fat tax ?? yes or no

jamiecoins

okay so us smokers altho we know it can kill us we choose to still smoke and pay high prices okay maybe the price is so high to deter younger people from buying ?its my choice to smoke nobody is forcing me too smoke . prices are nearly tripple hear than in spain germany etc

so people who have obesity . they chose to eat in most cases some people suffer mental problem comfort eat due to issues and it spirals

im just wondering why is there not a fat tax to keep the younger people healthier as in the way i assume the price of ciggs are so high to deter the youth, why isnt a pack of cookies hit with 100 tax as us smokers are ?

even drinkers . liver problems etc alcahilism is a big fact but yet a can is easily bought for 1 euro or less why isnt beer 3 euro a can ?

dont get me wrong i smoke i drink i eat

whats your opinions on this ??

all non smokers dont have a only one sided arguement

**Timbuk2**

Things like cigarettes and alcohol don't have many close substitutes, so even if the tax increases, people will still buy them.

Things likes cookies have lots of substitutes (if cookies has a high tax, I can buy biscuits, etc.) so taxing types of food heavily will just cause people to buy other types of food, as opposed to preventing from people from buying fattening/unhealthy foods.

starbelgrade

jamiecoins wrote: »

in most cases some people suffer mental problem comfort eat due to issues and it spirals

If the government combined mental hospitals with Fat Camps, there'd be no more obesity or mental health problems in the country.

According to your logic anyway.

westendgirlie

What about a thin tax for the 'stick the finger down the throat types'? They require a broad range of medical help to get better?

jamiecoins

starbelgrade wrote: »

If the government combined mental hospitals with Fat Camps, there'd be no more obesity or mental health problems in the country.

According to your logic anyway.

no i meant that some obese people suffer from problems a loss of a loved one and begin comfort eating . im not saying all obese people have mental issues

InkSlinger67

*Checks centre of body is less than 37 inches with measuring tape according to the ad before posting*

Yes......yes, I agree.

Hasmunch

Ok up on the scales fatty, let see 15 stone.. that'll be 500 euro please. Now off to mcdonalds with you.

jamiecoins

westendgirlie wrote: »

What about a thin tax for the 'stick the finger down the throat types'? They require a broad range of medical help to get better?

people who smoke drink eat too much or eat too little require medical help im not knocking any illness im just asking do you think its right to tax the bee jesus out of ciggarettes and not other thing that can ruin your health

MungBean

So I cant afford cookies now because your pissed off at the price of fags and want to tax food to make it fair ?

jamiecoins

MungBean wrote: »

So I cant afford cookies now because your pissed off at the price of fags and want to tax food to make it fair ?

lets say for instance your a drinker the price of a pint goes up to 6 euro beacause of teenage drinking and the original price of beer andthe health issues associated with over drinking how would u feel about that ?

starbelgrade

jamiecoins wrote: »

do you think its right to tax the bee jesus out of ciggarettes and not other thing that can ruin your health

The logic behind taxing cigarettes highly is that they will cause you harm - that is a certainty.

Fatty foods won't do you any harm unless you eat too much of them, so it's unfair for everyone to pay a punative tax on something they enjoy occasionally because some people don't watch what they eat.

By the same token however, taxing anything - including cigarettes - rarely has the effect it is supposed to have & the government - instead of trying to treat adults like kids, would be better off doing something more important than taxing stuff in the vain hope that it will solve a problem.

TheZohanS

We should have a poor people tax, those ****ers pay less in taxes as it is and they cost taxpayers a lot of money.

We should also bring in a sick people tax, who the hell do they think they are costing the state money by being sick.

We should have a stupid persons tax, they are more accident prone and aren't high earners so they cost the state more.


I could go on...

Beau

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

so taxing types of food heavily will just cause people to buy other types of food, as opposed to preventing from people from buying fattening/unhealthy foods.

That's the point! You'd presume cookies and biscuits would be taxed the same and ppl would move to healthier snacks.

jam_mac_jam

Hmm I think a sugar tax would be a better idea, esp in this country. Although I dont think it would make any difference. Many make veg cheaper?

