Unhealthy Foods Tax ??? What say you ?

opinion guy

There's a couple of threads going right now about fat people - the one about the fat guy on the plane and the one about the formerly fat girl who lost all the weight and now is a very skinny girl (ba-dum tsch!)

Anyhow, this set me thinking. First off, yes there are medical reasons that some people can get this big - hormonal disturbances and so on, but by and large lets assume that the majority of obesity is down to the eating too much, not walking enough type garden variety obesity.

What should the government do about it ?

One idea is a fat-tax - i.e. or lets say an unhealthy food tax to be more precise. Place a tax on food that has a certain amount of an unhealthy ingredient. I mean why not, after all Ireland has plastic bag taxes and outlawed smoking in public places, why not, in this time of recession, take the lead in this area too.

What I would propose is this:
a) An independent body of experts to decide whats unhealthy food.
b) A total tax of 20% on those foods, no tax on unhealthy foods.
c) That 20% be split into 10% on the consumer price and 10% on all profits made by food companies selling the unhealthy foods. This has two aims: 1) to make unhealthy foods more expensive relative to healthy foods and incentivise people to buy health and 2) to make it in companies interests to change to healthy ingredients in foods so they can make more profits. Percentages can be adjusted as fits the market.

Less obesity problems, more tax income, less health problems in the long run. Everyones a winner, no ?

orourkeda

ah here

Chicken balls and whoppers are the way to go

Dudess

Not sure. But I think there should definitely be a "People making themselves feel better by looking down on others" tax.

Senna

I think bread, milk etc are taxed at 13.5% and chocolate, soft drinks, ready meals, processed foods etc are at 21.5%.

Tipsy Mac

We could all get weighed every year and then get a calorie allowance per week of what we are allowed to eat, if you go over this you pay a 41% tax :rolleyes:.

Peoples health is their own business, the younger someone dies the less money the state has to pay in pensions and medical bills.

Ickle Magoo

Would there be tax breaks for chocolatiers and the like?

It's a good idea except like alcohol and cigarettes, those that want to indulge will do so & go without something else so I don't think it would be very effective against the obesity epidemic...sorry.

jumpguy

I say yes - if it's on ingredients. Will force companies to research healthier alternative ingredients to try and reduce the tax on their products.

104494431

People can get fat while eating healthy food too...

Also, your post/thread is stupid.

Borneo Fnctn

I really think the government should not go down this road.

opinion guy

Senna wrote: »

I think bread, milk etc are taxed at 13.5% and chocolate, soft drinks, ready meals, processed foods etc are at 21.5%.

I was all set to argue with you but i went and looked it up and you are kinda right but not quite. Stables are 0% and other stuff at 13.5 and 21.5:

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/vat/leaflets/food-and-drink.html

Didn't know that. Anyhow its a bit arbitrary thou. I mean yogurts are at 21.5 and they are fairly healthy. Why not put a bit of science in it and jack up the prices on the really ****ty stuff like CocaCola ?

username4321

I know in practice this would never work but how about pricing food according to calorie count?
I.e apple 65cent crisps 1.30 etc.. apples have 65 calories(..or so, don't quote me) and crisps about 130.

Would make dieting easier and cheaper, dis-advantaged fat people whose excuse was that they could't afford healthy stuff would have no excuse!!

Intothesea

Given the usual type of response I'd say a new tax would have us denying ourselves all fresh food to spite the greedy government and give us a new topic to armchair rage about, in between stuffing down American-import twinkies :pac: Extra tax plus active populace education rigorous enough to undo an approach shaped by a thousand years of eating for heavy labour on farmland might just have a chance.

orourkeda

Damn I'm hungry reading this thread. I think i'll make a pepperoni pizza and order a chinese

dr.bollocko

We don't need a nanny state to tell us what to eat.
And we really really don't need a nanny state that doesn't know what's actually healthy telling us what to eat. We'll all be vegans by the end of the 10's. Because most nutritional information that is commonly held fact these days is in fact complete and total, and I want to be really clear about this, bullshit.

galwayrush

Stop giving those fools in the Dail any more Taxable ideas.:mad:

Top Dog

opinion guy wrote: »

Less obesity problems, more tax income, less health problems in the long run. Everyones a winner, no ?

Have you SEEN our current taoiseach and minister for health at all? :pac:

Daroxtar

Fuck Tax.

The Thing!

opinion guy wrote: »

There's a couple of threads going right now about fat people - the one about the fat guy on the plane and the one about the formerly fat girl who lost all the weight and now is a very skinny girl (ba-dum tsch!)

Anyhow, this set me thinking. First off, yes there are medical reasons that some people can get this big - hormonal disturbances and so on, but by and large lets assume that the majority of obesity is down to the eating too much, not walking enough type garden variety obesity.

What should the government do about it ?

