In countries with socialized medicine, is a "fat tax" fair?
SuzannePjam
Posts: 411
I know London charges a fee to use congested roads in their city, but a tax on fatty foods? In a free market such as ours where you have to purchase your own healthcare and the rates go according to how you live your life, (rates go up if you smoke, are overweight) I think people should make their own choices. But in a country where there is socialized medicine, and everyone is paying for your healthcare, is it right to tax people for their risky behavior? Or is this tax just way out of control?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19726781/
‘Fat tax’ could save thousands of lives each year
Study: Charging extra for unhealthy foods would cut consumer demand
LONDON - 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.
Rejecting 'nanny state'
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 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.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19726781/
‘Fat tax’ could save thousands of lives each year
Study: Charging extra for unhealthy foods would cut consumer demand
LONDON - 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.
Rejecting 'nanny state'
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 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.
"Where there is sacrifice there is someone collecting the sacrificial offerings."-- Ayn Rand
"Some of my friends sit around every evening and they worry about the times ahead,
But everybody else is overwhelmed by indifference and the promise of an early bed..."-- Elvis Costello
"Some of my friends sit around every evening and they worry about the times ahead,
But everybody else is overwhelmed by indifference and the promise of an early bed..."-- Elvis Costello
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Society will have to figure out for itself that having a fuckload of fat lazy bums means a high burden for health facilities which translates into slower service/long waiting lists/increased costs for health.
society has figured it out...this is society doing something about it. I think a fat tax should be applied and I was happy to see that someone somewhere was beginning to address the issue.
Plus it would not lead to increase of everyone's taxes which is a good thing.
how bout eliminating much of the pork projects, which last year was 13 billion dollars and the year before was 29 billion dollars? If the gov't would actually make tough decisions we could have some resources to begin to address the problems.
Would be a fantastic start that crosses in other countries policies as well...including my own where some government programs really make you shake your head.
I tell ya who's gonna cost us the most in years to come it's all those gits that get dementia and alzheimer's. Let's tax them!!
And drinkers. And anybody that gets an STD. And those idiots that drink and drive. And drug addicts. oooh!! And gamblers, lets tax gamblers!!!
yeah, I'm liking this idea. Let's tax the crap out of everyone!!! Bound to help the situation. :rolleyes:
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
better watch out for the french fries laced with trans-fats
You tax booze (in Canada we do), smokes, there are lotto taxes in the USA....how again is this any different?
Also explain to me why porn needs to be taxed....a regular masturbation run might help relieve stress....there you go TAX BREAKS FOR PORN!!
hehe! See? People will always find things that they don't think should be taxed coz it's relevant to them.
If governments really want to end the obesity crisis I can think of a lot of things they could do long before they introduce a fat tax.
And it would be different because food is a necessity. The other things mentioned are not.
And I don't agree with the higher taxes on booze, smokes, gambling or any of those other things anyway. Even porn!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Why doesn't the government give a tax break for those who eat healthy foods if they are so concerned with their health?
No I think cigarettes are justified due to the vast amount of lying attributed to the companies that promoted them...booze whatever (its negligible IMHO)...the lotto tax in the USA is absurd (I heard 25% of your winnings are taxed...is that true?)
I go back on my vouch for the fat tax because I do agree with you that there are better methods...the first starts at home...eat meals with your children and teach good eating habits. Plus a run to the local fast food joint every once in awhile is not going to kill you.
But then again it the thread specifically states for those places with socialized medicine...therefore the arguement for it is strong and somewhat validated. But for the system in America this would not make much sense and would be strongly opposed (I hope for the tax reasons and not the craving of McDonalds' )
This one I am very conflicted about because I see the points of both sides....therefore I am going to perch myself on the fence for a bit.
Motorcycles, skydiving, surfing, drug use, alcohol use, and thousands of other activities should be outlawed, since they will contribute to my increased costs.
Just like Iraq. In or out. If the state is going to control the medical side of our lives it should control the lifestyle side and do everything it can to reduce potential health risks. If choice is removed for medical care it should be removed for behavior.
Yeah but the question is for a system that is the opposite of what you are used to in Texas....you have no socialized medicine...if your taxes were going to a group fund that provides 100% of your countrymen with healthcare would you not be pissed off at fat asses getting constant treatment due to their bad eating habits...therefore a tax on foods that are proven to be horrible to you would go to compensate these peoples habits...therefore they are making up the costs for their treatment through the food they buy....I think people need to realize that this question is posed to socialized systems and not the private one in USA where this has no merit....
