[catfish]

Baggy looking and spotty? I don't really know what this means.

spotty meaning pimples and bad complexion that kind of thing.

I'm not saying I think that's what you look like.. I just mean if you're eating a lot of fast food and getting a lot of your calories from it, it's not good.

Okay, then would you tax fruit juices, still beverages, sports drinks or 'vitamin water'? Would you tax oil, or sugar, or salt, or flour? Would you tax meat, because it's going to ruin the environment? Would you tax restaurants that serve large portions? Would you tax desserts? Would you tax mayonnaise?

tax the largest problem ones to curb that behaviour somewhat, then re-assess in some years.

[Angry Grimace]

You're right. I guess I just want to see something done that will help to slow and eventually stop the rise of obesity before it becomes too big of a problem to handle. I don't agree with directly taxing fat people though. I've heard that suggestion before, from my dad no less, it doesn't really take into account various factors that could have led to them being obese.

If your argument is truly an economic one, it makes perfect sense to just tax fat people for being fat.

[HammerOfThor]

Kevin Smith would really have something to bitch about

[ciaossu]

This is called a command economy. It's just an end-around to avoid calling it that.

I don't think changing what is taxed and what is subsidized would make an economy such as the US economy any more of a command economy than it is now.

Okay, then would you tax fruit juices, still beverages, sports drinks or 'vitamin water'? Would you tax oil, or sugar, or salt, or flour? Would you tax meat, because it's going to ruin the environment? Would you tax restaurants that serve large portions? Would you tax desserts? Would you tax mayonnaise? Taxation won't solve the issue, but education and cultural change will. If someone eats 50 chicken wings, shame them don't applaud them. If someone gorges at an AYCE restaurant, make fun of them. If someone's fat, then give them the support they need to lose the weight and do not make it acceptable to stay fat. People generally know when they're eating 'more than they should be'.

That's true, maybe it's a slippery slope saying to just tax everything that's bad, but I do think taxing things with long term detrimental effects that are 'hidden' could be a good thing. I agree that education is probably the most important factor in reducing obesity.

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

It's only a matter of time until the governments around the world begin strictly rationing food. Who are we kidding here? And it's not because we don't have enough. It's because we have too much.

[Attackthebase]

Really? Germany, the country with 29 vacation days per year? THAT Germany? http://20somethingfinance.com/americ...vity-vacation/

I had anecdotal evidence for my claim, yet it seems that claim was wrong.

You placed an actual citation for your claim, and Google is deeming to prove your case too. I recant my argument involving Germans being more overworked than America.

[ascii42]

And SHE EATS TV DINNERS. I was going out to my car and saw her on her lunch and she was huddled in front of the microwave waiting for a banquet brand TV DINNER to cook.

Eh, I've done that. What exactly is wrong with that? Sometimes I want something hot for lunch and I don't want to go out.

[grumble]

I don't think changing what is taxed and what is subsidized would make an economy such as the US economy any more of a command economy than it is now. That's true, maybe it's a slippery slope saying to just tax everything that's bad, but I do think taxing things with long term detrimental effects that are 'hidden' could be a good thing. I agree that education is probably the most important factor in reducing obesity.

The point then isn't to tax the food, it's to tax the result if you want to provide economic incentives. Tax people for being fat. Add 5% to their tax bill if their BMI is over 30, and allow for exemptions if people demonstrate that their body fat percentage is within 2% of the 'healthy' range.

Education is clearly the tool to combat this, yeah.

[Black-Box]

I think you should be taxed based on weight, as bad as it sounds, but the more overweight you are, the harder everything is, and if they don't want to try to get healthier, than they should pay the price

after a while, they should ban bottle water, and use the tax money to install water stations to refill reusable bottles with water, that way it encourages people to always drink water

[The Technomancer]

Okay, then would you tax fruit juices, still beverages, sports drinks or 'vitamin water'? Would you tax oil, or sugar, or salt, or flour? Would you tax meat, because it's going to ruin the environment? Would you tax restaurants that serve large portions? Would you tax desserts? Would you tax mayonnaise? Taxation won't solve the issue, but education and cultural change will. If someone eats 50 chicken wings, shame them don't applaud them. If someone gorges at an AYCE restaurant, make fun of them. If someone's fat, then give them the support they need to lose the weight and do not make it acceptable to stay fat. People generally know when they're eating 'more than they should be'.

