Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Here it is, the world's first Fat Tax! Options · View
Guest
Posted: Friday, May 4, 2012 8:29:10 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 779,317
chefkathleen wrote:
Oh I see what you're getting at Mark. But the thing is, it's usually about the almighty dollar. And why not? Someone starts a business to make money. To make a living. If that's what sells, then that's what will be offered. Right or wrong that's how it happens.


Yeah sorry, I should have made it clearer, I was meaning opening new establishments not arguing about fastfood menus lol.......I need a lie-down after that lot, my brain hurts!
naughtiestmommy
Posted: Friday, May 4, 2012 9:34:35 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/26/2012
Posts: 197
Location: Coastal, United States
I have no problem with this at all. Consider our government. How many millions of dollars do we dole out every year for medicaid and medicare coverage to treat people whose ill health is directly related to their diet? Type 2 Diabetes rates have risen 6000% in the last 30 years, and in the 1950s only one in seven people were considered overweight, while now two out of every three fit that description, while our consumption of simple carbohydrate-based foods (which is also the cause of Type 2 in the majority of sufferers) has risen astronomically.

The government, frankly, needs (and owes it to healthy people) to recoup some of that money somehow.

.
.

I'm a loner, Dottie. A Rebel...
.
.

charmbrights
Posted: Saturday, May 5, 2012 3:02:33 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/2/2011
Posts: 192
Location: Tirphil, United Kingdom
naughtiestmommy wrote:
I have no problem with this at all. Consider our government. How many millions of dollars do we dole out every year for medicaid and medicare coverage to treat people whose ill health is directly related to their diet? Type 2 Diabetes rates have risen 6000% in the last 30 years, and in the 1950s only one in seven people were considered overweight, while now two out of every three fit that description, while our consumption of simple carbohydrate-based foods (which is also the cause of Type 2 in the majority of sufferers) has risen astronomically.

The government, frankly, needs (and owes it to healthy people) to recoup some of that money somehow.


You do realise that there are many people hurt in road accidents every year and that your argument applies equally to the concept of increasing taxes on vehicles and fuel? Would you "have no problem" with that?

News of ALL my novels (and where to get free copies) on charmbrights.webs.com/novels.htm.
LadyX
Posted: Saturday, May 5, 2012 9:42:38 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
charmbrights wrote:


You do realise that there are many people hurt in road accidents every year and that your argument applies equally to the concept of increasing taxes on vehicles and fuel? Would you "have no problem" with that?


Those taxes are already in place, and no, I have no problem with that. To take the analogy further: seat-belts, speed and traffic laws, and (in states that aren't insane) helmet laws are already in place, for the purpose of minimizing injury (and thus, collective costs to society) from such accidents. We don't, to this point however, have laws against foods that are essentially giant fat pellets.
lafayettemister
Posted: Saturday, May 5, 2012 9:55:35 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,494
Location: Alabama, United States
LadyX wrote:


Those taxes are already in place, and no, I have no problem with that. To take the analogy further: seat-belts, speed and traffic laws, and (in states that aren't insane) helmet laws are already in place, for the purpose of minimizing injury (and thus, collective costs to society) from such accidents. We don't, to this point however, have laws against foods that are essentially giant fat pellets.



You'll probaly hate this, but I think seatbelt and helmet laws are unnecessary and overstepping. If a moron wants to ride his Harley without a helmet and risk certain death or vegetatative state because he's too cool for a helmet, fine. It's none of the government's business. Thins out the gene pool of the idiots. Same with seatbelts (although i am ok with childseats and mandating that kids wear seatbelts since they aren't old enough to know for themselves)





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
LadyX
Posted: Saturday, May 5, 2012 10:06:53 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
LOL I'd have never guessed. Aside from (I guess) the cheap satisfaction of hoping stupid people die (?), all that really happens with the absence of these laws is an increase in society's tab for uninsured medical care.
lafayettemister
Posted: Saturday, May 5, 2012 10:17:37 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,494
Location: Alabama, United States
Nah. In most states you must have insurance to drive a car/motorcycle. People should wear seatbelts, it's the smart thing to do. But if we try to legislate intelligence we'll have a billion more unenforced laws.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
LadyX
Posted: Saturday, May 5, 2012 10:24:36 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
I was referring to lack of medical coverage, not auto insurance.
lafayettemister
Posted: Saturday, May 5, 2012 10:35:29 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,494
Location: Alabama, United States
LadyX wrote:
I was referring to lack of medical coverage, not auto insurance.


