Fat Tax

[bumcheekcity]

Well, in the UK they are introducing this 'Fat Tax' whereby 17.5% VAT is added to fatty foods (including chocolate, cvakes and most buiscuits) instead of the usual 5%.

Will this combat (or help to combat) the growing obesity problem? Will it do good at all? Do you agree with it, and would you support it if it came out in the US?

[antiqkk]

At 6/11/03 05:21 PM, bumcheekycity wrote: Well, in the UK they are introducing this 'Fat Tax' whereby 17.5% VAT is added to fatty foods (including chocolate, cvakes and most buiscuits) instead of the usual 5%.

Will this combat (or help to combat) the growing obesity problem? Will it do good at all? Do you agree with it, and would you support it if it came out in the US?

The tax everything in the UK here. And I guess the Fat tax is aimed to gain more tax revenue, from the foods which are widely consumed.
I do not know their real reasoning behind this tax. Maybe it is to battle the health problems really.

[Slizor]

Will this combat (or help to combat) the growing obesity problem? Will it do good at all?

The question is, how are they going to define it? Because if it is just any food over say 5% fat, that the butter industry is buggered.....which buggers the bread industry, etc.

Of course we could also look at how this will predominately effect the lower classes (as most sociologists would tell you that the lower classes eat more high fat food.) But it's far too indepth for this wee forum. Plus I'm a lazy bastard.

[HouseOfZ]

You can't expect kids not to get fat by making products more expensive. Kids get fat because either their parents aren't aware of what they're feeding them and the way it effects kids of a young age, or that some kids will get fat even if they don't eat tons of stuff. Metabolism plays a part in it. Not much of a part, but a part none the less.
I think this is just a solution some government official has thought up because they don't fully understand how to solve the problem properly.

[Commander-K25]

At 6/11/03 05:21 PM, bumcheekycity wrote: Well, in the UK they are introducing this 'Fat Tax' whereby 17.5% VAT is added to fatty foods (including chocolate, cvakes and most buiscuits) instead of the usual 5%.

Will this combat (or help to combat) the growing obesity problem? Will it do good at all? Do you agree with it, and would you support it if it came out in the US?

Another case of the nanny/welfare state deciding what is best for people. It further reinforces thri core message to the people, "We don't think you know how to take care of yourselves, so we'll make the decisions for you." The sad part is that many people are okay with this and even believe the popular rationalization that it is for "the greater good."

I'm not a fat person, but if they dare to tax my chocolate, or tell me what should or should not eat, I'd buy black market or grow my own.

[poxpower]

Wow. ALmost genius. But wait till McDonald's gets a say in this! OUch! That's really going to be hard as hell to introduce worldwide, as many compagnies will whine, and it might kill the economy in some places.

The obvious question is: What are they going to do with that money? Let's hope they place it where it's needed...

And everyone KNOWS that if the people are incited financially to do something, they usually won't unless it pleases them, like get in shape or something.
Wait till those people who feel that being 300 pounds overweight is fine. They'll whine so damn much, holy crap!

[cylon]

At 6/11/03 07:57 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: Another case of the nanny/welfare state deciding what is best for people.

I don't think that's really the case here; they're taxing the fatty foods as a way to discourage consumption, but they're not making the final decision for anyone.

Had they simply took the stance that all fatty food is bad, period, and banned it - that'd be the government playing nanny. The people wouldn't be able to make a decision at all in the matter, because the government would be saying what's best for the people and making that path mandatory.

If you still want to consume the goods, you can - you just pay a bit more to do so.

[Commander-K25]

At 6/11/03 08:19 PM, poxpower wrote: The obvious question is: What are they going to do with that money? Let's hope they place it where it's needed...

General funds most likely.

[poxpower]

At 6/11/03 08:28 PM, benu wrote:
I don't think that's really the case here; they're taxing the fatty foods as a way to discourage consumption, but they're not making the final decision for anyone.

Wow, it almost sounds like they don't do a thing at all the way you say it. "what's simple tripling of tax" har har". The fiiinal choice is theirs. Kinda like "if you eat a burger, we cut off one of your fingers, but it's YOUR decision ".

It's obvious that this is a simple measure like they did to prevent smoking, and it probably won't work, just make some more people bitter and pissed at the goverment trying to keep them on the right path.

