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 07-12-2007, 01:15 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
lendingheart's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 141

S/C/G: 232/ticker/130

Height: 5f 6in

Default Fat Tax

I hope i can post this here like this... Mods feel free to fix it if i did it wrong got it off yahoo http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070712/...britain_fat_dc


By Peter Griffiths
Thu Jul 12, 6:45 AM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - A "fat tax" on salty, sugary and fatty foods could save thousands of lives each year, according to a study published on Thursday.

Researchers at Oxford University say that charging Value Added Tax (VAT) at 17.5 percent on foods deemed to be unhealthy would cut consumer demand and reduce the number of heart attacks and strokes.

The purchase tax is already levied on a small number of products such as potato crisps, ice cream, confectionery and chocolate biscuits, but most food is exempt.

The move could save an estimated 3,200 lives in Britain each year, according to the study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

"A well-designed and carefully-targeted fat tax could be a useful tool for reducing the burden of food-related disease," the study concluded.

The team from Oxford's Department of Public Health said higher taxes have already been imposed on cigarettes and alcohol to encourage healthy living.

They used a mathematical formula to estimate the effect of higher prices on the demand for foods such as pastries, cakes, cheese and butter.

However, they said their research only gave a rough guide to the number of lives that could be saved and said more work was needed to get an exact picture of how taxes could improve public health.

Any "fat tax" might be seen as an attack on personal freedom and would weigh more heavily on poorer families, the study warned.

A food tax would raise average weekly household bills by 4.6 percent or 67 pence per person.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has previously rejected the idea as an example of the "nanny state" that might push people away from healthy food.

The Food and Drink Federation has called the proposed tax patronizing and says it would hit low-income families hardest.

It suggests that people eat a balanced diet.

The British Heart Foundation said it does not support the tax.

"We believe the government should focus on ensuring healthy foods are financially and geographically accessible to everyone," it said.
__________________


lendingheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2007, 01:21 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
lendingheart's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 141

S/C/G: 232/ticker/130

Height: 5f 6in

Default

Now im all for healthy living.... but putting a tax on fat wont help anything. i know this was in britian but US is always right behind them.

The only thing this will do is FATTEN the gov, wallet!

Did it stop people from smoking and drinking? NO!

What needs to be done is change the way companies "process" food. Quit putting addicting things in them, i know fats and sweets can be addicting.

Solve drug crimes so people will safe to go " WALKING" again down the street!

Call me a conspiriacy nut... i dont care... i know that higher ups in the gov, have mega bucks in the stock of weight loss pills, gym franchises and all that... AND in fattening food like Little Debbie and McDonalds... so they make money if you gain weight or try and loose it!
__________________


lendingheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2007, 02:26 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
LisaMarie71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,860

S/C/G: 285.2/285.2/185

Height: 5'9"

Default

I think that's a completely absurd idea. For one thing, you can be overweight from eating other types of food as well. If you consume too many calories, you will gain weight. Using myself as an example, I eat sugary foods fairly regularly and I lose 1-2 pounds a week. If we had a "fat tax" like that, I'd be paying it even though I've lost 100 pounds in the past year and I've gone from a couch potato to a distance runner. That's hardly fair, huh? The point of the tax seems to be sort of "punitive" -- you eat these foods, you get to share a greater tax burden (ostensibly because the government will have to pay more for your health care). So when my husband and I, two healthy runners, go out and buy ourselves some chocolate, we have to pay more for it. Silly. It's just fostering the same old silly notions that one bite of "junk food" will send your body into a tailspin and you'll never be healthy again. I hate that crap. Everything in moderation. The "fat tax" can't tell if the people who are buying the stuff are eating it in moderation, so it will never make sense.
__________________
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 07-13-2007, 06:22 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 428

S/C/G: 207/200/135

Height: 5'8

Default

Dont be fooled! lol. This is just the governments way of regaining the taxes they're losing through cigarettes because of the new no smoking in enclosed areas law.

We are already taxed to wazoo in britain, especially those who dont earn $50,000/year or more. The cost of living here is double that of the USA. $7/gallon of gas here, $2.90/gallon there.

This food thing is utter rubbish. It wont stop people buying the things they like to eat! lol
__________________
One for every 10lbs lost!
Casandra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2007, 10:40 PM   #5
ShellieTerese
 
Bouncing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cobb Mountain, Northern California
Posts: 291

S/C/G: 274/see ticker/125

Height: 5'3"

Default

I can see it now --black market potato chips! Smugglers will import them from Canada to avoid the taxes, and you'll have to have a connection to get them. I would not be willing to visit my neighborhood candy man for potato chips, but chocolate, now... Hm, would give "candy man" a whole new dimension of meaning, wouldn't it?
__________________
Shellie




"Time and trouble will tame an advanced young woman, but an advanced old woman is uncontrollable by any earthly force." --Dorothy L. Sayers
Bouncing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2007, 07:39 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 180

Default

A fat tax is just another example of a nanny government. Why on earth would anyone want to put more money and more power into the government's hands? It scares me when I think of how insidious the government is about taking our freedoms. This is why, even though I do not smoke and do not like the smell of smoke, I was against the smoking bans in privately-owned establishments. I knew it was just the beginning, and I was right. Some states are now trying to pass laws about smoking in one's own house! We better watch out: The government just slowly keeps taking our rights away.

