Fat Tax

[Skillet]

Daily debate add: Fat tax.



Background:



The world is facing swelling numbers of people who are overweight. In the past decade the number of overweight people rose from 200 million in 1995 to 300 million in 2003.



Even in parts of the world like Africa, clinics for overweight people are being established. In India, 55% of women between 20 and 69 are overweight. The same goes also for 20% of adult Chinese. The ratio of overweight children in Brazil rose by 239% in the last generation. All in all, 1.7 billion of the world’s population is supposed to be overweight according to the World Health Organization. Moreover, this also significantly affects countries’ health care systems. Statistics for the USA show that obesity causes 300,000 deaths each year and costs the economy $117 billion per year in additional health-care expenses. New York Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, a Brooklyn Democrat has floated the idea of a fat tax. He believes that a tax would create a small disincentive towards the consumption of high-fat, low-nutrition foods and therefore reduce the obesity figures. Similar suggestions have also appeared in the UK, Australia and Canada.





So go ahead, put your two cents in before I put in mine!

 

[Princess]

See here's the thing about those kind of taxes.

Politicians act all high and mighty--we just care about your health, and the only way to get you to care about your own health is to tax you so you quit this horrible thing that you are doing.



OK, so if people have a healthier lifestyle, and don't weigh as much--will the tax come off? Or will the politicians say Crap--we need more money, because revenues are down



I could only guide my children in the way they should go--there is no way that I can 'force' my children to study, get good grades, not drink, not smoke, not drive too fast. They (at least 2 of them) are adults and will do as they see fit--not momma. I only hope that they do what is right as far as their health/lifestyle is concerned. And that's all my parents could hope for from me.



I don't think living in a 'nanny state' is anything that I want to do.....

 

[Skillet]

See here's the thing about those kind of taxes.

Politicians act all high and mighty--we just care about your health, and the only way to get you to care about your own health is to tax you so you quit this horrible thing that you are doing.



OK, so if people have a healthier lifestyle, and don't weigh as much--will the tax come off? Or will the politicians say Crap--we need more money, because revenues are down



I could only guide my children in the way they should go--there is no way that I can 'force' my children to study, get good grades, not drink, not smoke, not drive too fast. They (at least 2 of them) are adults and will do as they see fit--not momma. I only hope that they do what is right as far as their health/lifestyle is concerned. And that's all my parents could hope for from me.



I don't think living in a 'nanny state' is anything that I want to do.....

But there already is tax on cigarettes, and alcohol (at least in Canada..) A pack of smokes here starts at $8. A 26 of Grey Goose is 60 here. Seen 'em in 35 in USA. It's pretty heavily taxed. It makes people think more about what they're spending their money on. And I was actually was thinking the money would be used to promote a healthier lifestyle. Advertising, advertising, and initiatives. The tax money could be used to subsidize healthy foods, or advertising within schools for a healthier lifestyle.

 

[Princess]

Yeah--there are taxes on it here in the US too, but as I said. It's a hypocritical tax. All of those taxes are....

Politicians don't really care about your health--that's just what they say to justify their tax.



When the tobacco companies had to pay the states reparations--or whatever you want to call it--for state patients that had lung diseases due to smoking, there was a percentage of that court settlement that was supposed to go to educate the young people against the evils of smoking. Only a very small percentage was used--even though that was what was touted by the politicians. (See, I got the big, bad tobacco companies to take some responsibility for their actions, and now they are going to pay to educate our young people against smoking) BULL! That was a ploy. All these taxes are nothing but a easy way to increase revenue. As I said, if/when people do quit smoking/drinking/eating junk food politicians aren't on the news saying Great News! Revenues from the sin taxes are down--people are living healthier Instead they are on the news saying We have to raise taxes, as revenues are down

 

[Bluezone777]

The fun part about taxes is that it is set up so they can legally maneuver tax revenue away from where you think they are going so they can go to whatever they want.



Once you get a tax approved, it will NEVER get removed.



Trust me, you can tax cigarettes all you like but people will smoke them because they are made to be addicting. If you are really interested in curbing smoking then you would help people pay for the things they can use to quit. They don't' do this because the taxes aren't actually made for that purpose.



