Head-to-head: Fat tax
- 06-08-2006, 01:11 AM
- 06-08-2006, 01:18 AM
If they use the BMI, alot of us with athletic builds are in for some taxing. BF% would be the way to go.Recent log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/213350-lean-efx-refined.html
06-08-2006, 01:50 AM
LOL, yep. They should probably just look at taxing unhealthy food items the way alcohol and tobacco are taxed.....earmark those tax revenues for health education and healthcare costs.Originally Posted by bpmartyr
06-08-2006, 02:08 AM
Originally Posted by yeahright
Unhealthy foods are the cheapest kind of food anyway, there is room to tax them.
06-08-2006, 02:11 AM
Yes!!! How cool would that be... it just makes sense. I've never even thought about that. You're a genious, man...Originally Posted by yeahright
06-10-2006, 12:54 PM
06-10-2006, 02:33 PM
ditto to the tax on bad foods. I think even healthy people should have that tax than, its bad food, you want it, pay for it. Plus its not like there would be a $1 increase on this, it would probably be like 5-10 cents, such a small amount on a personal level but a large amount of money for the government to rake in.
06-11-2006, 01:30 PM
I live in England so I pay taxes that go towards funding the NHS, but I can't remember the last time I used an NHS service. It annoys me that I take care of myself but have to pay for those that don't. I don't know how it works in the US, but I believe you all have private health insurance and (in some respects) I think that'd work better than the NHS.
Off the top of my head, poor diet/exercise habits cost our government £6 billion, whilst smoking related diseases cost us £2 billion. I'd definitely be in favour of a bad food tax; BMI doesn't always relate well to overall health IMO.
06-11-2006, 01:46 PM
Yea we have private insurance, but it still has its problems. Everyones health insurance is raised because of those that dont take care of themselves regardless if we are adding new stuff to our insurance. For some reason the companies just dont think its a good idea to tax fat people, smokers and what not who all use their insurance way too much from it.Originally Posted by bms0lsc
06-11-2006, 01:55 PM
It doesn't. Currently 45 million Americans don't have ANY health coverage at all. Many Americans have health coverage but cannot afford to pay for their treatments and medicines. The NHS rations healthcare based upon medical need, in the US healthcare is rationed based upon ability to pay.Originally Posted by bms0lsc
06-11-2006, 02:05 PM
I really hate this aswell, things like NHS funded heroin clinics for addicts (I believe that was what it was anyway) so that they reduce risk of hiv, ect. It's just rediculous.Originally Posted by bms0lsc
06-12-2006, 11:29 PM
We should absolutely not have a fat tax. that is absurd. it is your body and by all means if you want to be a repulsive piece of fat **** then you have that prerogative. we here at anabolicminds should understand more than most that laws should be kept off our bodies.
also there is no way such a thing could be enforced. Many of us here on bulking diets pound down a ton of unhealthy foods, and what about that ectomorph that decides he wants to have his once a week small sized bag of lays potatoe chips, should he be taxed? absolutely not.
The way i would handle this situation is by changing the way we handle the medical emergencies of obese individuals. if a 400 pounds man is driven to the hospital with a heart attack at the same time as a 180lb man that is not declared medically obese....then we need to have laws that force the doctors to care for the 180lb man first and not the repulsive drain on society's resources.
i am sorry but these disgusting people need to either change their lifestyles or deal with some consquences.
06-13-2006, 01:17 AM
Originally Posted by jomi822
I think the medical example you said is worse than a fat tax and more of an unfair law based on body weight than say taxing some junk food. We are not talking about a large tax, 5-10cents on bad food (potato chips, not small things like candy bars, taxx would be proportional to the amount of food/fat in it). In reality I think this is very fair, you have a choice if you want to get taxed or not. It is different comparing weight lifting and healthy lifestyles to unhealthy ones. Steroid users are not a drain on our society like obese people are, I dont believe you could argue that they are.
