18 replies to this topic

[Brainbox]

Fat tax could save thousands

More than 3,000 fatal heart attacks and strokes could be prevented in the UK each year if VAT was slapped on a vast range of foods, say Oxford researchers.

One of the researchers declared the time was right to debate a "fat tax".

But the idea was dismissed in 2004 by former prime minister Tony Blair as too suggestive of a "nanny state".

They used economic data first to work out how demand would fall as the price of unhealthy foods increased, and which foods people might turn to instead - then used these results to predict the benefit on the health of the population.

Initially at least, average weekly food bills would increase by 4.6% per household.

What do you think about these type of measures to try to influence behaviour?

I would consider it as a last resort to try to deal with obesity. Maybe it's time indeed for this form of influence, but at the same time it gives me a creepy feeling. Anyway, it's better than simply trying to forbid.

[lucid]

I don't care for the idea much. I don't think it is the job of the government to mandate or coerce our action in the course of our normal life (normal here being non-criminal). What we need is to just have a population that isn't so freaking dumb. I think the idea is particularly bad when it is considered to be implemented in a democratic state... If the population think bad food isn't bad, they don't need to make a law about it, they should stop eating junk food, sheesh.

Plus with all of the debate about 'what is bad for us', there are so many ideas out there: low fat diets, low carb diets, certain kinds of fat diets, certain kinds of carb diets, etc. Having the government regulate this would be a horrible idea especially considering how quickly things change.

This article makes a mistake far to common in our time. They fail to separate what is a smart personal choice (eating well) from what makes a good law (don't kill people). Interesting idea to read about though. Cheers.

[Mixter]

Unhealthy food is *addictive*, emotional eating actually boosts dopamine in the brain like drugs do, and so on. Won't work for the same reason that excessive anti-drug policies won't, plus unhealthy food is much more socially accepted. Would be nice if it was that easy, though.

They should subtract VAT from Fiber, Carnitine and such and your HMO should offer to send clients with an above-average BMI one bottle of PGX-Fiber per month for free. THAT would help AND save costs, plus not be repressive.

The only thing I could support... HUGE mandatory warning labels on anything with more than 5% sugar and/or 30% saturated fats would be better. (Could it... stop my ch33se addiction? [tung])

[Brainbox]

I don't think it is the job of the government to mandate or coerce our action in the course of our normal life

I agree with that from a political point of view. I dislike governmental interference at such a detailed level as well.

However, if you look at the cost of health-care, that is increasing beyond the level of inflation, something has to be done. Our Dutch health-care system is based on quite a high level of solidarity. It is based on an insurance based form of financing as part of the private economy. Our government has a role in this by providing a framework that should insure that all levels of population are able to afford this insurance and hence are capable of financing their health-care. I think this is a good form of strategy as well.
Conflict arises when certain parts of the population ignore the general guidelines of a healthy behaviour, consequently raising individual cost of health-care. And consequently putting a huge pressure on the principle of solidarity.

I must say that I'm not that fundamental right-wing orientated that I would prioritise individual freedom above governmental regulation at all cost. It's difficult to find a good balance here, so I have some sympathy for this initiative.

[Brainbox]

(Could it... stop my ch33se addiction?

Ha, nothing can stop my addiction to Swiss Gruyere cheese. Or Appenzeller that smels even more... Good taste when combined with some dry wine, like Pinot-Noir that is supposed to have a high level of resveratrol. So, at least I'm trying to compensate in a way that doesn't compromise taste. [g:)]

[siberia]

I would be in favor of it because I live in a state with socialized health care. People with unhealthy habits deserve to pay more, as they most often need more medical attention.
I would much rather see these people paying for their own treatments, though. It would be a more fair and effective way to get people to change habits.

What am I thinking? Like if the U.S.A. have a healthy population.

Scaremongering a la that concerning cigarette smoking would work, I believe, even though it's not exactly incredibly effective.
I currently think that the increasing cost of health care much depends on more available and more expensive treatments.

edit: I don't give too much for the "nanny-state" argument, it's not exactly like that the government outlaws unhealthy foods.

[david ellis]

Beware of unintended consequences, if you tax healthy foods and let unhealthy ones go untaxed things could quickly become worse. It is not proven yet which foods should be taxed. Perhaps a Choice porterhouse steak is healthier than a loaf of whole wheat bread. People talk about the French paradox, eating fatty foods, smoking, drinking, and concentrating on enjoying life. And they live longer. Maybe the paradox is why a low-fat or even a vegan diet is thought healthy in this country.

I am all for the idea of taxing unhealthy foods, but I think years of intensive research is needed first. [lol]

[Live Forever]

I am going to tow the libertarian line here and say that this is a terrible idea. The government should in no way be doing any of this "mommy state" stuff, in my opinion. (whether it be for trans fats, or smoking, or gambling, or prostitutes, or drugs, or gun control, or anything else that they want to "protect" us from) Everyone should have the freedom to choose for themselves without being forced to do one thing or another.

