Doctor wants to tax chocolate.

[Bugz]

You can't pinpoint the cause of obesity to one factor or even two-three. It's a multitude of factors.

Secondly, taxing chocolate with the sole aim of combating obesity is fuckin retarded. If someone wants to be johnny large, let them. They pay their subs.

 

[Overdriven]

So by taxing unhealthy foods obesity will get worse? Id really like to hear the reasoning behind this.

I already pointed out the reason why Parents will still buy their kids what they want, they'll get fatter. I'm not saying it won't help at all, I mean hell. Some kids aren't fat.

 

[Syri]

See heres the beauty of it. You'll benefit from it financially. The taxes the government gets from chocolate dont have to come from you. The fatties pay more, and rightfully so because they are the biggest burden to our healthcare system. And since you save in tax cuts, you'll get your money back and more.



The lengthy back and forth "im right" situation only occurs when people dont know how to admit that they are wrong or dont do what you just did. So congratz, you chose the second best option. Thats an achievement on this forum.

right, so the people who enjoy, and don't abuse something should just be all happy and smiles that they can no longer afford something they enjoy but did them no ill? I don't think so...
What needs to be done is to raise people's awareness of the problems, increase people's awareness that they need to balance exercise with what they eat and such. If someone feels they are so reliant on chocolate that they're eating shitloads and getting fat off it, they're going to keep on doing it anyway. The people who just enjoy a bit every now and then lose out, no matter how you look at it.

 

[Olgaline]

Taxing chocolate as a whole on the acount of obesity makes about as much sence as taxing Bananas on the same acount "due to banana cakes being unhealthy. The notion is retarded at best.

However! In countries with social healthcare.
Taxing unhealthy foods, "as in the end product" what ever it's off makes perfect sence.
I live by the belief that as adults, we should "to a reasonable extent" be free to live, eat, sleep or even smoke as we choose "not nessersarily when/where we choose" however f.exp in the privacy of our homes..well you get the drift.

But at the same time, those who choose to, should also be the ones made to pay for thier choice, at least bare the brunt, so to speak...
but as often seen logic seems have a politician complex, generally seeking to avoid them all together? or so it would seem.

 

[Lethul]

Gorb, while i think you'll just ignore this;

Why would you punish other people for some peoples obesity?

I don't eat too much chocolate, but because SOME people are eating too much of it, i'd have to pay for it?

Doesn't work.

That's like telling me i have to pay 300 bucks for a bottle of beer because some people are alcoholics.

Would you agree to that?

I love how you seem to think that a tax will make everything more than ten times as expensive.

 

[Gorbachioo]

I was right in asking. You ARE retarded. I think I'm right, you think you're right and neither of us is willing to concede the others point. Therefore I forstalled further argument by refusing to take part. In no part of my previous posts have I implied that you're right and I'm wrong. Still, if you're egotistical enough to read it that way more power to you.

You think you're right, i proved you're wrong. (Im willing to drop this now if you like )

I see the point of taxes bringing me more money, but i prefer to have a chocolate bar every now and then for little more then nothing and not have to save up for a month to buy one bar.

And modern day, smoking, drinking, eating unhealthy, none of them effect your medical bill. The government would tax me the same, and tax returns would stay the same too. You really think the government would lower general taxes if they got more money from chocolate due to a fat clause?

So the positive side would be that there'd come more money from chocolate taxes, but i wouldn't get any of it and i would have to give up my citizen right to eat chocolate.

These days, even if i had just a little bit of money, i can buy a chocolate bar and rejoice. If it became too taxed to make an effect, i'd have to wait for payday to do so.

Same with MacDonalds, i wouldn't be able to grab a cheap burger on the way home from the pub. A: because drinks would cost so much due to alcoholics and B: because fatties removed my cheap burgers.

Like i said, would you agree to pay for every vice humanity has, say double price?

Oh and Access, thank you very very kindly

The whole point was replacing one tax with another. Talking about tax increases has nothing to do with this and you understand it, so dont start arguing over this.

You would get more money from your tax cuts than you spend on chocolate = shitty argument.

You can't pinpoint the cause of obesity to one factor or even two-three. It's a multitude of factors.

Secondly, taxing chocolate with the sole aim of combating obesity is fuckin retarded. If someone wants to be johnny large, let them. They pay their subs.

