3 Fat Chicks on a Diet Weight Loss Community  

Go Back   3 Fat Chicks on a Diet Weight Loss Community > Diet Central > Weight Loss News and Current Events

Weight Loss News and Current Events Discuss the latest weight loss news headlines and major events.

Fat Tax

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-23-2007, 09:30 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
LisaMarie71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,860

S/C/G: 285.2/285.2/185

Height: 5'9"

Default

What people seem to forget sometimes is that it's OVEReating that causes obesity, not any particular food. My thin, healthy husband eats candy, fast food, etc on fairly regular occasions and he's never had an ounce of excess fat on his body. He shouldn't have to pay a tax on an occasional indulgence when he lives a completely healthy life. That's just absurd. Obesity comes from overindulging and not exercising. This past year I've lost 108 pounds and along the way I had quite a few of the kinds of foods the "fat tax" would put a tax on -- I just enjoyed them in moderation. Even including those foods, however, I went from an obese person to a person who can run a half marathon. The fat tax doesn't make sense when you think about it in those terms.
__________________
Lisa

Start by doing what's necessary; then do what's possible; and suddenly you are doing the impossible. -- St. Francis of Assisi
LisaMarie71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2007, 12:41 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
QuilterInVA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Yorktown, VA USA
Posts: 5,150

Default

Sorry, you being overweight does affect me - the insurance company spreads the cost over all subscribers so I have to pay more. I think we need the fat tax - indulge all you want but pay for it...and use the tax to help poor buy better food. Obesity is not always over indulging, it is often eating the wrong foods.
__________________
Susan

HW 356 pounds - CW 138 - GW 130


Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass. It's about learning to dance in the rain.

Forget Yesterday. I am, where I am. I know where I could have been, had I done what I did not do. Tell me, Friend, what I can do today, to be where I want to be tomorrow. - Sigrad
QuilterInVA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2007, 10:09 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
LisaMarie71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,860

S/C/G: 285.2/285.2/185

Height: 5'9"

Default

So you really think my husband who's never had an ounce of extra fat on his body should pay an extra tax when he eats a Krispy Kreme doughnut? He's probably had fewer health care costs than anyone I know because he's in completely perfect health, and he works at being that healthy, but he should pay extra for a doughnut? See, I don't get that. And we can't establish a "fat tax" that only fat people pay, so we'd have people who work hard at being healthy paying extra for their occasional indulgences even when there's absolutely nothing wrong with occasionally indulging. Madness. I run 20-30 miles a week and coach young runners. If I want a cookie, I'm not sure I should have to pay extra for it. If I want 900 cookies a month, then yes, I'll be obese. But I'd also be obese if I ate 900 grilled chicken breasts, probably... Calories in, calories out.
__________________
Lisa

Start by doing what's necessary; then do what's possible; and suddenly you are doing the impossible. -- St. Francis of Assisi
LisaMarie71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2007, 10:35 PM   #19
Made of Starstuff
 
Lovely's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New England
Posts: 8,931

Default

A fat person is the new smoking person. The taxes on foods, the higher insurance rates, the dirty looks, pretty soon we'll all be banned from restaurants!
__________________
~Made of star stuff~

Last edited by Lovely : 09-25-2007 at 10:36 PM.
Lovely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2007, 01:12 PM   #20
M.S. + living balance
 
valpal23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Thompson, MB Canada
Posts: 1,061

S/C/G: 325/200's/199

Height: 5'10"

Default

I didnt read the entire thread - but I just wanted to comment.. in Canada the government forced cig companies to put graphic pictures of smoking related illness/cancer infested organs on each actual boxe to deter people from buying along with a big tax.