I know. But auto insurance covers injuries, especially when the driver is not at fault.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Guest
Posted: Saturday, May 5, 2012 4:01:23 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 779,317
So, for ages I thought this said 'the world's first fat TAXI' .....I just realised it says tax. Embarassed d'oh!

I have nothing to add to this conversation so I'll skip on out now.. fish
charmbrights
Posted: Sunday, May 6, 2012 2:37:32 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/2/2011
Posts: 192
Location: Tirphil, United Kingdom
lafayettemister wrote:
... If a moron wants to ride his Harley without a helmet and risk certain death or vegetatative state ...

Actually helmets reduce the number of deaths by protecting the skull, but they increase the number of vegetative or quadriplegic state patients, thereby increasing the health costs. This happens because modern helmets are heavy, and when the body stops rotating the helmet continues to rotate, causing spinal injuries. Death is a relatively cheap medical condition.

News of ALL my novels (and where to get free copies) on charmbrights.webs.com/novels.htm.
Guest
Posted: Sunday, May 6, 2012 4:41:20 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 779,317
lafayettemister wrote:


I know. But auto insurance covers injuries, especially when the driver is not at fault.


That's true but, it runs out very quick with the high price of caring for a person in a vegetative state. Or even one that's been rendered para or quadriplegic. The costs of the medical devices, medications, personal and just plain room and board can and usually do run into the millions. Very rarely does someone carry the kind of insurance that will sustain them through that and into a long extended life. They can live for years and years in those kinds of situations. If it would kill them quickly that would be one thing. It usually doesn't. So the state usually ends up footing the bill for Mr. Cool.
elitfromnorth
Posted: Monday, May 7, 2012 7:37:05 AM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,637
Location: Burrowed, Norway
Denmark has had bad eating habits since the dawn of time. How many other countries is it considered normal to go out to lunch and have a few beers and then go back to work? The amount of obesity there is startling. Personally I think the thought behind it is a good one; make healthy food cost less than unhealthy food. Since I'm not aware of how they tax food in general in Denmark I'll just put up an example from Norway.

We pay 25% tax on pretty much everything we buy, apart from food. That's 14% tax. And that goes for any food, it be full grain bread or just a piece of fat. One store chain has made a positive move; they have lowered the cost on fruit and veggies and food items that are labelled with a green keyhole(which means that it's considered healthy) so that the price is what you would pay if there was no tax on it all. I think this is the way to go. Money rules and if you can put tax on the unhealthy stuff while having no tax on the healthy stuff you suddenly end up having cheap healthy food and more expensive unhealthy food.

I think that is a good initiative. If you're gonna choose a lifestyle that will make you fat and unhealthy and later on be an extra cost for society in terms of medical bills, then why not pay for it? I smoke and if I don't quit it will give me health problems, but I'm already paying a whole lot of tax for my tobacco and I don't have a problem with that.

It's also down to that a lot of people want to pick the healthy option for their families, but they realise that if they're gonna put food on the table every day a box of fat peanutbutter and sugerheavy jam is a lot cheaper than fish and lean meat.

In the short; healthy choices should be cheaper than unhealthy choices.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
Milik_the_Red
Posted: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 5:53:29 AM

Rank: Internet Philosopher
Moderator

Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 5,880
Location: The Citadel of my mind , United States
People tend to categorize others especially when we feel superior to them. We don't mind taxing smokers. We don't mind taxing drinkers. I could see an argument for an unhealthy food tax based on that.

I wonder though, how many of us live our lives responsibly in all ways? If someone supports demonizing behavior and taxing people for it where does that end? Do we tax or punish those who make bad decisions that land them on welfare? Do we vilify and tax a woman who has children she cannot hope to support? At what point do we draw the line between defending personal freedom to be happy against the cost their behavior causes society. This seems a dangerously slippery slop to me.