Once again total and 100% misconception about the system
I am not getting started on that topic today....:)
However the thought of it freaks me out.
It is not an insult but it is the truth (it is generalizing for sure but it is a popular attitude). If you call B/S on me just read some of the posts here and it is readily apparent. Everything is my tax dollars/my choice/my..../my.../my....
That is something I truely love about the world you know we are neighbours (USA and Canada) and we are precieved to be alike and this is a perfect example of how we are not.
When you realize in Canada when they did an entire summer program dedicated to the most popular Canadian ever a man by the name of Tommy Douglas won that by a land-slide...for those who do not him research him and right there it proves a big difference (culturally) between our fine nations.
From my point of view as someone involved with a socialized system the fear mongering some people on this board use to this system is crap. It ain't pefect but when 100% of your people get the same healthcare it is a good thing because it helps society which leads to greater things.
I'm in Australia so I'm not sure what happens with lotto winnings in the US but I'm quite sure if it can be taxed here it is. They tax everything.
And I don't see the money raised being spent on preventative or educational progams. Well not nearly as much as is raised.
Also here in Australia it is becoming prohibitively expensive to buy fresh fruit and vegetables and meat and a whole bunch of other "healthy" foods. So I can only see a "fat tax" making life much more difficult for lower socio economic groups that traditionally spend money on cheap shitty food because that's all they can afford.
I guess for me if taxing things actually meant that the money raised was utilized to resolve the problem the item caused then I'd be for it. But I don't see that happening. I see it that it'll be just another excuse for government and big business to make a fast buck!
But then it's not like I believe that our government really gives a shit about the health of our people anyway. I'm quite sure everything they do is only motivated by the bottom line anyway. So the only reason they're even remotely interested in the obesity epidemic is because they know that in the future it's going to cost them shitloads of money. Not because they actually care about any of us.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Question then who is really watching out for you your government or the big corporations????
It really is one or the other? Then again are either of them any good.
At least I can put a choice to those in government...
Clearly I was exaggerating. But I don't understand how one could advocate for choice on one side of an equation and advocate removal of choice from the other side.
I think the answer lies in the fact that I have grown up in the system and view it entirely differently as you have the other side...maybe one of us is completey wrong or both....like I said it is obvious cultural differences which is great....I am not trying to insult anyone....
This doesn't piss me off. I readily admit to caring more about myself than someone I don't know in some place I've never heard of. I readily admit to caring more about my kids than someone else's kids I don't know in some place I've never heard of.
Perception is an interesting thing. You perceive people who prioritize themselves and their families as being selfish. I perceive people who demand things of others for their own benefit as being selfish.
I view everyone as equal and that healthcare is a need not a want.
Of course I would put my kids first BUT with a socialized system my kids are covered just as good as the neighbours kids. What the hell is shelfish about that...the system in the south is flawed because it is IMPOSSIBLE for everyone to get the 100% coverage based upon the simple premise that good jobs get good benefits there are WAY more people than good jobs so it is going to be obvious that millions are being shut-out of something they need to live and that is access to quality healthcare....now tell me how fighting for the rights of those that work hard at their low paying jobs is shelfish?
Yeah, see I don't know that you actually can RiC. I mean you may think you have a choice because you vote and you can protest and lobby if you don't like what your government does, but everything these days gets down to money and power and how we can all give more of it to the upper echelons of big business. So even if you vote, chances are that's not making much of a difference anyway. Because the government does what the WEF and the World Bank and big business wants. The little people down the bottom, they just pat us on the head and let us believe that we live in a democratic society, but that's not really what's going on as far as I can see.
But I'm no politically active mental giant. I'm probably just paranoid and jaded.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Hey Jeanie don't for one second dismiss the idea that I don't think just like you said.
But I remain hopeful that my choices and actions are contributing to something (or someone) in the world that will make a difference....if I lose that hope then my life is the equivalent of a long vacation where nothing matters and I choose not to live that way. Without us at the bottom they have no legs to stand on.
having said that - maybe the option is to make companies more transparent instead ... if there are known carcinogens in products - they have to be clearly labelled ... things like that ...
we clearly don't spend enuf money preventing illness mainly because the pharmaceuticals and such would get mad ...