Don't you see the fallacy of using a slippery slope argument here when you are responding to a point about restrictions on unhealthy things that have been restricted for years that didn't cause an accelerating slide into restrictions on everything? If we restrict tobacco and then decades later decide that maybe we should restrict soda I find it hard to buy that from there its a dangerously small jump to restricting everything else

I don't necessarily disagree with your point about education, but I think you are using the wrong reason to argue against government restriction.

[Piecake]

I think you should be taxed based on weight, as bad as it sounds, but the more overweight you are, the harder everything is, and if they don't want to try to get healthier, than they should pay the price after a while, they should ban bottle water, and use the tax money to install water stations to refill reusable bottles with water, that way it encourages people to always drink water

I simply dont think that is feasible. Itll be extremely difficult/impossible/expense to tax people based on their weight, BMI, or fat percentage.

The only tax that can work is a sugar/HFCS tax while ending all grain subsidies

[D4Danger]

I think you should be taxed based on weight, as bad as it sounds, but the more overweight you are, the harder everything is, and if they don't want to try to get healthier, than they should pay the price

what about people who smoke or drink? That's unhealthy, right?

in fact, why should I pay for anyone who doesn't live their life to my perfect standard? let's just get rid of the NHS and all go private. Every man for himself.

[davepoobond]

might as well tax people for being too short or too tall while they're at it.

[Piecake]

might as well tax people for being too short or too tall while they're at it.

Thats a stupid analogy. Humans werent meant to be fat and we have control over our weight, not to mention the severe health issues associated with obesity...

[MidgarBlowedUp]

might as well tax people for being too short or too tall while they're at it.

This should have been the first reply.

[Black-Box]

what about people who smoke or drink? That's unhealthy, right? in fact, why should I pay for anyone who doesn't live their life to my perfect standard? let's just get rid of the NHS and all go private. Every man for himself.

if you are healthy you shouldn't pay anything, but if you are like 500lbs buying something unhealthy will cost you, not to help other people, but because if you need help it is harder

[tokkun]

what about people who smoke or drink? That's unhealthy, right? in fact, why should I pay for anyone who doesn't live their life to my perfect standard? let's just get rid of the NHS and all go private. Every man for himself.

People who smoke and drink are taxed. Those are some of the highest taxed products in the US.

[MidgarBlowedUp]

Thats a stupid analogy. Humans werent meant to be fat and we have control over our weight, not to mention the severe health issues associated with obesity...

It is entirely possible to be fat and healthy just like it's entirely possible to be thin and unhealthy like many people with diabetes or cancer. Linking obesity to any illness is just association there may or may not be a cause and effect in place. If you do crystal meth on a daily basis brushing your teeth everyday isn't going to keep them from falling out.

What about offering a discount for purchasing foods lower in starches and sugars but higher in proteins and fats?
Oh wait, we can't do that it might actually fight obesity and we won't continue to profit on it.

[Deified Data]

It won't work but punishing fat people seems to make people feel warm and fuzzy, so go for it.

[Trent Strong]

might as well tax people for being too short or too tall while they're at it.

This should have been the first reply.

This is a terrible analogy.

[pompidu]

People who smoke and drink are taxed. Those are some of the highest taxed products in the US.

Cigarettes in ny are taxed more than the actual cigarettes cost. 65% of the total cost of a pack is state tax.

[zoku88]

People who smoke and drink are taxed. Those are some of the highest taxed products in the US.

I'm surprised someone wouldn't know that HAHA.

It's not uncommon that things that put strains on society are taxed more.

I mean, there's a gas tax, too.

[Piecake]

It is entirely possible to be fat and healthy just like it's entirely possible to be thin and unhealthy like many people with diabetes or cancer. Linking obesity to any illness is just association there may or may not be a cause and effect in place. If you do crystal meth on a daily basis brushing your teeth everyday isn't going to keep them from falling out. What about offering a discount for purchasing foods lower in starches and sugars but higher in proteins and fats? Oh wait, we can't do that it might actually fight obesity and we won't continue to profit on it.

