Fat Tax

[Hazell B]

Can somebody please tell me how this isn't a good enough idea?

Education hasn't worked.
TV adverts haven't worked.
Serious threats by government haven't worked.
Doctors refusing treatment hasn't worked.
VAT on takeaways hasn't worked.

What else can they do to try and stop people stuffing their own and their chilren's arteries up with endless fat and sugar?

Excess fat (according to some health bod on News 24) costs the NHS far more than smoking. So why not stick a few pence on some very fatty foods like sweets and fresh cream just to help cover the costs? :confused:

[Erki]

Who would buy that fat then if it's that expensive? ;)

[Eki]

That's actually a very good idea. They could compensate the loss of consumers by lowering the tax on vegetables, fruits and such. Today, low fat and other healthy food is more expensive than regular food.

[Drew]

I saw that on the TV and thought exactly the same. In fact I had assumed there was already more tax on fatty foods :s

Having said that, there are always claims that 60% of the adult population are overweight, I simply don't believe that

[tinchote]

Can somebody please tell me how this isn't a good enough idea?

Education hasn't worked.
TV adverts haven't worked.
Serious threats by government haven't worked.
Doctors refusing treatment hasn't worked.
VAT on takeaways hasn't worked.

What else can they do to try and stop people stuffing their own and their chilren's arteries up with endless fat and sugar?

Excess fat (according to some health bod on News 24) costs the NHS far more than smoking. So why not stick a few pence on some very fatty foods like sweets and fresh cream just to help cover the costs? :confused:

Could be a good idea. It would be great if people would start cooking again :s

[BeansBeansBeans]

Having said that, there are always claims that 60% of the adult population are overweight, I simply don't believe that

Most people I know are above their ideal weight. It doesn't mean they are what you would label as 'fat', but they are 'overweight'. That percentage sounds fairly plausible to me.

[millencolin]

i would hate that law. as a thin person who loves his unhealthy food, i say that this tax is against the ones who live an active lifestyle who likes a good bottle of coke or a deep fried mars bar.

[Erki]

i would hate that law. as a thin person who loves his unhealthy food, i say that this tax is against the ones who live an active lifestyle who likes a good bottle of coke or a deep fried mars bar.

They're not really doing any good to anyone, regardless of body type.

[oily oaf]

Most people I know are above their ideal weight. It doesn't mean they are what you would label as 'fat', but they are 'overweight'. That percentage sounds fairly plausible to me.

I went to the doc a few years back for a company medical and after a weigh-in the cheeky sod told me I was obese for my height, despite the fact that I've got a 34 waist and only one chin.
Apparently the ideal weight for someone of my limited stature is around 11 stone. :eek:
Last night I rang the hospital and his condition was described as critical but stable :mad:

[Dave B]

Having seen some of the horrible fat kids waddling round supermarkets being stuffed full of crap by their parents, I don't think it would make a huge difference. They already buy ready meals and microwave burgers, when far better and cheaper alternatives are available. It's laziness and ignorance, not cost, which affect these peoples' buying habits.

There was a report earlier in the week that poor families don't have worse diets than better off ones, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6897221.stm) so I'm not sure this would work. That said, nothing else seems to be working, so it could be worth a shot.

According to that survey, this may be the bigger problem:



The survey found higher levels of smoking and alcohol consumption, together with lower levels of activity, than the general population.

[millencolin]

They're not really doing any good to anyone, regardless of body type.


they provide happiness and enjoyment to many people. and too me happiness is good to anyone. some people just enjoy the taste, i am one of them.

my theory is that people who are too health conscious will die earlier due to stress of always trying to eat healthy. You see them in supermarkets analysing every item of food they consider purchasing. they measure the sugar index levels and fat content. they worry about 'oh will this be bad for me'. i remember trying to help them find items in supermarkets when i used to work in one. they were a basketcase of stress. can you imagine how hard shopping would be then! i'd rather just buy what i want, no matter of its healthyness. so why tax me? freedom of choice is part of a capitalism. why should i have to reconsider my choices in food because the government chooses to tax certain items over 'health concerns'. its bad enough that we pay excise tax on alcohol and cigarettes. But this is food we are tralking about here!


But if Alcohol and Cigarettes are anything to go by, this tax will do nothing as people still smoke and drinking levels have stayed constant/increased.

