It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Fat tax

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 10:51 AM
I wasn't sure whether this would be better in BTS or Above Politics. I chose Politics because it's the source of new taxes anyway...

More at Source: [url=]"Fat tax" could save 3,200 lives each year

LONDON (Reuters) -
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.
A "fat tax" on salty, sugary and fatty foods could save thousands of lives each year, according to a study published on Thursday.
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 or 67 pence 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.

Heh! HA! HA! HA!
Sheesh...Heh! Give me a minute...............

It seems that, when the English Government wants to set up something new (Blair mentioning the phrase "nanny state," comes to mind), it only takes a few years of "UK Trial Runs" before it filters over to the US. I, for one, am not looking forward to even more taxes...

posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 11:07 AM
It's not that bad an idea really!

There are way to many FB's out there, I'm not perfect, but I make an effort to stay fit.

Lifes better when you are healthier.

Tax the fat, and while there at it they could tax the ugly and stupid as well...



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 03:06 PM
Personally, I think the Fat tax should be imposed only on those who pinch more than an inch.

I mean, really, if a skinny guy who thinks he is gopnna get lost in the woods and prepares for the situation by packing a couple of chocolate bars, why should he have to pay extra taxes on that?

ChiKeyMonKey hit the blubber where it hurts. There should be some kind of electronic gadgetry at every store/restaurant that sells this stuff which will measure height to weight, pinch the middle and spit out a graduated tax according to the fitness of the purchaser.

Chernoff should never have to pay that tax, but Moore should pay double.

Fair is fair after all.

OK... I know that the above is not feasable... but, c'mon... why should skinny people have to pay for those who aren't?


posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 03:06 PM
double post... sry

[edit on 12-7-2007 by Lug]

posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 05:17 PM
So you'd prefer that your Government decides what you can or can't eat? What ever happened to the idea that you should have Freedom of Choice? Personally, I look at the labels on foodstuffs before I buy it...That's my choice.

It was several years ago I read an article written by a doctor that got published in a medical journal. Admittedly, enough time has passed that I don't remember his name or even what year he got published in the journal, so I'll have to paraphrase what he wrote:
"I hate to break the news to everybody, but I've done the research: Everybody dies. I say this so that those of you who always get up early to jog & who always finish your veggies will occasionally decide to sleep in & enjoy an ice cream cone."

In other words, he was saying that staying in good health can increase your lifespan, but what good are those extra years if you don't enjoy them with a bit of a splurge once in a while? He had the good common sense to say that moderation is the key...Would you prefer that your Government remove your choice to be moderate?

Besides, once you allow your Government to regulate your diet, what's to stop them from over-regulating, sucking even more taxes out of you? The bigger a Government gets, the more it sucks the national economy dry...The Government doesn't have to earn it's money, it just takes it without adding any real production for increasing trade or increasing job availability. The bigger the Government, the more it costs to keep it running...Would you actually like your Government to suck your nation down into a financial black hole? Personally, I don't.

posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 06:43 PM
This is extremely arbitary.

I do not trust the government's "experts" to pick and choose which foods are harmful to MY health. I can do that myself, with better accuracy.

posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 02:39 PM

Originally posted by SteveR
I do not trust the government's "experts" to pick and choose...

Then don't trust anything that the FDA (Food & Drug Administration) says...They've been in the same bed as the Big Pharmaceutical Interests & large chemical industries for a long time, because they're the ones that allow dodgy/problematic meds to hit your local pharmacies & allow toxic food additives such as MSG & Aspartame get into your grocery stores. The FDA also determines what your doctor can legally tell you (and more importantly) NOT tell you about your health.

new topics

top topics


log in