And they can't ban that kind of food, because that yould butt-rape their economy big time. That would seriously be BAD. This way, they hurt it a bit, but then they might be able to put some fatty money in education or something.

[mrpopenfresh]

Taxing works well for cigarettes. It works well because the tax only affects smokers, because smokers are the only ones buying cigarettes. People who happen to eat too much aren't the only ones purchasing fatty snacks, so do pretty much anyone else. So I think taxing isn't a good idea because fatty foods aren't a specialized product like cigarettes.

[stafffighter]

Govenments charge taxes on things they know the people will keep buying away. Its all about making money. Nothing against the british, this shit happens the world over.

[Alejandro1]

At 6/11/03 07:57 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: Another case of the nanny/welfare state deciding what is best for people. It further reinforces thri core message to the people, "We don't think you know how to take care of yourselves, so we'll make the decisions for you." The sad part is that many people are okay with this and even believe the popular rationalization that it is for "the greater good."

Exactly. Here is the government doing its best to be a reformer of society. BTW, if you don't know what a reformer is, it's someone who knows better than you what's good for you and is here to make sure you get it good and hard. The government just assumes that everyone's a complete retard (though many people are)and no one knows how to make decisions for him/herself.

Money is also a prime reason for this tax. Hmm, why not tax something everyone and their mother buys, then we might earn a little extra cash.

[AngryArab]

i went to england once(even tho i dont like it) and i did not see a single fat person. to bad america is the fatest nation. DAMN YOU MCDONALDS

[JMHX]

The world is just slowly going to phase out the fat people. We should put them all in camps...camps...hm...Europe is good at the whole camp thing, why don't you guys figure it out?

Oh, Duff, I love the picture. It's so true.

[poxpower]

At 6/11/03 09:54 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: Taxing works well for cigarettes. It works well because the tax only affects smokers, because smokers are the only ones buying cigarettes. People who happen to eat too much aren't the only ones purchasing fatty snacks, so do pretty much anyone else. So I think taxing isn't a good idea because fatty foods aren't a specialized product like cigarettes.

Yeah, but the point of all this is not to target the fat people and make only THEM eat better. They're just trying to educate people to not eat like that.

[mysecondstar]

At 6/11/03 09:54 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: Taxing works well for cigarettes.

when cigarettes were selling for $7 in NYC i was going to have to shoot Rudy Guilliani (i was in NYC at the time). that was the biggest pain in the ass i've ever had to go through. and now that Chicago is almost following suit at $5-6 i may have to reconsider this habit. i suppose it's alcohol for me then! but, damn it, i can't drink at work. well, i did go to a pub on lunch more than a couple times and had a drink...but you didn't hear it from me! and i can't work out during work. if you have to ask why, you deserve a cigarette in the eye. so that just about does it for what i need to do to relieve my stress. God bless America...

[misterx2000]

At 6/12/03 02:48 AM, mysecondstar wrote:

At 6/11/03 09:54 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: Taxing works well for cigarettes.

when cigarettes were selling for $7 in NYC i was going to have to shoot Rudy Guilliani (i was in NYC at the time). that was the biggest pain in the ass i've ever had to go through. and now that Chicago is almost following suit at $5-6 i may have to reconsider this habit. i suppose it's alcohol for me then! but, damn it, i can't drink at work. well, i did go to a pub on lunch more than a couple times and had a drink...but you didn't hear it from me! and i can't work out during work. if you have to ask why, you deserve a cigarette in the eye. so that just about does it for what i need to do to relieve my stress. God bless America...

Heh then I guess taxing is working if you hafta reconsider your habits.

Taxing economically inelastic goods usually works. The US gov't should just stop answering to the huge fat cat tobacco companies who don't care a whit about anything or anyone but their bank accounts.

[bumcheekcity]

At 6/12/03 02:40 AM, poxpower wrote: Yeah, but the point of all this is not to target the fat people and make only THEM eat better. They're just trying to educate people to not eat like that.

People know full well what happens when you eat. Everyone in the country knows you get fat.

[Slizor]

Seems a good idea for the money made to be put into the health service to make up for all the money spent on fat people.

[Leap]

At 6/11/03 08:19 PM, poxpower wrote:

The obvious question is: What are they going to do with that money? Let's hope they place it where it's needed...