[Mark]

How about the government stops trying to change our behaviour by taxing us all to death and let us make up our own minds. If someone wants to eat fattening food, they will do.

The whole idea of tax this tax that tax everything you don't agree with is lazy policitics dreamed up by people who have no clue.

[Dave B]

How about the government stops trying to change our behaviour by taxing us all to death and let us make up our own minds. If someone wants to eat fattening food, they will do.

The whole idea of tax this tax that tax everything you don't agree with is lazy policitics dreamed up by people who have no clue.
Playing devil's advocate: is it fair that somebody who chooses to live an unhealthy lifestyle (whether through poor diet, smoking or lack of exercise) pays the same contribution to the NHS as somebody who keeps fit, doesn't smoke, and takes care to eat well?

Of course, the smoker is taxed heavily and in theory that money helps fund healthcare. Why should unhealthy food be any different? The tax raised could subsidise leisure facilities.

[Mark]

Playing devil's advocate: is it fair that somebody who chooses to live an unhealthy lifestyle (whether through poor diet, smoking or lack of exercise) pays the same contribution to the NHS as somebody who keeps fit, doesn't smoke, and takes care to eat well?


Well, yes. The NHS is there to look after us, wether we take care of ourselves or not. If a product shouldn't be used because it's hazardous to our health, like illegal drugs, then make it illegal.

Taking your point to it's extreme conclusion we could end up in a situation where we are only permitted to eat government 'approved' foods lest we have to pay for our own health care.

[LotusElise]

I can see the reasoning behind fat tax, but taxation doesn't stop people smoking or drinking (or driving, for that matter), so I can just see a lot of chunky teens with less pocket money in future.

I can also see the reasoning in that they will need to recoup some of the lost tax when smoking is finally banned - Mars bars are more prevalent than fags these days and you can eat them in pubs still.

[Drew]

I'm not sure banning sweets is a good idea. You don't want a children's revolt :p :

[Brown, Jon Brow]

If you are found in public to be obese then you should be arrested. If you are found guilty of being to fat then you should be thrown in a mincer and served as prison food or to starving Africans.


The End.

[BDunnell]

Can somebody please tell me how this isn't a good enough idea?

Education hasn't worked.
TV adverts haven't worked.
Serious threats by government haven't worked.
Doctors refusing treatment hasn't worked.
VAT on takeaways hasn't worked.

What else can they do to try and stop people stuffing their own and their chilren's arteries up with endless fat and sugar?

Excess fat (according to some health bod on News 24) costs the NHS far more than smoking. So why not stick a few pence on some very fatty foods like sweets and fresh cream just to help cover the costs? :confused:

I agree, though I think there are also some good points made above about freedom of choice.

I also think it would be a good idea if PE lessons in schools didn't attempt to teach kids specific sports all the time, and instead concentrated on 'keep fit', for want of a better phrase. I'm sure this would be of more value, and make PE a less unpleasant experience for the many people who are always going to be crap at football or rugby and for whom learning to play those sports will be pointless.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I agree, though I think there are also some good points made above about freedom of choice.

I also think it would be a good idea if PE lessons in schools didn't attempt to teach kids specific sports all the time, and instead concentrated on 'keep fit', for want of a better phrase. I'm sure this would be of more value, and make PE a less unpleasant experience for the many people who are always going to be crap at football or rugby and for whom learning to play those sports will be pointless.

Choice is the best way to get children to do P.E. (That's not the choice to do PE or not do P.E as Ian McC would probably quote :p )

I hated P.E when we were forced to do Gym or Dance . But it was my favourite lesson when we played Football or Cricket. I know that there were other kids liked Gym but hated Football.

Choose to do the physical activity that you enjoy.

[BDunnell]

Choice is the best way to get children to do P.E. (That's not the choice to do PE or not do P.E as Ian McC would probably quote :p )

I hated P.E when we were forced to do Gym or Dance . But it was my favourite lesson when we played Football or Cricket. I know that there were other kids liked Gym but hated Football.

Choose to do the physical activity that you enjoy.

There are lots of people who don't like any sports that you can do in school.

[Caroline]

I also think it would be a good idea if PE lessons in schools didn't attempt to teach kids specific sports all the time, and instead concentrated on 'keep fit', for want of a better phrase. I'm sure this would be of more value, and make PE a less unpleasant experience for the many people who are always going to be crap at football or rugby and for whom learning to play those sports will be pointless.