Obesity dramatically increases your risk dramatically for heart attack, diabetes, inflamation, etc. Could there be that 1 in a million fat guy who is perfectly healthy? Sure, but it seems pretty stupid to say that, oh, looky here, there is one healthy fat dude, so fat people can be healthy too and skinny people can be unhealthy!

id be perfectly fine with your suggestion though, but the simplest way to do that is to end grain subsidies and subsidize veggies and meat

[whytemyke]

The biggest problem with a "fat tax" in the US is that the most unhealthy people are usually that way because of poverty.

I'm not saying there's causality there, just a correlation. You can't deny that the highest density of fast food places in America are generally seen in the poorest places, too. I don't see how taxing those people more is going to help them. At least not as much as getting cheap nutritional food nearby for them would do.

[grumble]

Don't you see the fallacy of using a slippery slope argument here when you are responding to a point about restrictions on unhealthy things that have been restricted for years that didn't cause an accelerating slide into restrictions on everything? If we restrict tobacco and then decades later decide that maybe we should restrict soda I find it hard to buy that from there its a dangerously small jump to restricting everything else I don't necessarily disagree with your point about education, but I think you are using the wrong reason to argue against government restriction.

There's a big difference between tobacco and soda, hence your argument of false equivalency.

1. Soda in moderation is not unhealthy.
2. Soda is very similar health-wise to a wide variety of other foods, such as fruit juice, desserts, candy, frappucinos, milkshakes, etc. You can't restrict soda and not restrict its equivalents, which ends up covering a very large number of the foods we eat. Tobacco is in its own territory.
3. The point I was trying to make is that the solution clearly doesn't lie with taxing foods; we have no clear way of drawing a line between acceptable and unacceptable, AND specific foods aren't the issue. You can get fat off of 'healthy' foods, and thin eating unhealthy ones. It's a cultural issue that is the main problem, which is exacerbated by our food choices not caused by them.

[Piecake]

There's a big difference between tobacco and soda, hence your argument of false equivalency. 1. Soda in moderation is not unhealthy. 2. Soda is very similar health-wise to a wide variety of other foods, such as fruit juice, desserts, candy, frappucinos, milkshakes, etc. You can't restrict soda and not restrict its equivalents, which ends up covering a very large number of the foods we eat. Tobacco is in its own territory. 3. The point I was trying to make is that the solution clearly doesn't lie with taxing foods; we have no clear way of drawing a line between acceptable and unacceptable, AND specific foods aren't the issue. You can get fat off of 'healthy' foods, and thin eating unhealthy ones. It's a cultural issue that is the main problem, which is exacerbated by our food choices not caused by them.

you simply tax sugar, corn and whatever chemical shit they can come up with that produces sugar. That way, all of the food that relies on that shit will be more expensive. That really doesnt seem all that difficult to me

It really is unhealthy to have any amount of soda.

Yup, anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves

[Attackthebase]

There's a big difference between tobacco and soda, hence your argument of false equivalency. 1. Soda in moderation is not unhealthy. 2. Soda is very similar health-wise to a wide variety of other foods, such as fruit juice, desserts, candy, frappucinos, milkshakes, etc. You can't restrict soda and not restrict its equivalents, which ends up covering a very large number of the foods we eat. Tobacco is in its own territory. 3. The point I was trying to make is that the solution clearly doesn't lie with taxing foods; we have no clear way of drawing a line between acceptable and unacceptable, AND specific foods aren't the issue. You can get fat off of 'healthy' foods, and thin eating unhealthy ones. It's a cultural issue that is the main problem, which is exacerbated by our food choices not caused by them.

It really is unhealthy to have any amount of soda.

[Trent Strong]

It really is unhealthy to have any amount of soda.

What if you have one can every two years?

[Angry Grimace]

It really is unhealthy to have any amount of soda.

It's unhealthy to walk outside too. Gimme a break.

Thats a stupid analogy. Humans werent meant to be fat and we have control over our weight, not to mention the severe health issues associated with obesity...

