UK’s reaction to the problem. They might be on to something there…
UK tax’ project
Pity that was almost 3 years back and still nothings changed.
It’s a great idea though, in my opinion.
That is as stupid as a sin tax.
If i want to drink beer until I think I can dance the pants off of any chick in the club and then embarrass myself horribly with out ever remembering it, I should be able to with out the government charging me to do so.
If I ever decided to smoke, I should be able to do so with out a meddlesome gov’t making my decision more expensive.
And if I want to eat a hamburger prepared by McDonalds, I should be able to do so with out any additional tax.
Will they be over taxing high quality steak houses and high quality cuts of meat at the butcher?
Will ground beef now be more expensive than fresh fillet of salmon? Will fish oil supplements be taxed?
Will pre-packaged taquitos become delicacies due to a steep incline in price, replacing caviar at all the boring christmas parties?
Fucking ridiculous.
What is next? Will we be taxed for watching certain channels on TV? Putting on our pants before our shirts? exiting the bed on the left side instead of the right?
I’m beginning to understand how people decide to form and join militaristic, anti government militias.
I have mixed views on ‘sin’ taxes. If we lived in a vacuum and our actions didn’t affect others hugely, I’d be totally against them. But we don’t. The theory behind sin taxes is that the people engaging in behavior don’t internalize the cost. And others end up getting fucked over.
The added tax is designed to force them to internalize the cost. Behaviors like smoking affect society and nonsmokers greatly in a myriad of ways, not the least of which is financially via increased health care costs and other mechanisms.
[quote]rsg wrote:
Pity that was almost 3 years back and still nothings changed.
It’s a great idea though, in my opinion.[/quote]
There’s an obvious flaw, it’s mentioned in the article but I knew it as soon as I heard the proposal.
Whether or not people like to believe it there are some people who have to buy low quality food (which also tends to be unhealthy), because they are poor. The decision they have to make is either buy the cheap food or no food.
Food is not cheap in England and we should all know that it is significantly more expensive to eat healthy than to eat rubbish, I’ve done both so I know from experience.
If the powers that be really cared about the problems that a bad diet can cause why don’t they subsidise healthy food? If the result is supposed to save the health service so much money then surely this would be financially viable.
The reality is that taxing unhealthy food will not convert people to better diets, it’s likely that it will still be cheaper and more convenient than healthy food.
Rather than trying to solve the problem they are merely trying to recoup additional funds to cover the inevitable consequences.
Healthy food should be subsidized. Unhealthy food has been. So why not. If a diet of lean meats, fish, oils, oats, and fruits and veggies was realatively cheap and Frito Lay and burgers were more expensive, I think we’d all be better off.
I agree that if the government really cared about solving the problem, they would subsidize healthy food. Heck if they really cared we would have free universal health care.
But, to point to the quality of food as being the single most important factor in the huge obesity epidemic that the U.S. (and apparently Britain) is facing is foolish.
People don’t get obese simply from eating at Mcdonalds, or some other source of less than optimal nutrition. People get obese because of their lifestyle.
In other words lack of exercise/activity, stress, and/or excessive consumption of alcohol all play vital roles in obesity.
Also, it would be nice if we all really could do whatever we wanted (or at least it might seem like a good idea) and never have to worry about consequences or how we were affecting the world around us. However, that simply isn’t how things work.
Obesity (and smoking and drinking alcohol for that matter) has been linked with several diseases, Diabetes type 2 for one. Who do you think is going to pay the medical bills of all of the obese people in this country when they come down with Diabetes and are hospitalized?
It’s a “nice” thought to think that they would all be able to afford their own medical bills. But let’s face it, with the cost of health insurance these days, if they can’t afford to buy healthy food, what are the chances that they will be able to pay their medical bills?
So, who then has to foot the bill? You guessed it, the rest of us tax payers. And guess what, not only do are we going to have to pay for their medical bills, but our insurance is going to be raised as well, since the insurance companies want “insurance” that they don’t get fucked over either.
Now, if you taxed people for unhealthy lifestyles they would have to either
A) stop living that unhealthy lifestyle and live a more healthy one, which would probably end up making them happier in the long run anyway
or
B) have to endure the inconvenience of paying the tax. Heck if living that lifestyle means that much to them, they they shouldn’t mind right?