The Agogo

Yes, especially on transport and footpaths. Some fatties should really be paying motor tax as I'm sure there are cars out there lighter than them.

Otherwise, society might become like the Dodo. The bird that was too fat to fly. I think we all know what happened to them.

westendgirlie

jamiecoins wrote: »

people who smoke drink eat too much or eat too little require medical help im not knocking any illness im just asking do you think its right to tax the bee jesus out of ciggarettes and not other thing that can ruin your health

It's all a money making scam. The government concerned about the publics health? TeeHee

If it wasn't about the revenue, cigarettes would of been banned many moons ago. This tax on sugar (that's the plan isn't it?) Will cover a larger range of people not just those overweight.

MungBean

jamiecoins wrote: »

lets say for instance your a drinker the price of a pint goes up to 6 euro beacause of teenage drinking and the original price of beer andthe health issues associated with over drinking how would u feel about that ?

Well I'd rather those problems were tackled rather than upping the tax intake to cover for it. Another euro on a pint does nothing for those issues.

jamiecoins

starbelgrade wrote: »

The logic behind taxing cigarettes highly is that they will cause you harm - that is a certainty.

Fatty foods won't do you any harm unless you eat too much of them, so it's unfair for everyone to pay a punative tax on something they enjoy occasionally because some people don't watch what they eat.

By the same token however, taxing anything - including cigarettes - rarely has the effect it is supposed to have & the government - instead of trying to treat adults like kids, would be better off doing something more important than taxing stuff in the vain hope that it will solve a problem.

ok i can see your logic in this , why isnt all the extra revune then used for anti smoking campaigns in schools etc ?

would you agree to a tax for morbid obesive people?

as your saying smokin even little will affect your health

so a morbid obese person lets say 40 stone extreme health issues should be taxed at mcdonalds for eating fatty foods that will obviously affect there health

Jul3s

jamiecoins wrote: »

okay so us smokers altho we know it can kill us we choose to still smoke and pay high prices okay maybe the price is so high to deter younger people from buying ?its my choice to smoke nobody is forcing me too smoke . prices are nearly tripple hear than in spain germany etc

so people who have obesity . they chose to eat in most cases some people suffer mental problem comfort eat due to issues and it spirals

im just wondering why is there not a fat tax to keep the younger people healthier as in the way i assume the price of ciggs are so high to deter the youth, why isnt a pack of cookies hit with 100 tax as us smokers are ?

even drinkers . liver problems etc alcahilism is a big fact but yet a can is easily bought for 1 euro or less why isnt beer 3 euro a can ?

dont get me wrong i smoke i drink i eat

whats your opinions on this ??

all non smokers dont have a only one sided arguement

I'd be more in favour of a tax on stupid people who refuse to use punctuation, becuase it hurts my eyes and makes baby Jesus cry.

jamiecoins

Jul3s wrote: »

I'd be more in favour of a tax on stupid people who refuse to use punctuation, becuase it hurts my eyes and makes baby Jesus cry.

so should there be a tax on text langauge aswell?
dat wuld b gr8

jamiecoins

MungBean wrote: »

Well I'd rather those problems were tackled rather than upping the tax intake to cover for it. Another euro on a pint does nothing for those issues.

exactly so why tax ciggarettes in that way ?

Bodhidharma

A fat tax would disproportionatley affect poorer people because their food is generally of lower quality and higher in calories. People who find it hard to get by shouldn't be taxed because they cant afford to eat properly.

The Agogo

Bodhidharma wrote: »

A fat tax would disproportionatley affect poorer people because their food is generally of lower quality and higher in calories. People who find it hard to get by shouldn't be taxed because they cant afford to eat properly.

Can you back that up? To put it on it has to go in.

TheZohanS

Bodhidharma wrote: »

A fat tax would disproportionatley affect poorer people because their food is generally of lower quality and higher in calories. People who find it hard to get by shouldn't be taxed because they cant afford to eat properly.

Will you stop with your common sense, this thread is a fattie hate thread.


No healthcare should be free, it should be survival of the fittest. Healthcare should cost everyone €2k p/a.