06-13-2006, 01:34 AM
steroid users are by no means a drain on society, and fat people certainly are. why should they recieve equal medical care when they are a complete burden on the system, THROUGH THEIR OWN FAULT.Originally Posted by snakebyte05
i peronally enjoy eating a bag of potatoe chips every once in awhile and i cant see any damn reason why i should be taxed for it. i am also averse to the idea that we should tax everything that seems socially unacceptable. that is known as oppression, furthermore it is a very broad and nonspecific oppression, affecting people that fat tax isnt meant to target.
no, i believe that not bailing out these repulsively overweight people when their disgusting lifestyle finally gives them a heart attack/stroke/etc. would be the best way of turning some lifestyles around. of course this would never happen because it might offend some people, and politicians will jump all over any idea for new taxes. the problem will never be solved, not that i thinkt he government should be getting its slimy hands involved in the first place.
06-13-2006, 01:41 AM
Originally Posted by jomi822
I understand what you mean with the tax, but I just cant see just letting someone die in a situation like you mentioned due to being fat, that just seems very harsh. This will just always be a problem that seems to have no solution (except making it socially acceptable to make fun of them, instead of acting like its alright and adverting our eyes). I have no beef with someone who is a little over weight, **** happens, everyone at some point will probably get 20lbs or so over weight, but its those that refuse to do anything about, act like its not their fault and and say that they have a disease that I cant stand.
Last edited by snakebyte05; 06-13-2006 at 08:46 AM.
06-13-2006, 02:58 AM
I'm one of the eople who pay hundred(s) a month insurance and can barely afford to pay for my share of any exames. I just had to pay 300 bucks for an MRI. Health care sucks.
06-14-2006, 01:20 PM
After thinking about it, I don't think a tax on unhealthy foods would work. Would a few cents extra on a chocoloate bar or a packet of crisps stop these people from eating them, day in and day out? No. They would just 'absorb' the extra cost, which wouldn't be too significant to them anywayOriginally Posted by jomi822
Sure, the financial burden these people place on healthcare could be covered, but this is just papering over the cracks. A wholesale change in attitude to food and exercise is needed.
To do this I think we have to be cruel to be kind. Fat people SHOULD be taxed individually; maybe seeing 'fat tax' as a deduction on their wage slip would help it hit home. Healthier, leaner people should get preferential treatment in a triage situation (400lbs compared to 200, not 210 to 200), etc.
If people want to be fat, then fine; but there should be consequences, financial and otherwise.
06-14-2006, 04:20 PM
Keep in mind guys that this is the UK that's considering it, not the US...tbh it won't happen, at least not the 'BMI' method anyway, added tax on foods are more likely and tbh if it only affects 'dirty' foods then I welcome it. I'm tired of fat people moaning about their bad hearts etc and getting medical care for it.
06-14-2006, 10:27 PM
this thread is crazy this is just what we need more govt. intrusion into our lives if an employer wanted to make obese employees or those who smoke pay more of a premium for health benefits fine but the idea of the govt. enforcing this doesn't sit well with me this isn't China
06-14-2006, 11:18 PM
Well, all such taxing schemes have yield curves. In most states, they've found the tax rate for tobacco that is enough to make smoking prohibitive for those who aren't gainfully employed (teenagers) and you can chart the reduction in teen tobacco use. Highly targeted taxes that are calibrated to achieve social goals are used all the time.Originally Posted by bms0lsc
The key here would be to identify the goals, and then to calibrate the appropriate tax rate. In this case, I would suggest the goal should be to equalize the costs of healthy versus unhealthy food.....so that consumers wouldn't choose the unhealthy food for economic reasons (they would be free to choose it for other reasons but they wouldn't default to the crappy packaged food because they can get more meals out of it).
06-15-2006, 11:50 PM
sounds a bit like socialism to me i thought we had a democracy or democratic republic anywaysOriginally Posted by yeahright
06-15-2006, 11:59 PM
Political and economic systems are not the same thing.Originally Posted by BUCKNUTS
You can have capitalist dictatorships and socialist democracies.
In point of fact, the most successful nations during the 20th and 21st centuries (measuring success by life expectancy, access to education, housing, medical care, and freedom to engage in the political life of the country) usually describe themselves as socialist democracies.
