Fat tax proposed

[diamondpete]

About time!!!!!!



from the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3502053.stm

Government unit 'urges fat tax'



Burgers are among the foods likely to be hit by a 'fat tax'

Plans for a tax on fatty foods such as cakes and biscuits are being considered by government advisers.
The Prime Minister's Strategy Unit is considering increasing duties on some food and having a sports drive to fight obesity, according to the Times.
The newspaper claims a document urges a fatty food tax as a "signal to society" because the number of obese British people has risen sharply in 20 years.

A Downing Street spokesman said the government had no plans for such a tax. He said: "It is no secret that the government is looking at the problem of obesity.

FOODS TARGETED
Dairy products: fresh butter, cheddar cheese, full fat milk
Fast food: Cheeseburger, takeaway pizza, potato wedges
Sweets: Milk chocolate bar, Danish pastry, butter toffee popcorn

Source: strategy unit paper according to the Times

"But no proposals of this kind have been put to the prime minister."
The spokesman said that there was agreement both in and out of government that it would not be a workable system. However, he confirmed the story came from a minor discussion document by their strategy unit. The Times says the strategy unit's paper, titled Personal Responsibility and Changing Behaviour, points out that NHS spending on obesity-related disease has risen. "The main drivers - poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle - are largely outside the direct influence of the NHS," it says. It suggests a number of policies such as a national sports drive along the lines of the successful Active Australia strategy, and lifestyle lessons in schools.


Tax 'life-saving'
A new tax or the extension of VAT is proposed for some dairy products, fast food and sweets. "This would be a signal to producers as well as consumers and serve more broadly as a signal to society that nutritional content in food is important," says the document. Last year doctors at the British Medical Association (BMA) debated a proposal to impose the full 17.5% VAT rate on a wider range of high-fat foods such as biscuits, cakes and processed meals. The full 17.5% rate is already charged on some foods including fizzy drinks, crisps and heated burgers.
The British Medical Journal recently claimed a 'fat tax' could help prevent 1,000 premature deaths from heart disease every year in the UK.

Plans opposed
Martin Paterson, of the Food and Drink Federation, said a fat tax would hit lower income families who already spend a higher proportion of their income on food and drink. He said: "Consumers will rightly feel patronised by "top-down" messages based on the idea that they can't think for themselves and need to be taxed into weight-loss. "The idea that any particular food is bad for you is out of date and simplistic. A balanced diet can include snacks and treats - moderation is the key." Tim Yeo, Shadow Shadow Health and Education Secretary, said: "The government's approach to tackle the problems of obesity, like their approach to all public health issues, has been haphazard and has lacked coherence. "The Department of Health has announced a consultation paper on public health, the Treasury has commissioned Derek Wanless to look into matters, including public health, whilst Number 10's Strategy Unit have been working on yet another tax - the fat tax."

[Frank.S]

Yeah, I knew cheese and milk was causing the epidemic.

[Phaedrus49er]

I like the concern, but I think the process is misguided. Consumers shouldn't be punished for the base-level decisions they make on the open market (i.e. going to McDonald's). Every now and then, I feel like making my liver scream from something other than alcohol, and a Big Mac is just the thing. The emphasis should be on the healthcare end of things--people should face the consequences of their decisions, meaning those who make poor decisions regarding their health (constantly eating unhealthily, smoking, etc) should have to pay more for their healthcare without penalizing those who take care of themselves. I'm a case in point here: had I stuck with my original health insurance deductible, my monthly premium two years ago was $120. Last year, it jumped to $150, even though nothing in my life changed. This year, it was go jump again to $180, again though nothing in my life changed. The insurance company cited rising administrative costs, which is another way of saying too many people were milking their resources, and I can only imagine it came largely from subscribers whose lifestyles promoted poor health. This is why I had to assume an astronomical deductible to get my premium back down to something manageable (buying my own insurance here). And don't get me started on illegals and such using hospital emergency rooms as their primary care facilities...

[Ogedei]

Originally Posted by Frank.S

Yeah, I knew cheese and milk was causing the epidemic.

My thoughts exactly.

[twinsavsvikingsfan]

Originally Posted by Frank.S

Yeah, I knew cheese and milk was causing the epidemic.

Wait, I thought it was cigs and booze. This topic could go so CE I'll just leave it at that.

[mikex1337]

The emphasis should be on the healthcare end of things--people should face the consequences of their decisions, meaning those who make poor decisions regarding their health (constantly eating unhealthily, smoking, etc) should have to pay more for their healthcare without penalizing those who take care of themselves.

How would they weed these people out?

[Phaedrus49er]

I realize that wasn't as clear a statement as I wanted. I simply meant to say that those who require more healthcare based on their own choices (ailments stemming from poor diet and exercise decisions) would go to the doctor more often and therefore pay more in medical costs. As it is now, everyone under a particular insurance umbrella must shoulder a more widespread burden because many people milk and/or defraud the system. We insure EVERYthing that's medical. Why are routine physicals insured? Drug tests? STD tests? Why the little stuff that people could easily pay out-of-pocket? And if you can't, there's always the county clinic.

