1
   

Is it time for a 'Fat Tax'?

 
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 03:43 pm
Craven, what about your idea about having a national sales tax? I think you're playing devil's (or dwarfy's) advocate?
0 Replies
 
Portal Star
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 03:54 pm
Grand Duke wrote:
Actually, I have one last point.

If Thomas wants to eat what he wants because he enjoys it, fine. He's obviously an educated man making a conscious decision (judging by the strength of his argument).

But what about the less-well-educated members of society? They eat crappy foods because they know no better. Why are there seat-belt laws? To protect those who won't protect themselves. Maybe this should be applied to food as well?


Making aware is different than enforcing/rewarding healthy eating habits. The government already requires nutrition information and warning labels. If people are too stupid to pay attention to labels then they'll be too stupid to care about why they are being taxed/benefited.

Also, note that the government's money doesn't belong to the government. It is the money of the people of that nation.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 03:57 pm
kickycan wrote:
Craven, what about your idea about having a national sales tax? I think you're playing devil's (or dwarfy's) advocate?


The exclusive sales tax is a pipe dream of mine. I'd equate the idea to my other utopian ideals that I don't really suggest an implementation effort for.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 04:02 pm
Okay, then (and I am sure I'll end up banging my head in frustration, but what the hell) I challenge you to explain what you mean by your statement that the sole purpose of taxes is social engineering.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 04:09 pm
I've no intention to argue it if it's disagreed with but what are laws, public programs, government etc if not social engineering?

For example, the tax money that goes to upholding law ot to public education or to after school programs is going toward social engineering is it not?
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 04:16 pm
Those are social constructs that are necessary as a foundation of any civilized society. What I meant by social engineering was trying to steer people's personal choices by monetary reward or punishment.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 04:19 pm
I suspect what you mean was "social engineering that I do not consider worthwhile".

Because your above statement still covers things you agree with:

"What I meant by social engineering was trying to steer people's personal choices by monetary reward or punishment."

e.g. parking tickets? ;-)
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 04:32 pm
Aaah, but parking tickets are not the same as taxes, are they?

No, I meant that there are certain things that we need in order to survive as a civilization. Schools, laws, etc. And I meant that I don't want the government deciding which personal choices it's citizenry makes on the basis of what the government thinks is worthwhile.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 04:36 pm
Either way the position needs to be far more nuanced and less rigidly principled than your initial assertion (which is typical of just about any rigidly principled statement).

For example, your latest statement basically says that if it's popular it should be implemented, changing the principle from avoidance of social engineering to the fundamentals of democracy. <shrugs>

Anywho, I gotta go.
0 Replies
 
Relative
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 04:41 pm
The best we can do is to tax intelligence. Everyone will want to pay more than their friends Wink
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2004 05:12 am
Hmmm - junk food here attracts a GST since the GST was introduced. Fresh food does not. There are some anomalies - and it sure makes it hard for the food purveyors sometimes.

I don't know if it has made a difference. Perhaps too early to tell.
0 Replies
 
Grand Duke
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2004 05:58 am
Re: Is it time for a 'Fat Tax'?
jespah wrote:
Are these statements really necessary (the ones I bolded, above)?


I deliberately used evocative language because I had thought the general interest in my question would be luke-warm at best. It was obviously unnecessary, and if posting the question again I would chose differently. Embarrassed

jespah wrote:
I get you when it comes to taxing junk food. Hey, go for it... Yes, fewer calories tend to ensure that you are slimmer. But which calories do you cut out? Advice is conflicting.... All of these ideas have been thrown out there. Which is right? Which works? The answer, of course, is that it depends. Some ideas work for some people, others work for others.


It occured to me on the way home from work (the reason my posts' stopped) that the dietary benefits are not just purely fat or calorie-based, but also in the form of vitamins and minerals, which appear to be lacking in fast-food, and to be found in abundance in vegetables, fruit & fish. There is also the matter of excessive salt in fast-foods, which is low in healthy foods. Anyone, fat or thin, benefits from vitamins.

jespah wrote:
How about, instead of blaming these people, scientists work on some way to help them.


This could be funded by the increased revenue from the 'fat taxes', in the same way that tobacco tax could/should be used to research cancer cures etc.

jespah wrote:
So why isn't there something that's safer that people can do to help themselves with this extremely difficult task?


Anyone, fat or thin, would benefit from eating less junk-food and more fruit & vegetables. I've never said that this is a cure-all, just a possible remedy to a growing problem.

jespah wrote:
Another thing, yes, you can't turn on the TV without getting a bunch of nutritional advice.


This has been mentioned above (by Thomas I believe). Nutritional advice is generally lacking on British TV, so perhaps the US can teach us something after all! :wink:
0 Replies
 
Grand Duke
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2004 06:01 am
D'artagnan wrote:
...but it still comes down to the same issue:

Should junk food/fast food be taxed (at some level) to discourage consumption?


