Denmarks Fat Tax

Instead of a fat tax, I have an alternative proposal.

Labour camps.

Think about it, it makes a lot of sense. They’re super fat so they need to exercise etc, but aren’t bothered, they eat crap and don’t try to make the change, so force both on them - They have to do manual labour while living in a camp with other fat people, all food and meals are supplied, and obviously they’re healthy. Give them kcal ration vouchers, so they can only eat up to a certain level - it would necessitate them being stamped with ID numbers to prevent the smaller, weaker fat guys having them robbed off them used by the alpha-fatties.

They get skinny, we extract value thru their production and if planned right, the costs of housing and feeding them is offset by the stuff the produce. You could even incentivize it so the more they produce, the more they get to eat (and then they learn thru that that kcal intake should be tracked against kcal expenditure). I really don’t see why this proposal hasn’t been adopted yet.

Those FGers want to do this here too. That condescending idiot Dr. James Reilly was all over the radio with his soundbites trying to sound like Winston Fvcking Churchill.

Bottom line, if you agree with this then you don't understand free will, and you deserve whatever they come for next. Additional taxation hasn't worked for cigarettes, it hasn't worked for alcohol, and you can be sure it won't work for sugar either. People will still be overweight and obese they'll just be a little poorer and overweight and obese and the government will be scratching their heads wondering what went wrong and pump more good money into the healthcare system, or maybe come for red meat next.

This is just another patronising step away from freedom of choice. People won't make good choices anymore because they won't understand how to choose. It's tyranny in the name of "health". You want to know how this is going without seeing the taxation first? Walk into any branch of McDonalds and see how many people are ordering one of their salads. I bet you could eat 8 Big Mac meals before someone did. You could cut the price of a salad by 3/4 and it'd still be the case.

To think this is a good idea, you'd essentially have to forget everything the human race has learned about itself in the last 80 years. But if they do bring it in, they'll have plenty of support from the middle class twits of the year who love to talk about how lazy everyone else is and how their children just love the taste of courgettes. Why my Fuinneog doesn't know what a burger looks like whaw whaw whaw whaw.

We should resist this with all of what's left of our democratic rights. No government has the right to tell you what not to eat or drink, or to set their price. But who am I kidding, this will fly through in the name of "Health".

King of Kings wrote: »

joe higgins? is that you?

Yes muahahahahaha.

An less drastic alternative would be a "this is ****" lable on offending foods.

That hasn't worked on cigarettes. Y'know, I'm fairly sure that those guys who start smoking might have got wind of the bad press. I'm also pretty sure that people who consume highly processed foods and drinks might have heard some sort of vague whispers in the wind that they shouldn't be doing too much of it.

BBC3 had a somewhat humerous series on what was in food - the name escapes me as I rant - but nonetheless the standard of what legallly can pass for food is shockingly low - in fact it's was (imo) morally low.

Yes and this comes to the real nub of the issue. Rather than penalising and patronising consumers, why not control and regulate the industries better? Why not regulate the advertising? Advertising for so-called "health" foods is preposterous, trying to appeal to people's fear of illness with some low fat cardboard that's full of additives.

I think legislation to ensure quality ingrediants would be a first step and may solve a whole lot of problems with the nations health.

The food industry works in reverse. Rather than going out and asking the consumer what they want to eat, they look at the worldwide market and see what barely edible substance is cheap and abundant. Then they go to the labs in massive corporations like Nestlé and say "make me a food out of this stuff". Some stuff like corn and soy is pretty unpalatable in it's raw form, so through extreme processing they manage to render a sweet and unhealthy substance such as HFCS which can then be used in foods.

The second stage is adding value to foods already in existence. Chicken, well that's expensive and no one "owns" chicken per sé, but if we grind this non-breast meat up, add some more corn (see where this is going?), additives, salt... oh lots of salt... and cover it in a breadcrumb (not actually made from bread) then we have a chicken-like product that we can market under our own name and that it will take the rest of the companies another 6 months to make a copycat product of; essentially we will own the market in crunchy-bready-chicken-crap for 6 months, and if we brand it right, we may even get the product named after us colloquially no matter who manufactures it. (think Chicken Dippers, or Corn Flakes, or Fruit Corners)

Now you can say "oh but you don't HAVE to buy this stuff" and of course, you're right. But the problem is that this stuff can be frozen, cooked from frozen with little danger, takes minutes to prepare and has been scientifically designed to be palatable from the crunch, to the mouthfeel, and to the taste of course. This means that your kids will eat it with less fuss than having to chew a normal chicken breast, you can pop it in the oven while you're doing your ironing or the homework, you have little to no preparation time, and you have your family fed within 20 minutes. That all appeals to people who have little or no free time... the working parents who are collecting from childcare or school and only have 20 minutes, or who are heading out to work a nightshift, or who just don't know any better because they've missed out on the opportunities that the kind of person who has time to post on internet forums has had.

Do I think this is always the case? No. Obviously some people are lazy and most people eat this stuff with full knowledge of what it is but just don't change their habits. Will making it more expensive help? No, not at all. But telling food companies that they cannot market food to kids might help, that they can't mislead the consumer with promises of health or "added omega 3" (the latest fad).

Sorry for the long post but this is a particular bee in my bonnet.

As a tax payer I'm upset at the cost of obseity (and smoking ) .
by all means - let them have freedom to fill their bodies with ****e but allow me the freedom to refuse to pay for the consequences.

As am I. Even if the taxation was direct (ie. it went directly to combating obesity) then essentially I'll be paying for someone else's healthcare directly. It's not like the direct taxation on cigarettes which went straight to lung cancer care, since I don't smoke, I never paid for that. I do however, like the odd tub of Ben and Jerry's, and I like biscuits, and chocolate. I also enjoy chocolate.

columok wrote: »

Presumably its a levy Barry to offset the perceived cost of the poor health choice. Thats the supposed mechanism of smoking taxation.

Edit: And since you've edited your post. How would you propose to pay for the public healthcare impact from someone making a stoopid life choice? I'm not arguing pro-taxation btw- just that I think this kind of direct taxation is part and parcel of a public healthcare system.

Yes and I would agree if it wasn't for the fact that it's not a direct tax on a bad lifestyle choice. The coke I decide to have after training and eating well all day will be subject to the same levy as the 2 litre of coke someone consumes every day. I am entitled to eat what I wish without additional levies in the name of health. And I don't wish to pay for obesity care at all to be frank, though I recognise that I will have to and am currently.

How about instead of paying for healthcare, we invest €1bn in a ground up effort to fund free basic cookery classes, and subsidised or even free-to-rent local markets for producers (there's enough empty town centre buildings).

Much of the current issues are due to the fact that this is pretty much the second generation of convenience food consumers. In the 1980s, jars and packs of food and ready-meals were new to the Irish market. Mothers didn't know they were a poor substitute for food for the most part, they just knew they saved time and their kids liked to eat the stuff. So this is the first generation that hasn't had a history of mothers passing cooking tips and tricks to their daughters (and, to a lesser extent, sons) and some 20 odd year olds today may never have had the experience of seeing their mothers prepare a meal from the form of raw meat, herbs, spices, unpeeled veg, to a dinner. That's a huge cultural impact.

Where does the €1bn come from? I don't know. But it seems to me to be a better idea to invest money in something that will have a positive impact then once again returning to the pockets and shopping bills of those people who have nothing left to give.