POLL: Are You in Favor of a Fat Tax?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

IEC

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 10, 2004
14,440
5,426
136
Anything that will make people less fat is a good thing... because it prolongs their lives and saves the rest of us taxpayers money ;)
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,238
146
Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
Anything that will make people less fat is a good thing... because it prolongs their lives and saves the rest of us taxpayers money ;)

Oppression is oppression... no matter how you justify it.

And, yet again, this mentality is the exact reason why socialism is anathema to freedom.
 

mrzed

Senior member
Jan 29, 2001
811
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Look, it's very simple. Main meal foods are not the problem. Growing inactivity and the increase of idle munching of snack foods are the only correlation with the obesity epidemic that makes sense. In fact, activity levels are so much lower, even without the incerease in snack foods we'd still have an obesity epidemic.

Much as I find your non-sequiters about freedom and socialism disturbing (jingoism and dogma are a big red flag to me) I have to admit you are mostly right here (excepting the bolded word).

But I think your 60's diorama of well-meaning mothers in gingham dresses stuffing any variety of pale white carbohydrates into their children is telling. Where do you think the roots of this problem are? Surely there are 2 parts, activity is #1 with a bullet, I'd be stupid to argue that, but an unhealthy relationship to food is another.

My wife grew up in the situation you described, being told to finish her plate, eating heaps of margarine (I cringe when her mother makes what she calls "gravy"), being served starches, wrapped around other starches, with a side dish of starch, and bread to wipe it all up with. I had a more balanced upbringing. Who do you think is the one in our relationship that has trouble with portion size, adequate intake of fresh fruits and veggies, etc. I live every day with the damage wreaked by the north american 1960's diet. It has taken years for it to come home to roost, and it needed the one-two punch of sedentism to reach its full glory, but I do think it is a major contributing factor.

At the risk of inciting Amused's wrath, I would suggest a radical (socialist? ;) ) solution. Ban ALL advertising aimed at children. Some pinko commie euro nations are looking at this, and I think it is the only thing that makes sense. The little ones are too susceptible, and I think their needs outweighs the freedom of multi-billion dollar corporations to spend millions to manipulate them.

FWIW, I'm somewhat against a fat tax, mostly because it would be impossible to administer fairly.
 

Shawn

Lifer
Apr 20, 2003
32,236
53
91
I've got an idea. Lets feed all the extremely fat people to the starving people in Africa. :evil:
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,238
146
Originally posted by: mrzed
Originally posted by: Amused
Look, it's very simple. Main meal foods are not the problem. Growing inactivity and the increase of idle munching of snack foods are the only correlation with the obesity epidemic that makes sense. In fact, activity levels are so much lower, even without the incerease in snack foods we'd still have an obesity epidemic.

Much as I find your non-sequiters about freedom and socialism disturbing (jingoism and dogma are a big red flag to me) I have to admit you are mostly right here (excepting the bolded word).

But I think your 60's diorama of well-meaning mothers in gingham dresses stuffing any variety of pale white carbohydrates into their children is telling. Where do you think the roots of this problem are? Surely there are 2 parts, activity is #1 with a bullet, I'd be stupid to argue that, but an unhealthy relationship to food is another.

My wife grew up in the situation you described, being told to finish her plate, eating heaps of margarine (I cringe when her mother makes what she calls "gravy"), being served starches, wrapped around other starches, with a side dish of starch, and bread to wipe it all up with. I had a more balanced upbringing. Who do you think is the one in our relationship that has trouble with portion size, adequate intake of fresh fruits and veggies, etc. I live every day with the damage wreaked by the north american 1960's diet. It has taken years for it to come home to roost, and it needed the one-two punch of sedentism to reach its full glory, but I do think it is a major contributing factor.

At the risk of inciting Amused's wrath, I would suggest a radical (socialist? ;) ) solution. Ban ALL advertising aimed at children. Some pinko commie euro nations are looking at this, and I think it is the only thing that makes sense. The little ones are too susceptible, and I think their needs outweighs the freedom of multi-billion dollar corporations to spend millions to manipulate them.

FWIW, I'm somewhat against a fat tax, mostly because it would be impossible to administer fairly.

My ideals about freedom have nothing to do with jingoism. Freedom is always preferable to oppression. What I find funniest is those who most often describe themselves as "liberal" are the first to limit freedoms and seem the most frightened by it. I am classically liberal. In fact, I am one of the most liberal people you would ever meet.

My point about 50s, 60s and 70s food culture is that there was NO obesity epidemic during those years. You cannot have causation with out at least some correlation. No, the obesity epidemic did not start until a full generation later and affected every generation accross the board at the same time. Which means the cause happened then, not decades before. Maybe it's the combination of the food culture and inactivity, but it did not start until the inactivity started.