Thanks again for managing to summarise my question so succintly, irrespective of your personal viewpoint. Smile
0 Replies
 
Grand Duke
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2004 06:10 am
Thomas wrote:
I refuse to adopt a victim's mentality about my obesity and pretend it's all other people's fault.


I applaud your refreshing attitude. There's a mention in this BBC story http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3501512.stm about the 'Cheesburger Bill', which shows that others are not of the same mind as you. Coming as it did from America (the birthplace of ridiculous law-suits) I was pleased to hear that the government has recognised at least part of this problem and is trying to at least stop it in some areas of law.
0 Replies
 
Grand Duke
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2004 06:14 am
Portal Star wrote:
If people are too stupid to pay attention to labels then they'll be too stupid to care about why they are being taxed/benefited.


If it works and healthy eating increases, does it matter if they care or not?

Portal Star wrote:
Also, note that the government's money doesn't belong to the government. It is the money of the people of that nation.


Yes, and it can be used by the government to at least attempt to solve the nation's problems i.e. obesity.
0 Replies
 
Grand Duke
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2004 06:26 am
dlowan wrote:
Hmmm - junk food here attracts a GST since the GST was introduced. Fresh food does not. There are some anomalies - and it sure makes it hard for the food purveyors sometimes.

I don't know if it has made a difference. Perhaps too early to tell.


We've had 'Value Added Tax' (VAT) here since the early 70's. Basically, it is charged on prepared foods (as well as services and most non-food goods) but not on 'staple foods' (and medicines, children's clothes etc).

VAT is therefore paid on cakes, chocolate, frozen pizza, alcohol etc, but not on dried pasta, rice, bread, vegetables, fruit, basic dairy products etc.

Where it falls short of encouraging healthy eating is that it is always charged on services (which includes restaurants). A salad in a restaurant therefore is taxed the same as a pizza in the same restaurant. A pre-prepared salad bowl in the chiller cabinet at the supermarket is also taxed, but the ingredients (if bought seperately) are not.

It was not introduced to encourage healthy eating, but as a nifty way for HM Government to raise a shed-load more tax income, and staples foods, medicine, children's clothes etc were only exempted to avoid unfairly punishing lower-income families toomuch. It is currently charged at 17.5%.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2004 07:22 am
Grand Duke wrote:
Portal Star wrote:
If people are too stupid to pay attention to labels then they'll be too stupid to care about why they are being taxed/benefited.


If it works and healthy eating increases, does it matter if they care or not?

It would matter to me. I'd be paying higher taxes, and in return, I'd receive something I don't care about, as you yourself assume in your question. Sounds like a lousy deal, and I don't want to be forced into lousy deals by legislation.

Grand Duke wrote:
Portal Star wrote:
Also, note that the government's money doesn't belong to the government. It is the money of the people of that nation.

Yes, and it can be used by the government to at least attempt to solve the nation's problems i.e. obesity.

It isn't a problem worth solving for obese people, judging by our observed unwillingness to solve it for ourselves. I don't only refuse to blame my obesity on other people, I also refuse to have my life fixed by other people against my will.
0 Replies
 
Grand Duke
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2004 08:37 am
Thomas wrote:
Grand Duke wrote:
Portal Star wrote:
If people are too stupid to pay attention to labels then they'll be too stupid to care about why they are being taxed/benefited.


If it works and healthy eating increases, does it matter if they care or not?

It would matter to me. I'd be paying higher taxes, and in return, I'd receive something I don't care about, as you yourself assume in your question. Sounds like a lousy deal, and I don't want to be forced into lousy deals by legislation.


My comment was in response to Portal Star's statement that 'stupid' people wouldn't care why they were paying more for junk food. In that context, I stand by what I said. In your case I freely admit that it does not work, as you are obviously intelligent, understand the labels, and choose to eat what you want anyway, so my comment does not apply to you, or indeed anyone else who doesn't fall into Portal Star's 'stupid' category.

I'll come back to your second point later.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2004 08:55 am
Grand Duke wrote:
so my comment does not apply to you, or indeed anyone else who doesn't fall into Portal Star's 'stupid' category.

I understand that, and I stand by my response as well. If they don't care, they don't care. It doesn't make a difference whether the reason for their not caring is stupidity or conscious indifference. Stupid or not, your suggestion is an improvement only if it gives people their money's worth on their extra taxes. People presumably care about the extra taxes they have to pay, but you have assumed yourself that they don't care about what they are getting. Therefore the tax is a loss for them, no matter if the people being taxed are stupid or not.

I'll repeat what I said earlier: The proper response to stupidity is education, not taxation.

Another argument would be that the stupidity argument cuts both ways. I'm sure you can find stupid people who'd like to eat more and work out less, would do so if they were well informed, but don't do it because NIH flyers and glitzy magazines have scared them into a low calorie, high excercise lifestyle. Why should we account for people who're too fat because they're stupid, but not for people who're too fit because they're stupid?
0 Replies
 
husker
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2004 09:51 am
ouch! sorry in advance
http://mattsbits.com/fatshower.jpg
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
THE GIRL IS ILL - Discussion by Setanta
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/24/2024 at 03:08:18