For example, my premiums increased 50% over two years even though I didn't file any insurance claims in that time. Heck, I never went to a doctor during that time. Additionally, I changed my coverage this year to have the same premium as two years ago before the rate increases, but my deductible increased ten-fold. Why should I have to pay more (or in this case, get less coverage) because I'm a cautious and healthy individual? I guess I could choose to not carry insurance, but considering I have a motorcycle, that's bankruptcy (and sub-standard healthcare) waiting to happen. I guess I could sell the moto--naaaaaaaaah

[andrew_plamondon]

How about a tax on the more refined products and industrial ingredients instead ?

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by mikex1337

How would they weed these people out?

Every single person would get taxed based on their BF %. So even healthy people put in because everyone has some fat on their ass. Say, 1% tax for every 2-3% bf, so even people with a nive 12% bf are paying 4-6% tax.

This kind of thing would never fly in the U.S. because, especially in my case, I'm paying a significant portion of my own health insurance. If the feds were to tax based on people's fat levels...

[Phaedrus49er]

Originally Posted by Cynic

If the feds were to tax based on people's fat levels...

Have you seen some of those politicians' waistlines? Not to mention all the pork involved

[diamondpete]

I think that in general tax is a good way to discourage useage - sin tax is quite common. With the exception of the United States, all of the G7 nations (not sure about russia so I leave it at G7 rather than G8) offer some kind of universal health care progam.

In that context, a tax of less healthy food might not seem so "oppressive".

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by diamondpete

In that context, a tax of less healthy food might not seem so "oppressive".

Yeah, I don't care if they tax McDonald's. McDonald's will simply tack on the increase onto their products, thus raising the price. That will cause some to turn away, but I think most will hang on.

My brother is in that category, not because he loves the food, but because he travels 10 months out of the year and has to eat in resturants. His cholesterol and lipids are so whacked from how he talks, his doctors are talking about medication. I doubt he'll still be alive in 10 years.

He gets paid big bucks for what he does and he just can't turn down the money. It's gonna kill him.

[BamaDave]

I don't think the government should micromanage individual behavior through taxation. If people want to smoke, drink, and eat pizza - more power to them as long as they aren't harming someone else.

And who would trust a bunch of government nutricrats to determine what foods should be taxed? Ideas about what's healthy and what's not are constantly changing and/or being refined. I don't want some food pyramid worshipper who can't get out of the 1990's nutrition mentality slapping extra taxes on peanut butter because "it's too many grams of fat."

This is one of the negatives of having a national healthcare program administered entirely by the government. If the government is paying for everybody's health care, then there's likely to be pressure from some for the government to penalize people for what they eat, drink, etc.

I've always wondered about the idea that fat/unhealthy people cost more in healthcare over the course of their lives. I recall reading once that, over a lifetime, the costs are not all that different, since very overweight people generally don't live as long. Plus fit people still get cancer, in auto accidents, drop 100 feet into a pile of rocks in rapelling accidents, etc.

[diamondpete]

Originally Posted by BamaDave

I don't think the government should micromanage individual behavior through taxation. If people want to smoke, drink, and eat pizza - more power to them as long as they aren't harming someone else.

But they are in a country with univesal health care because society is bearing the costs. I wonder how many people would feel this way if the freedom to choose which harmful products came with the bill for the additional health care.

Smoke and your healthcare will not cover smoking related illness....

May people do not want to be micromanaged, but they want to be covered for their poor choice.

Sounds like the have my cake and eat it too version of free choice. Choice with no consequence.

[Phaedrus49er]

Originally Posted by diamondpete

But they are in a country with univesal health care because society is bearing the costs. I wonder how many people would feel this way if the freedom to choose which harmful products came with the bill for the additional health care.

Smoke and your healthcare will not cover smoking related illness....

May people do not want to be micromanaged, but they want to be covered for their poor choice.

Sounds like the have my cake and eat it too version of free choice. Choice with no consequence.

Oh man, the temptation to turn this into a CE thread is HYOOGE, but I like being able to use smileys

But yes, Pete, that's exactly what it is. Land of the free (if you're illegal) and home of the brave (if you can afford the lawsuit).

[Jason B]

This is a topic I could get into heavily. I hate the thought of healthy taxpayers paying for the heart surgery of someone who's eaten fast food every day of their life. Or paying for lung cancer treatments of a smoker. I think if your health problems are a result of your own lifestyle (sedentary junk food eater, smokers, druggie, etc.), the government should offer no help whatsoever and that person's insurance should pay it, raising only their premiums, not anyone elses.

I like the idea of taxing 'junk' food at first, but then you punish those that eat those foods in moderation. And the line between what is 'junk' and what is not is way to blurry for that to work. Like the article said, the idea that any one food is always bad for you is not really true.

[Lost Dog]

Actually, smoking saves us money. Those people die early enough that the health care costs for the care when dying are less than the costs of keeping them around 'til a ripe old age. We just don't like to hear that.

Why can we tax the foods, but not otherwise punish the people for being fat? We have to provide them equal opportunity, disability, etc. Let's just mandate smaller and smaller seats and doorways in cars, buses, restaurants, and theatres and let the chips fall where they may. If they're walking and standing, they're exercising, baby