View Full Version : Should there be Fat Tax?
XabbaRus
06-07-06, 03:20 PM
Last night there was a programme on TV in which the presenter suggested that fat people should be taxed.
Fact: Obesity costs the NHS £1 billion a year and the UK economy £2.5 billion in lost work. So to claw back the £3.5 billion he suggested a tax and various ways of going about it.
So considering the costs and the fact that most people are fat because they eat too much and exercise too little should there be a tax?
ohh OHH........dan dan danger will robinson...politicaly correct culture really does like to have it's scapegoats doesn't it...that's the problem with political correctness--it's very political and not very correct--allways looking for new targets to exploit--
TteFAboB
06-07-06, 03:32 PM
Yes, XabbaRus, yes, take a look at the apple, isn't the color beautifull? Isn't it the most wonderfull shade of red you've ever seen? Now take a bite, xabby, taste it.
No, because there is no need to increase the size and power of the British government.
No, because people will lie and present false diagnostics attesting they are fat because they suffer from a disease, hence, they can do nothing about it, hence, they must not pay the tax.
No, because it will not teach the good behavior. If anything, healthy people should be given a tax exemption.
And finally no, because the state should not dictate what life-style and weight one wants to have.
I know dozens of fat, not morbid obese, but fat people nonetheless, who have no problem being slightly overweight, who have no diseases or problems because of their beer belly, who do not like to exercise and actually like to eat high calorie meals.
Who the hell are you to tell them what to eat, what to drink, what weight to have and what and how much exercise to do?
Privatize the NHS if that's the problem. In this regard, the colapse of the Italian health system is an advantage afterall, creative destruction at its finest, the system is now partially privatized in the sense it is no longer fully supported by the state finances and fully price free anymore.
No, because obese people tend to die earlier thus saving the state gobs of retirement money.
So to all you fat people out there, have another whopper, with extra large fries. I want my SS to be there when i get old.
Drug addicts and alcoholics cost the N.H.S even more money. Don't forget the Pensioners along with the long term sick. Sorry no I don't agree and why? Because managers are the biggest waste of money in the N.H.S they are so incompetent and live in day dream world. We all pay National Insurance in the U.K. the reason why the N.H.S is a mess for the last 30 years money allocated to them by the Conservative and Labour Governments has been a joke.
And as for our current Labour Government, coming out with all this crap about big money going in to the N.H.S and what a great job it's doing, what a crass remark. Hospitals are closing down and the whole N.H.S is in the red and why? Because of red tape and bureaucratic procedures resulting in millions of pounds wasted on hospital managers, who don't know their ar*e from their elbow.
We've been here before people:
http://encyc.connectonline.com/encyclopedia/images/1/12/EnthanasiePropaganda.jpg
The poster reads (excuse my bad German):
This person suffering from hereditary defects cost the people 60,000 Reichmarks during his lifetime. People that is your money. Read 'New People'
It's one step on a slippery slope... :down:
We've been here before people:
http://encyc.connectonline.com/encyclopedia/images/1/12/EnthanasiePropaganda.jpg
The poster reads (excuse my bad German):
It's one step on a slippery slope... :down:
The T4 Programme carried out by Nazi doctor's. You have been warned.
scandium
06-07-06, 04:02 PM
Last night there was a programme on TV in which the presenter sugessted that fat people should be taxed.
Fact Obesity costs the NHS £1 billion a year adn teh UK economy £2.5 billion in lost work. So to claw back the £3.5 billion he suggested a tax and various ways of going about it.
So considering the costs and the fact that most people are fat because they eat too much and exercise too little should there be a tax?
Fat tax eh? :hmm: Not a novel idea but strikes me as something that would be both difficult to properly implement and possibly even counter-productive (may be so expensive to implement that the revenue obtained is insignificant, while at the same time doing nothing to impact the problem of obesity).
like i was saying a post ironic and politicaly correct culture is a precursor to fascism and worse---they're using the same propoganda messages allready--and not one single political voice has been raised in opposition--
fat people can allready be denied medical care on the ground that they are over weight--
you see that's the problem with political correctness-- politics change--and thus so does the correctness--and bingo anythings possible with enough propoganda
DR IAN WILSON British Medical Association's Consultants' Committee
The debt could be wiped out almost overnight if the government would listen to those that work in the service
"We have to recognise that a lot of money has gone into the health service, and a lot has improved.
"But even more money has been wasted. We are talking about billions and billions of pounds being wasted on management consultancy fees, and on failed attempts to bring in computer systems.
