Lawmaker: Overweight people should pay 'fat tax'

Pages: 1 2

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Lawmaker: Overweight people should pay 'fat tax'

2010-07-24 08:21:24

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6833|San Diego, CA, USA

So I was reading this article about a German MP that says there should be a tax paid by Overweight people.

Here in the States when you buy insurance your BMI (Body Mass Index), often will determine your rate. We already tax fatty foods in some areas (called the `Snack Tax`), and surgary drinks like Soda (using guise of recycling they charge a California Redemption Value - CRV on cans and bottles that $0.10).

So if we already tax bad things like Alchol and Cigarettes then why not fat people? Is this right? Is this discriminatory? Is this big brother telling us how to manage our life? Will there be a fat police?

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … -says.html

2010-07-24 08:23:56

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5544|foggy bottom

imagine how much youd owe

Tu Stultus Es

2010-07-24 08:30:53

tuckergustav: ...; +1,590|6199|...

I think it is enough to charge them more for insurance. But you will get opposition saying that it is a genetic trait and therefore, by taxing fat people, you are discriminating and violating their civil rights. So, I doubt it will happen.

...

2010-07-24 08:45:13

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6866|SE London

tuckergustav wrote:
I think it is enough to charge them more for insurance. But you will get opposition saying that it is a genetic trait and therefore, by taxing fat people, you are discriminating and violating their civil rights. So, I doubt it will happen.

It's easy to tell if it's a genetic trait.

I seem to remember seeing that it's only something like 0.05% of obese people who actually have a genetic predisposition to being fat.

I think it would be fair in countries like the UK, where there is a public healthcare system. A 3 warnings (when you get treatment on the NHS they would warn you if you are significantly overweight) and then being charged for your medical expenses if you had not lost the weight system would be fair if you ask me.

2010-07-24 11:03:42

jord: Member; +2,382|6963|The North, beyond the wall.

Bertster7 wrote:
tuckergustav wrote:
I think it is enough to charge them more for insurance. But you will get opposition saying that it is a genetic trait and therefore, by taxing fat people, you are discriminating and violating their civil rights. So, I doubt it will happen.
It's easy to tell if it's a genetic trait.

I seem to remember seeing that it's only something like 0.05% of obese people who actually have a genetic predisposition to being fat.

I think it would be fair in countries like the UK, where there is a public healthcare system. A 3 warnings (when you get treatment on the NHS they would warn you if you are significantly overweight) and then being charged for your medical expenses if you had not lost the weight system would be fair if you ask me.

Perhaps, but what if you go into the hospital for an unrelated injury/sickness? You can't give a fat person a warning to lose weight because they got into a car accident.

2010-07-24 11:20:02

tuckergustav: ...; +1,590|6199|...

jord wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
tuckergustav wrote:
I think it is enough to charge them more for insurance. But you will get opposition saying that it is a genetic trait and therefore, by taxing fat people, you are discriminating and violating their civil rights. So, I doubt it will happen.
It's easy to tell if it's a genetic trait.

I seem to remember seeing that it's only something like 0.05% of obese people who actually have a genetic predisposition to being fat.

I think it would be fair in countries like the UK, where there is a public healthcare system. A 3 warnings (when you get treatment on the NHS they would warn you if you are significantly overweight) and then being charged for your medical expenses if you had not lost the weight system would be fair if you ask me.
Perhaps, but what if you go into the hospital for an unrelated injury/sickness? You can't give a fat person a warning to lose weight because they got into a car accident.

..technically, it does make the job of the emergency personnel more difficult.

Last edited by tuckergustav (2010-07-24 11:21:16)

...

2010-07-24 11:42:17

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6866|SE London

jord wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
tuckergustav wrote:
I think it is enough to charge them more for insurance. But you will get opposition saying that it is a genetic trait and therefore, by taxing fat people, you are discriminating and violating their civil rights. So, I doubt it will happen.
It's easy to tell if it's a genetic trait.

I seem to remember seeing that it's only something like 0.05% of obese people who actually have a genetic predisposition to being fat.

I think it would be fair in countries like the UK, where there is a public healthcare system. A 3 warnings (when you get treatment on the NHS they would warn you if you are significantly overweight) and then being charged for your medical expenses if you had not lost the weight system would be fair if you ask me.
Perhaps, but what if you go into the hospital for an unrelated injury/sickness? You can't give a fat person a warning to lose weight because they got into a car accident.

As has been pointed out, even unrelated care costs more for fatties.

An ambulance driver I know is constantly complaining about this stuff. You know they have to have special ambulances for obese people because they don't fit in normal ones properly? That's an extra cost that applies across the board. Surgery is also much more difficult and time consuming and recovery from injuries takes longer, which can mean longer courses of medication, at the expense of the taxpayer.

Seems fair to make them pay a suplemental charge, but not to initially deny them free treatment, at least give them a decent chance to sort themselves out. If they don't, that's their decision, but one they should pay for.