Finally, when it comes to advertising. How about instead of limiting the freedom of speech of companies, we actually stand up to our kids and learn to say NO? I know it's an amazing concept in a time when so many parents rather be their kid's best friend than a parent and authority figure... but it actually works. I've seen it in my own family. Two brothers living just a few miles apart. One choose to be a loving authority figure to his kids, the other a best friend. Now the best friend has a bunch of delinquents for kids, and the authority figure has two kids in college making excellent grades.

World proof your child instead of trying to child proof the world (which is impossible and only oppresses others because you cannot control your own child).
 

mrzed

Senior member
Jan 29, 2001
811
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Maybe it's the combination of the food culture and inactivity, but it did not start until the inactivity started.

I'd say it really took off in the last 2 decades, but the point about it being a combination is what I was trying to make


Originally posted by: Amused
Finally, when it comes to advertising. How about instead of limiting the freedom of speech of companies, we actually stand up to our kids and learn to say NO?

World proof your child instead of trying to child proof the world (which is impossible and only oppresses others because you cannot control your own child).

Exactly why I said my kids won't be watching ads on TV. I won't be waiting for the government to make that choice, but I do think it would be a good choice.


Originally posted by: Amused
My ideals about freedom have nothing to do with jingoism. Freedom is always preferable to oppression. What I find funniest is those who most often describe themselves as "liberal" are the first to limit freedoms and seem the most frightened by it. I am classically liberal. In fact, I am one of the most liberal people you would ever meet.

It was your use of the freedom vs socialism straw man that seemed jingoistic. Nothing inherently socialist about sin taxes IMO. Socialism is about worker's relation to capital.

I am also very libertarian (I don't use liberal because it means something very different outside of the USA). But I do think freedom has limits in a complex society, and one of the main jobs of government is in defining those limits.

In this case, I think the issue is more about user-pay than freedom, but unlike say gasoline, where the externalities can be roughly calculated and included in the tax regime, food is not a standard product, and coming up with a scheme to tax it is far too difficult due to the complexity what we eat.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,238
146
Originally posted by: mrzed
Originally posted by: Amused
Maybe it's the combination of the food culture and inactivity, but it did not start until the inactivity started.

I'd say it really took off in the last 2 decades, but the point about it being a combination is what I was trying to make


Originally posted by: Amused
Finally, when it comes to advertising. How about instead of limiting the freedom of speech of companies, we actually stand up to our kids and learn to say NO?

World proof your child instead of trying to child proof the world (which is impossible and only oppresses others because you cannot control your own child).

Exactly why I said my kids won't be watching ads on TV. I won't be waiting for the government to make that choice, but I do think it would be a good choice.


Originally posted by: Amused
My ideals about freedom have nothing to do with jingoism. Freedom is always preferable to oppression. What I find funniest is those who most often describe themselves as "liberal" are the first to limit freedoms and seem the most frightened by it. I am classically liberal. In fact, I am one of the most liberal people you would ever meet.

It was your use of the freedom vs socialism straw man that seemed jingoistic. Nothing inherently socialist about sin taxes IMO. Socialism is about worker's relation to capital.

I am also very libertarian (I don't use liberal because it means something very different outside of the USA). But I do think freedom has limits in a complex society, and one of the main jobs of government is in defining those limits.

In this case, I think the issue is more about user-pay than freedom, but unlike say gasoline, where the externalities can be roughly calculated and included in the tax regime, food is not a standard product, and coming up with a scheme to tax it is far too difficult due to the complexity what we eat.

Yes, there is something inherently socialist about a fat tax... because it's billed as a way to cover the cost of increased obesity. It's the same argument that gets all sorts of freedoms taken away... the best examples being seat belt and helmet laws.

Stop government funded socialist health care and it costs "society" nothing.

At any rate, any kind of food tax invariably hurts the lowest income. Which is another hypocrisy of the left.

The only limit to freedom should be hurting another individual, or violating their rights and freedoms.

And sorry, but limiting advertising is not a good choice at all. It's not the company's fault parents cannot say no to their children.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,357
8,446
126
it's not socialism, it's authoritarianism. nanny-state authoritarianism, which often goes hand in hand with socialism, but authoritarianism none the less.

stopping government funded health care will only cost society nothing if you don't know what to look for. when the pareto frontier shrinks society has paid for it. and it will shrink if government funded health care disappears.
 

Aquaman

Lifer
Dec 17, 1999
25,054
13
0
The thing I find funny is that people will not hesitate to buys chips for $2-3 a bag or premium ice cream for $5-10 a container but will have a really hard time buy fruits & veg at any price.

