News The philosophy behind the Fat Tax

[J77]

It would be a good thing to increase the price of fast food, ie. to make people think twice before eating it.

Especially for kids, all this junk you can buy for under a euro, pound, dollar...

imo, it's not a lack of education which makes people buy this stuff. It's that they can get a cheap meal for themselves and their kids, or the kids can get a cheap meal with their mates.

Either tho', the stuff they're buying is junk.

Increasing price by creating a 'Fat Tax' is a bad way of doing it tho'

 

[Art]

Why not have an annual weigh in and charge people an 'excess' tax for each lb they are overweight? And while we're at it why not measure people too and tax people for being too tall as they are more prone to back problems. And of course we should tax people for being poor as poor people suffer worse health than wealthy people. And to catch those who manage to covertly live a high risk lifestyle their estates should be taxed if a person dies prematurely.

And yes I am being facetious.

 

[StarkRavingMad]

Well, I've been predicting this for years. What's really at issue is the basic question of whether or not we should, as a deterrent, tax people for making poor choices in their lifestyle. We have done this with smoking and alcohol, and in the case of seat belts and motorcycle helmets, we have passed laws. The logic that follows is inescapable: This should apply to all poor choices that can lead to costs to society.

I'm curious if you think that's a good thing for a bad thing.

 

[Zantra]

This is a slippery slope, it just has a lower degree of incline, making it harder to see. First of all, you can't tax unhealthy food without it affecting everyone. Sure, the fat guy pays a lot of money, but what about the normal guy who wants a bag of chips or candy bar now and again? So he should pay more for the food because another person can't control their eating habits? Unlike smoking, everyone eats bad foods- it's a matter of quantity, so unlike smoking, it affects everyone. Incentives for healthy behavior are the way to go, not punishments for unhealthy behavior.

Ultimately people who participate in unhealthy behaviors do so with full knowledge of the consequences of their actions. In some ways the social context of legal or illegal, has little bearing on it. It's the same as with weed, ciggarettes, alcohol, or anything else. People will partake regardless of implications. If someone wants to do something badly enough, no law or tax will curtail their behavior. And someone who is obese has psychological issues most times. It's not a physical disorder. Food to them is like any other drug. And like any other addict, they will get their fix regardless of censure. They have to want to change. The only one to benefit from a fat tax is the U.S. government. It's another excuse to generate revenue by exploiting habits of consumers. It's not a fix. A REAL fix needs to be made at the root cause. Find some way to force healthy behaviors. Mandatory exercise. And correlate the amount of excercise with caloric consumption. This will deter someone from overeating if they know they have to run 5 miles when they finish.

All things in moderation

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not seeing it. I've needed pictures drawn out for me all day though.

I don't have time to read the rest of the thread to see if anyone pointed it out, but it isn't a slippery slope because:

Adding more crutches for the shirking of personal responsibility will go on a case by case basis under the same logic.

and the criteria (the logic alluded to above) for deciding what is Constitutional and what is not is:

Since, unlike with smoking, fatty food can be eaten without damaging your health, I suspect this one won't fly.

 

[Evo]

I think a misconception is that the majority of fat people got that way by eating junk food. The majority of fat people are fat because they eat too much of normal food. Yes, there are exceptions, but it's mainly portion size coupled with a sedentary lifestyle. Ever see a family of fat people eating? Four helpings of mashed potatoes loaded with butter then swimming in gravy, a half dozen biscuits slathered with butter, fried foods, huge portions of meat. There is no junk food on the table. Then they roll onto the couch and watch 6 hours of tv before going to bed.

Reminds me that in Italy, there is a tax on tv sets, you pay according to the number of sets you own. I'm not talking sales tax, I'm referring to a continuing tax.

 

[Pengwuino]

I don't have time to read the rest of the thread to see if anyone pointed it out, but it isn't a slippery slope because:

You know that will never fly

 

[Bladibla]

The comparison of fat tax to violent films or rap music should not be made. There is no evidence that violent films or rap music can physically cause discomfort for the watcher, or make them become potentially murderous and so on. Heck I've watched a LOT of violent films, and yet I am here, discussing this subject.

On the other hand, Obesity ACTUALLY does give bad physique and health. People don't realize that the obesity tax is for their own good. Again, the comparison doesn't work for the other 2 examples as there is no overwhelming evidence that watching/listening to violent movies/ rap music is bad. I think the tax is as appropriate as the government raising the prices of cigarettes to encourage people to stop smoking.

