Post: #1

...and takes his criticism of Danish girls to heart and imposes a fat tax. An idea for other countries probably as well. I am not sure whether it is going to work but I like that it sets incentives for better eating habits.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/health...ducts.html

Quote:Denmark taxes fatty products

Denmark is to impose the world's first "fat tax" in a drive to slim its population and cut heart disease.

The move may increase pressure for a similar tax in the UK, which suffers from the highest levels of obesity in Europe.

Starting from this Saturday, Danes will pay an extra 30p on each pack of butter, 8p on a pack of crisps, and an extra 13p on a pound of mince, as a result of the tax.

The tax is expected to raise about 2.2bn Danish Krone (£140m), and cut consumption of saturated fat by close to 10pc, and butter consumption by 15pc.

"It's the first ever fat-tax," said Mike Rayner, Director of Oxford University's Health Promotion Research Group, who has long campaigned for taxes on unhealthy foods.

"It's very interesting. We haven't had any practical examples before. Now we will be able to see the effects for real." The tax will be levied at 2.5 per Kg of saturated fat and will be levied at the point of sale from wholesalers to retailers.

Hungary at the start of this month imposed a tax is on all packaged foods containing unhealthy levels of sugar, salt, and carbohydrates, as well as products containing more than 20 milligrams of caffeine per 100 milliliters of the product.

Less than 10pc of Danes are clinically obese, putting them slightly below the European average.

But researchers at Denmark's Institute for Food and Economic estimate that close to 4pc of the country's premature deaths are a result of excess consumption of saturated fats.

For Britain, where more than 20pc of the population is obese, the number will be considerably higher.

A 2007 study by Mr Rayner's group concluded that a combination of taxes on healthy foods and tax breaks on fruit and vegetables could save 3,200 lives a year in the UK.

Health Minister Andrew Lansley has up until now resisted calls for taxes on unhealthy foods, but Mr Rayner said they were the only credible way to combat Britain's obesity problem.

"I think we're going to have them in Britain whether Mr Lansley wants them or not, because the obesity crisis in the UK is such that we need to take more action.

Post: #2

Good step for them.

Quote:Less than 10pc of Danes are clinically obese, putting them slightly below the European average

My eyes did not agree with this so I'd want to know what "clinically obese" means. A good percentage of the women were fat, even though they ride on bicycles all day.

Post: #3

(10-01-2011 10:19 AM)Roosh Wrote:  Good step for them.

Quote:Less than 10pc of Danes are clinically obese, putting them slightly below the European average

My eyes did not agree with this so I'd want to know what "clinically obese" means. A good percentage of the women were fat, even though they ride on bicycles all day.

BMI > 30 is usually the clinical definition (it's possible to define it in terms of body fat percentage but when talking about populations you almost always use BMI). So yes, the unfuckably fat are a much larger subset than the literally obese.

Didn't they almost do this with the US healthcare reform law? They were going to put in a 10% tax on sugary drinks but replaced it with a tax on indoor tanning when people got outraged about their fattening sugar water becoming more expensive.

Post: #4

Good. hopefully the West will follow suit and massively tax unhealthy processed foods and fast foods chains. The government needs to save us from ourselves.

Post: #5

Wont be happy until I see said tax on airlines.

Recently took a 60 euro flight on ryanair with a 20kg check in bag limit

My bag was 28 kg and they wanted to charge me 20 euros PER KILO for weight excess

ie. flight = 60 euro
excess baggage weight = 8x20 euro total = 160 euro

While fatties twice my body weight were charged no more for their ticket

Post: #6

The sad thing is that saturated fats may not be to blame. Many people have reported great success with diets high in saturated fat, and recent studies have found no link between saturated fat and heart disease. It's not clear that salt is so bad either.

But everyone agrees that sugar is bad.

Lumiere, that's one of those things that, IMO, once one airline does it, they all will. That's what happened with charging for bags. They already have scales at the airport. They could just charge you some flat rate per pound for everything, or for every pound above 200 (91 kg).

Post: #7

A fat fee for flying would be good on so many levels. It's one of the most practical and justifiable reasons to publicly shame fatties. Could you imagine everyone lining up to get on the scale? They're already x-raying our bodies, why not. Fatties would either have to endure the shame, lose the weight, or stay home.

Plus, it would mean more revenue to the airlines so maybe they could afford to throw down a few extra olives in salads or some shit.