I know that, thats why i said it should be about all unhealthy products. But this is a good start. (Taxing people for not excercising is a little too radical in my view, im sure that would make a great discussion if you're up for it )

Our taxes are used to keep fat people alive. On average the rest of us have to pay for it.

I already pointed out the reason why Parents will still buy their kids what they want, they'll get fatter. I'm not saying it won't help at all, I mean hell. Some kids aren't fat.

On what scientific study is that notion based on? The idea that parents would just spoil their kids no matter what the cost is just not true. Or maybe my parents were an exception. Who knows.. Will it stop all parents from buying lots junk food to their kids? No. Will it stop many of them? I would say so. Is it worth it then? Hell yes.

I love how you seem to think that a tax will make everything more than ten times as expensive.

A tax can make something 0.000001 or 1000000000 times more expensive. It depends on the tax.

Big tax = big change, small tax = small change. Its that simple.

 

[Billargh]

Lets tax fat people, since they're the root of obesity.

 

[Lakih]

Lets tax fat people, since they're the root of obesity.

Best idea in this thread... other then that i agree with bugz on this one...

 

[old.Tohtori]

The whole point was replacing one tax with another. Talking about tax increases has nothing to do with this and you understand it, so dont start arguing over this.

You would get more money from your tax cuts than you spend on chocolate = shitty argument.

Now you have to explain a bit, because i thought your argument against my "why should normal people pay more because of fatties?" was that;

"See heres the beauty of it. You'll benefit from it financially. The taxes the government gets from chocolate dont have to come from you. The fatties pay more, and rightfully so because they are the biggest burden to our healthcare system. And since you save in tax cuts, you'll get your money back and more."

Are you saying that only fat people would pay more for chocolate?

Because no matter if they tax chocolate, my pay, or any other thing, i still pay. How exactly d i save money? Or keep my chocolate at low price?

HEre's the jist:

Explain, how, you plan on taxing the fat and keep the "normal" people paying the same amount?

Lethul; that was Gorbs argument, that the increase needs to be high enough for it to matter.

 

[Gorbachioo]

Now you have to explain a bit, because i thought your argument against my "why should normal people pay more because of fatties?" was that;

"See heres the beauty of it. You'll benefit from it financially. The taxes the government gets from chocolate dont have to come from you. The fatties pay more, and rightfully so because they are the biggest burden to our healthcare system. And since you save in tax cuts, you'll get your money back and more."

Are you saying that only fat people would pay more for chocolate?

Because no matter if they tax chocolate, my pay, or any other thing, i still pay. How exactly d i save money? Or keep my chocolate at low price?

HEre's the jist:

Explain, how, you plan on taxing the fat and keep the "normal" people paying the same amount?

Lethul; that was Gorbs argument, that the increase needs to be high enough for it to matter.

No. Im saying: Everyone gets a tax cut: Fatsos waste it on chocolate. You would buy your few chocolate bars with the increased price but still save money because of the tax cut. Just do the math.

Am i really the only one on this forum who supports this? Its a really great idea but for some reason you cant see it. Which i guess would be okay if you could explain that but i've destroyed every argument you people have come up with so far.

...Anyone?

 

[old.Tohtori]

No. Im saying: Everyone gets a tax cut: Fatsos waste it on chocolate. You would buy your few chocolate bars with the increased price but still save money because of the tax cut. Just do the math.

Am i really the only one on this forum who supports this? Its a really great idea but for some reason you cant see it. Which i guess would be okay if you could explain that but i've destroyed every argument you people have come up with so far.

...Anyone?

Difference in "destroying" arguments and "ignoring" arguments.

So you're saying, just checking, that taxes get lowered in general and that tax lowering will be taken from increased choccie tax?

That would mean that people who don't eat choccies would get more money, people would stop buying expensive choccies, start eating the "other sweet thing", chocolate business would die and as such, companies who bring more taxes then any tax increase would have to close their doors. This would lead into a vicious cycle where every single thing that might cause some harm to people would be banned via being too expensive.

You're thinking of a short term "make it expensive" solution without thinking of the long term effects.

Also like i said, the government would just tax chocolate and make it more expensive, while keeping other taxes at the same level.

You don't get tax returns from chocolate by the way.

 

[Huntingtons]

lets just kill all who is a burden to society. society will become smaller and therefore a smaller workforce needed!

 

[old.Tohtori]

lets just kill all who is a burden to society. society will become smaller and therefore a smaller workforce needed!

That will bring less need for jobs, more people unemployed and again we'll get a new patch of "unwanted scum"

And since unemployed folk have nothing better to do then drink and f*ck, more babies!