And if schools were to teach 'Keep fit' then they would be slated for not teaching basic sporting skills such as throwing, catching, being able to balance and run in a straight line for 100m. You can't win.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

There are lots of people who don't like any sports that you can do in school.

But forcing everyone to do the same activity won't help either. My high school was in a rural area so we had a wide range of sport available. E.g Football fields, Cricket pitch, Tennis courts, Athletic tracks, nearby Golf course and Gym.

Some schools could introduce activities such as cycling (not all due to there location). It doesn't have to be the traditional P.E activities. Many people don't get the chance to try activities that they might enjoy, e.g table tennis or badminton.

[Hazell B]

There are lots of people who don't like any sports that you can do in school.

I don't understand your point. Most people don't enjoy maths, but they still have to do it :mark:

As for the freedom to choose what we eat, we still have that. It's only going to cost small percentage of the food's price. We don't notice VAT on take aways any more, so wouldn't notice 5p on a cream cake. I'd rather we pay nearer what we cost in health care than all have to pay for the fatties who eat rubbish all their lives. After all, I don't expect non-smokers to pay for me if I get lung cancer or a similar problem.

There appears no other way to try and get the point over about some foods being harmful.

[BDunnell]

Some schools could introduce activities such as cycling (not all due to there location). It doesn't have to be the traditional P.E activities. Many people don't get the chance to try activities that they might enjoy, e.g table tennis or badminton.

I suppose this is what I am getting at. On reflection, I don't think that schools should stop playing all sports; rather, that it might be helpful to place a greater focus on exercise rather than the sports themselves, without them getting silly.

[BDunnell]

I don't understand your point. Most people don't enjoy maths, but they still have to do it :mark:

This is true.


As for the freedom to choose what we eat, we still have that. It's only going to cost small percentage of the food's price. We don't notice VAT on take aways any more, so wouldn't notice 5p on a cream cake. I'd rather we pay nearer what we cost in health care than all have to pay for the fatties who eat rubbish all their lives. After all, I don't expect non-smokers to pay for me if I get lung cancer or a similar problem.

There appears no other way to try and get the point over about some foods being harmful.

Agreed.

[Malbec]

Surely with sports at school the basic problem is that after years of underfunding, many of them have had to sell off their playing fields to raise funds? There's no point mandating that schoolkids have to play sports X, Y and Z if there aren't places they can play them at.

I think there are other problems as well, the weather in the UK doesn't exactly encourage outdoor games and I don't think its a coincidence that the uptake of computer games is much higher in North Europe than it is in South Europe as a result.....

[BDunnell]

I also think that PE is often badly taught, if my experience at school is anything to go by.

[Hazell B]

And of course there's always the issue that PE teaching for an hour a week during term time has beggar all to do with fat tax and fatty diets :mark:

[Erki]

PE means squat if you only move yourself those mere couple of hours a week and sit still the rest of the time.

[Hazell B]

PE means squat if you only move yourself those mere couple of hours a week and sit still the rest of the time.

Exactly.

[Erki]

To think about it... PE indeed did mean squat to me! I liked to squat, and then jump... and jump hiiiiiiiigh! My classmates for some reason always looked weirdly at me when I jumped. :s Guess they were afraid that I would hit my head against the ceiling. :s tareup:

[BeansBeansBeans]

And of course there's always the issue that PE teaching for an hour a week during term time has beggar all to do with fat tax and fatty diets :mark:

Exercise (or the lack of it) has had a massive role to play in the current obesity epidemic, as does fatty food. I don't see a problem with discussing the wider issues.

[BDunnell]

And of course there's always the issue that PE teaching for an hour a week during term time has beggar all to do with fat tax and fatty diets :mark:

It is a connected issue, especially to do with childhood obesity. I maintain that the hour a week could be used more effectively as a means of making people fitter. It certainly could have been as far as I was concerned.

[Rollo]

What else can they do to try and stop people stuffing their own and their chilren's arteries up with endless fat and sugar?

I agree with the sentiment entirely. I'm not sure of the justification.



Excess fat (according to some health bod on News 24) costs the NHS far more than smoking. So why not stick a few pence on some very fatty foods like sweets and fresh cream just to help cover the costs? :confused:

Sort of but not quite...