Good training,
Sentoguy
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Healthy food should be subsidized. Unhealthy food has been. So why not. If a diet of lean meats, fish, oils, oats, and fruits and veggies was realatively cheap and Frito Lay and burgers were more expensive, I think we’d all be better off.[/quote]
But it will never happen because government (like business) is concerned with perception not results (I’m sure there are exceptions). It doesn’t matter if they actually solve a problem as long as they can make it sound as though they have.
Luckily for them it seems that a good deal of the population share this outlook.
Option 1) Actually tackle the problem through education, subsidisation and a change of culture.
This would take significant resources, time and planning.
Option 2) Increase tax.
This just takes increasing the tax and collecting the money (something they do every year anyway). Less extra resources (for the government), less extra time as they already collect taxes they would just be collecting more and less planning than required for option 1.
Of course this is a simplified view as there would be knock on effects for both options.
For example if they taxed unhealthy food too aggressively it would have a negative effect on the economy which would result in less money being available to the treasury. Government needs businesses to succeed in order to survive so I don’t believe that they want the companies that benefit from the sale of unhealthy food to change or die.
Maybe I’m too cynical.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Healthy food should be subsidized. Unhealthy food has been. So why not. If a diet of lean meats, fish, oils, oats, and fruits and veggies was realatively cheap and Frito Lay and burgers were more expensive, I think we’d all be better off.[/quote]
Exactly. I’m a firm believer in that, coming from Canada because as you mentioned in your first post, we don’t live in a vacuum. That’s especially true here, and in any other country where healthcare is taken care of by the govt like England.
Add to that that virtually everything is subsidized here, so it’s not only feasable, it’s actually a good thing. Less tax money on better products.
Less tax money spent on people who can damn shut their piehole even to take a breather between meals, too
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
I agree that if the government really cared about solving the problem, they would subsidize healthy food. Heck if they really cared we would have free universal health care.
But, to point to the quality of food as being the single most important factor in the huge obesity epidemic that the U.S. (and apparently Britain) is facing is foolish.
People don’t get obese simply from eating at Mcdonalds, or some other source of less than optimal nutrition. People get obese because of their lifestyle.
In other words lack of exercise/activity, stress, and/or excessive consumption of alcohol all play vital roles in obesity.
Also, it would be nice if we all really could do whatever we wanted (or at least it might seem like a good idea) and never have to worry about consequences or how we were affecting the world around us. However, that simply isn’t how things work.
Obesity (and smoking and drinking alcohol for that matter) has been linked with several diseases, Diabetes type 2 for one. Who do you think is going to pay the medical bills of all of the obese people in this country when they come down with Diabetes and are hospitalized?
It’s a “nice” thought to think that they would all be able to afford their own medical bills. But let’s face it, with the cost of health insurance these days, if they can’t afford to buy healthy food, what are the chances that they will be able to pay their medical bills?
So, who then has to foot the bill? You guessed it, the rest of us tax payers. And guess what, not only do are we going to have to pay for their medical bills, but our insurance is going to be raised as well, since the insurance companies want “insurance” that they don’t get fucked over either.
Now, if you taxed people for unhealthy lifestyles they would have to either
A) stop living that unhealthy lifestyle and live a more healthy one, which would probably end up making them happier in the long run anyway
or
B) have to endure the inconvenience of paying the tax. Heck if living that lifestyle means that much to them, they they shouldn’t mind right?
Good training,
Sentoguy[/quote]
Or
C) have even more financial hardship resulting in more stress etc.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
But, to point to the quality of food as being the single most important factor in the huge obesity epidemic that the U.S. (and apparently Britain) is facing is foolish.
People don’t get obese simply from eating at Mcdonalds, or some other source of less than optimal nutrition. People get obese because of their lifestyle.
In other words lack of exercise/activity, stress, and/or excessive consumption of alcohol all play vital roles in obesity.
Also, it would be nice if we all really could do whatever we wanted (or at least it might seem like a good idea) and never have to worry about consequences or how we were affecting the world around us. However, that simply isn’t how things work.
[/quote]
Agreed, but let’s keep it real. Taxing something is easy, making these mountains of flaccid flesh move for the first time in their lives is quite another.
My libertarian side is all accord with what you said, that we should be free to eat what we want. Unfortunately my cheap bastard side is screaming when I see fat people at the Mickey D gorging themselves of fried cholesterol and blood vessels plugging food. Plus, taxing isn’t forbidding: it just makes it less tempting to indulge into.