Well I am not surprised. :smug:
Skybird
06-07-06, 05:01 PM
Educating people on the facts of bad food maybe is the better idea. And the best, without doubt, is to simply stop the industry to produce Food that often would be better described as poison that produces it's effect over long time. Almost all kind of fast food, softdrinks, most of designer food, most types of oils and fats that are used in food production, certain types of carbohydrates (those that are highly "glykämisch"). With regard to the accumulation of fats, and spiking and later deficitary insulin-production the deciding thing is not how much one eats, but WHAT one eats. The problem results from totally stupid eating habits. therefor it is more present in social classes with low education level. But by tendency it is raising in all social classes.
Educating people on the facts of bad food maybe is the better idea. And the best, without doubt, is to simply stop the industry to produce Food that often would be better described as poison that produces it's effect over long time. Almost all kind of fast food, softdrinks, most of designer food, most types of oils and fats that are used in food production, certain types of carbohydrates (those that are highly "glykämisch"). With regard to the accumulation of fats, and spiking and later deficitary insulin-production the deciding thing is not how much one eats, but WHAT one eats. The problem results from totally stupid eating habits. therefor it is more present in social classes with low education level. But by tendency it is raising in all social classes.
they couldn't have planed this better --
introduce junk food and fizzy drinks to the school canteens wait a couple of generations--woopeee a whole caboodle of nice fat people we can then blame all of society's problems on--- the junk food companys make a fortune the schools save a fortune, and all the "shiny happy people" get some one to blame for all their petty insecuritys- such as discovering that being thin doesn't make you happy--mean while back at the meat factory---thousands upon thousand of over weight kids get depressed because they are contantly portrayed in the media as stereo types and now the government has joined the fun---
now we can give them anti-depressants too--that'll work..
all for the benifit of protecting the interests of big buisness--who need generations of poorly educated people with low self esteem to buy into their mass produced life-style products
heer we are right on the cusp -as it were- of mass population manipulation via genetic screening ,cloning and the rest of that mad-ness and we are so wise so clever (that post ironic state of mind) that we fail to see the in evitable end result--
best case scenario in 100 years is some thing along the lines of the film Gattica--
i can't be bothered thinking of the worse case scenario as im far too depressed allready lol--
NURSE!!!!
Kapitan
06-07-06, 06:17 PM
If you look at nearly all my brothers you immediately think they are fat, most wiegh in top end of 18 19 stone some just over the 20 stone mark, but infact not alot of it is fat most of them are fighters or do some heavy lifting job.
My father is 19 stone and has a big belly but he isnt fat infact he has only about 18% fat on him.
My stepdad on the other hand is fat at 24 stone its due to alcohol and excessive eating but thats him.
just cause a person has a large belly doesnt automaticaly mean they are fat, what about sumo wrestlers ?
If you look at nearly all my brothers you immediately think they are fat, most wiegh in top end of 18 19 stone some just over the 20 stone mark, but infact not alot of it is fat most of them are fighters or do some heavy lifting job.
My father is 19 stone and has a big belly but he isnt fat infact he has only about 18% fat on him.
My stepdad on the other hand is fat at 24 stone its due to alcohol and excessive eating but thats him.
just cause a person has a large belly doesnt automaticaly mean they are fat, what about sumo wrestlers ?
From what i hear mens potbellies are often the result of stress.
Kapitan
06-07-06, 06:36 PM
Well if i punch my dads stomach the hardest i can it doesnt affect him if he tenses he has alot of muscle in there because of his job heavy plant engineer, yeah he has sufferd from stress too going through alot now.
Im the smallest member of my family bar the girls i wiegh in at only 201lbs, and im not fat :D
Kapitan
06-07-06, 07:04 PM
Xabbarus voted yes
Yahoshua
06-07-06, 07:41 PM
My suggestion is that everyone who reads this post immediatly google the history of taxes.
I do NOT like taxes. Not to mention I don't like to watch the money I EARNED, be pissed away by incompetent politicians.
werauchimmer
06-08-06, 02:34 AM
I´d try better education first. And by better I mean the kind of "continue this behaviour and you´ll die in a few years. Fat as a baloon and with a lot of pain."