If there was any way to apply that to fast food/drive thru/stuff made mainly of sat/trans fat I wouldnt be against it. Honestly I'm hoping for me and my family/extended family that more aggressive actions shock us all into change.
__________________


I can't be perfect but I CAN persevere



Last edited by valpal23 : 09-26-2007 at 05:07 PM.
valpal23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2007, 07:59 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
jellydisney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 360

S/C/G: 155/118/118

Height: 5'2

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LisaMarie71 View Post
So you really think my husband who's never had an ounce of extra fat on his body should pay an extra tax when he eats a Krispy Kreme doughnut?
If that doughnut costs more, I bet he'll think twice about purchasing it. That's the point of the fat tax--to slow the mindless eating of junk food. A Krispy Kreme doughnut is not a necessity in life. We're not talking about taxing bread or milk or water. And this isn't about taking away somebody's rights--we'd all still have access to doughnuts. But like cigarettes, if you want to purchase something that is not good for you, you can buy it at a premium.
__________________
Maintenance since October 2008.

Last edited by jellydisney : 09-28-2007 at 07:59 AM.
jellydisney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2007, 08:03 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
jellydisney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 360

S/C/G: 155/118/118

Height: 5'2

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NemesisClaws View Post
I'm against this tax, period. It is up to the individual to make the right choices when it comes to their foods, not the govt.
And so far, that's been about as effective as the Abstinence Method
__________________
Maintenance since October 2008.
jellydisney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2007, 06:43 PM   #23
Boston Qualifier and MOM
 
ennay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 5,795

S/C/G: 186/see ticker/?

Height: 5'3.75"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jellydisney View Post
If that doughnut costs more, I bet he'll think twice about purchasing it. That's the point of the fat tax--to slow the mindless eating of junk food. A Krispy Kreme doughnut is not a necessity in life. We're not talking about taxing bread or milk or water. And this isn't about taking away somebody's rights--we'd all still have access to doughnuts. But like cigarettes, if you want to purchase something that is not good for you, you can buy it at a premium.
Sorry..the comparison to cigarettes does not fly. There is NO level of cigarette smoking that is not dangerous to health.

At reasonable levels, even Krispy Kremes can be part of a sensible diet. While there is little nutrition, it is not harmful in moderation.

And I got fat without eating Krispy Kremes, fast food, junk food etc. In fact I bet I eat more junk food NOW than I did when I was fat. I got fat eating too much of good wholesome foods.

Are you going to put a fat tax on 1% milk? Because that was a biggie for me...probably went through 60-70 oz a day...thats fattening.

How about eggs and nuts? Both high in fat, but nutritional powerhouses.

What about rice or spaghetti? Some would say they are as bad for you as sugar, others love that they are lowfat foods.

I am a marathon runner now and I injest refined sugar products regularly as a source of energy. Is that a junk food since it fuels the habit that has reduced my cholesterol and removed my insulin resistance?

And lets not get in to diet sodas and lowfat artificial foods vs. healthy high fat foods like natural cheese, avocados, etc

Sorry. Junk food should not be sold in schools, but neither should it be taxed.

If you want to encourage healthy foods, how about we stop subsidizing the production of high fructose corn syrup. It only makes its way in to so many foods because the govt subsidizes its production and makes it artificially cheap.
__________________
A whole lot of setbacks. Starting over.

My before/after pics

Last edited by ennay : 09-28-2007 at 07:02 PM.
ennay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2007, 07:19 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
jellydisney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 360

S/C/G: 155/118/118

Height: 5'2

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ennay View Post
If you want to encourage healthy foods, how about we stop subsidizing the production of high fructose corn syrup. It only makes its way in to so many foods because the govt subsidizes its production and makes it artificially cheap.
Yes, that would be another idea--although it would have a similar effect to the Fat Tax. Eliminating the subsidies makes companies have to pay more for sweeteners, and then the cost would be passed on to the consumer..... how is that any different? You'll still pay more.

Also, I think you're looking at it too one-dimensionally. In my mind, it wouldn't be a tax imposed on every food item that has fat in it (that wouldn't make any sense). The way I see it, the FDA would "grade" foods based on a variety of health factors, not just fat. So in that way, "Fat" Tax is a bit of a misnomer.