For instances, Québec govt. taxed the hell out of tobacco products and forbid smoking in any public building. Many screamed and ranted, but smoking is way down now, lower than it’s ever been.
I’m sorry people who quit didn’t get educated and did this on their own, or for more valuable reasons, but I sure as hell like the fact that hanging in a bar won’t cause to breathe in 4 packs of cigarettes.
Hi Zen,
Yeah, I agree with you. Certainly the best case scenario would be to have people actually want to be active on their own (without having to be forced into it). But, let’s face it, giving them a little incentive (like taxing them for not doing so) is going to at least reduce the occurance of the problem.
I also understand what you mean about fat people gorging themselves at fast foot restaurants. I wasn’t trying to suggest that fast food wasn’t at all to blame for the obesity epidemic. Just that they aren’t solely to blame.
And you’re right taxing isn’t forbidding. Heck they’ve already raised the taxes on cigarettes here in the states, but people still continue to smoke. Now, if they raised them high enough, then maybe that would deter more people. If it worked in Quebec, maybe it would work here in the states. I don’t know.
Of course you’d get people bitching about it violating their rights or some crap like that. But in the long run the country would be better off.
Perhaps you’d get the same thing with obesity if you taxed that. Also, I’m not talking about taxing people who are only slightly over weight or only have high BMI’s. I’m talking about taxing people who are obese, or morbidly obese (excessively high body fat %).
Good training,
Sentoguy
[quote]IQ wrote:
Or
C) have even more financial hardship resulting in more stress etc.[/quote]
Which would be their choice. Sure, it might be tough, especially at the inception of the tax, because people would all of the sudden be getting penalized for a lifestyle that they’d been living for some time.
But, that should in theory give them even more incentive to stop living that lifestyle. Right? I mean, people don’t usually just up and change (themselves, their lifestyle, etc…). Usually it takes an epiphany, a tragedy, or a “rock bottom” to get them to change.
It’s amazing what you can do when you have no choice.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Hi Zen,
Yeah, I agree with you. Certainly the best case scenario would be to have people actually want to be active on their own (without having to be forced into it). But, let’s face it, giving them a little incentive (like taxing them for not doing so) is going to at least reduce the occurance of the problem.
I also understand what you mean about fat people gorging themselves at fast foot restaurants. I wasn’t trying to suggest that fast food wasn’t at all to blame for the obesity epidemic. Just that they aren’t solely to blame.
And you’re right taxing isn’t forbidding. Heck they’ve already raised the taxes on cigarettes here in the states, but people still continue to smoke. Now, if they raised them high enough, then maybe that would deter more people. If it worked in Quebec, maybe it would work here in the states. I don’t know.
Of course you’d get people bitching about it violating their rights or some crap like that. But in the long run the country would be better off.
Perhaps you’d get the same thing with obesity if you taxed that. Also, I’m not talking about taxing people who are only slightly over weight or only have high BMI’s. I’m talking about taxing people who are obese, or morbidly obese (excessively high body fat %).
Good training,
Sentoguy[/quote]
Hey Sento, good point. Only now you’re targeting individual instead of population. It won’t show too much on your wallet if you go to McD once a month, but to people who goes there every single day, that’ll be a world of difference. But they’ll save money by preparing food themselves.
Even if said food is costlier than junk, it’s still less expensive than restaurants 3/day, 7days/week, don’t you think? Whereas taxing them for being fat might indeed move them to lose weight, but not eat right, only less in most case. Three double quarter-pounders aren’t a big improvement on four, I dare to say.
You got to think also that we come from different system. Even medicare is a far cry from government-financed healthcare, so if you rage and rant at seeing where your tax dollars are headed, imagine me?
In any case, we all agree that the best way would be education, but people are very resistant to that, unfortunately. The downside of freedom is you’re free to make dumb choices, only we’re stuck in a system where people dumb choices are affecting us. Sad, but true. Hence why a bit of action from the part of our elected folks is sometime necessary. When they have the balls to, that is.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
IQ wrote:
Or
C) have even more financial hardship resulting in more stress etc.
Which would be their choice. Sure, it might be tough, especially at the inception of the tax, because people would all of the sudden be getting penalized for a lifestyle that they’d been living for some time.
But, that should in theory give them even more incentive to stop living that lifestyle. Right? I mean, people don’t usually just up and change (themselves, their lifestyle, etc…). Usually it takes an epiphany, a tragedy, or a “rock bottom” to get them to change.