Thats basically what my doctor told me two years back. Back when i was in the service i ran my miles each day and was fit, after that i got a desk job, nice one too, and stopped excercising and gained weight. Fast. Luckily i still got my yearly checkup, and at someponit Doc Boris (I call him that, because he looks like one of Frankensteins freinds. Competent guy, though) told me to sit down at his desk. He had a new computer program that calculated Heart failure risks based on various factors, like weight, excercise, smoking, blood fat levels, etc. pp. Then he showed me a video file of an actual heart attack and one about the problems obese people have to face in everyday life. After that gave me a brochure about healthy food and some tipps on cookbooks ("Low Fat 30, the easiest recipes" i can recommend. Tastes great and is easy to cook. And that coming from me means alot!) and told me to get the hell out and come back after six months.
That was two years ago, and since the I have lost 25kgs and have just run my first Marathon.
There are those obese that are sick, all right. But for 95% it is simply a matter of lifestyle. Sure, i invest 12-18 hours a week into training and especially running, but if i compare the time invested in the difference it makes for the quality of life, it is worth every damn minute. So i´d try to shock people into training and healthy food. Worked for me...
It’s another reason why society is falling apart too many stupid suggestions are put forward without getting to the core of the problem. And that’s why we have this problem, just look at the U.K we got teenagers jumping in and out of bed with each other having under age sex, just look at the number of single mothers ranging from 11 to 15 years old.
Another example young women are getting even more drunk night after night bingeing on alcohol, alcohol abuse is out of control in the U.K. the list just goes on and on. And the breakdown in society will continual and why? Simple no one has the answers to solve the problems so they go for the quick fix which causes more problems. :nope:
kiwi_2005
06-08-06, 03:44 AM
The Obese ppl those who pig out on junk food and "Are" fat shouldn't be taxed but taught about the damage its doing to there heart. Just like how smokers are always told what the damage can do if you smoke, the same should be push in the face of the obese person, even it they dont like what they hear.
I do think certain junk foods should be taxed, chips (crisps for you Brits) candy bars (not premium chocolate, that's already expensive) etc. Education is good , but if they want to eat themselves to death let them. Had a homemade pear yougurt smoothis for breakast and fresh local strawberries...last night a veggie lebanese plate. So tonight it's Micky D's (joke). Nah I love food just everything in balance and for HEAVEN'S sake let's move a bit shall we? I bike or walk to work for starters....
Konovalov
06-08-06, 05:00 AM
I do think certain junk foods should be taxed, chips (crisps for you Brits) candy bars (not premium chocolate, that's already expensive) etc. Education is good , but if they want to eat themselves to death let them. Had a homemade pear yougurt smoothis for breakast and fresh local strawberries...last night a veggie lebanese plate. So tonight it's Micky D's (joke). Nah I love food just everything in balance and for HEAVEN'S sake let's move a bit shall we? I bike or walk to work for starters....
I share this view and common sense approach of Joea. :yep:
In the poll I voted no.
Kapitan
06-08-06, 05:12 AM
Dont want to worry you but our government acctualy do tax crisps cakes coke burgers ect, but they do not tax the essentials like bread.
Hence why i can go to the store and buy a loaf for 69p but yet a few cakes will cost £1.49 or something.
XabbaRus
06-08-06, 07:16 AM
Well it's sparked off an interesting debate.
As for voting yes, well someone had to, devil's advocate you see.
The conclusion of the programme as I undestood was that a tax would be impractical to implement.
The thing is one would think that with all the healthy eating programmes on TV along with coverage in the news that most people would have at least some idea of what to eat and what not to eat.
The trick is to catch people when they are young, ie ban the vending machines in schools, do a Jamie Oliver with proper cooking of proper food. Teach kids even as young as 7 home economics and how to cook good food. Oh and ban them from going down the street at lunchtime.
Maybe like cigarettes there should be graphic warning labels on unhealthy foods with pictures of someones liver or whatever as a result of unhealthy eating.
The problem is it is a fast growing problem and a fix is needed quickly. The problem for the government is one of not wanting to look like a nanny state though with labour they don't need to worry.
Overall I think the root cause is that we have become a lazy greedy society.
Devil's Advocate time, in the UK Smokers cost the NHS £1 billion, but through taxes on cigarettes raise around £6 billion in taxes so thus paying off the cost to the NHS and maybe some more for possible costs from non-smokers affected by smoking. Is it not a similar situation?
[quote CB]
fat people can allready be denied medical care on the ground that they are over weight--
[/quote CB]
Come on, that wasn't just because they were obese, it was on health grounds due to the fact that their being overweight massively increased the risk of something going wrong for what was a simple operation. Hip replacement IIRC. Another case of the press twisting the story.
