1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Should there be a "fat tax"?

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Chris Blount, May 18, 2012.

Should there be a "fat tax"?

  1. Yes

    0 vote(s)
  2. No

    22 vote(s)
  3. Not Sure

    93 vote(s)
  1. May 18, 2012 #21 of 203
    Chris Blount

    Chris Blount Creator of DBSTalk Staff Member Administrator DBSTalk Gold Club

    Jun 22, 2001
    You bring up a good point. There are some that would be considered "overweight" but are still in good health. It's just the way their body works and will probably live until they are 100.
  2. May 18, 2012 #22 of 203
    Phil T

    Phil T Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    Mar 25, 2002
    How about an ugly tax or a stupid tax? Maybe a short tax or a smelly tax.

    Actually, if I were king, I would not allow any measure that was put up for public vote or voted on by the state legislature to appear again on the ballot for 10 years. We have the same stuff brought up every year until some party has enough votes to get it through, even if the public has voted it down. :(
  3. May 18, 2012 #23 of 203
    Marlin Guy

    Marlin Guy Hall Of Fame

    Apr 8, 2009
    There already is a substantial tax on obesity, diabetes, and other sugar-related illnesses that we all pay every time someone in poor condition is carted into the ER nearly dead from their own bad lifestyles.

    Those with insurance drive up the premiums of the healthy participants.
    Those without insurance drive up the costs of medical care as the providers try to recoup their losses by charging everyone else more. Either way, we all pay.

    The only way out of this sugar-fueled path to destruction for us all is to educate the public on the health dangers and costs of eating cheap processed junk.

    Goverment has a role as well.
    Corn and soybean growers get subsidies. Broccoli growers do not.

    Right now, in this country, there are not enough fruits and vegetables grown to supply the population with the average DV of fruits and vegetables.
    Putting that another way, if we all ate what we're recommended to eat, we'd have a huge deficit of healthy foods.
  4. May 18, 2012 #24 of 203

    sum_random_dork Icon

    Aug 21, 2008
    The City of Richmond CA is looking at a tax of $.01 per ounce on soda. That would kill all sales in Richmond and you would see customers go a city/town over to buy their sodas. The issue is with the parents who let their children have soda with breakfast, again at lunch, them hit the local drive thru 4x's a week. An average person knows soda is bad compared to water, but n moderation it is OK.
  5. May 18, 2012 #25 of 203
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    You do realize that is how insurance works, though, right?

    I mean... The only reason anyone ever wants/buys insurance is because they hope they will pay less into it than they will need to be paid from it.

    IF you knew you would pay more for health insurance than you would ever need to partake in terms of medical expenses... you wouldn't need or want insurance!

    Insurance "works" by having lots of people pay in so that there is a pool of money available to pay when someone needs something more than they could normally afford. IF everyone gets sick at the same time (or we have a natural disaster) then insurance fails horribly as we have seen.

    So... the whole notion that the "healthy people pay for the sick" is often said like an insult to sick people abusing the system... but the truth is, that's the whole point and origin behind insurance in the first place!
  6. May 18, 2012 #26 of 203
    Alan Gordon

    Alan Gordon Chancellor

    Jun 7, 2004
    Dawson, Georgia

    I don't have to pay Chicago prices thankfully, but then I don't make Chicago money, so it probably evens out somewhat...

    The point is the same though... I prefer healthier foods, but they are far harder on the budget than unhealthy food and food-like products.

    I don't support the idea of the tax, but it's pretty pathetic when there's such a premium price tag put on healthier foods. :mad:

  7. May 18, 2012 #27 of 203
    Marlin Guy

    Marlin Guy Hall Of Fame

    Apr 8, 2009
  8. May 18, 2012 #28 of 203

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    Aug 28, 2006
    Absolutely no reason for tax. The solution is to impose a health care insurance system that rewards healthy behavior and penalizes unhealthy. If you want to eat like a pig and weigh 400 lbs., have at it, but you should have to pay accordingly for your health care coverage. "Taxes" do nothing but feed a bloated government that is already the most "gluttonous" organism on the planet.
  9. May 18, 2012 #29 of 203

    WestDC Well-Known Member

    Feb 9, 2008
    Everything should be taxed- The government Always Knows bests how to spend the money you make.
  10. May 18, 2012 #30 of 203

    jacksonm30354 Icon

    Mar 29, 2007
    Our company charges smokers and extra $20 a pay period (bi-monthly) for health insurance. I think that would be the way to go for any 'fat' surcharge, not a tax.

    I think there's a little misinformation there. Somewhere in the vicinity of 50% don't pay federal income taxes, but they do pay other taxes - payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes (if they own a house) and possibly state/local income taxes. And most of them DO work. We don't have 50% of people sitting on the couch getting a government check while the others are toiling away at work. They are able to claim exemptions and credits (i.e. earned income credit and child credits) that negate their federal income tax liability. The median household income in the US is about $50K which would mean that's what the top earners in that bottom 50% earn, so the bottom 50% isn't raking in big $ to begin with.