Also, putting a fat tax on certain foods will merely perpetuate the idea of "good foods -- bad foods." That, IMHO, perpetuates the "dieting/cheating/binging" mentality. Even those "bad foods" are fine in moderation, so why on earth should I be taxed for eating them once in a while?
lynnm39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 07:28 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 428

S/C/G: 207/200/135

Height: 5'8

Default

FYI, this system they would be using is flawed. They rate foods with an index, ie:

Spinach = -9, so it wont be taxed

but however, (and I find this amusing)

Cornflakes = 12, and would be taxed!
__________________
One for every 10lbs lost!
Casandra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2007, 05:24 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
athenac's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 284

S/C/G: 240/207/135

Height: 5'6

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lendingheart View Post
The only thing this will do is FATTEN the gov, wallet!
Exactly! I couldn't agree with you more.
__________________
I don't trust my scale, but I'll consider its opinion.
athenac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 11:33 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
QuilterInVA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Yorktown, VA USA
Posts: 5,146

Default

I'm all for the fat tax on fast foods, sugary foods, etc. Overweight costs billions in health care costs, bigger seats in public places, etc. It did get people off cigarettes. There are foods that are bad whether we acknowledge that fact or not. No one is saying you can't eat them, just you'll have to pay a premium.
__________________
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 08-09-2007, 02:59 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
lendingheart's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 141

S/C/G: 232/ticker/130

Height: 5f 6in

Default

The tax on tabacco didnt help much, what helps is when they just out law it all together... if people cant smoke everywhere then it becomes trouble for them... then they quit.... i have heard many people say that.

No all taxes does it takes that much more money away from people....

I dont think they should tax people who eat fatty food... they should just make Mc Donalds and Little Debbie and all of them change their recipes!

Dont tax a poison that is killing people.... get rid of it!

obesity is upping health cost... a long with smoking, veneral disease, polution... lots of reasons....

Want to save a life? Dont tax corn oil..... BAN IT! But where could the government make money from that? oh wait i forgot.... ethanal! They will never ban it.... but they should outlaw it from consumption! That would save millions of heart attacks right there.
__________________


lendingheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2007, 01:17 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 169

Default

I wouldn't mind if it the taxes went to pay for universal health care for all US citizens.
Mini-Me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2007, 12:49 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
jellydisney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 360

S/C/G: 155/118/118

Height: 5'2

Default

While it may not be the best idea in practice, at least it's an idea! I think the past 30 years have proven that obesity is not a matter of will power alone, and that leaving people to solve the problem on their own is not getting us anywhere!

What we need are more ideas on how to solve this widespread problem. And I do think that widespread problems are in the realm of goverment-propelled solutions. I would support a fax-tax (especially if the dollars went towards healthcare, which another poster mentioned). I would support prohibition of certain chemicals and food additives. I would support some sort of FDA "ranking" system that ranked all foods on heathfulness and was required to be displayed on the front of the food's packaging. I would support restrictions on how and when food is advertised on television.

Maybe this sounds drastic, but this is a drastic problem.

I say, keep the ideas coming.
__________________
Maintenance since October 2008.
jellydisney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2007, 01:03 PM   #13
Finding My Bliss
 
SoulBliss's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: California
Posts: 2,916

S/C/G: Fit & Fat!

Height: Tall & Strong, Baby!

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mini-Me View Post
I wouldn't mind if it the taxes went to pay for universal health care for all US citizens.
__________________
"I do feel that spiritual progress does demand at some stage that we should cease to kill our fellow creatures for the satisfaction of our bodily wants." -Gandhi
SoulBliss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2007, 10:20 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
luja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 344

Default

I'm all for it.

Obesity costs society A LOT of money in excess health care costs. Call it a user fee.

Actually the cigarette tax DOES reduce smoking - there are consistently noted declines in smoking rates associated with tax increases.

Last edited by luja : 09-22-2007 at 10:20 PM.
luja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2007, 10:37 PM   #15
Wild Angels
 
NemesisClaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 557

Height: 5'2

Default

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. Plus, it will hurt lower income folks the most. Regarding cigarettes, there was no choice but to put a tax on it (when really they should've banned it) because it wasn't just the individual being affected, but others around them from second hand smoke. However, the same cannot be said of food. No one else will be harmed by what I put into my mouth physically.

Frankly, it's my opinion that we're just getting taxed to death these days. Every time I open up my paycheck, I feel like I might as well hand over the entire thing to the govt.
__________________
NemesisClaws 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 09:38 AM.






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