Also I can't see anything politically correct about what we posting here or that programme, actually I am reckoning a lot of people found it offensive.
As for the sweeties and stuff in schools, I don't think it was a grand conspiracy.
way i look at it given all the gene therapy et al technology lurking in the back ground for future use-and the huge investment being poured into research in these areas--and the fact that when it comes to government it is probably fair to say that very little happens by complete accident---
i would think it is fair to say we are being gently (and not so gently) pushed and prodded into a frame of mind that might be more willing to accept the introduction of some of these technologies at some point in the future--
no government worth it's salt can allow the introduction of junk food vending machines into schools (more or less the entire population spends it formulative years eating at school canteens) and be surprised at the strange increase in obesity that results--
well not if they expect any one to take them seriuosly--so yes it is a conspiracy--
the alternative viewpoint is that human IQ has dropped so significantly that we can no longer add one and one and get something in the region of two--or connect consequences to actions in any use-full fashion
and coming from a government that could be considered quite a serious problem either way it's still cause for concern--
i say ok so it's not a holly wood conspiracy on the surface -but when you think about it it's still pretty major--
nothing is going to stop it---in time we will all be subject to genitic screening manipulation alteration etc etc--
what worrys me is who decides what genes are good and what genes are bad---easy you say---but it's not easy at all--
want a section of the populace willing to work long hours for little pay without complaint---? would that be good or bad---?
want a section of the populace highly motivated and intelligent?
would that be good or bad---?
what would a society like this look like..?
i dont really believe we have given it enough thought--
course by the time we do start applying our brains to the subject our brains may be sponsered by NIKE...
wonder who will own the copy-right for all these genitic mods and tweaks--will you be able to buy them ofthe shelf as a package--?
how will we handle major sporting events--?
geniticaly enhanced--
normal----
disabled---
seperate events for each?
who gets to decide what we want women to look like--don't laugh it's a major issue--
what do we do with the failures--?
lovely stuff--all of it is going to crop up sooner or later-
geneticaly enhanced military?
geneticall enhanced airline pilots, train drivers ? policemen? doctors? nurses? politicans? laywers? judges? scientists? teachers? pupils? road haulage contractors? (need less sleep can work longer hours!)
oh yeh it's easy all right ,dead easy once you get started--
how much will it cost?
will it be free and available to all?
if not how will we handle the haves and haves not?
will it be compulsory--?
if so who gets to select the tweaks given and why--?
will you be able to get a job if you are not gentically enhanced?
will you be able to get life insurance--?
can any Company afford to employ normal people when genitically enhanced employees can work longer hours and at betetr productivity--
as a normal will you be left on unemployment benifit as a drain on societys tax payers---will socirty start to descriminate against you ? will the proganda machine be turned against you? your a waste of taxpayers money? you are a drain on the health services resources because you ar more prone to illness than genitically enhanced people--
how will your kids feel at school when they are placed in the remedail classes because they are un-able to compete with the enhanced pupils--
will they set up "specail schools" for normals to prevent the waste of resources?
what sort of education will they recieve at these specail schools--?
what sort of job will they be told they can expect to aspire to--?
if you buy a package of enhancements for your child and the package doesn't work out the way you wanted--will you be able to demand compensation?
What will be your rights as a consumer of these products?--because that is exactly what thes enhancements will be---commercail products--
who will own the copy right for your particular child?
who will own your child.....
will he or she be required to wear some form of identifying mark to advertiseand or promote the company who manufactured and provided the enhancement package used?
think about it now cos once it happens you wont care---
none of the above is out rageous in any way---we allready live in a world that thinks along these sorts of lines--
and finaly -
there is oneset of qualitys i can garantee wont be top of the list for genitic enhancement
compassion
idealism
instinct for fairness
desire for equality
and the other less "use-full" qualitys
all this simply because the alternative is too awfull to contemplate--
learning to live and value each other as we are---warts and all
no i say if we are to gentically modify our selves to improve the species the best mod we could implement would be to remove the desire or imagined "need" to gentically modify our selves --that's the REAL disability we need to address--
Come on, that wasn't just because they were obese, it was on health grounds due to the fact that their being overweight massively increased the risk of something going wrong
Not always true my grandfather died in his mid 80's as from my childhood I remember he was well over weight and smoked cigar's and drunk spirits. Another example a friend of mine dropped dead in late 20's and was a very fit person. I've worked with big guys in the past who worked a lot harder than the normal weight people. I think they should raise the price on the unfit food and lower the price on healthy food, I for one would like to see the cost of fresh fish cheaper than chocolate.
