why, if it ends up costing the rest of society?

Quote:

You are so used to them doing it to you, that you end up falling right into the trap of thinking "Well, if they're doing it to me, then what about those guys over there!", which is perfect for the scum of the earth who just love to tax and tax and tax. When the hell is this crap going to end?

Who ever said taxes were fair?

Quote:

Secondly, STATISTICS LIE. I guarantee that there is a way to frame a statistical analysis that would actually show how smokers SAVE money for the system.

I've heard that one before, and it may be true, I honestly don't know. But it doesn't stop them from taxing tobacco, booze, fuel etc etc.

Quote:

Don't believe this crap.

Which crap?

0 Replies

One of the rationales for taxing, say, cigarettes is to discourage consumption. I would assume the same rationale would exist for taxing double cheeseburgers.

Not saying I advocate this, but this rationale should be taken into account. It's not just to "punish" the user or to raise money for the gov't...

0 Replies

Related Topics

Immortality and Doctor Volkov - Discussion by edgarblythe

Sleep Paralysis - Discussion by Nick Ashley

On the edge and toppling off.... - Discussion by Izzie

Surgery--Again - Discussion by Roberta

PTSD, is it caused by a blow to the head? - Question by Rickoshay75

Healthy Local Community Farming Issues - Discussion by RexRed

Just how clean are these Restaurant’s you dine in? - Discussion by jcboy

Should the Day After Pill be allowed as a over the counter drug? - Discussion by tsarstepan

I want to know about medicines for sexual dysfunctions ? - Question by ibot1980

How/why did bread and milk become "evil" foods? - Question by boomerang

THE GIRL IS ILL - Discussion by Setanta

Forums
» Is it time for a 'Fat Tax'?

1
2
3
4
5
Next

Read Discussion
Reply to All

Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/05/2025 at 03:59:39

▲ ▼