In this case, we're talking about how to use the taxing power of the state to influence behavior rather than simply imposing it (ex. banning tobacco).
06-16-2006, 09:34 PM
socialists use economics to push thier agendas,taxes are one of the major ways that they accomplish this.Originally Posted by yeahright
06-16-2006, 11:36 PM
All political persuasions use taxes to push their agendas. It's one of the tools of state power. It's usually one of the milder forms of state power when you view it in the context of the other tools states use (violence, censorship, imprisonment).Originally Posted by BUCKNUTS
Consumption taxes (such as being discussed here) are milder still because citizens are free to avoid them by not consuming the taxed product.
06-17-2006, 12:10 AM
you are right and I agree they do all use taxes I'm just not a fan of big govt. and socialists (or democrats as we call them here in America) love huge govt. and use taxes as a means of socially redistributing wealth which to me is completely un-American.I hate so called consumption or sin taxes most of all and I don't smoke and I rarely drink or eat junk food. These taxes are just failed attempts at modifying unhealthy behavior and they don't work, cigarettes are 4-5 dollars a pack now and I don't know anyone who quit because of how much they cost and the overweight will not stop eating doritos and twinkies because the cost goes up a little either. I know people will respond to this by saying well at least then these taxes can be used to offset the cost of treatment which could be true but isn't because our govt. is so completely devoid of fiscal responsibilty that the money would be spent on everything but.As an example of this I give you the great state of Ohio,when Ohio started having state sanctioned gambling all the proceeds were to go to education and billions of dollars have been generated in this way in Ohio, yet nearly every school system here is broke and constantly asking tax payers for more because they don't see the money from the gambling.Originally Posted by yeahright
06-17-2006, 12:16 AM
Althought I think it would open peoples eyes to fitness, motivate them to get in shape, and be damned funny, I think taxing someone for being fat is against the constitution.
06-17-2006, 12:22 AM
You don't have to agree that they are good policy (reasonable people can differ) but they do work. In fact, you can chart it out quite neatly wherever tobacco taxes have been levied:Originally Posted by BUCKNUTS
The World Bank has concluded that raising tobacco taxes is the single most important step that governments can take to reduce cigarette smoking among both adults and young people, particularly in lower socio-economic groups. On average, a 10 per cent increase in the price of cigarettes results in a 4 per cent reduction in cigarette smoking by adults and a 16 per cent reduction in smoking cigarettes by children, reducing overall cigarette smoking but increasing tobacco tax revenue.
# World Bank. Curbing the epidemic: governments and the economics of tobacco control.1999, Washington: World Bank.
# Jha P, Chaloupka FJ. The economics of global tobacco control BMJ 2000; 321:358-361.
06-17-2006, 12:22 AM
That's scary...what a bunch of idiots. Why don't they just use bodyfat level?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.
06-17-2006, 11:49 AM
Would that work? I know a few rugby players who are around 20% bf but can do the 100m in about 15secs and can get a score in the 'teens on the bleep test i.e they keep themselves fit. There are lots of PL'ers with a high bf but aren't necessarily 'unhealthy'.Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
Maybe blood tests/physicals would be a better indicator but that would be expensive and time consuming, so perhaps not workable.
06-19-2006, 02:07 AM
I have been told that NHS such as Canada's work ok, but the downfall is that the doctors don't stay in the country that is set up that way, they want to move to a place where they can charge a higher price. Greed drives us all in some form or another if its not money, its sex, or food. I have also heard that the doctors will give sub-par care aswell, I don't know if there is any truth to this but I would hope not.
Similar Forum Threads
- By olb in forum SupplementsReplies: 22Last Post: 01-30-2009, 06:42 PM
- By jmh80 in forum Sports TalkReplies: 3Last Post: 01-09-2007, 10:14 AM
- By Jayhawkk in forum SupplementsReplies: 19Last Post: 09-16-2006, 01:39 PM
- By Jayhawkk in forum General ChatReplies: 19Last Post: 09-16-2006, 01:39 PM
- By jeff33333 in forum Training ForumReplies: 1Last Post: 02-14-2006, 12:28 PM