I wager that the biggest single cause of increased costs of the NHS is ironically, better medical standards and increased life expectancy. Someone who is alive for 80 years will by inference use 33% extra resources and funding (assuming all years are equal which we all know aren't) than someone who only lives 60 years. Life expectancy rates have been steadily rising and with more old people around, they will invariably use more resources and funding because on the whole young people haven't yet developed problems.

What is scaring governments all over the Western World is that massive chunk of people getting old simultaneously known as the "post war baby boom". Now is a wise time to invest in commercial nursing homes to capitalise on this.

Smokers over their lifetime contribute more in taxes than they "get back" in costs on the NHS. Putting a tax on fat is a clever excuse by the government to extract more money out of people - remember, no government ever went broke by introducing a new tax.

Is it cheaper in the long run to pay for the costs of obesity or other diseases caused by old age like cancer? I don't know. In my mind the jury is out... and round the back for the ol' brandy.

Certainly there is no excuse for fat children. That borders on criminal and should have questions of neglect raised.

[LotusElise]

It is a connected issue, especially to do with childhood obesity. I maintain that the hour a week could be used more effectively as a means of making people fitter. It certainly could have been as far as I was concerned.

I think the real problem with childhood inactivity and obesity is nothing to do with school PE lessons, but more to do with children's general activity levels going down. I am not that old and even I remember doing lots of active stuff like riding bikes around the village, building dens and making up stupid games in the park. Children now don't do that nearly as much.

I'd quite gladly see the back of school sports, which consist of a lot of waiting and faffing around and were only appreciated by a few kids who probably did sport anyway. PE did more to put me off sports than to encourage me and I'm not alone.

[BDunnell]

I think the real problem with childhood inactivity and obesity is nothing to do with school PE lessons, but more to do with children's general activity levels going down. I am not that old and even I remember doing lots of active stuff like riding bikes around the village, building dens and making up stupid games in the park. Children now don't do that nearly as much.

I think you're right. One reason for this is that so many green spaces have been built on, while, in others, such things as cycling and football are prohibited. Another, surely, is the paranoia so many people have about the danger posed by paedophiles and the like, which in reality is no greater than it has ever been.


I'd quite gladly see the back of school sports, which consist of a lot of waiting and faffing around and were only appreciated by a few kids who probably did sport anyway. PE did more to put me off sports than to encourage me and I'm not alone.

Me too.

[Flat.tyres]

well, putting a tax on seriously fattening, unhealthy foods is no problem if you ask me AS LONG AS they reduce the tax on healthy, unfattening foods by the same amount.

it would be morally bereft for the Government to take more money out of peoples pockets to spend on some sodding war or other.

as for PE and sports, there should be both and more of it. physical education and mental education are equally as important and a healthy body is complimentay to a healthy, positive life. personally, I would see no problem with increasing the school day by 45 minutes each day to encompass some daily routine of exercise, whether it's PE, Dance, aerobics, swimming or sports practice.

[Mark]

At my school PE was just football, football, football, I've never had any skills at football and so found the thing intensly boring, same with rugby. It put me right off sports completely.

However, I was actually quite good at athletics etc and didn't mind cricket. But 99% of the time it was just football :s

[slinkster]

... Well I can see one problem in that from a purely selfish point of view... because I am not at all fat, in fact I'm probably too skinny, and I don't see why I should pay more to eat sweets and or chocolate because people can't control how much they eat etc. I can avoid paying more for alcohol because I can live without it... and I don't smoke... but chocolate... nope. It's a necessity unfortunately.

If at the end of the day.. people have all the information and advice they can get, if they have access to sports and gyms and it's affordable etc, and nutritional advice is clear and concise... then at the end of all of that, if you still choose to eat yourself to death, then I sort of just shrug and feel sorry for you. Same with alcohol and tobacco I guess... it's people's choice and who am I to tell them differently.

[ShiftingGears]

Yeah, great idea! When the fat tax doesn't work we'll be in the same situation we are now, except with more expensive food. Great.

[schmenke]

The "Fat Tax" should be replaced by a "Nintendo Tax" :mark:

[Hazell B]

I don't understand how healthier foods can have their tax reduced when they already have no tax on them :mark:

There isn't even VAT on food plants like apple trees and carrot seeds! Never has been.

[Flat.tyres]

I don't understand how healthier foods can have their tax reduced when they already have no tax on them :mark:

There isn't even VAT on food plants like apple trees and carrot seeds! Never has been.

what I ment was that revenue raised by taxing unhealthy food should in some way subsidise the cost of healthy food rather than being just some way for the government to raise additional tax for more wars.