One idea is a fat-tax - i.e. or lets say an unhealthy food tax to be more precise. Place a tax on food that has a certain amount of an unhealthy ingredient. I mean why not, after all Ireland has plastic bag taxes and outlawed smoking in public places, why not, in this time of recession, take the lead in this area too.

What I would propose is this:
a) An independent body of experts to decide whats unhealthy food.
b) A total tax of 20% on those foods, no tax on unhealthy foods.
c) That 20% be split into 10% on the consumer price and 10% on all profits made by food companies selling the unhealthy foods. This has two aims: 1) to make unhealthy foods more expensive relative to healthy foods and incentivise people to buy health and 2) to make it in companies interests to change to healthy ingredients in foods so they can make more profits. Percentages can be adjusted as fits the market.

Less obesity problems, more tax income, less health problems in the long run. Everyones a winner, no ?

What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What?

WHAT!!!!!

Why do you assume that the government should do anything about it? They shouldn't even be allowed to do anything about it. Can't there be one thing that the government don't interfere with? 99.9999% of the time, the answer to the question "what should the government do about it?" is absolutely nothing.

starbelgrade

Tax on tobacco goes with up almost every budget - it has f*ck all effect on the amount of cigarettes smoked, except to encourage the huge black market we have on tabacco in Ireland due to the significant profits to be made from it & money saved by buying them. Not to mention the money the state pays on policing & prosecuting those selling illegal fags.

Bring in a fat tax & you'll be buying cheap, dodgy batter burgers down side alleys, tax free.

Now, an ugly tax - that's a different story altogether. (Watch out Cowen!)

ScumLord

Why not just tax large clothes that way only fat people suffer.

El_Dangeroso

opinion guy wrote: »

a) An independent body of experts to decide whats unhealthy food.

Thank you, I haven't laughed like that in a long time..:D

Here are some of the sponsors of the American Dietetic Association, the so called independent body of experts in America:

Mars
Kellogg's
Coca-cola
Pepsi
Unilever

stovelid

Dudess wrote: »

Not sure. But I think there should definitely be a "People making themselves feel better by looking down on others" tax.

Wouldn't work. Half of AH would have to go on the game or mug pensioners just to cover weekly login costs.

K-Ren

Only if Brian Cowen's stomach is taxed too.

starbelgrade

ScumLord wrote: »

Why not just tax large clothes that way only fat people suffer.

The retailers should do this anyway - I don't see why I should pay the same price for a medium size, when an XXL is the same price & clearly uses a lot more material.

starbelgrade

stovelid wrote: »

Wouldn't work. Half of AH would have to go on the game or mug pensioners just to cover weekly login costs.

Get off your high horse.

starbelgrade

K-Ren wrote: »

Only if Brian Cowen's stomach is taxed too.

It's already taxed on a daily basis.

Intothesea

dr.bollocko wrote: »

We don't need a nanny state to tell us what to eat.

In the case where no-one is independently responsible for their own health-care, I think it makes sense to try to direct the public away from 7-days-a-week fry-ups and corn-syrup items, for example. America is a great example of what happens when individuals must foot their own treatment bills -- free reign for anyone to make a fast buck selling you cheap hydrogenated fat, corn syrup instead of sugar and huge portions of high carb (unbalanced food).

The public lap it up because they're getting a good deal and are highly uneducated about food. The diabetes rate in the US leaves a lot of other countries standing, and no one is going to pick up your health tab when you're in trouble (poorer people subsisting on this stuff generally don't have health insurance). In your lifetime you've funded crap-merchants and the silent government and ended up sick, after which your quick demise will keep costs down. America makes a nanny-state look very good :pac:

Spore

opinion guy wrote: »

but by and large

tee hee
/fail reply

dr.bollocko

Intothesea wrote: »

In the case where no-one is independently responsible for their own health-care, I think it makes sense to try to direct the public away from 7-days-a-week fry-ups and corn-syrup items, for example. America is a great example of what happens when individuals must foot their own treatment bills -- free reign for anyone to make a fast buck selling you cheap hydrogenated fat, corn syrup instead of sugar and huge portions of high carb (unbalanced food).

But government subsidisation of corn in the states has resulted in a huge jump in americans' consumption of high fructose corn syrup.
It's gone from 0.6 pounds in the 70's to 60 pounds per year per American today. Also the US government pressured the fast food industry in the 70's to switch to trans fats because they thought it was the heart healthy option. And yeah. Trans fats suddenly are bad for you. 30 years ago? A-O-motherfeckin-K. 30 years from now? Who even knows.

The Thing!

Intothesea wrote: »

In the case where no-one is independently responsible for their own health-care, I think it makes sense to try to direct the public away from 7-days-a-week fry-ups and corn-syrup items, for example. America is a great example of what happens when individuals must foot their own treatment bills -- free reign for anyone to make a fast buck selling you cheap hydrogenated fat, corn syrup instead of sugar and huge portions of high carb (unbalanced food).