Dont want to worry you but our government acctualy do tax crisps cakes coke burgers ect, but they do not tax the essentials like bread.
Hence why i can go to the store and buy a loaf for 69p but yet a few cakes will cost £1.49 or something.
Not strictly true mate, biscuits get VAT added but cakes don't, hence the age old "Jaffa Cakes - are they cakes or biscuits?" argument of which I'm sure everyone is aware:
The matter was settled over ten years ago by a VAT tribunal in a very expensive case. McVities argued that they were indeed cakes (and hence zero-rated for VAT), while HM Customs and Excise argued that they were biscuits and hence subject to 17.5 per cent VAT. McVities won the case, primarily because biscuits are hard when fresh and soft when stale whereas cakes are soft when fresh and hard when stale; Jaffa Cakes, of course, fall into the latter category. I have a recollection that McVities also baked a cake-sized Jaffa Cake for the tribunal chairman to support their legal arguments.
;)
SUBMAN1
06-08-06, 10:23 AM
Hahahaha! Yes! Tax them all!
-S
A simple answer shut down all these fast food joints and slap the tax on fat food and fizzy drinks, use the tax to re-educate fat people and help them. But as we all know this will not happen, the present Labour Government is a good £50 million in the red bought about wasting the money on stupid mad ideas.
Kapitan_Phillips
06-08-06, 05:48 PM
Cant..stop...laughing..:arrgh!:
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/printer_friendly/news_logo.gif
Head-to-head: Fat tax
Like the rest of the developed world, obesity poses a serious problem for the UK.
Latest figures suggest nearly a quarter of the population is clinically obese, and almost 10% of deaths are obesity-related.
Some people believe radical solutions - such as new taxes - are required.
GILES COREN
Times columnist and restaurant critic
I would take the square root of the Body Mass Index, so you get a nice curving graph so you can apply it in a proportional way.
I would then divide it by 100 and multiply it by your tax liability.
It is a lack of restraint, a lack of self-respect
Giles Coren
For example, if your BMI is 36 - which is probably what John Prescott's is - you take the square root of that, which would be six, and divide it by 100, giving you a figure of 6%.
Then, suppose your tax liability is £10,000, you would pay an extra £600 a year in tax.
Being overweight is not an addiction - it didn't exist 50 years ago.
It is a lack of restraint, a lack of self-respect. A lot of it is to do with a lack of education, and a failure to understand things such as the nutritional value of the things they eat.
The Liberal Democrats have occasionally mooted things like a sugar tax, and people have talked about taxing the saturated fat content of processed foods.
It seems to be a reasonable way to go, but it is not really fair on me.
I am able to control myself and eat a bag of chips every now and again, so there is no reason why I should have to pay more.
My idea does sound a bit absurd, but it is just an extreme and very direct attempt at a solution, because this really is a huge crisis and something drastic does need to be done.
Body Mass Index is calculated by dividing your weight in kilograms by the square of your height in metres. A BMI of 25 to 29.9 is considered overweight and one 30 or above is considered obese.
DR IAN CAMPBELL
GP and Medical Director of the charity Weight Concern
When I first read about his suggestions I had to check the date, I thought it was 1 April: it is a complete joke.
There is no way you could tax people according to their weight. It is bureaucratically a nightmare, and it would also be grossly unfair.
Make sure that there is an environment out there which is conducive to a healthier lifestyle
Dr Ian Campbell
Those in the lower socio-economic groups are much more likely to be overweight and obese.
About 26% of those who are financially challenged are obese, compared with 17% in more affluent categories.
So what you really would be doing is putting a tax on the poor, and I think that is completely and utterly unjustifiable.
What we need to be doing is incentivising people, and encouraging them and supporting them, not punishing them by these nonsensical suggestions.
The real answer lies in recognising for the first time that environment and health are inextricably linked. What we have to do is make sure that there is an environment out there which is conducive to a healthier lifestyle, and not to completely and utterly stigmatise these people.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/5051248.stm
Published: 2006/06/06 09:05:37 GMT
© BBC MMVI
A fat tax will not work if fat people want to eat junk food they will just like smokers who pay the tax so they can smoke. There is only one way to deal with this problem and that's the surgical method, shut down all these fast food joints and ban chocolates, cakes, biscuits, fizzy pop the whole dam lot.