Post: #8

A surcharge for fat people on airplanes is quite unlikely because people would claim to be discriminated against (and rightly so). When RyanAir thought about introducing such a fee a few years ago that caused a lot of bad media coverage for them. The charm of a tax on fat food is that it theoretically captures everyone (although in practice of course rather the ones that eat a lot of this stuff) and there is no direct discrimination. I found it already shameful to see a fat person on a Southwest flight a few months ago who needed an extra seat belt so that it fit around his belly...I think that I have only seen that in the US so far.

Post: #9

(10-01-2011 02:36 PM)Gavin1234 Wrote:  A surcharge for fat people on airplanes is quite unlikely because people would claim to be discriminated against (and rightly so). When RyanAir thought about introducing such a fee a few years ago that caused a lot of bad media coverage for them. The charm of a tax on fat food is that it theoretically captures everyone (although in practice of course rather the ones that eat a lot of this stuff) and there is no direct discrimination. I found it already shameful to see a fat person on a Southwest flight a few months ago who needed an extra seat belt so that it fit around his belly...I think that I have only seen that in the US so far.

Some time back airlines in the U.S. wanted to charge fat people double that required two seats. I believe it got shot down (no pun intended), but how is that fair to the airlines? They lose money on morbidly obese folks.

The only way they might spin it is to offer rewards for "healthy" passengers. They start an incentive club, and those that stay within the BMI don't get charged for a second checked bag, or are given extra air miles. This way fat people aren't singled out.

Post: #10

(10-01-2011 10:19 AM)Roosh Wrote:  Good step for them.

Quote:Less than 10pc of Danes are clinically obese, putting them slightly below the European average

My eyes did not agree with this so I'd want to know what "clinically obese" means. A good percentage of the women were fat, even though they ride on bicycles all day.

Lol.................

Post: #11

Interesting, I see a lot of suing in a couple of decades.

I keep a distance from news worthy studies. I see this as encouraging to eat more carbs which seems to be the culprit of what this tax is against. But this is politics and looking at the whole picture it makes sense, everybody will make money on this idioticy.

Taxing sugar would be the most logical as it is a luxury food group but then it would fix the actual problem and nobody would make money on this socialist utopian idea.

Post: #12

In my experience, saturated fats are a culprit, but the biggest one is sugar, especially refined white sugar. Still, I applaud the move!

Post: #13

I agree with what some others have said. A tax on saturated fat won't make much difference. I think the modern concensus is leading to saying that it is mainly refined and complex carbs that are making everyone fat, not dietry fat itself. This just sounds like another ripp-off by the Danish government, which already has almost unbelievably high rates of tax. On income, goods purchased, alcohol, cars..... Really anything they can think of is taxed at world record rates.

As for a fat (person) tax applied by airlines. I think any not fat person will be 100% for it. I've previously just refused to sit next to someone who's fat was rolling over into my allocated seat. It's disgusting. I'm not going to be forced into cuddling a whale for a freakin 12 hour flight. There were free seats that time luckily. Don't know what they would have done if there weren't, but I was not going to accept my assigned seat, that's for sure.

Some company should come up with some sort of rigid partition airlines can place between seats in economy as needed so that fat people are forced to remain in their allocated space.

Post: #14

(10-03-2011 01:09 PM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  I agree with what some others have said. A tax on saturated fat won't make much difference. I think the modern concensus is leading to saying that it is mainly refined and complex carbs that are making everyone fat, not dietry fat itself.

The funny thing is that *everyone* agrees that added sugar is harmful - from the paleo people to the American Heart Association. Yet the establishment, the mainstream nutritional experts, the government, the media, only talk about the evils of sodium, cholesterol and saturated fats. All while so much of the standard American diet is full of sugar - sodas, juices, pastries, cereal, granola... even yogurt has been corrupted for decades with incredible amounts of sugar.

I've been eating several ounces of clarified butter and cream per day lately, and my waist has slimmed down if anything.

Post: #15

Diet is like fashion to the populist media. Every few years it totally contradicts itself.

Take for example the sodium issue. A few weeks ago I read this in Globe and Mail. Now it seems the subjects who consumed the lowest amounts of sodium developed the highest cardio complications.

Another one is water. Health 'gurus' tell you to drink a fucking GALLON a day or something like that, or when you're thirsty it's already too late. Now I read this also in Globe and Mail (my daily paper). I was slightly amused seeing people constantly carry a water bottle with them for the shortest trips, I guess to prevent massive dehydration on their 5 minute SUV rides to a local Starbucks.

Personally I don't mind a little hunger or thirst, and if I'm really thirsty I drink home made pickle juice (sans vinegar) that's full of sodium.

Post: #16

Instead of taxing fatty foods, they should tax fat people.

Set a baseline weight/height, and charge people a certain amount when they go over the baseline.