Smokers pay massive taxes which more than cover the extra healthcare costs for them, but you can't tax food in the same way (because anyone can be eating whatever food they like, fat or not). That's why it needs to be a tax targeted at the individual and not the product.

2010-07-24 11:45:27

jord: Member; +2,382|6963|The North, beyond the wall.

Bertster7 wrote:
jord wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:

It's easy to tell if it's a genetic trait.

I seem to remember seeing that it's only something like 0.05% of obese people who actually have a genetic predisposition to being fat.

I think it would be fair in countries like the UK, where there is a public healthcare system. A 3 warnings (when you get treatment on the NHS they would warn you if you are significantly overweight) and then being charged for your medical expenses if you had not lost the weight system would be fair if you ask me.
Perhaps, but what if you go into the hospital for an unrelated injury/sickness? You can't give a fat person a warning to lose weight because they got into a car accident.
As has been pointed out, even unrelated care costs more for fatties.

An ambulance driver I know is constantly complaining about this stuff. You know they have to have special ambulances for obese people because they don't fit in normal ones properly? That's an extra cost that applies across the board. Surgery is also much more difficult and time consuming and recovery from injuries takes longer, which can mean longer courses of medication, at the expense of the taxpayer.

Seems fair to make them pay a suplemental charge, but not to initially deny them free treatment, at least give them a decent chance to sort themselves out. If they don't, that's their decision, but one they should pay for.

Smokers pay massive taxes which more than cover the extra healthcare costs for them, but you can't tax food in the same way (because anyone can be eating whatever food they like, fat or not). That's why it needs to be a tax targeted at the individual and not the product.

I do agree to some extent but I suspect large opposition from fatties.

I'm probably slightly underweight and it's a big effort to put weight on, although I have no medical condition it just is rock hard, I can eat anything. If a Doctor gave me a talking to and a "Must try harder to change" warning I'd be pretty pissed. Other than that example I find it hard to empathise with the obese.

2010-07-24 12:55:22

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5987|College Park, MD

yeah it would make sense to tax fatty foods. Plenty of people die from eating too much Mickey D's. The only problem is that it truly is a tax on the poor since they often can't afford anything else.

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2010-07-24 13:00:37

jord: Member; +2,382|6963|The North, beyond the wall.

Hurricane2k9 wrote:
yeah it would make sense to tax fatty foods. Plenty of people die from eating too much Mickey D's. The only problem is that it truly is a tax on the poor since they often can't afford anything else.

The only problem?

How about people can eat fast food in moderation and/or not be morbidly obese?

I also don't believe fast food is for the poor. Mcdonalds/KFC/Burger king are all popular with middle class here, the rich will also fancy some of the colernals chicken sometimes.

2010-07-24 13:01:19

FloppY_: +1,010|6571|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

Plane tickets should be per kg

Its stupid atm as the price for baggage weight is insanely restricted and costly, but for the ticket, it doesn't matter if you are a feather weight or a tub of lard...

Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me

2010-07-24 13:03:09

RTHKI: mmmf mmmf mmmf; +1,743|7022|Cinncinatti

i remember seeing something that tried to explain why some people are fat. They were talking about Mississippi. The people were so poor all they would buy is fast food and the temp and humidity was high enough for them not to exercise. .

2010-07-24 13:03:44

jord: Member; +2,382|6963|The North, beyond the wall.

FloppY_ wrote:
Plane tickets should be per kg

Its stupid atm as the price for baggage weight is insanely restricted and costly, but for the ticket, it doesn't matter if you are a feather weight or a tub of lard...

This is true, I've been borderline on charging my friends fat friend for a lift once. That was petrol I didn't have to waste...

2010-07-24 13:06:10

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6755

i think any form of discrimination is completely against the ideological-underpinning point of socialist welfare systems.

you guys are all looking pretty stupid by encouraging forms of discrimination/stereotyping in order to make a socialist system more efficient.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-07-24 13:23:59

FloppY_: +1,010|6571|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

Uzique wrote:
i think any form of discrimination is completely against the ideological-underpinning point of socialist welfare systems.

you guys are all looking pretty stupid by encouraging forms of discrimination/stereotyping in order to make a socialist system more efficient.

What I said about planetickets may be sad for fatties... but looking at it as facts it's stupid that a person at 80kg should pay a ton of money per ekstra kg of baggage he brings while the guy on 160kg doesn't pay anything for his extra 80kg of lard and the same amount of baggage...

Last edited by FloppY_ (2010-07-24 13:24:51)

Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me

2010-07-24 13:32:30

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6755

please tell me how plane-tickets and transportation arrangements are social-welfare systems.

one is a practical consideration and the other is an ideologically-underpinned public scheme.

...

apples and oranges?