It's not a stupid analogy at all. It's very easy to sit behind a computer and decree that all fat people owe you money; moreover, you can link virtually any activity to some deleterious financial impact. It's simply mind-boggling that people can't just focus on issues that matter, like ensuring universal health care coverage, but keep on going towards taxing people for being treating themselves to a hamburger.

[tiff]

What if you have one can every two years?

yourealreadydead.jpg

[Attackthebase]

What if you have one can every two years?

Still unhealthy. It's not going to kill you, but it's not doing your body any favors. You are still putting some amount of garbage into your system.

It's unhealthy to walk outside too. Gimme a break.

Guess I'll stay inside and not get my Vitamin D then.

[grumble]

It really is unhealthy to have any amount of soda.

If you drink a can of soda a week, I'd be very surprised if you experienced any health repercussions.

[The Technomancer]

If you drink a can of soda a week, I'd be very surprised if you experienced any health repercussions.

And smoking a cigarette a month probably isn't going to give you lung cancer. Its not a question if its possible to enjoy them in moderation with no repercussions, its a question of weather people are or not, and I would hope the recent find showing that soda is still the top source of calories in the American diet would serve to show that lots of people aren't.

[Attackthebase]

If you drink a can of soda a week, I'd be very surprised if you experienced any health repercussions.

I feel like utter shit whenever I drink a soda. I stopped drinking soda for two months. One day, I drank a bottle of cherry coke, and my arms were writhing in pain when I was watching a film in class.

I realized this is a YMMV case. All I'm saying is no benefits exist in drinking soda and it only cause damage, albeit a minimal one if only had on rare occasions.

[Angry Grimace]

If you are for imposing fat taxes, but not against the outlawing of alcohol, you're basically a hypocrite.

[Piecake]

If you are for imposing fat taxes, but not against the absolutely outlawing of alcohol, you're basically a hypocrite.

That makes no fucking sense

[Angry Grimace]

That makes no fucking sense

Alcohol costs the country millions in accidents and health problems. How do you figure there's some fundamental difference between alcohol and fatty food in terms of its financial effect? I'm simply pointing out that if you want to get all nanny and tell everyone what they can and can't do on the grounds it's unhealthy and/or costs taxpayers money, there's a lot of products that nobody has suggested we should outlaw.

[Attackthebase]

If you are for imposing fat taxes, but not against the absolutely outlawing of alcohol, you're basically a hypocrite.

America already outlawed alcohol in the 1920s, and that era was horrible regarding crime. There were many crucial reasons why alcohol was legalized again.

A fat tax won't cause a significant increase in crime (like the roaring 20s), it will increase the nation's revenue (unlike outlawing alcohol would damage our biggest source of tax), and it may convince some people to stop eating an excess of fatty food.

[The Technomancer]

Alcohol costs the country millions in accidents and health problems. How do you figure there's some fundamental difference between alcohol and fatty food in terms of its financial effect?

But...alcohol is taxed. I'm not particularly arguing that a fat tax would be effective (I don't think it would be) but every argument against it seems to be trying to base itself on comparisons to other things that are consistently misused in this thread.

[Husker86]

Alcohol costs the country millions in accidents and health problems. How do you figure there's some fundamental difference between alcohol and fatty food in terms of its financial effect?

Because alcohol is taxed heavily right now, not subsidized. Why doesn't that seem to click with you? We aren't talking about banning fatty foods, we're talking about taxing it.

[Piecake]

Alcohol costs the country millions in accidents and health problems. How do you figure there's some fundamental difference between alcohol and fatty food in terms of its financial effect?

What made no fucking sense in your post was your outlawing alcohol idiocy.

Wanting to tax sugar and keep the tax on alcohol does not make someone a hypocrite

[Angry Grimace]

What made no fucking sense in your post was your outlawing alcohol idiocy. Wanting to tax sugar and keep the tax on alcohol does not make someone a hypocrite

You need to calm down, dude. It's a discussion, not an insult to your mother. I'm trying to draw a comparison; perhaps it wasn't a good one, but that doesn't mean your constant "you're stupid" in every post in this thread is necessary, warranted or appreciated.

Because alcohol is taxed heavily right now, not subsidized. Why doesn't that seem to click with you? We aren't talking about banning fatty foods, we're talking about taxing it.

So why not just tax fat people directly for being fat?