Since when Has the UK gouvernment EVER put enough money where its needed? Britain gets the highest tax per person in the whole of Europe, yet I cant see where it's all going, well I wont be paying any tax on anything. I've always thought of laws as guidelines. nothing more.

[antiqkk]

At 6/12/03 11:34 AM, firebird1985 wrote:

At 6/11/03 08:19 PM, poxpower wrote:

The obvious question is: What are they going to do with that money? Let's hope they place it where it's needed...

Since when Has the UK gouvernment EVER put enough money where its needed? Britain gets the highest tax per person in the whole of Europe, yet I cant see where it's all going, well I wont be paying any tax on anything. I've always thought of laws as guidelines. nothing more.

I'd have to agree with you. The taxes in UK are very high, compared to other EU countries. They raise the taxes for everything all the time. Petrol prices are just mad and then they say that if this tax is decreased then many other taxes will go up. OK, I accept this argument, as petrol being a necessity nowadays, not a luxury, has rather inelastic demand. Therefore, people continue buying it even if the price doubles, so the government gets high revenue to "finance other sectors". Can't see much financing going on though. The Gov stated that a possible consequence of lower fuel tax would be higher University fees. Well, now the tax for petrol remains the same but they are planning to raise the fees. Kind of contradicting themselves. Ugh, bullshit. Same with this fat tax. They just need more revenue, to fund the damn military now or something, so they are being sneaky about it and retend the tax is to cut down on fat consumption, when everyone knows nobody will buy less of fatty foods than they bought, even price goes up.

[Nirvana13666]

Putting value added tax (VAT) on fatty food could prevent between 900 and 1,000 premature deaths a year in the UK, a dietary expert has said.

In a sense it promotes healthy eating. Junk food is so bad and people just don't see it. It is cool to eat fatty foods here and there but in the end you'll save years of your life if you moderate your diet. I highly doubt the government in the UK cares more about the health of their people than they do about the nice cash flow that tax will bring in.

[Commander-K25]

At 6/12/03 02:40 AM, poxpower wrote: Yeah, but the point of all this is not to target the fat people and make only THEM eat better. They're just trying to educate people to not eat like that.

Why should government have any role in teling people what to eat?

[weaponrxn]

About America being one of the fattest country: The reason for this is not because there is no tax on fat (there is one coming out in NYC). The reason is that the portions of food in the United States are large compared to the food portions in Europe. Europeans can eat almost anything and not gain or gain little weight because they eat less than us (less or smallar portions). I think that the fat tax (1% in NYC; so far) will not be a deterance for people.

[mrpopenfresh]

At 6/12/03 06:19 PM, weaponrxn wrote:

:something too big for me to quote

Lets not forget the supersize for just an extra fistfull of change!

[misterx2000]

Aren't the taxes of Scandanavian countries higher than those of UK?

[bumcheekcity]

At 6/12/03 06:13 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: Why should government have any role in teling people what to eat?

They can have a role in telling people what to eat when they pay for the poeple to have operations because of eating.

[antiqkk]

At 6/14/03 12:46 AM, misterx2000 wrote: Aren't the taxes of Scandanavian countries higher than those of UK?

Well their Government spending is greater too. If you see their Laffer curve, you'll see that they are more willing to pay those higher taxes because they get a bigger return on it. I don't get free education even though I graduated school with 95% average and yet I pay the highest fuel tax in EU and now some Fatty taxes.

[Slizor]

I'd have to agree with you. The taxes in UK are very high, compared to other EU countries.

Direct Taxation (ie Income Tax) is low compared to other EU countries, which is used as an argument against the Euro (we'll need to harmonise the taxes or we'll see capital flight.) The current problem with the UK is that many areas went underfunded through 18 years of Conservatism....and things haven't changed much.

[bumcheekcity]

At 6/14/03 11:26 AM, antiqkk wrote: Well their Government spending is greater too. If you see their Laffer curve, you'll see that they are more willing to pay those higher taxes because they get a bigger return on it. I don't get free education even though I graduated school with 95% average and yet I pay the highest fuel tax in EU and now some Fatty taxes.

The thing I hate is the no free education bit. Tony Blair said he was focusing on Education, Education, Education in 1997 (or whenever he was running for election) and I will still have to pay for my college education and University, when I go.

It's all fine having Free and Compulsory edication unitl 16, (and even 18, if you go into 6th Form) but paying for your education sucks. Big time.