Surely silence can sometimes be the most eloquent of replies
- Unknown
Buz
Posted: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 6:59:11 AM

Rank: The Linebacker
Moderator

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 10,171
Location: Atlanta, United States
Milik_The_Red wrote:
People tend to categorize others especially when we feel superior to them. We don't mind taxing smokers. We don't mind taxing drinkers. I could see an argument for an unhealthy food tax based on that.

I wonder though, how many of us live our lives responsibly in all ways? If someone supports demonizing behavior and taxing people for it where does that end? Do we tax or punish those who make bad decisions that land them on welfare? Do we vilify and tax a woman who has children she cannot hope to support? At what point do we draw the line between defending personal freedom to be happy against the cost their behavior causes society. This seems a dangerously slippery slop to me.


A good post.

I am one who opposes taxation on tobacco and alcohol. There is way too much government interference and control in our lives. Government is fat, very FAT and very CORRUPT! That's where the slimming down needs to take place. Eliminate MOST government agencies and return liberty & freedom to the people. Enact term limits of all elected officials in order to curb corruption.


Buz
Posted: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 6:59:20 AM

Rank: The Linebacker
Moderator

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 10,171
Location: Atlanta, United States
oops! Double posted.



Dirty_D
Posted: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 7:02:14 AM

Rank: Head Nurse
Moderator

Joined: 4/15/2011
Posts: 7,543
Location: Soaking up the sun, United States
chefkathleen wrote:


That's true but, it runs out very quick with the high price of caring for a person in a vegetative state. Or even one that's been rendered para or quadriplegic. The costs of the medical devices, medications, personal and just plain room and board can and usually do run into the millions. Very rarely does someone carry the kind of insurance that will sustain them through that and into a long extended life. They can live for years and years in those kinds of situations. If it would kill them quickly that would be one thing. It usually doesn't. So the state usually ends up footing the bill for Mr. Cool.



Our private pay residents pay $3000/month, & we aren't exactly the Hilton. (but I get great time off when I want :D)


lafayettemister
Posted: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 7:22:33 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,494
Location: Alabama, United States
Milik_The_Red wrote:
People tend to categorize others especially when we feel superior to them. We don't mind taxing smokers. We don't mind taxing drinkers. I could see an argument for an unhealthy food tax based on that.

I wonder though, how many of us live our lives responsibly in all ways? If someone supports demonizing behavior and taxing people for it where does that end? Do we tax or punish those who make bad decisions that land them on welfare? Do we vilify and tax a woman who has children she cannot hope to support? At what point do we draw the line between defending personal freedom to be happy against the cost their behavior causes society. This seems a dangerously slippery slop to me.


I have a couple major concerns with this tax.

1. This was never brought up by any group of nutritionists or dieticians who decided that there was a huge problem with obesity (not that I'd agree with that either). But was wholly developed by the Danish Tax Ministry. Purely as a money grab. What made them decide to focus on a fat tax? Market share of fatty products? If fruit had a larger market share, would they tax it? Fresh Produce Tax? As you said, what's next?

2. Almost every kind of food is dangerous if it's abused. Some people may only buy cheese and margarine in reasonable quantities. We all eat cheeseburgers, grilled cheese sandwiches, cheese on hotdogs, mac'n cheese. It seems unfair to tax "fat" foods because some people may over indulge. While I don't agree with sin taxes, i.e tobacco/alcohol taxes, those are more understandable. And not everyone uses those, and both are easily avoided. It's hard to cook without butter/oil/lard and whatever else may be on the list.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Milik_the_Red
Posted: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 4:34:07 PM

Rank: Internet Philosopher
Moderator

Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 5,880
Location: The Citadel of my mind , United States
This type of thinking makes me sad because even very thoughtful and level headed people can be tricked into allowing preconceived notions, unknown bias or even misused knowledge to focus so intently on the little issue (being fat is bad for the health) that they miss what is really happening.

What is truly happening is that our leaders are separating us into groups and then using the flaws in one group to make the others think them weak an unworthy. People should take a moment and consider what group they could be forced into before they decided to join the lynch mob.

History is filled with victims who never thought it would happen to them.

Surely silence can sometimes be the most eloquent of replies
- Unknown
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.