Why would they create a tax that would fix the problem that makes the tax profitable for the government? That is unless it is made so it never stops becoming profitable.

The same thing applies to a fat tax because if they really had a problem with obesity then they would help to pay for people to seek help in losing weight as it's not always as easy for everyone to become thin.

 

[Princess]

But there already is tax on cigarettes, and alcohol (at least in Canada..) A pack of smokes here starts at $8. A 26 of Grey Goose is 60 here. Seen 'em in 35 in USA. It's pretty heavily taxed. It makes people think more about what they're spending their money on. And I was actually was thinking the money would be used to promote a healthier lifestyle. Advertising, advertising, and initiatives. The tax money could be used to subsidize healthy foods, or advertising within schools for a healthier lifestyle.

If I want to smoke (which I don't) I'm going to smoke. If I want to drink (which I don't do a whole lot of) I'm going to drink. If I want to eat Big Macs until they run out my ears, I'm going to. No amount of tax is going to curtail something that I want to do. Taxes have gong up expontionally on cigarettes as well as bourbon in Kentucky, and that hasn't stopped a lot of people from smoking or drinking.

 

[Skillet]

[quote name='Skillet']



But there already is tax on cigarettes, and alcohol (at least in Canada..) A pack of smokes here starts at $8. A 26 of Grey Goose is 60 here. Seen 'em in 35 in USA. It's pretty heavily taxed. It makes people think more about what they're spending their money on. And I was actually was thinking the money would be used to promote a healthier lifestyle. Advertising, advertising, and initiatives. The tax money could be used to subsidize healthy foods, or advertising within schools for a healthier lifestyle.

If I want to smoke (which I don't) I'm going to smoke. If I want to drink (which I don't do a whole lot of) I'm going to drink. If I want to eat Big Macs until they run out my ears, I'm going to. No amount of tax is going to curtail something that I want to do. Taxes have gong up expontionally on cigarettes as well as bourbon in Kentucky, and that hasn't stopped a lot of people from smoking or drinking.[/quote]



Not true. Some people have, when they realize that the cost exceeds their own financial state, will quit. If you realize you are now spending twice as much money on cigarettes than before, you start to question whether it's worth it. This is why my mom quit. Before she spent $910 a year, smoking a pack every other day. Then takes spiked on them, and now it is $1820 for the same thing. She immidietely quit. Some situations differ.

 

[Princess]

There will always be a percentage of people that will quit--smoking, drinking, drinking soda, whatever. But what I'm saying is when those people quit doing whatever it is that brings in the money in. There will be a decrease in tax revenue--THEN, other taxes get raised--to make up the shortfall in revenue.



I don't care how 'concerned' a politician acts--they aren't concerned for my welfare--they just care about the bottom line.

 

[Skillet]

There will always be a percentage of people that will quit--smoking, drinking, drinking soda, whatever. But what I'm saying is when those people quit doing whatever it is that brings in the money in. There will be a decrease in tax revenue--THEN, other taxes get raised--to make up the shortfall in revenue.



I don't care how 'concerned' a politician acts--they aren't concerned for my welfare--they just care about the bottom line.

What if the money raised was never used to do anything but for schools to promote healthy living, or as a subsidy for healthy foods? If everyone was already eating healthy, it's not like the money would be used for something more complex.

 

[Bluezone777]

[quote name='Princess']There will always be a percentage of people that will quit--smoking, drinking, drinking soda, whatever. But what I'm saying is when those people quit doing whatever it is that brings in the money in. There will be a decrease in tax revenue--THEN, other taxes get raised--to make up the shortfall in revenue.



I don't care how 'concerned' a politician acts--they aren't concerned for my welfare--they just care about the bottom line.

What if the money raised was never used to do anything but for schools to promote healthy living, or as a subsidy for healthy foods? If everyone was already eating healthy, it's not like the money would be used for something more complex.[/quote]



That's not far from saying what if pigs fly while hell is freezing over? Otherwise known as never ever going to happen especially with the government we have over here in the US.