It's all filth which we don't need in our diet all this crap is no good to anyone ban it and get rid of it out right. By doing this people would be healthier and would start acting better and enjoying life, by getting shot of all the junk food you would get rid of a good 90% of the chemical muck that's in food as well.
A fat tax will not work if fat people want to eat junk food they will just like smokers who pay the tax so they can smoke. There is only one way to deal with this problem and that's the surgical method, shut down all these fast food joints and ban chocolates, cakes, biscuits, fizzy pop the whole dam lot.
It's all filth which we don't need in our diet all this crap is no good to anyone ban it and get rid of it out right. By doing this people would be healthier and would start acting better and enjoying life, by getting shot of all the junk food you would get rid of a good 90% of the chemical muck that's in food as well.
who's going to break the news to Coca Cola and Macdonalds both huge international companys that you are going to tax their products on the basis that they are un healthy--- we handed several generations of young people to them on a plate by adding their products or similar to the school canteens--talk about product placement -- they couldn't have wished for better assistance from the government--bit like having an officail cocaine dealer in all primary and secondary school canteens--then complaining at the increase in cocaine addicts on our streets-not a very convincing complaint nah we've all been played for a sucker--obese people don't tend to live too far beyond retirement age--so that will help ease the pensions crisis at the same time--the government is trying to have it both ways-and acting the innocent- it knows exactly what it's doing--
who's going to break the news to Coca Cola and Macdonalds both huge international companys that you are going to tax their products on the basis that they are un healthy
Tax them no I would shut them down, but I know as everyone else dose. Not a thing will be done about fat people,smokers,alcoholics,drug addicts and so on.
who's going to break the news to Coca Cola and Macdonalds both huge international companys that you are going to tax their products on the basis that they are un healthy
Tax them no I would shut them down, all of them if I had my way. But I know as everyone else dose not a thing will be done about fat people,smokers,alcoholics,drug addicts and so on.
well there's your basic dichotomy--no one's going to shut Coca Cola or Macdonalds down
this way big buisness gets to make money out of the misery that it not only generated in the first place but now perpeptuates ---the government gets to look trendy by reversing it's decision about allowing junk food manufacturers to sell their goods in schools--(maddeningly because a tv chef pointed it out to them on national TV--not because any political party raised any objection--hint hint)
we instigate a proganda regime to vilify obese people- there by encouraging those obese people who are susceptable to low self esteem to continue to suffer from low self esteem (and if their not un happy we'll damn well do our best to make them un happy)
the medical industry can now make a fortune making and selling anti-depressants--and all those diet plan/ health food product manufacturers that have traditionly had their market limited to women get a 50% increase in their potential customer base--
want to know why the economy seems to be bouncing along quite well with no visable means of support--there's your reason
obese people are a product produced by big buisness for big buisness--without them and many other consumers the economy would crash
it's just buisness--
This is the core of the problem; big companies who make this crap don’t give a toss how many people they kill with their fat products. It’s all profit to them big money and they love it.
Gizzmoe
06-09-06, 03:26 AM
This is the core of the problem; big companies who make this crap don’t give a toss how many people they kill with their fat products. It’s all profit to them big money and they love it.
The people are the problem, not the companies. No one forces them to eat that **** on a regular basis.
The people are the problem, not the companies. No one forces them to eat that ****.
you see what i mean ...it's perfect.. the companys get to sell their products
the consumer gets the blame for any harmfull side effects-- now we know why the advertisment excecutives get such huge salarys--no offence Gizz'
Gizzmoe
06-09-06, 03:42 AM
you see what i mean ...it's perfect.. the companys get to sell their products the consumer gets the blame for any harmfull side effects-- now we know why the advertisment excecutives get such huge salarys--no offence Gizz'
*I* know why I am too fat, it´s because I drink too much beer. I´m not surprised that I gained 25kg in one year. It´s not like you have your perfect weight one day and next morning you wake up and suddenly became obese. It takes a long time and effort to become fat. People should start to wonder when they become more and more fat, but it seems that many people don´t and then blame everything on this planet except themselves.
*I* know why I am too fat, it´s because I drink too much beer. I´m not surprised that I gained 25kg in one year, other people maybe are. It´s not like you have your perfect weight one day and next morning you wake up and suddenly became obese. It takes a long time and effort to become fat. People should start to wonder when they become more and more fat, but it seems that many people don´t and then blame everything on this planet except themselves.
hey i'm as thin as a rake--im one of those lucky people who can eat several horses and not gain a pound--but sooner or later they will get round to me--
This is the core of the problem; big companies who make this crap don’t give a toss how many people they kill with their fat products. It’s all profit to them big money and they love it.
