to agree that a 'fat tax' for airline passengers is fair enough?

[cestlavie]

Story from Australia:

www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22735546-27977,00.html

Basically, that people should have to pay a 'fat tax' for airline flights in the same way that they would for checking in excess baggage. Seems fair enough to me. Planes have limited capacity and weight impacts on fuel costs.

The best defence they seem to have conjured up against it is "it's hard enough that they [obese people] carry that extra weight, physically and emotionally."

Really? Well how about exercising more and eating less then.

Bring on the flaming!

minorityrules: I'm sure I've read about some company being taken to court and told to charge per passeneger, not per seat though. It's possible I've got that wrong.

maregoandjerry: most airlines charge for babies and babies don't get a luggage allowance - so you do pay more than that business passenger (and if you fly ryanair, they make you pay in blood, too)

Will thin people get a proportionate rebate on their seats if they're not taking up the whole width of their seat? I could have really cashed in on that as a teenager . Now I'd be stumping up more.

What about tall people who need acres of legroom but don't need the extra width? Don't just charge people on the size of their backsides .

We flew with BMI baby this summer and paid full price for both our skinny children (DS was 3 stone 6 and DD was 2 stone) so less than you both added together cargirl, but I had to buy two full tickets. In fact, I reckon that our family average is less than 7 stone (DH also skinny, me average). I think I just accepted that the way it was.

Not unreasonable but then they should offer more than 25% rebate for children's seats.

www.thelocalchannel.co.uk/community/forums/t/129.aspx talks about this issue in more depth...

Interesting link by scara and good posts by margoandjerry:

In response to both, this is not a 'blame' thing or a 'control' thing, this is simply an accepting the consequences of the way you choose to live your life.

Interesting what marjoandjerry says: I used to smoke loads (still sneak one now and then, bad me) but if I got a smoking related disease I don't think it's unfair that I should either have to pay for that treatment of be at the back of the queue for NHS treatment behind people with the same condition who didn't smoke. I'm not saying I'd be thrilled but it would be fair - I chose to smoke, I enjoyed smoking, I should accept the negative consequences.

I see your point cestlavie but if you start doing that, here's who else goes to the back of the queue for medical treatment:

anyone who has ever smoked (and that's nearly everyone)
anyone who has ever drunk more than 14 units in a week
anyone who has failed to eat 5 fruit and veg every day
anyone who does not exercise for at least two hours a week

I'm sure there are many people who drink more than 14 units occasionally but they view it as their business. Somehow the weight thing - because it is more visible - is more liable to the blame treatment.

You could also add to this list anyone who has been injured in a car accident who had had even one drink or who was speeding or on a mobile. That's probably 50% of all car accidents...

If you start saying anyone whose behaviour might have contributed to their ill health (and you usually can't prove it so you can only ever say might...) has to pay for their treatment, there are very few people who would pass on all these criteria.

I'm a non smoker who rarely drinks but I don't always get my five a day and I don't exercise enough. If I get bowel cancer which is linked to inadequate f&v and not enough exercise, should I pay?

Well actually I certainly drink over 14 units per week and on the same basis I would again think it fair that in the event that I needed treatment for something relating to excessive alcohol consumption I should either pay for it or be at the back of the queue behind those who had a similar condition who didn't drink.

The thing about smoking, drinking and being obese are is that everyone is aware or should be aware of the negative effects of these and these negative effects are typically much more clearly linked to that behaviour (than say, not eating enough fruit and veg).

And yes, on the driving thing again I would agree. I go over the speed limit, I know I'm breaking the law, I know it's more dangerous than staying at the speed limit but I choose to because I want to get somewhere more quickly. If I crash into someone who's driving within safe limits and the hospital is obliged to choose who they should treat first, they should choose the other person.

OK let's do it then (when you and I are in charge of the world ) but I bet there'd be an outcry because people like to think this sort of thing only affects the fatties (who obviously deserve it they feel) rather than themselves.

Yes, when we're rulers of the world and all the earth our dominion a-ha a-ha-ha-ha a-hahahaahahahahahahahahahahah

yes