 

[Princess]

[quote name='Princess']There will always be a percentage of people that will quit--smoking, drinking, drinking soda, whatever. But what I'm saying is when those people quit doing whatever it is that brings in the money in. There will be a decrease in tax revenue--THEN, other taxes get raised--to make up the shortfall in revenue.



I don't care how 'concerned' a politician acts--they aren't concerned for my welfare--they just care about the bottom line.

What if the money raised was never used to do anything but for schools to promote healthy living, or as a subsidy for healthy foods? If everyone was already eating healthy, it's not like the money would be used for something more complex.[/quote]

Politicians never met tax money they didn't spend. I don't care how it's mandated--they'll find some kind of a loophole.

 

[Skillet]

[quote name='Skillet'][quote name='Princess']There will always be a percentage of people that will quit--smoking, drinking, drinking soda, whatever. But what I'm saying is when those people quit doing whatever it is that brings in the money in. There will be a decrease in tax revenue--THEN, other taxes get raised--to make up the shortfall in revenue.



I don't care how 'concerned' a politician acts--they aren't concerned for my welfare--they just care about the bottom line.

What if the money raised was never used to do anything but for schools to promote healthy living, or as a subsidy for healthy foods? If everyone was already eating healthy, it's not like the money would be used for something more complex.[/quote]

Politicians never met tax money they didn't spend. I don't care how it's mandated--they'll find some kind of a loophole.[/quote]



Actually, many places in Canada have maintained a balanced budget for years.

Not everywhere can't.

 

[Bluezone777]

[quote name='Skillet'][quote name='Princess']There will always be a percentage of people that will quit--smoking, drinking, drinking soda, whatever. But what I'm saying is when those people quit doing whatever it is that brings in the money in. There will be a decrease in tax revenue--THEN, other taxes get raised--to make up the shortfall in revenue.



I don't care how 'concerned' a politician acts--they aren't concerned for my welfare--they just care about the bottom line.

What if the money raised was never used to do anything but for schools to promote healthy living, or as a subsidy for healthy foods? If everyone was already eating healthy, it's not like the money would be used for something more complex.[/quote]

Politicians never met tax money they didn't spend. I don't care how it's mandated--they'll find some kind of a loophole.[/quote]



More like they will make the loophole so no one will mind if the law passes since a clear path around it is left for everyone to use and abuse.

 

[sabrina]

I agree with all the comments that were posted except for skillet's and I'm going to add this . . . . .



Why do you want the government to have more power controlling what you do?



I know it's popular nowadays to be prejudiced against people who smoke and fat people, but look at the principal of the thing. The government regulating health is very similar to the government regulating morals. They're choosing what you should do FOR you according to what THEY believe will give you a healthier and happier life.



Remember how it's recommended that you exercise for 30 minutes a day, five days a week? What if we had to keep a record of how much we exercised and that we all had to exercise this amount or we had to pay a high tax?



Or think about skin cancer. People get skin cancer from tanning all the time. What if there was a heavy tax placed on everyone who went to the beach and didn't wear sunscreen? Or if your skin was too dark from it's normal color and you had to pay a tax for it? Would that be fair?



It's also healthy for the mind and keeps you from getting alzheimer's to do crossword puzzles. What if the government sent us a crossword puzzle every week and if we didn't send it back to them we got taxed heavily for it?



Living in smoggy areas is unhealthy for the lungs. What if we taxed people for living in polluted areas? People get much worse asthma and allergy problems in those areas and the government has to pay hospital bills for that so should we start taxing them, too.



I am completely against the government controlling my life and telling me what to do all the time. Some things are necessarily, like laws about murder and stuff and militaries to keep us safe from outside forces and abuse, but regulating personal life choices like health and weight is none of their business and they should butt out of it.

 

[Skillet]

Many of the threads in the debate column are not my direct opinion, but sometimes you need a contrasting view for others to make theirs more well known. Now that there is some contrast, I can say that it is a ridiculous idea that would be IMPOSSIBLE to do. How would you know? What foods would you tax? Where would you draw the line? It's the simple questions like those that make this impossible.



Won't ever pass. People know what is good and what is bad for their body. Government should not step in, unless it poses an immediate health hazard; such as hard drugs.