[BDunnell]

what I ment was that revenue raised by taxing unhealthy food should in some way subsidise the cost of healthy food rather than being just some way for the government to raise additional tax for more wars.

That would inevitably be unfair, though, as it would be impossible to subsidise every single 'healthy' food producer. Some would have to be left out.

[LotusElise]

There's the ongoing debate on what's healthy and what isn't, as well.

To be honest, the big stores have more effect on the price of produce than the government. It's them who campaigners should be lobbying, although the government seems to be more concerned with the divine right of big business to maximise its profits than any right the consumer has to buy decent produce at a fair price.

[BDunnell]

There's the ongoing debate on what's healthy and what isn't, as well.

To be honest, the big stores have more effect on the price of produce than the government. It's them who campaigners should be lobbying, although the government seems to be more concerned with the divine right of big business to maximise its profits than any right the consumer has to buy decent produce at a fair price.

Spot on. :up:

I am deeply depressed by the way in which all three main parties have to pander to big business for fear of not being deemed sufficiently 'business-friendly' or 'anti-enterprise'. For instance, it is all very well to complain about delays on the railways, but none of the parties would ever slap truly effective (i.e., punitive) financial penalties on the companies involved for this very reason. It's the same to some extent with supermarkets and the big fast food chains.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

what I ment was that revenue raised by taxing unhealthy food should in some way subsidise the cost of healthy food rather than being just some way for the government to raise additional tax for more wars.

That's right, because all of our tax goes towards the military :rolleyes:

[Flat.tyres]

That's right, because all of our tax goes towards the military :rolleyes:

perhaps too much does get wasted on ill thought out, contrived conflicts that expose us to greater danger and threaten the lives of our troops.

thats all :rolleyes:

[Brown, Jon Brow]

perhaps too much does get wasted on ill thought out, contrived conflicts that expose us to greater danger and threaten the lives of our troops.

thats all :rolleyes:

Fair enough. But if our government decides we need our troops to be in places like Iraq and Afghanistan the military needs to have proper equipment available and not be stretched like they currently are. They need investment in order to save lives.

[Flat.tyres]

Fair enough. But if our government decides we need our troops to be in places like Iraq and Afghanistan the military needs to have proper equipment available and not be stretched like they currently are. They need investment in order to save lives.

at the risk of steering us hideously off target, I agree with you.

IF we need to be there and IF we have the backing of our people and the UN.
Afganistan we probably do need to be there but our troops are poorly equipped and vulnerable with very little assistance from our so called partners.

Iraq was a crock of sh*t from the beginning and getting worse by the day.

sorry, back to topic.

[CharlieJ]

If you are found in public to be obese then you should be arrested. If you are found guilty of being to fat then you should be thrown in a mincer and served as prison food or to starving Africans.


The End.

If you made that international law, you'd reduce the population of the USA by 90% :eek:

Go for it! :p :









oops..... apologies to you Yanks. :erm:

[raphael123]

Don't they refuse to treat some people on the NHS until they lose weight?
Do people think it's a bad idea?
Why not stop treating smokers until they stop smoking?
Or alcoholics until they stop drinking?

Fat tax seems reasonable to me - though the companies selling these fatty foods are such large companies, with such a big profit margin, I think they would be able to afford to cut the prices down, so the increased tax probably wouldn't be noticeable to the consumer.

[XSARA]

"Nintendo Tax" :mark:

First our chocolate, then our video games! Are you kidding me??

Revolt, I say! :D

Ok, seriously. I don't think imposing a "fat tax" anywhere will make any real difference. Whomever creates a law benefits most from it i.e. the only party that will gain anything here is the government. The middle class isn't struggling at subsistence levels or anything. Increase the price of a cake by 5 cents, they'll pay 5 cents more. If someone's bent on a destructive habit, they'll go at it no matter what you do. But handing more money to the govt? Disrupting the flow of capitalism? Heck, that doesn't make much sense to me. Let people choose-if they make the wrong choices then it is their own choice that they have to live with. Rather than complaining about other people being fat, if we just focused on ourselves, our families, our parents and friends, that would be plenty. Are you seriously telling me that no one close to you is even a wee bit overweight? The only way to make any difference, if you should care to do so, is by starting with your own life and others around you.

And Schmenke, let me keep my video games, thanks. :D