I would agree with the tax only if that tax money went into the health care system directly and not into the general coffers (I live in canada)

Cheers,
Aquaman
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
64,144
12,461
136
wow...bumped an almost 3 year old thread.:shocked:

Not unless it's accompanied by a "Stupid Tax" levied on stupid people...or normal people who do stupid things.
 
Apr 20, 2008
10,064
984
126
Originally posted by: BoomerD
wow...bumped an almost 3 year old thread.:shocked:

Not unless it's accompanied by a "Stupid Tax" levied on stupid people...or normal people who do stupid things.

Sorry, I didn't want to get the "repost" beating of a lifetime.

Or maybe it's just an excuse to bump an old ass thread ;)
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
64,144
12,461
136
Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

Sorry, I didn't want to get the "repost" beating of a lifetime.

Or maybe it's just an excuse to bump an old ass thread ;)

OK, fine...but bumping a thread this old means you automatically qualify to pay the stupid tax. PAY UP! :p
 
Apr 20, 2008
10,064
984
126
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

Sorry, I didn't want to get the "repost" beating of a lifetime.

Or maybe it's just an excuse to bump an old ass thread ;)

OK, fine...but bumping a thread this old means you automatically qualify to pay the stupid tax. PAY UP! :p

Gahh!!!

What the FFFF???

EDIT: I actually would support it. Some people just don't get that they are a drain on society by being that way.
 
Apr 20, 2008
10,064
984
126
Originally posted by: SonnyDaze
2 years later and still no fat tax? WTF??

You would think with this overwhelming support it wouldn't even be an issue.

I guess those fat cats in Washington know how to protect themselves.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
No fat tax, but I believe the obese peeps are getting raped by insurance.
 

BassBomb

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2005
8,390
1
81
I would say no, it should be the other way around where healthy people are rewarded.

It exhibits a much more beneficial response when good behaviour is rewarded rather than punishing bad behaviour
 

kalrith

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2005
6,628
7
81
Originally posted by: BassBomb
I would say no, it should be the other way around where healthy people are rewarded.

It exhibits a much more beneficial response when good behaviour is rewarded rather than punishing bad behaviour

But how can the healthy be rewarded when our tax and insurance dollars are subsidizing those who are not? I would think that either tax or insurance premiums would have to be increased for those who are unhealthy because of life choices (i.e. fat smokers, but not those with cancer) so that the tax or insurance premiums could be reduced for those who are healthy.

I don't think anything like this will ever come into play because it's difficult to determine who should get the fat tax. They'd probably have to use a calculation like BMI to make it objective, but then you'd get a lot of athletes getting the fat tax. I guess they could start with a tax on those who are morbidly obese because I doubt too many athletes would have a BMI that high.
 

Appledrop

Platinum Member
Aug 25, 2004
2,340
0
0
a fat tax.. hmz.. i think that'd make obese men women magnets.... if theyre 40 stone and can afford the taxes, dang that guy must be richhhh :>
 

AstroManLuca

Lifer
Jun 24, 2004
15,628
5
81
I like how some people say that it's unfair to tax unhealthy food because some people eat unhealthy food in moderation and don't get fat. Well good for you. If you truly eat bad food in moderation, then a tax increase on such foods won't hurt you much. And if you're eating enough junk food to be significantly affected by a tax on food, and you're still not fat, then you just have lucky genes and you're also turning yourself into a ticking time bomb that will go off once you get older and your poor choices catch up with you. Meanwhile we levy a tax on fat people even if they're buying fresh fruits and vegetables and avoiding restaurants and junk food? Not much immediate incentive there.

Another problem, perhaps the biggest one aside from a lack of activity, is not the price of healthy food but the time it takes to prepare it. Face it - there's basically an inverse relationship between how healthy a food is and how easy it is to cook. Fresh vegetables require frequent trips to the grocery store and a fair amount of prep time. Microwave dinners can be stored for eons without ever going bad and require just a few minutes before they're ready. If you're a low-income person working 1-2 crappy minimum wage jobs that leave you physically exhausted by the time you get home, you're not going to want to spend much time cooking (and then doing dishes too, don't forget that). You just want to sit your ass down on the couch and eat some chips while you relax.
 

SammyJr

Golden Member
Feb 27, 2008
1,708
0
0
I support a fat tax, but only if the funds are marked for health care only. I don't want a Republican president using the funds to fight another war.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
64,144
12,461
136
Let's also start doing intensive genetic testing so we can tax those who have genetic pre-disposition to diseases and so insurance companies can start either charging higher premiums for these people, or just deny them coverage.

Why should our tax dollars and insurance premium dollars go to support these genetically deficient people?




















(how's your sarcasm detector? Did it ass-plode yet?)