[Srsly]

And smoking a cigarette a month probably isn't going to give you lung cancer. Its not a question if its possible to enjoy them in moderation with no repercussions, its a question of weather people are or not, and I would hope the recent find showing that soda is still the top source of calories in the American diet would serve to show that lots of people aren't.

One of the problems with "everything in moderation" is that moderation has a different meaning for everything. Cocaine can kill you the first time you try and is highly addicting. There is pretty strong evidence that one soda a day is very unhealthy. But is it unhealthy for someone who works out intensely every day to have a soda after their workout? Probably not. The biochemistry is different between a sedentary person drinking a can of soda a day and an athlete drinking one after competition or a workout. And then lots of foods can be addicting, there is no question about it. Sure, some people can exhibit self control and consume these foods in moderation (whatever dose that isn't enough to cause damage acutely or chronically), although self control more to do with brain chemistry than willpower, so I don't know if you can actually call it self control. Telling people to enjoy these foods in moderation just doesn't work on a population level.

[Trent Strong]

America already outlawed alcohol in the 1920s, and that era was horrible regarding crime. There were many crucial reasons why alcohol was legalized again. A fat tax won't cause a significant increase in crime (like the roaring 20s), it will increase the nation's revenue (unlike outlawing alcohol would damage our biggest source of tax), and it may convince some people to stop eating an excess of fatty food.

But fatty foods don't make people fat. The new thinking is that sugar, carbs, HFCS are what are causing obesity. (I don't know how correct these new ideas about carbs, etc. are though.)

[Piecake]

So why not just tax fat people directly for being fat?

Because that would be expensive and likely impossible to do?

[Rebel Leader]

Thats just poor nutrition education. Bananas are INSANELY cheap. No way anyone cant afford them

[The Technomancer]

So why not just tax fat people directly for being fat?

Because, as you pointed out, that would be stupid.

But fatty foods don't make people fat. The new thinking is that sugar, carbs, HFCS are what are causing obesity. (I don't know how correct these new ideas about carbs, etc. are though.)

I think we should be careful to acknowledge that "fatty foods" could mean either "foods with a high fat content" or "foods with a high linkage to increases in body fat"

[grumble]

And smoking a cigarette a month probably isn't going to give you lung cancer. Its not a question if its possible to enjoy them in moderation with no repercussions, its a question of weather people are or not, and I would hope the recent find showing that soda is still the top source of calories in the American diet would serve to show that lots of people aren't.

Smoking one cigarette a month I'd say is also pretty harmless, though you'd probably feel the cigarette a little more than the coke (I'm an ex smoker, and I drink about a can of pop a week). Let's do something on equal terms though:

The average smoker smokes a 30 cigarettes a day.
The average soda drinker drinks about four cans a day .

So a can of coke would be equal to approximately 7 cigarettes a week, or one a day.

You'd feel one a day, and that would likely have health repercussions. Adjust the numbers as you will, but the point is that they are not equivalent. Having the odd soda isn't the issue; and isn't something people should be penalized for doing. An occasional soda IS NOT UNHEALTHY. Show me any evidence where there have been health repercussions among people who drink soda anywhere near that often. People should be penalized for excessive activity-adjusted calorie intake regardless of source.

Hence a tax on the obese, not a tax on one out of a bunch of food options that obese people tend to consume in excess. If you tax coke, then it'll just encourage fruit juice makers to step in the gap, and if you tax them to then it'll encourage sports drink manufacturers to ramp it up. The issue isn't specific foods, it's a culture where gorging oneself and carrying around excessive bodyfat is acceptable behaviour.

[Angry Grimace]

Because that would be expensive and likely impossible to do?

Conclusory.

Because, as you pointed out, that would be stupid.

What about it is stupid? If the idea is entirely financial, it makes sense to tax the people who incur these supposed costs? My guess is that the vast majority of unhealthy foods in this country are consumed by people who don't have obesity related problems at all.

[Trent Strong]

Because, as you pointed out, that would be stupid. I think we should be careful to acknowledge that "fatty foods" could mean either "foods with a high fat content" or "foods with a high linkage to increases in body fat"

True. I just assumed he was talking about food with a high fat content.