[wayside]

However, if you look at the cost of health-care, that is increasing beyond the level of inflation, something has to be done.

This kind of tax won't turn people who would have died into healthy people overnight. The best it would do is turn people who would have died into really unhealthy people. Which costs more - the guy who drops dead from a heart attack or a guy who is chronically ill for years?

Not that cost should be the overriding factor; these are people's lives we are talking about after all. But from a purely economic standpoint, it might be cheaper for some people to die.

The other big issue is that social engineering via the tax code rarely works as intended, and in fact has the opposite effect. For example, in the interest of "fairness" (code for tax the rich) the US gov't implemented a luxury tax in the '90's on large boats. They projected a certain amount of revenue from the tax. What they failed to anticipate is that people don't need to buy boats. What happened was sales plummeted, and thousands of jobs were lost, costing the gov't far more in lost income tax than they made on the luxury tax. Oops.

[lucid]

Everyone should have the freedom to choose for themselves without being forced to do one thing or another.

Well said. As has been said before, 'freedom is the freedom to **** up'.

[basho]

Well said. As has been said before, 'freedom is the freedom to **** up'.

What sort of freedom is it when billions of dollars are spent on marketing propaganda for unhealthy foods? Under such conditions, are people really making free, unbiased choices in their eating habits?

[niner]

I think people should be free to do whatever the hell they want, as long as they don't hurt someone else. This is not easy to implement, however. It means that if you want to eat a bunch of garbage and be incredibly obese, or smoke, or ride motorcycles without a helmet, you'd better be prepared to pay higher insurance premiums to compensate for the costs you are dumping on the rest of us. Taxes on unhealthy items, as long as they are not so high as to create a black market, are at least a method of implementing this sort of thing. Whether it would work out that way in practice is another question.

My insurance company will give me a rebate if I go to the gym often enough.

[wayside]

It means that if you want to eat a bunch of garbage and be incredibly obese, or smoke, or ride motorcycles without a helmet, you'd better be prepared to pay higher insurance premiums to compensate for the costs you are dumping on the rest of us.  Taxes on unhealthy items, as long as they are not so high as to create a black market, are at least a method of implementing this sort of thing. 

Unfortunately, like all sin taxes, the money raised is unlikely to be used to directly pay the higher medical expenses of the people paying the tax. The purpose of a sin tax isn't to pay for the sin, it's to encourage you not to sin.

[lucid]

you'd better be prepared to pay higher insurance premiums to compensate for the costs you are dumping on the rest of us.

Well if we are talking about externalities, then let us cut to the chase and just make an 'ugly tax'. You can think of it as a tax on those who are poluting our vision by making us look at their fat asses. [:o] [lol]

[sentinel]

Most taxes are just an opportunity for governments to take more money out of our pockets, in the UK we are hit harder (and more unfairly) than most. This is not to say that all taxes are evils, particularly if they are raised with a direct and transparent mechanism for spending the money on addressing the issue they are raised for eg road tax/congestion charges being directly spent on improving public transport and clean fuels research etc.

Sadly this is not generally the case. If you tax people for being fat, they'll just end up fat with lower disposable income.

However if a health tax is levied on high fat/sugar foods for example and this money is directly used to subsidise "healthy" foods (not just manufactured but vegetables, fruit etc) then this will discourage people to some extent from buying convenience food that was "affordable" and encourage manufacturers to produce or invest in more healthy products that will sell more (because they're cheap).

Rather over-simplistic synopsis but I'm supposed to be working and you get the idea and [thumb]

Sentinel

[basho]

I think people should be free to do whatever the hell they want, as long as they don't hurt someone else.

Another idea would be to mandate that, for every dollar spent on advertising junk food, companies must give an equal dollar to education and to the advertising of healthy lifestyles and eating habits. That would even the playing field in terms of free choice.

[lucid]

Why do we need the government here? If people are interested in living longer and healthier and they have the will power they can fix the problem for themselves. If someone wants to put a dollar aside into their heart disease treatment fund for every big mac they eat then more power to them. I don't feel compelled to make them do so though. Freedom. Rawr.

[Liquidus]

Does anyone here have a general idea of what the time frame would be to where food is no longer required for nutrition? I imagine that eventually you'll be able to take pills/supplements that give you every beneficial thing you need in order to be running in optimum physical shape (which also means that fatty foods would no longer exist, meaning obesity is made irrelevant).

A world where food is not harvested is a very interesting one to consider. No longer will animals need to be killed for food (and I'm not in PETA either) and no longer will people get sick/overweight from unhealthy nutrition choices.

[AdamSummerfield]

I fully endorse the increased taxation of fattening products.
- Sezarus