 

[Huntingtons]

oh shit, and they'll grow fat. ITS THE DEMISE OF SOCIETY!

 

[old.Tohtori]

oh shit, and they'll grow fat. ITS THE DEMISE OF SOCIETY!

Exactly!

You can't stop the fat :lol:

 

[Jeremiah]

I've struggled with my weight since I was at primary school, and only now am I approaching a normal weight. I'm a smart guy, and I know what I should and shouldn't eat. I come from a smart family, both my parents are teachers. And yet, they are both pretty overweight, as are my brother and sister.

Education isn't the key. You don't see any tv programs where health professionals walk up to 30stone men and say "You know, the reason you are this weight has something to do with the multi-pack of crisps you had for breakfast", and the 30stone men say "OMG, I never thought about it that way - it all makes sense!!"

We all know what is and what is not good for us. I'd even go so far as to say, we all also know what impact overeating will have for us in terms of quality of life. We just live in a culture of selfishness, where we have no concern about the consequences of our actions. Obese parents must just close their minds to the fact that they will not live to see their children even get married, never mind meet their grandchildren. And still, when you move from the overweight bracket into the obese bracket, suddenly its a disability.

If theres a TV program where an obese person can't run in the park, or fit in a cinema seat, we are meant to feel sorry for them - "Aww that must be so hard to live with."

I just see over-eating as an addiction - there's mental issues attached to it which need tailored solutions. Rather than making leaflets with big "Burger = Bad" text on them, the government should be empowering those who want to change their life.

 

[Huntingtons]

there should be alot more help to get as obese, support, cheaper exercise options and courses for people who have a weight problem in that size (hæhæ, size)

 

[old.Tohtori]

there should be alot more help to get as obese, support, cheaper exercise options and courses for people who have a weight problem in that size (hæhæ, size)

Well it is a sizable situation, and the problem at large is rather massive.

 

[Gorbachioo]

Difference in "destroying" arguments and "ignoring" arguments.

So you're saying, just checking, that taxes get lowered in general and that tax lowering will be taken from increased choccie tax?

That would mean that people who don't eat choccies would get more money, people would stop buying expensive choccies, start eating the "other sweet thing", chocolate business would die and as such, companies who bring more taxes then any tax increase would have to close their doors. This would lead into a vicious cycle where every single thing that might cause some harm to people would be banned via being too expensive.

You're thinking of a short term "make it expensive" solution without thinking of the long term effects.

Also like i said, the government would just tax chocolate and make it more expensive, while keeping other taxes at the same level.

You don't get tax returns from chocolate by the way.

Which is why i said that it should be about all unhealthy products. (and no im not going to list them, you're just going to have to use your imagination)

For once. Just for once in your life. Admit that you're wrong. Its a good idea, although as i said, it should be about all unhealthy products. This whole forum still hasnt managed to point out one bad thing about it. (except that its just about chocolate.. ;o)

 

[old.Tohtori]

Which is why i said that it should be about all unhealthy products. (and no im not going to list them, you're just going to have to use your imagination)

For once. Just for once in your life. Admit that you're wrong. Its a good idea, although as i said, it should be about all unhealthy products. This whole forum still hasnt managed to point out one bad thing about it. (except that its just about chocolate.. ;o)

Why should i say i'm wrong because i'm disagreeing with you?

And i'll try to ask you again, even if it is wasted text;

How would the system work?

Tax chocolate(example used here) more, and tax pay and other things less?

i've pointed out plenty of bad things about it, you just don't listen to one.

 

[Gorbachioo]

Why should i say i'm wrong because i'm disagreeing with you?

And i'll try to ask you again, even if it is wasted text;

How would the system work?

Tax chocolate(example used here) more, and tax pay and other things less?

i've pointed out plenty of bad things about it, you just don't listen to one.

Euh..... im not sure do i understand the question but.

Everybody gets a tax cut. Government gets the lost revenue from the taxes it puts on unhealthy products = the more unhealthy products you buy, the more taxes you pay.

Now what is wrong with that? No all unhealthy products will not disappear if this happens.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Euh..... im not sure do i understand the question but.

Everybody gets a tax cut. Government gets the lost revenue from the taxes it puts on unhealthy products = the more unhealthy products you buy, the more taxes you pay.

Now what is wrong with that? No all unhealthy products will not disappear if this happens.