Anyway, I'm not going to go to Congress and fight for the Fat Tax. I'm just playing devil's advocate. I think we need more ideas like these, and I think the government needs to be involved. Period. Because staying the course is a one way ticket to an increasingly obese population.
__________________
Maintenance since October 2008.

Last edited by jellydisney : 09-28-2007 at 07:19 PM.
jellydisney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2007, 07:48 PM   #25
Boston Qualifier and MOM
 
ennay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 5,795

S/C/G: 186/see ticker/?

Height: 5'3.75"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jellydisney View Post
Yes, that would be another idea--although it would have a similar effect to the Fat Tax. Eliminating the subsidies makes companies have to pay more for sweeteners, and then the cost would be passed on to the consumer..... how is that any different? You'll still pay more.

It is different because we are artificially lowering the price of a single food ingredient. It is the opposite of a junk food tax in that it is a junk food SUBSIDY. I am just saying before we start deciding what is healthy and what is not (and make no mistake...the LOBBYISTS are who will decide that, not dieticians) lets quit SUBSIDIZING it.


Also, I think you're looking at it too one-dimensionally. In my mind, it wouldn't be a tax imposed on every food item that has fat in it (that wouldn't make any sense). The way I see it, the FDA would "grade" foods based on a variety of health factors, not just fat. So in that way, "Fat" Tax is a bit of a misnomer.

Anyway, I'm not going to go to Congress and fight for the Fat Tax. I'm just playing devil's advocate. I think we need more ideas like these, and I think the government needs to be involved. Period. Because staying the course is a one way ticket to an increasingly obese population.
But the problem is no-one can agree on what HEALTHY means. (dark chocolate?) I was not calling out fat specifically either, I am assuming sugar and fat and some nutritional thing, but I really cant justify it on any basis.

The government has already shown that it thinks diet soda is healthy enough for kids where real soda is not... personally I would rather my kid drank a sprite than a diet sprite.

Having a million dollar junk food tax would not have made a whit of difference in my weight. I got fat, as did most people, by eating TOO MUCH food. So unless you are going to use my safeway card to track calories purchased and start taxing once I get over an alloted #/household member, it isnt going to be particularly effective. (big brother?)

I go back to my original statement that NONE of these foods are inherently unhealthy in small portions as part of an overall healthy diet. Selecting certain foods as "bad" is irrational. There is no food that is the nutritional equivalent of cigarettes. (That is my biggest peeve is comparing any food to cigarettes. )

Besides - if I have learned anything on this journey it is that calling a food BAD only increases the desire for the food and the likelihood that a binge will occur.

People who are addicted to carbs will find "healthy carbs" to overeat, people who are addicted to sugar will find "healthy sweet" food to overeat, people who eat emotionally will find and abundance of food to overeat.

Bring on the whole grain pasta with olive oil baby...I can eat a ton.
__________________
A whole lot of setbacks. Starting over.

My before/after pics
ennay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2007, 11:54 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
LisaMarie71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,860

S/C/G: 285.2/285.2/185

Height: 5'9"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ennay View Post
I got fat, as did most people, by eating TOO MUCH food. So unless you are going to use my safeway card to track calories purchased and start taxing once I get over an alloted #/household member, it isnt going to be particularly effective. (big brother?)
Yep, that was exactly my point, but ennay is saying it much better.