If you look after yourself you won't get sick so you won't need healthcare. If you're sick it's your own fault so you should have to pay through the nose for it and if you can't afford it then you're poor and we don't want people who can't afford healthcare getting handouts.

MungBean

jamiecoins wrote: »

exactly so why tax ciggarettes in that way ?

Because they are a money maker for the state, if you dont wanna pay it then dont smoke. They stuck the tax up to stop people smoking, realised people will pay anything and thats where we are now.

Fag and alcohol are not the same as food. You cant drive up food prices and expect it to sting only the obese who eat too much.

starbelgrade

jamiecoins wrote: »

ok i can see your logic in this , why isnt all the extra revune then used for anti smoking campaigns in schools etc ?

would you agree to a tax for morbid obesive people?

as your saying smokin even little will affect your health

so a morbid obese person lets say 40 stone extreme health issues should be taxed at mcdonalds for eating fatty foods that will obviously affect there health

If governments were actually concerned about people's health, then they would subsidise the cost of healthy foods rather than subsidising the unhealthy ones.

But that doesn't make economic sense and money is more important than people.

Bodhidharma

The Agogo wrote: »

Can you back that up? To put it on it has to go in.

Yes I can, Engels law states that as income increases people spend proportionatley less on food. The inverse of that is people with less income spend a larger proportion of it on food. People with less to spend on food will try to get the best value for money (not health), therefor high calorific content in a food (chips and sausages, ready meals etc) is desirable.

Jul3s

jamiecoins wrote: »

so should there be a tax on text langauge aswell?
dat wuld b gr8

No point in taxing them, they don't have n e monies, de shud b shot.

jamiecoins

MungBean wrote: »

Because they are a money maker for the state, if you dont wanna pay it then dont smoke. They stuck the tax up to stop people smoking, realised people will pay anything and thats where we are now.

Fag and alcohol are not the same as food. You cant drive up food prices and expect it to sting only the obese who eat too much.

so thats saying they hike up alchahol prices to stop people drinking they will realise that drinkers will pay anything also ?

they put the price of a pint up to 9 euro will people pay it?

Chuck Stone

Gulags for fatties.

jamiecoins

Bodhidharma wrote: »

Yes I can, Engels law states that as income increases people spend proportionatley less on food. The inverse of that is people with less income spend a larger proportion of it on food. People with less to spend on food will try to get the best value for money (not health), therefor high calorific content in a food (chips and sausages, ready meals etc) is desirable.

so the solution ? cut prices on healtier food ?
fruit veg etc? increase the cost on pre packed calorie exploding food ?

Spunge

But what sort of food would fall into this ?

Calorie dense ? So anything like peanut butter, nuts, cheese, milk etc

The Agogo

Bodhidharma wrote: »

Yes I can, Engels law states that as income increases people spend proportionatley less on food. The inverse of that is people with less income spend a larger proportion of it on food. People with less to spend on food will try to get the best value for money (not health), therefor high calorific content in a food (chips and sausages, ready meals etc) is desirable.

I would have put ready meals in the category of time-consumed people. Not the ones without money. I can think of more fat rich people than fat poor ones. I don't think Engels Law can give an accurate answer to this question.

jamiecoins

in my original post

smokers taxed beacuse of health issues

so why are there not mad taxes for obese people etc ?

Spunge

jamiecoins wrote: »

in my original post

smokers taxed beacuse of health issues

so why are there not mad taxes for obese people etc ?

I think we should just ban food.

Bodhidharma

jamiecoins wrote: »

so the solution ? cut prices on healtier food ?
fruit veg etc? increase the cost on pre packed calorie exploding food ?

Who said there was a solution? Ideally a government would subsidise the production of organic food and distribute it to the poor along with a nutritionist and a chef.

Poor people will only be able to buy poor food. Poor food generally equals fatter people. Taxing that wont make people less fat, it'll just lead to an increasingly cheap diet.

The Agogo

jamiecoins wrote: »

in my original post

smokers taxed beacuse of health issues

so why are there not mad taxes for obese people etc ?