It’s amazing what you can do when you have no choice.[/quote]
It would only be their choice if feeding their families with healthy food was an option.
Instead of making it cheaper to eat healthy foods they would make it unaffordable to eat adequately regardless of your food choices.
Imagine that your finances were completely exhausted on a monthly basis, now imagine that everything increased in price by 10%.
Would you be happy?
Would you see this as an exciting challenge with which to test your mental toughness?
There’s a difference between desperation and laziness.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
I have mixed views on ‘sin’ taxes. If we lived in a vacuum and our actions didn’t affect others hugely, I’d be totally against them. But we don’t. The theory behind sin taxes is that the people engaging in behavior don’t internalize the cost. And others end up getting fucked over.
The added tax is designed to force them to internalize the cost. Behaviors like smoking affect society and nonsmokers greatly in a myriad of ways, not the least of which is financially via increased health care costs and other mechanisms. [/quote]
I’m all for banning smoking or other activities that endanger others in public.
I do not believe sin taxes are the answer to preventing one from harming another. I think that is a bs excuse for law makers to levy taxes. The tax a smoker pays on a carton of cigarettes does not prevent people around him from inhaling second hand smoke.
I am amazed that so many people who become outraged at the thought of supplements being banned by the government are eager to have the government impose its will to force fat people to be “healthier.”
The sword cuts both ways.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
I am amazed that so many people who become outraged at the thought of supplements being banned by the government are eager to have the government impose its will to force fat people to be “healthier.”
The sword cuts both ways.[/quote]
The difference though Neph, is that supplements don’t lead to increased healthcare and insurance costs. In fact, they should actually lower those costs, since most supplements improve health, not decrease it.
In other words, I am not going to have my health insurance or medicare taxes increased because someone goes out and takes whey protein in conjunction with a healthy lifestyle. Where as I am going to have my health insurance and medicare taxes increased if someone chooses to go out and eat Mcdonalds for 3 meals per day along with living an unhealthy lifestyle.
[quote]IQ wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
IQ wrote:
Or
C) have even more financial hardship resulting in more stress etc.
Which would be their choice. Sure, it might be tough, especially at the inception of the tax, because people would all of the sudden be getting penalized for a lifestyle that they’d been living for some time.
But, that should in theory give them even more incentive to stop living that lifestyle. Right? I mean, people don’t usually just up and change (themselves, their lifestyle, etc…). Usually it takes an epiphany, a tragedy, or a “rock bottom” to get them to change.
It’s amazing what you can do when you have no choice.
It would only be their choice if feeding their families with healthy food was an option.
Instead of making it cheaper to eat healthy foods they would make it unaffordable to eat adequately regardless of your food choices.
Imagine that your finances were completely exhausted on a monthly basis, now imagine that everything increased in price by 10%.
Would you be happy?
Would you see this as an exciting challenge with which to test your mental toughness?
There’s a difference between desperation and laziness.[/quote]
Hi IQ,
Yes, I see your point. And if you were only looking at the matter in terms of what one chooses (or is forced in some cases) to eat, then you’re right. Although, last I looked you could buy a whole box of Ramen noodles for the price of a “Big Mac” value meal. So, there are certainly ways to still eat healthier that aren’t necessarily more expensive.
But, that is completely taking out the lifestyle component, which is a huge component indeed.
Have you seen the movie “Super Size Me”? Whether or not you have or haven’t the basic premise of the movie is to show the evils of the fast food industry and how their “Super Size” menus are making Americans obese.
However, an interesting point is that not only does the filmmaker (Morgan Spurlock) start eating at McDonals 3 meals per day, but he also completely stops exercising (a point that seems to get glossed over).
In contrast there was another documentary made (honestly can’t remember the name) where the film maker ate at McDonals 3 meals per day, but continued to live an otherwise healthy lifestyle, and not only didn’t have liver shut down and all of the other crazy side effects that Morgan Spurlock had, but stayed pretty much healthy for the entire duration of the documentary.
So, the moral of the story is that your lifestyle is just as important in terms of health (body fat) as is the food you eat. Regardless of where your daily caloric intake comes from, if you burn more calories than you consume, you’re not going to get obese. Now, might you have vitamin deficiencies, yeah, but that’s a different topic.
Good training,
Sentoguy
There’s a correlation between the obesity epidemic and unhealthy foods?