 

[Pengwuino]

The comparison of fat tax to violent films or rap music should not be made. There is no evidence that violent films or rap music can physically cause discomfort for the watcher, or make them become potentially murderous and so on. Heck I've watched a LOT of violent films, and yet I am here, discussing this subject.

I'll have to call you on that one...

http://www.apa.org/releases/videogames.html Let's just pretend violent video games were included because that's not much of a stretch from violent music adn violent TV.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051012082710.htm

http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/160/4/341 It would be interesting to find the full report on this one

 

[Bladibla]

I'll have to call you on that one...

I'll look for the studies that i remember showing links.

It doesn't matter. The two cases simply cannot be compared to obesity, where there is a direct physical manisfestion of your increased rate of consumption of junk food/ normal food/ whatever (doesn't matter as long as your fat as a result of it) The other 2 examples on the other hand do not show direct influence into a increase in crime rate or anything like that, or rather, you don't suddenly go psychpathic after watching thre movie 'psycho' which clearly is a violent movie, but quite a acclaimed one at that. Obesity on the other hand, has a direct increase in the cholestrol level in your body, which increases the chances of a heart attack and whatever bad things.

To put it another way: If I ate Mcdonalds for non-stop a month, there isn't a 'chance' I will go fat; I will most definately become fat. The same, no matter what evidence you put. cannot be said for violent movies or rap music. Any data you put in is a matter of coincidence, or even if true, is so litle of indication of the universal effect of the examples you have mentioned.

I'd say that obesity tax is a good idea.

 

[Pengwuino]

No matter what evidence i put? Well that's all i need to hear to know not to waste anymore time.

 

[Bladibla]

No matter what evidence i put? Well that's all i need to hear to know not to waste anymore time.

I am saying that the examples you have given, even if 'evidence' is present, is speculation. Sure, They may be true, but as I said before, They do not represent a definite conclusion that such-and-such will definately become violent as a result of watching violent movies/ play violent games etc. However, Obesity, You WILL get fat if you eat too much; its not something you can discuss about.

 

[Pengwuino]

I am saying that the examples you have given, even if 'evidence' is present, is speculation. Sure, They may be true, but as I said before, They do not represent a definite conclusion that such-and-such will definately become violent as a result of watching violent movies/ play violent games etc. However, Obesity, You WILL get fat if you eat too much; its not something you can discuss about.

So basically any evidence that doesn't support your conclusion is speculative even if it was done to the same standards as your own conclusion's evidence was done at. Great.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is something that could help greatly in controlling incorrect eating behavior.

A company in Cheshire is designing a futuristic toilet which can monitor human waste and spot health problems.

At the first sign of a medical condition, the Versatile Interactive Pan (VIP) would contact a GP via the internet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1433904.stm

We could tax people directly based on the toilet results.

Here's one for Uncle Sam!

 

[Pengwuino]

We could tax people directly based on the toilet results.

"Yes Mr. Thompson, we called you in because you're toilet readings have shown that you're a goldfish. We must inform your HMO of this."

 

[BobG]

I think a misconception is that the majority of fat people got that way by eating junk food. The majority of fat people are fat because they eat too much of normal food. Yes, there are exceptions, but it's mainly portion size coupled with a sedentary lifestyle. Ever see a family of fat people eating? Four helpings of mashed potatoes loaded with butter then swimming in gravy, a half dozen biscuits slathered with butter, fried foods, huge portions of meat. There is no junk food on the table. Then they roll onto the couch and watch 6 hours of tv before going to bed.

Reminds me that in Italy, there is a tax on tv sets, you pay according to the number of sets you own. I'm not talking sales tax, I'm referring to a continuing tax.

I agree. Living on junk food will cause a person to suffer malnutrition. Obesity is caused by eating more food, period, than a person burns off. Best option (if possible) is to stay active enough that you don't have to worry about how much you eat.