If it's taxed too much, it will strike the industry in a profound way. That would lead to produce disappearing because it's no longer profitable to make them.

About the tax cut for all, sure, sounds nice, but then it would come down to this still;

Poor people could afford less because the taxcut isn't enough to counter the price increase.

Rich people would get richer with bigger pay meaning bigger tax cuts.

And still, even if government taxes unhealthy products, you wouldn't get an overall tax-cut, that's wishful thinking 'cause essentially government wants more money.

 

[Bugz]

Why a tax on unhealthy/fatty foods won't work:

SSRN-Cheap Donuts and Expensive Broccoli: The Effect of Relative Prices on Obesity by Jonah Gelbach, Jonathan Klick, Thomas Stratmann

Case closed.

Also - you need to realize that taxes on unhealthy foods will do more damage to poor people than it would the rich - who can afford the considerably more expensive healthy food.

 

[Gorbachioo]

If it's taxed too much, it will strike the industry in a profound way. That would lead to produce disappearing because it's no longer profitable to make them.

About the tax cut for all, sure, sounds nice, but then it would come down to this still;

Poor people could afford less because the taxcut isn't enough to counter the price increase.

Rich people would get richer with bigger pay meaning bigger tax cuts.

And still, even if government taxes unhealthy products, you wouldn't get an overall tax-cut, that's wishful thinking 'cause essentially government wants more money.

First it doesnt work, then it works too well and the unhealthy foods disappear completely. Make up your mind. -,- Its about finding the balance. Tax it so much that people eat less, but still have the option to do so.

So we should subsidize poor people with cheap chocolate bars then? Use some of the revenue to give further tax cuts to the poor if thats what it takes. Stop arguing besides the point.

Focus on the issue. You desperately try to derail the conversation because you dont want to admit that you're wrong.

 

[Gorbachioo]

Why a tax on unhealthy/fatty foods won't work:

SSRN-Cheap Donuts and Expensive Broccoli: The Effect of Relative Prices on Obesity by Jonah Gelbach, Jonathan Klick, Thomas Stratmann

Case closed.

Also - you need to realize that taxes on unhealthy foods will do more damage to poor people than it would the rich - who can afford the considerably more expensive healthy food.

Food right now is so cheap that it has to get considerably more expensive before we start asking what we're putting our money in. Thats why this study says what it says. If the tax increase was 300 percent then i guarantee you the results would change dramatically. And secondly, it has to get alot more expensive than the healthy option before anything happens.

What you need to realize is that making unhealthy (or otherwise bad products) cheap is not the right way to subsidize poor people. We need to give them higher pay so that they can afford the better options. Some countries subsidize coal with the same idea in mind. I doubt you would support that just because it helps the poor? ;O

 

[Jeremiah]

I'd just like to point out that many countries already have high amounts of tax on alcohol and it does not inhibit the alcohol industries. Last year I was in Singapore, where one glass of wine cost just as much as a dinner for two. One beer was the equivalent of £5.50, yet all the major brands were available - if it wasn't still profitable, they wouldn't be selling would they?

 

[Bugz]

Food is so cheap?

At a % of our monthly income expenditure, it's never been so high.

 

[old.Tohtori]

First it doesnt work, then it works too well and the unhealthy foods disappear completely. Make up your mind. -,- Its about finding the balance. Tax it so much that people eat less, but still have the option to do so.

So we should subsidize poor people with cheap chocolate bars then? Use some of the revenue to give further tax cuts to the poor if thats what it takes. Stop arguing besides the point.

Focus on the issue. You desperately try to derail the conversation because you dont want to admit that you're wrong.

Read answer again, then reply, stop trying to avoid it.

Added taxes doesn't change anything unless it's a big enough tax increase, then the problems come as i said.

Doesn't work in either case.

You have no idea how to implement this, so your opinion on it means little if anything.

And food is cheap if you have loads of money, otherwise, prices have steadily gone up for the past 10 years. Maybe if you lived by yourself and had to actually buy something real, you'd know.

Aaaaaaand once more, thing you keep ignoring, the tax would be added, not taken away from other taxes. Government works that way.

 

[Gorbachioo]

Food is so cheap?

At a % of our monthly income expenditure, it's never been so high.

I guess its a matter of opinion. Im looking at it from a historical perspective. You're comparing it to the last 10 years. The point is, we use a very low % of our income to buy food. That means price changes have to be big before we give a damn.

 

[Lamp]

Not on my watch