The people are the problem, not the companies. No one forces them to eat that **** on a regular basis.
Sorry Gizzmoe you fell into the trap, if these big companies did not produce this crap then people would not be fat, because there would be no fat crap to eat.
Gizzmoe
06-09-06, 04:06 AM
Sorry Gizzmoe you fell into the trap, if these big companies did not produce this crap then people would not be fat, because there would be no fat crap to eat.
It´s not that easy! You can also easily become fat on non-processed, non-crap natural home-made food. Think of grilled pork belly, all kind of healthy but calorie-rich oils like olive oil, herb butter added to your lean steak, the skin of a fried chicken, asparagus with melted butter, coffee or tea with too much cream, heavy cream sauces, too many dairy products and so on. When you eat (or drink) more calories than you need you gain weight, simple rule...
look this isn't a case of wether fat people should be held responsible for their body weight-- it's a case of wether big buisness should be allowed to run rampant over every single charitable desire left on the face of the earth--it is that simple---every-one knows the various issues involved in weight gain/weight loss---but this is a much wider issue---
some body spent an awfull lot of money and many many generations making coca-cola and macdonalds "cool" and they will continue to spend an awfull lot of money ensuring that they remain "cool"...
nothing.. no consideration what so ever will be allowed to stand in the way of that----this isn't about any particular product neccessarily- it's about the manipulation of the general populace by big buisness and the tendency that is creeping into day to day and long term Politics for big buisness to govern our countrys--
the labour party just happens to be sponsered by coca cola and macdonalds--not sure who sponsors the conservative party or the lib dems-- we'll have to wait and see...
whilst were scouring the world searching for theats to our democracy we might be wise to spend some time looking a little closer to home--
other wise eventually we'll be voting at election time from a list of commercail companys we want to run our countrys not political partys..
there is a point where big buisness and democracy starts to become incompatible--
other wise eventually we'll be voting at election time from a list of commercail companys
You are voting for them they control the political party's. ;)
But I do agree with you CB it's a more than too do with a fat person. Big Companies that produce this junk, advertisement companies advertising this junk and making it look good and so on.
A fat tax will not work if fat people want to eat junk food they will just like smokers who pay the tax so they can smoke. There is only one way to deal with this problem and that's the surgical method, shut down all these fast food joints and ban chocolates, cakes, biscuits, fizzy pop the whole dam lot.
It's all filth which we don't need in our diet all this crap is no good to anyone ban it and get rid of it out right. By doing this people would be healthier and would start acting better and enjoying life, by getting shot of all the junk food you would get rid of a good 90% of the chemical muck that's in food as well.
This is one of the most stupid suggestions I have seen here on the site. So ban fast food....McDonald's and the like...do you ban the local kebab joint? Ban the nice Italian pizza restaurant with homemade pizza and tiramisu (very rich loverly dessert) cause you can also get fat? Will the fat police break down the door to my parent's home at Xmas and confiscate my Mom's bakalava and Xmas biscuits?
No really this is rather arbitrary....txing some stuff might work (btw DARK chocolate is not bad for you and can have some beneficial effects) Read what Gizzmoe posted as well. Beer...mmmmm.
I was just pointing out a extreme point of view which I know would not be in-forced. :p
I would like to see higher taxes on all unhealthy foods but I know my Government would just squander the money.
Gizzmoe
06-09-06, 06:02 AM
I would like to see higher taxes on all unhealthy foods but I know my Government would just squander the money.
Please define "unhealthy food".
Please define "unhealthy food".
Junk food.
That's it I am done and dusted.
Gizzmoe
06-09-06, 06:12 AM
And what is "Junk food"? :)
Konovalov
06-09-06, 06:37 AM
Perhaps McDonalds should be subjected to a higher rate of tax on it's World Cup Special Big Mac. ;) Feast your eyes on this burger from hell:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5003998.stm
Konovalov
06-09-06, 06:47 AM
The Junk Food Companion
(http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452280893/104-0469849-9161512?v=glance&n=283155)http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452280893/104-0469849-9161512?v=glance&n=283155
(http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452280893/104-0469849-9161512?v=glance&n=283155)
Excellent. I wonder where KFC's Chicken Popcorn features on the list. That stuff is a real arterie clogger.