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-07-24 13:48:49

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5987|College Park, MD

jord wrote:
Hurricane2k9 wrote:
yeah it would make sense to tax fatty foods. Plenty of people die from eating too much Mickey D's. The only problem is that it truly is a tax on the poor since they often can't afford anything else.
The only problem?

How about people can eat fast food in moderation and/or not be morbidly obese?

I also don't believe fast food is for the poor. Mcdonalds/KFC/Burger king are all popular with middle class here, the rich will also fancy some of the colernals chicken sometimes.

It's not "for the poor" but if you're fucking broke you're probably gonna be getting a cheeseburger for a buck instead of buying fruits and veggies for 10 bucks.

2010-07-24 13:52:46

jord: Member; +2,382|6963|The North, beyond the wall.

Hurricane2k9 wrote:
jord wrote:
Hurricane2k9 wrote:
yeah it would make sense to tax fatty foods. Plenty of people die from eating too much Mickey D's. The only problem is that it truly is a tax on the poor since they often can't afford anything else.
The only problem?

How about people can eat fast food in moderation and/or not be morbidly obese?

I also don't believe fast food is for the poor. Mcdonalds/KFC/Burger king are all popular with middle class here, the rich will also fancy some of the colernals chicken sometimes.
It's not "for the poor" but if you're fucking broke you're probably gonna be getting a cheeseburger for a buck instead of buying fruits and veggies for 10 bucks.

Well the Mcdonalds 99p handburger isn't as filling as a load of toast and some 7p super noodles that only require boiling.

2010-07-24 14:01:52

max: Vela Incident; +1,652|6852|NYC / Hamburg

Don't mind that guy. Wanderwitz is the resident troll of German politics.

_{once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.}

2010-07-24 14:08:02

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5987|College Park, MD

jord wrote:
Hurricane2k9 wrote:
jord wrote:

The only problem?

How about people can eat fast food in moderation and/or not be morbidly obese?

I also don't believe fast food is for the poor. Mcdonalds/KFC/Burger king are all popular with middle class here, the rich will also fancy some of the colernals chicken sometimes.
It's not "for the poor" but if you're fucking broke you're probably gonna be getting a cheeseburger for a buck instead of buying fruits and veggies for 10 bucks.
Well the Mcdonalds 99p handburger isn't as filling as a load of toast and some 7p super noodles that only require boiling.

we don't use terrorist money here

2010-07-24 14:12:27

SamTheMan: +341|5426|Stoke, England

sounds like a good idea

2010-07-24 14:27:33

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6785|so randum

fast food is for the poor? gtfo

bigmc meal =£5 or so? serves one, one meal

bag of pasta
pasta sauce
= £2.50, serves four, one meal.

fast food is just laziness.

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2010-07-24 14:32:49

FloppY_: +1,010|6571|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

FatherTed wrote:
fast food is for the poor? gtfo

bigmc meal =£5 or so? serves one, one meal

bag of pasta
pasta sauce
= £2.50, serves four, one meal.

fast food is just laziness.

QFT

Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me

2010-07-25 00:15:33

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,816|6391|eXtreme to the maX

jord wrote:
I'm probably slightly underweight and it's a big effort to put weight on, although I have no medical condition it just is rock hard, I can eat anything. If a Doctor gave me a talking to and a "Must try harder to change" warning I'd be pretty pissed. Other than that example I find it hard to empathise with the obese.

"I'm probably slightly overweight and it's a big effort to lose weight, although I have no medical condition it just is rock hard, I can't eat anything. If a Doctor gave me a talking to and a "Must try harder to change" warning I'd be pretty pissed. Other than that example I find it hard to empathise with the skinny."

See how easy it is?

For a lot of people their future weight is fixed by the age of four, some of it while they're in the womb.
Once people go over a certain fat content their fat cells actualy multiply and its more or less impossible to permanently lose weight again.

Doesn't excuse people who eat garbage and don't exercise but even so.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-07-25 00:17:30)

Fuck Israel

2010-07-25 00:17:11

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,816|6391|eXtreme to the maX

FloppY_ wrote:
Uzique wrote:
i think any form of discrimination is completely against the ideological-underpinning point of socialist welfare systems.

you guys are all looking pretty stupid by encouraging forms of discrimination/stereotyping in order to make a socialist system more efficient.
What I said about planetickets may be sad for fatties... but looking at it as facts it's stupid that a person at 80kg should pay a ton of money per ekstra kg of baggage he brings while the guy on 160kg doesn't pay anything for his extra 80kg of lard and the same amount of baggage...

That is annoying.

Fuck Israel

Pages: 1 2

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Lawmaker: Overweight people should pay 'fat tax'

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums Lawmaker: Overweight people should pay 'fat tax'

tuckergustav wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

tuckergustav wrote:

jord wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

tuckergustav wrote:

jord wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

tuckergustav wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

jord wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Uzique wrote:

jord wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

jord wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

jord wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

jord wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

jord wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Board footer