To answer that question, I'd say you'd have to look at the obvious. Cigarettes and Alcohol are not needed for humans to survive. Food is needed. Taxing food could do more worse than good.

An appropriate solution would be education, and possibly what the German's do...mandatory army service for a year after school graduation. Teaching citizens to be healthy and respecting to others.

Hasmunch

Its cookie monster i feel sorry for

jamiecoins

Spunge wrote: »

I think we should just ban food.

so should we ban whiskey beacause most alcaholic people drink it and it contributes to liver diseas etc?

MungBean

jamiecoins wrote: »

so thats saying they hike up alchahol prices to stop people drinking they will realise that drinkers will pay anything also ?

they put the price of a pint up to 9 euro will people pay it?

Alcohol is a fundamental part of our society, fags are expensive habits on the way to be weeded out. The price rises on alcohol is not to stop people drinking but to make people drink more responsibly.

jamiecoins

MungBean wrote: »

Alcohol is a fundamental part of our society, fags are expensive habits on the way to be weeded out. The price rises on alcohol is not to stop people drinking but to make people drink more responsibly.

so eating is also apart of our society , so your saying alcohol prices increase due to make people responsible

so for obese people abusing food your more or less stating increase prices of fatty food to make people more responsible with over eating leading to health issues?

HazDanz

Isn't it a bit depressing that fat tax is now seen as a viable idea. I would have laughed a decade ago at the idea but know i'm warming to it.

Dudess

jamiecoins wrote: »

in my original post

smokers taxed beacuse of health issues

so why are there not mad taxes for obese people etc ?

It was answered. Putting taxes on unhealthy foods punishes anyone at all who eats them, not just obese people, and that includes slim people who only have the odd treat, and slim people who are on low incomes.
It's not possible to apply such a tax to only obese people.

TheyKnowMyIP

Dudess wrote: »

It was answered. Putting taxes on unhealthy foods punishes anyone at all who eats them, not just obese people, and that includes slim people who only have the odd treat, and slim people who are on low incomes.
It's not possible to apply such a tax to only obese people.

By definition, if you are slim, you should at least in theory have a higher income than the fatties. What, with all that money going on cakes and pies:pac:

Dudess

HazDanz wrote: »

Isn't it a bit depressing that fat tax is now seen as a viable idea. I would have laughed a decade ago at the idea but know i'm warming to it.

What I find grim is the way gastric band surgery is on the up, and weight-loss via it is viewed as an achievement in the same way as weight-loss the healthy way is. It's a really drastic and dangerous last resort ffs!

TheyKnowMyIP

Dudess wrote: »

What I find grim is the way gastric band surgery is on the up, and weight-loss via it is viewed as an achievement in the same way as weight-loss the healthy way is. It's a really drastic and dangerous last resort ffs!

Profitable though. I don't think the medical card covers the cost, but I am open to correction. You don't profit by curing people ffs! It's all about "pain management" this and "take this for 6 months" that.

Cookie_Monster

Have a read through the health and Fitness Forum, fat is both necessary and good for you, though you may be surprised by that.

A junk food tax would be a better option, rather than simply a "fat" tax.

TheyKnowMyIP

I think we should ban oxygen at this point.

HazDanz

Dudess wrote: »

What I find grim is the way gastric band surgery is on the up, and weight-loss via it is viewed as an achievement in the same way as weight-loss the healthy way is. It's a really drastic and dangerous last resort ffs!

I guess the gastric band might be seen as a good long term investment? Save money on all those tedious gym memberships or personal trainers!

jamiecoins

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Have a read through the health and Fitness Forum, fat is both necessary and good for you, though you may be surprised by that.

A junk food tax would be a better option, rather than simply a "fat" tax.

i would agree with a junk food/ fast food tax:rolleyes:

The Scientician

As a big fatso, I'm at two minds about this. I'd prefer not to pay an extra tax (who would?) but I realise that my voluptuousness may well cost other tax payers more than their fair share. I just don't know how a 'fat tax' would be equitably levied. Perhaps a tax on sugary drinks would be a start, I dunno.

Eating is something we all have to do, drinking and smoking are largely as optional so it makes bestowing a sin tax on foods difficult.