To think fat people should pay higher taxes?

[SuedeEffectPochette]

Ok - I have grabbed your attention! I don't exactly mean this. The other day I was just wondering about the obesity crisis and thinking, - I would be a lot more motivated to lose weight if it knocked a penny off my income tax. I am obese, by the way, so I am not knocking fat people considering that I am one. But would this work? "Normal" weight people pay less income tax? I would definitely lose weight if it meant I paid less tax!! OK - it would take a bit of monitoring but I bet loads of people would lose weight and save money! I would. I am trying to lose weight anyway, but money would be good for motivating....

And what about people - of which there are many - who overeat due to emotional issues? Or will you qualify for a rebate if you're bulimic? FFS.

Taxing fat people for being fat would be ridiculously impractical. You'd have to officially weigh every worker at least once a year. Possibly more to make sure people who are losing / gaining weight rapidly don't end up in the wrong tax bracket. And would you have exemptions for people who can prove their weight has been caused by medical problems, i.e. thyroid problems / being prescribed steroids etc?

It would be much better to tax unhealthy foods more. Slap more VAT on sweets, fizzy drinks, fast food takeaways and so on. Then fat people who are trying to eat healthily aren't penalised, and the extra tax revenue from the unhealthy foods can go towards paying for obesity related health problems. And it'd be simpler than extra tax for fat people.

How does it affect anyone other than the person themselves if they are fat? I'm not talking about those who are so large they have major problems and therefore use NHS resources. And I'm definitely not talking about people who are large because of illness, medication, or a body not working properly. I am referring merely to those who are overweight. Such as myself.

I am, by all the guidelines, around 6 stone overweight. My BMI puts me in the obese category. I'm a size 22 bottom and size 18-20 top. It makes me uncomfortable in the heat and I don't like to run, but other than that, my size affects absolutely nobody. I have no health issues; my blood pressure is fine, my asthma is as mild as it was when I was young and I don't have a dodgy ticker. I am currently trying to lose weight because I hate how I look, and I want to run around with my son.

All of us overweight people know what state our health is in, we know it's not good to be big, we are aware of the implications and, believe me, we are very aware of the general view of people who are not the 'ideal' size. We know how to lose weight and, believe me, we don't actually want to be fat.

But, to be quite frank, how the hell is it any of your damn business? Does it physically hurt you that I'm fat? Does it mentally hurt you that I'm fat? Apart from being unpleasant to look at (for some), my size and weight affects no-one and therefore isn't any one else's business. If you are really so affected by us fat people, then do something to help, instead of moaning and slagging us off.

That's not aimed at anyone in particular btw, just a general rant.

Sorry, OP, that was nothing to do with your thread

""If you eat healthily, the tax doesn't effect you.""

But the "healthy" option may not be healthy for an elderly person/Cancer patient, so we would have to refund those.

I think you'll find that if you want to tax 'bad' behaviours then it's going to get tricky - alcohol for instance - plenty of studies show that a light drinker is more healthy than a tee-totaller (including when pregnant).

How about exercise? Some people exercise to an extreme which makes them less healthy than those who take a moderate amount.

How about underweight people (as mentioned before), how about those that sit down all day, or never get out in the sun, or do/don't take vitamin tablets (not even sure which side of some of those is the 'good' one) - what about pets which extend your life and make you happier, perhaps we should have government mandated cat sitting?

It's a silly idea, and totally unworkable.

I would start by banning the sale of food at petrol stations.

Then I'd sit back and have a little think because I haven't thought beyond that idea.

Oh, ban advertising. Of everything. Nothing you actually need is advertised

How does it affect anyone other than the person themselves if they are fat?

Well - on a day to day it shouldn't. And I wouldn't give the time of day to someone that says they don't like seeing someone overweight on the beach...

But 9% of the British GDP (so all spending, public and private, in Britain) is spent on the NHS. That comes out of all of our taxes. Being overweight increases lifetime health costs. Being obese significantly increases lifetime health costs.

So no individual should be judged for being overweight. In the same way that I should not be judges for having a long history of health problems that you all kindly paid for.

But society as a whole has to deal with the fact that if we, collectively, get fatter... then we, collectively, will have less money in our pockets

Hmmm. Social Engineering of the scary kind.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_%28political_science%29

How much control do you want to give any government?

How many judgements need to be made about every individual on a daily basis to be able to enforce such ideas - 1984 may have been a very extreme version but Pol Pot and others like him (I'm avoiding the Godwin ) gave it a whirl, look how that turned out!

Nomana

Tax incentives for public health are NOT THE SAME AS GENOCIDE OF 2 MILLION PEOPLE

Pol Pot?

Really? We're talking about taxing fat people here. It's ludicrous to start comparing that to labour camps or the mass murder of the wrong sort of people. It'd also be a bit of a leap, to say the very least, to imply that a fat tax was the beginning of that kind of slippery slope.

I call Godwin!