The public lap it up because they're getting a good deal and are highly uneducated about food. The diabetes rate in the US leaves a lot of other countries standing, and no one is going to pick up your health tab when you're in trouble (poorer people subsisting on this stuff generally don't have health insurance). In your lifetime you've funded crap-merchants and the silent government and ended up sick, after which your quick demise will keep costs down. America makes a nanny-state look very good :pac:

I really hope that your opinion is in the smallest minority possible. The idea that somebody would actually willingly submit to a nanny state is sickening to me. People are perfectly able to decide what they want for themselves, they do not need the government to look over their shoulder or direct them in any way whatsoever. If people want to eat unhealthy food, let them. The free market is the only system that allows prices to go where they want without interference from a government whice assumes to know what's best for everyone. What one person wants could be diametrically opposed to what the next person wants, and to attempt to direct both of these people towards one thing is wrong because both are right in their own choices.

Lia_lia

Just...no.

starbelgrade

The Thing! wrote: »

I really hope that your opinion is in the smallest minority possible. The idea that somebody would actually willingly submit to a nanny state is sickening to me. People are perfectly able to decide what they want for themselves, they do not need the government to look over their shoulder or direct them in any way whatsoever. If people want to eat unhealthy food, let them.

There are some instances when a bit of government policy is helpful - like the school dinners in the UK which Jamie Oliver helped to change.

kowloon

Barring the obvious issue of giving the government more control over anything I can see a huge amount of problems with this.

Who decides whats healthy? How does something that was previously unhealthy get listed healthy again? (the government aren't going to give up the revenue)

While I expect fast food would be taxed heavily, what about expensive resteraunts that serve food equally as unhealthy? I doubt they will be hit.

A food might be unhealthy when eaten all the time, but good in small amounts. Taxes will negatively affect the variety of food people eat.

etc.

Intothesea

dr.bollocko wrote: »

But government subsidisation of corn in the states has resulted in a huge jump in americans' consumption of high fructose corn syrup.

The American government okayed this initially for maximum profit margins but as the damaging effects for insulin production came to light over time they made no moves to change the approach. Not just silent but also deadly

Also the US government pressured the fast food industry in the 70's to switch to trans fats because they thought it was the heart healthy option. And yeah. Trans fats suddenly are bad for you. 30 years ago? A-O-motherfeckin-K. 30 years from now? Who even knows.

Too right, it's a slow learning game. Governments are shooting for damage limitation with new information, but maybe they'd overall be better off pushing what we all know and tend to forget, natural and unprocessed is most likely better than any type of processing.

The Pontiac

Senna wrote: »

I think bread, milk etc are taxed at 13.5% and chocolate, soft drinks, ready meals, processed foods etc are at 21.5%.

Bread and Milk have 0% Vat, as does meat, veg, tea, sugar etc., they are all classed as necessity items. The 13.5% rate applies to cakes, biscuits etc. The 21% rate applies to luxury items - chocolate, yogurt, ready made meals, soft drinks etc.

104494431 wrote: »

People can get fat while eating healthy food too...

Also, your post/thread is stupid.

People that never smoked can also get cancer. Seriously, I don't think I'd be in favour of a 'fat tax' as most of these items (not all though) are on the higher VAT rate anyway. I think making people aware is enough, and it's their own choice after that. I'm in favour of a VAT reduction on beer and sprits, so I'd only be contradicting myself..

Intothesea

The Thing! wrote: »

I really hope that your opinion is in the smallest minority possible. The idea that somebody would actually willingly submit to a nanny state is sickening to me. People are perfectly able to decide what they want for themselves, they do not need the government to look over their shoulder or direct them in any way whatsoever. If people want to eat unhealthy food, let them. The free market is the only system that allows prices to go where they want without interference from a government whice assumes to know what's best for everyone. What one person wants could be diametrically opposed to what the next person wants, and to attempt to direct both of these people towards one thing is wrong because both are right in their own choices.

Sickening? Don't put too fine a point on it there :pac: I'd recommend living in America to illuminate the reasons for my view-point (which by no means is nanny-state loving). At the brass-tax line a government advising people on how not to meet with health disaster is in your (and their) best interests when the system is closed and you are liable for funding the results of other peoples' choices. Good advice doled out by a government agency on your behalf doesn't equate to a nanny state as long as you can still do what you like

Overheal

I'd vote for it, but only if the taxes were matched with subsidies to healthier foods ie. vegetables etc.

starbelgrade

Overheal wrote: »

I'd vote for it, but only if the taxes were matched with subsidies to healthier foods ie. vegetables etc.

Make vegetables cheaper so we can deep fry them in batter.