On the other hand, I'm not sure how many Italians actually pay the TV tax. When my sister and her husband lived in Italy for around a year, the other Americans were advising them not to pay the tax, "No one pays the TV tax." Being a little hesitant to be a foreigner charged with tax evasion, they dutifully went down to the office to file the paper work for their TVs and to find out how much they had to pay. It turned into a two day wait in the waiting room (they got to go home when the office closed, but had to wait again the next day). Considering the advice they had been given and how long they had to wait, the only thing they could conclude is that no one truly did pay the tax - the office must have had to go hire a new employee when someone shocked the office by actually trying to pay the tax.

Of course, then again, standing in line to pay taxes is an Italian past time, second only to soccer. In fact, heaven would be a tax line with a TV showing a soccer game.

 

[Bladibla]

So basically any evidence that doesn't support your conclusion is speculative even if it was done to the same standards as your own conclusion's evidence was done at. Great.

Don't put words into my mouth. The point is the examples you gave and obesity CAN'T have the same 'standards' as you put it. Tell me, Is there any evidence where a person consistently watches a violent movie/ listening to rap WILL become violent? Are you kidding?

Fatness on the other hand, As I have said TWICE before, is inevitable If you eat too much. There is no '30% of people who eat Mcdonalds for a month will go fat' rather, its a 100%!

The examples you gave are just out of context.

 

[Pengwuino]

Are you kidding me? Ever heard of exercising?

 

[Bladibla]

Are you kidding me? Ever heard of exercising?

Well obviously a lot of people have not, otherwise there wouldn't be this issue of discussing the introduction of OBESITY TAX. A government wouldn't suggest such if everyone, according to your logic, went to exercise to get off the extra weight gained from eating Mcdonalds/BK whatever.

 

[Gokul43201]

Don't put words into my mouth. The point is the examples you gave and obesity CAN'T have the same 'standards' as you put it. Tell me, Is there any evidence where a person consistently watches a violent movie/ listening to rap WILL become violent? Are you kidding?

Peng's links were all about video games, where I can easily imagine it leading to aggressive tendencies because it is an interactive first person experience, unlike watching the TV or listening to music. He hasn't given any evidence yet, to support the effects of watching TV or listening to rap. I do however think there have been studies of the effects of violence in TV as well. Don't remember the conclusions.

Fatness on the other hand, As I have said TWICE before, is inevitable If you eat too much. There is no '30% of people who eat Mcdonalds for a month will go fat' rather, its a 100%!

I don't believe that. I know someone that ate lunch at Mcdonald's 6 days a week for well over a month, and he's underweight (and was at that time). But even if true, do you only tax people that eat at McDonald's for a month in a row. What if I eat there once a month? Do I pay a flat tax, a small fraction of the maxiimum tax or no tax at all? How do you calculate a tax for a person with some general distribution of meals at McDonald's?

 

[Pengwuino]

Well obviously a lot of people have not, otherwise there wouldn't be this issue of discussing the introduction of OBESITY TAX. A government wouldn't suggest such if everyone, according to your logic, went to exercise to get off the extra weight gained from eating Mcdonalds/BK whatever.

And how is that logic wrong? The only reason they want to introduce it is to keep health care costs low by trying to stop people from becoming too fat. If everyone is off excercising and not filling up emergency rooms, what's the point of the tax? What in the world is going on here?

 

[Gokul43201]

And how is that logic wrong? The only reason they want to introduce it is to keep health care costs low by trying to stop people from becoming too fat.

It's more than just keeping healthcare costs low. It's about not having Joe pay for the effects of Bob eating 10 hot dogs a day. It's about maximizing the productivity of your citizenry by penalizing unhealthiness. It's about allowing doctors to worry less about hurt you willingly cause yourself and more about people with illnesses that are not that easily prevented by simple measures.

 

[Bladibla]

Peng's links were all about video games, where I can easily imagine it leading to aggressive tendencies because it is an interactive first person experience, unlike watching the TV or listening to music. He hasn't given any evidence yet, to support the effects of watching TV or listening to rap. I do however think there have been studies of the effects of violence in TV as well. Don't remember the conclusions.

I don't believe that. I know someone that ate lunch at Mcdonald's 6 days a week for well over a month, and he's underweight (and was at that time). But even if true, do you only tax people that eat at McDonald's for a month in a row. What if I eat there once a month? Do I pay a flat tax, a small fraction of the maxiimum tax or no tax at all? How do you calculate a tax for a person with some general distribution of meals at McDonald's?