BabyMarmoset, did you read what I did say? Don't be so hysterical.

Did you look at the link? Have you thought about what it would mean if every behaviour each successive government decided was not wanted was taxed out of existence?

1. There would be no successive government, no more democracy
2. Freedom of speech?
3. Freedom of religion? Ah yes, but freedom from war...
4. Women not allowed to work (post war edict that almost held - give 'the boys their jobs back')
5. No fat people, no thin people --> no tall, short people (saves on manufacturing costs if you have a high level of physical conformity)

and on....

Tax incentives for public health may start off rewarding 'the good' but will inevitably end up persecuting 'the bad'. There are plenty of current day examples... think it through! Many have been mentioned here already!

Wouldnt magically make me lose weight. Its far deeper rooted than that.

ShadowFall, that is why so many politicians and thinkers (like Chomsky) fight social engineering tooth and nail.

Okay Nomama

Let's put a total anarchist state at one end of the spectrum. No govt, no social system. At the other end we put a Brave New World socially engineered state. Everyone designed by the govt.

We will always fall into that spectrum. And there is valid discussion about where we should be sitting.

Referring to a genocide to try and make your point, however, just makes you a poo.

As mentioned earlier, I was not knocking anyone for being fat and certainly not for being fat if they are ill or have other issues. I am fat. I will probably therefore use more NHS resources in the future. I could possibly lose weight if I tried. For me, a financial incentive would help. That's all.

Sounds like you're serious about this slippery slope thing, Nomama.

We still seem to have smokers and drinkers though, despite the ever increasing amount of VAT on that.

At the same time, can we have tax cuts for those who do not have children? Why should those without children have to pay for those who do? And why not tax rugby players more, in case they have an accident and end up paralysed and costing the NHS a fortune? Why not tax the use of sunbeds, to cover the costs of those who consequently develop skin cancer?
Yes increasingly more of us are overweight, but the number of people who are ready to judge and sneer on here are getting a little tedious. If you are slim fit and healthy, good on you. But find something else to get nasty about...

SuedeEffectPochette My rant was definitely not directed at you, it was at the 'fat-shamers' and 'fat-haters' and 'fat-commenters' in general. You know, the ones who don't have weight problems! I apologise if I gave you the impression I was aiming my comments at you.

If you say so... but that is what social engineering can lead to and that is why so many educated people fear and fight such personalised taxes.

As it is we live in an increasingly Nanny state. We are becoming accustomed to having our personal liberties questioned and corralled that such taxes are beginning to sound viable, reasonable. We are beginning to bite the social strata that we, in our good hearted niceness, strove to support (bedroom tax, changes to JSA etc).

If such a tax were introduced it would be the start of a slippery slope - think about the NHS decisions not to operate on smokers, obese people. Unthinkable 20 years ago... but, despite the increasing amounts of money being made available for a wide range of social constructions (fast trains for example) the first to be denied are... smokers and fat people.

Our compassion for these 2 behaviors, socially aberrant, addictions has been worn away. We have more time and support for drug addicts who commit crimes than we do for smokers or fat people.

And don't forge the good idea of moving families dependent on benefits to cheaper areas... housing cap, changes to housing act.

Sorry, that last was for BabyMarmoset. I do think we are on a cusp, I fear us sliding towards that elusive 'Utopian Ideal'.

Shadow, yes, sort of. But I have faith in human nature - as you say we aren't seeing smokers quitting left, right and centre. They may be modifying their behaviours, but not quitting them

So, still no takers to discuss a tax on underweight people costing the NHS money by eating unhealthily?

Just on overweight people?

That says a lot.

Suede so if someone offered you money it would be an incentive to lose weight? So why not get family/friends to sponsor you to slim?

I don't think a 'fat tax' on individuals would work, but I do think there could be a workable tax on some foods.

However, I think just taxing food will not solve the 'problem', it may help but a number of other things need to happen alongside it. It will take shift in attitude towards food like those against smoking and drinking and driving as well, and even then the problem will never be completely solved, people still smoke and drink and drive although the numbers have reduced significantly over time.

Vast quantities and choices of food are available widely. People eat 'on the go', in cars, on the street, etc., etc., we eat between meals, are constantly snacking, etc., we are more sedentary, eat at our desks, eat in front of the TV after eating dinner. It will take a huge shift in attitudes to change all that.

Maybe it would help if workplaces had to provide a proper luch hour and place to eat lunch and people weren't eating at their desks.

Our compassion for these 2 behaviors, socially aberrant, addictions has been worn away. We have more time and support for drug addicts who commit crimes than we do for smokers or fat people.

Hmm, having read that maybe Nomana is right about social engineering, it's a conundrum. I certainly don't want to live in a Utopian ideal having recently re-read 1984 and thought some of it sounded eerily familiar.

So OK, everyone working & paying taxes has to go to a weighing station once a week/month to get weighed.

How are they going to fund these stations? That's right, through raising taxes.......