I'm also bothered by the cigarette/food comparison. If we use my perpetually healthy husband as an example again... let's say he lights up a cigarette next to your kid (or yourself, for that matter). He's screwing up his lungs and yours or your kid's, AND he's messing with health care costs down the line. The doughnut he's eating next to you won't make you fat. Quite honestly, it's not going to make him fat either. There's the key point we keep missing. It's not going to make him fat because he's not going to eat five doughnuts, and he's only going to eat one on a rare occasion, and then he's going to run a few miles anyway to burn off the calories. I just can't imagine anyone actually believing he should be taxed for the pleasure of eating some sugar and fat when it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Yes, we need some alternatives because there's a growing obesity problem. I just don't think we need to look into completely absurd alternatives...
__________________
Lisa

Start by doing what's necessary; then do what's possible; and suddenly you are doing the impossible. -- St. Francis of Assisi

Last edited by LisaMarie71 : 09-28-2007 at 11:56 PM.
LisaMarie71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2007, 02:23 PM   #27
Used to be Archy
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 482

S/C/G: 220/171/145

Height: 5'4

Default

Those who are in favor of the fat tax should go to the other side of the tracks and check out where the poor people in town shop. Everything in those stores would be taxed! Except the 3 week old lettuce, of course.

There is a very real and very economic reason why if you are below middle class you are more likely to be obese. Taxing the poor who most likely don't have health insurance so that middle class and above don't have to pay as much on their insurance is shameful! A truly disgusting idea.
__________________

February Tri Challenge COMPLETED!
Eves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2007, 02:37 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,350

Default

Really?

The ghettomarts where I live --real supermarkets, not 7-Elevens-- all seem to sell rice, beans, cereals, burger meat, lunchmeat, eggs, milk, cheese, tuna, soup, frozen foods, and all that. The fresh fruits and vegetables are horrific and that's a big problem but the packaged foods and dairy aisles carry most of the same stuff that the nicer neighborhoods' supermarkets do.

As for the fat tax specifically, if we can tax tobacco and alcohol for some combination of public health and easy revenue, I don't see any reason not to tax junk food as well. You don't need potato chips and sugar cereals any more than you need beer or blunts.

Last edited by MariaMaria : 09-30-2007 at 02:38 PM.
MariaMaria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2007, 02:47 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
LisaMarie71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,860

S/C/G: 285.2/285.2/185

Height: 5'9"

Default

We're fortunate enough to have the freedom to buy plenty of stuff we don't "need." I certainly don't think someone else should decide what I need and don't need. What a scary society that would be. As we've said repeatedly, it's the amount of food you consume that makes you obese, not the food itself. If I eat five loaves of healthy whole wheat bread in one day, that number of calories will be bad for me, obviously. Should we tax the amount of food we buy? Any other way, it just makes no sense.

I don't know why I keep repeating this. I need to stop looking at this thread.
__________________
Lisa

Start by doing what's necessary; then do what's possible; and suddenly you are doing the impossible. -- St. Francis of Assisi
LisaMarie71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2007, 04:54 PM   #30
Boston Qualifier and MOM
 
ennay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 5,795

S/C/G: 186/see ticker/?

Height: 5'3.75"

Default

"what is a junk food"

That is where, even if the repeated comparison to cigarettes and the taxing of the poor didnt make this a ludicrous law, it logically falls apart. Because I dont think there is any concensus on what is a junk food. I think the list would be made by lobbyists and artificial "low fat low sugar" crap would be let off the hook. I think there would be very little consistancy, or else the rules would be set by some artificial measure of "healthy" that would eliminate some very healthy foods.

For ME the following foods are all vital to my healthy diet, have supported my weightloss and more importantly my drop in cholesterol and my insulin resistance therefore lowering my current and future health care costs

pizza
dark chocolate
icecream (real not fake)

And on certain specific occasions quickly absorbed, highly refined white flour and sugar.

The following foods are toxic to my weightloss efforts and I consider them junk foods

milk - even skim
watermelon
anything with artificial sweeteners
anything that is supposed to have fat but is "fat free"

Most attempts at the lists would tax the first 4 items and not tax the last 4. But if I avoided the first 4 and ate the last 4 I would be much less healthy
__________________
A whole lot of setbacks. Starting over.

My before/after pics
ennay is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Posts by members, moderators and admins are not considered medical advice
and no guarantee is made against accuracy.


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:29 PM.






Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.3.2