P.S. That is weird I just quoted a post by STEED as soon as he posted it and then when I completed my quote/reply his original post has been deleted I assume by him. Very strange.
It should not be too difficult to come up with a definition. Even rich foods like my pizza or kebab examples have nutironal value for all the calories and fat. If you are active food like that in balance should be no problem. I have difficulty thinking a peanut butter (flavoured paste) filled pretzel type thing has much value. One thing, high end chocolates and pastries are eaten less often and have fewer cruud ingredients...and are more expensive. Home made are eaten even less and you can control what you put into it. Manufactured snacks, and fast food (highly processed) snacks have high calories, fat and little else to commend them. These can be taxed even higher. Point is though I am getting fed up with this as much as the anti-smoking crusades etc... more of the state trying to force people to be good. :down:
XabbaRus
06-09-06, 09:50 AM
I agree that this is the way forward. If we tax ciggies to something like 75% of the price then why not the same with big macs etc?
Also I think we should tax alcohol big style, maybe have it like in Norway.
Still they have an alcholism problem and when they come over to the UK they lose it.
Only thing is if you tax Mcdeess and Bugger King then people would lose jobs as they places close down.....
Sailor Steve
06-09-06, 12:37 PM
I completely disagree, and voted no. Anyone who ever creates a tax should have the mindset that all taxes are evil, if a necessary evil; just as all government is evil, if equally necessary. And as for Steed's cry for shutting down anything he considers unhealthy: as soon as you give that kind of power to anyone, you have to ask yourself when someone is going to use that power to shut YOU down.
Yes, obesity is bad, just as riding a motorcycle without a helmet is bad; but for a society to be truly free, you can't force people to give up something because it's bad for them. You can only prevent them from doing things that are bad for you, or the populace in general. In my opinion, the powers you want to grant are nothing short of dictatorial.
No, thanks.
scandium
06-09-06, 12:54 PM
I completely disagree, and voted no. Anyone who ever creates a tax should have the mindset that all taxes are evil, if a necessary evil; just as all government is evil, if equally necessary.
Why are taxes and government evil? I think your basic premise here is flawed, even though its a common enough sentiment these days. Its interesting that the people who say this (and I'm not including you since I don't know you) have been educated at public schools, are protected by publicly funded police and military, use publicly funded roads or mass transit to commute to work, and on and on.
Sailor Steve
06-09-06, 01:02 PM
As I said, a necessary evil. I also said that anyone empowered to create new taxes should have that mindset. The true evil I see involving government is the mindset that they can fix any problem if they throw enough of our money at it. A good example of this was the claim by our last president, Bill Clinton, and his supporters that they balanced our Federal budget. On the face of it this is true, but the means they chose to even things out was a raise in taxes. My feeling at the time was that if raising taxes can solve our problems, then why not raise them to 100%, then just give us what you think we need to live on. What scares me is that there are people in power who actually think that's a good idea.
Government by nature produces no revenue, so taxes are vital for any government function. I call them evil mainly because I think it's dangerous to trust anyone who calls them good.
TteFAboB
06-09-06, 01:55 PM
Its interesting that the people who say this (and I'm not including you since I don't know you) have been educated at public schools, are protected by publicly funded police and military, use publicly funded roads or mass transit to commute to work, and on and on.
So anyone who has been educated at a public school, are protected by publicy funded police and military and use publicy funded roads or mass transit to commute to work looses the right to express their opinion or to even have one.
:up:
scandium
06-09-06, 04:00 PM
Its interesting that the people who say this (and I'm not including you since I don't know you) have been educated at public schools, are protected by publicly funded police and military, use publicly funded roads or mass transit to commute to work, and on and on.
So anyone who has been educated at a public school, are protected by publicy funded police and military and use publicy funded roads or mass transit to commute to work looses the right to express their opinion or to even have one.
:up:
Not sure why you are quoting me to make that assertion, since I wasn't saying or even implying any such thing.
scandium
06-09-06, 04:10 PM
Government by nature produces no revenue, so taxes are vital for any government function. I call them evil mainly because I think it's dangerous to trust anyone who calls them good.
My own view of taxes is that they are, in themselves, neither good nor evil, but can be put to either end.
That is a little off topic though but I was curious about your choice of words.
Onkel Neal
06-09-06, 05:18 PM
NO fat tax. No to all taxes, in fact. Ok, I can live with minimal taxes, very minimal.
I would support higher insurance costs for fat people.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.