    Exactly. I used to work from home 3-5 days a week and I had time to either work out at home or go to the gym. However, someone in our company decided no one can work from home anymore if they are within 50 miles of an office. I am 32 miles. I can make it in 35 minutes, if it's totally free and clear (both home and office are right off the freeways). If I go in before 7am or after 9:30am, it usually ends up taking 45 minutes in the morning. If I leave before 3:30 or after 6:30, it takes 1 hour on the ride home. If there's an accident, all bets are off. And for what? I go to sit in a cubicle having to listen to 5 or 6 of my neighbors conference calls or conversations. And not to mention, the commute puts my life at risk among all the crazy drivers.
  11. May 18, 2012 #31 of 203
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    The danger in trying to legislate what you or I think is risky behavior is this...

    You think I'm costing you money by eating too much and being fat and needing more health care.

    I think you are costing me money by going for a hike or a mountain climb and getting lost or falling and having to be rescued and needing more health care.

    I eat too many doughnuts... you drive your motorcycle too fast... I don't exercise enough... you put yourself in danger through your physical activity.

    Once you start, you can't stop... until everyone always does exactly the same stuff as everyone else. Bye to person freedoms...
  12. May 19, 2012 #32 of 203

    AntAltMike Hall Of Fame

    Nov 20, 2004
    I read that linked article, written by a Dr. Steven Barrett, and was struck by how unprofessionally it was written. I was going to "google" his name, but before I did, I started reading the "comments/replies" and found this link to a Quackwatch article about Dr. Barrett:


    He got kicked out of the medical profession in 2008 and is in hawk $20,000,000, having had both his 1990 and 2005 bankruptcy unsuccessfully pursued, and now he sells this book claiming that the world is wrong in its diagnosis of heart attack causes and suggested risk reductions, and he will sell you the book espousing his unsubstantialed wisdom for just $49 and keep you informed of his latest thoughts by becoming a member of his update service, with membership levels running from about $47 a month to about $245 a month. No, thank you.
  13. May 19, 2012 #33 of 203
    Marlin Guy

    Marlin Guy Hall Of Fame

    Apr 8, 2009
    I'm going to go ahead and assume you got your names mixed up. Lundell wrote the article.
    Regarding Barrett, the guy who wants to discredit Lundell,:


    and this

    and this

    and this
  14. May 19, 2012 #34 of 203

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    Lundell isn't respected at all among cardiologists. He's a joke of a "doctor" who lost his license. He's trying to keep his name out there with his "secrets" to live healthy.

    Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/...6/20081016gr-baddoctor1017.html#ixzz1vKcBL4ox

    Let's not even discuss sott.net credibility. :lol:
  15. May 19, 2012 #35 of 203

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    Mar 18, 2006
    But they have no carbs and are a perfect snack on a low-carb diet. :)

    How far do you walk if you are playing bad? Should be more as you have to walk from side to side and through the woods. :)
  16. May 19, 2012 #36 of 203
  17. May 19, 2012 #37 of 203
    Lord Vader

    Lord Vader Supreme Member DBSTalk Club

    Sep 20, 2004
    Galactic Empire
    Why? Why must the government--the "we" to whom you actually are referring here--"move" food retailers to healthy (sic) foods? Let the market and actions of customers dictate what is served at these places.

    As far as a "fat tax," I'm totally opposed to it because it's another example of the nanny state, the government believing it knows what's good for us better than we ourselves know. Moreover, what about the many people who DO patronize these establishments but who do NOT suffer from obesity? Hell, over the last 2 months of my college baseball season, my schedule sees me often grabbing a meal on the go because I'm unable to cook dinner by the time I get home. (I patronize McDonald's and Wendy's much more frequently during my baseball season than during my off-season.) During the last 2 months I've lost 28 lbs. (and did nothing differently in terms of exercise, working out, etc.).

    So much for eating at McDonald's and Wendy's being bad for you.
  18. May 19, 2012 #38 of 203

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    Mar 18, 2006
    This is the same government that on one hand is saying we shouldn't eat processed foods and on the other is going after "natural" milk producers because it isn't "processed" enough.
  19. May 19, 2012 #39 of 203
    Lord Vader

    Lord Vader Supreme Member DBSTalk Club

    Sep 20, 2004
    Galactic Empire
    And we're the same paranoid fools who panicked when the "pink slime" beef filler thing came out a couple months ago. This led to the filler's use being stopped, the plants that make it closed, and over 1500 people losing their jobs.

    Yet we'll still puff away on cigarettes, chew tobacco, and do other far more dangerous things.
  20. May 19, 2012 #40 of 203

    photostudent Godfather

    Nov 8, 2007
    There will not be a Fat Tax. Has no one else figured out this is just another form, of the "you must read this" email? Well maybe I am wrong. If you live in a state like mine that taxes food then I guess that is a bit of a fat tax. Let's all get behind repealing sales taxes!

Share This Page