Ah, but what you imagine and what is reality is not the same. As I said before, there is no looky obvious conclusions as to whether violent video games player or a rap listener would become violent. Uncultured, perhaps, but I can't mentally and physically tell apart a person who has been playing such violent video games and one that has not. Sure there will be SOME, but as I said before, It does not represent the majority.

As for your claim on Mcdonalds, I only said month for examples sake. I could easily say 2 months, 3 months, heck, even a year would suffice.

As for Tax calculation; I would propose to have a weight measure on the entrance of every resteraunt recognized as 'fatty'. Then, restrctions for each age goup would be made, i.e. anyone this age above this weight cannot eat from our resteraunt.

 

[Pengwuino]

http://clearinghouse.missouriwestern.edu/manuscripts/56.asp

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/1999/E/199904508.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040326073459.htm

I'm sure we'd need to see the actual reports though...

 

[Bladibla]

And how is that logic wrong? The only reason they want to introduce it is to keep health care costs low by trying to stop people from becoming too fat. If everyone is off excercising and not filling up emergency rooms, what's the point of the tax? What in the world is going on here?

Because people can't be forced to exercise! or at least, not for the moment (Heck, I'll support a exercise policy for obese people with/or the obesity tax) You have just answered you're own question. Because people aren't 'off-exercising' and instead become too fat for their own good, that's why they, the government, are thinking of this new obesity tax!

 

[Pengwuino]

It's more than just keeping healthcare costs low. It's about not having Joe pay for the effects of Bob eating 10 hot dogs a day. It's about maximizing the productivity of your citizenry by penalizing unhealthiness. It's about allowing doctors to worry less about hurt you willingly cause yourself and more about people with illnesses that are not that easily prevented by simple measures.

If you read the next line and the line i was responding to, it would make sense. If people excercised this food off, these problems would NOT be enough to warrant a tax on unhealthy food.

 

[Bladibla]

If you read the next line and the line i was responding to, it would make sense. If people excercised this food off, these problems would NOT be enough to warrant a tax on unhealthy food.

IF people did.

 

[Pengwuino]

Because people can't be forced to exercise! or at least, not for the moment (Heck, I'll support a exercise policy for obese people with/or the obesity tax) You have just answered you're own question. Because people aren't 'off-exercising' and instead become too fat for their own good, that's why they, the government, are thinking of this new obesity tax!

Yes we all know that! But you said:

Fatness on the other hand, As I have said TWICE before, is inevitable If you eat too much. There is no '30% of people who eat Mcdonalds for a month will go fat' rather, its a 100%!

Then i proceed to say that it is NOT inevitable just like you said its NOT inevitable that people will become violent watching violent video games. Then you come in with this...

Well obviously a lot of people have not, otherwise there wouldn't be this issue of discussing the introduction of OBESITY TAX. A government wouldn't suggest such if everyone, according to your logic, went to exercise to get off the extra weight gained from eating Mcdonalds/BK whatever.

and somehow my insane idea that people can exercise and that it IS a reasonable comparison gets thrown out the window as you go off on god knows what tangent.

 

[Pengwuino]

IF people did.

YES and that's the point! IT IS a reasonable comparison! Not everyone who goes to mcdonalds will become fat just like not everyone who watches violent games or movies or whatever will become violent! That is ALL I am saying. My appologizes if i starting going off somewhere else but THAT is my 1 single point: It IS a reasonable comparison.

 

[Bladibla]

YES and that's the point! IT IS a reasonable comparison! Not everyone who goes to mcdonalds will become fat just like not everyone who watches violent games or movies or whatever will become violent! That is ALL I am saying. My appologizes if i starting going off somewhere else but THAT is my 1 single point: It IS a reasonable comparison.

NO, it is not a reasonable comparison! My point about people WILL become fat if they eat too much does NOT by any means, stretch only to Mcdonalds; I mean it with every food that is consumed too much!

Lets just say for arguments sake, that we'll put outside factors into your examples as well, as you have put 'exercise' with mine. Given outside circumstances, Of course it is likely that not every person who eats too much or, if put outside circumstances, not every person who plays too much, will become fat/ violent!

But then what is the point of this thread? The point is despite this fact, the situation has become worst enough for the government to suggest fat tax! The existence of the thread itself points that your examples are out of context! There is no excess of violent people due to video games and violent movies, and we are not discussing about putting a tax on them, are we?