Post: #17

I agree with all of these things. And I think airlines should charge double if you take two seats. After all, they're losing one seat they could've sold..

But what about people who are obese because of a medical condition?

Post: #18

(10-04-2011 01:07 PM)Pete Wrote:  I agree with all of these things. And I think airlines should charge double if you take two seats. After all, they're losing one seat they could've sold..

But what about people who are obese because of a medical condition?

Life's not fair. Deal with it?

Post: #19

(10-04-2011 01:07 PM)Pete Wrote:  I agree with all of these things. And I think airlines should charge double if you take two seats. After all, they're losing one seat they could've sold..

But what about people who are obese because of a medical condition?

Let them carry the certificate to prove its medical and not just slackness and maybe exceptions will be made. They can send in the tax receipt along with a photocopy of their medical record and can receive their rebate in the mail.

Post: #20

(10-01-2011 10:19 AM)Roosh Wrote:  Good step for them.

Quote:Less than 10pc of Danes are clinically obese, putting them slightly below the European average

My eyes did not agree with this so I'd want to know what "clinically obese" means. A good percentage of the women were fat, even though they ride on bicycles all day.

Big difference between clinically obese and overweight/fat.
Healthy BMI is 18-24. 24-30 is overweight. 30+ is obese.
18-21 BMI would be the ideal range for a woman.

Post: #21

(10-01-2011 01:40 PM)basilransom Wrote:  The sad thing is that saturated fats may not be to blame. Many people have reported great success with diets high in saturated fat, and recent studies have found no link between saturated fat and heart disease. It's not clear that salt is so bad either.

But everyone agrees that sugar is bad.

A tax on saturated fats will probably make things worse. The first thing you do to factory food is flavor it -- that flavor comes from fat, sugar, or salt. Look at low fat or fat free yogurt in your dairy section, it has more sugar than the regular stuff.

Post: #22

While I think everybody here agrees that a sugar tax would be better I firmly believe that this move is important as a prejudicate (sp?). Imagine trying to roll this out in the US.

Post: #23

Yes, tax sausage, but let them scarf down sugar and bread all they want, now with reason because its cheaper! Fucking ridiculous. This will increase obesity, I guarantee it.

Chef In Jeans
A culinary website for men

Post: #24

(10-01-2011 02:50 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  Some time back airlines in the U.S. wanted to charge fat people double that required two seats.

AFAIK most US airlines I flew on had a policy that the passenger must fit into the seat with the armrest down, and if one doesn't, they may be asked to buy a second ticket, or they will be refused the flight.

Quote:I believe it got shot down (no pun intended), but how is that fair to the airlines? They lose money on morbidly obese folks.

The only way they might spin it is to offer rewards for "healthy" passengers. They start an incentive club, and those that stay within the BMI don't get charged for a second checked bag, or are given extra air miles. This way fat people aren't singled out.

Well, it is more than that. From the fuel savings perspective the airlines don't care about BMI, they care about the absolute weight. It takes the same amount of fuel to move a 200lbs person through the air whether they have BMI 10 or 40. Think about it this way: a 6"5 200lbs dude is definitely not obese, but requires twice more fuel to fly comparing to a 5"2 100lbs girl (who is also not obese). Now, a 5"2 girl who weights 200lbs is definitely obese, but why should she pay more than a 200lbs dude who is not?

I heard about the proposed solution to charge passengers by total weight (i.e. the passenger + luggage); to me this would just mean taller people would have to pay more. The question, of course, is how much more. If we're talking about extra $10 per person on a $1000 flight, then it is not worth even implementing. But if we're talking about the $200 difference, this would mean when you buy the ticket you don't really know the price you'd have to pay for travel until you check it. Which is kinda shitty.

Post: #25

Response to a post in a dupe thread about this issue:

Also Roosh, maybe re-name this thread to make it obvious its about the fat tax so people stop making duplicate threads.

(10-08-2011 01:36 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

(10-08-2011 09:26 AM)tenderman100 Wrote:  Euro statist bullshit. Government trying to alter behavior leads to stuff like Solyndra.

Government should get out of the way and let people make their own free choices.

Fat people run up a lot of cost in health care. Have you seen what the health care cost are for child hood obesity is in rural America? What about diabetes treatment in adolescents? Guess who pays for that? Most of these families have no way to pay for this shit,nor would the parent(s), enforce it at home. This is reality, nothing liberal or conservative about it.I guess we should just send them to the church for nutritional assistance( as Ron Paul so eloquently alluded to ). What's wrong with the government setting mandates that would save me some cash?

You're assuming any money they'd save from this (they wont save any) they're gonna pass on to you in the form of lower taxes.

This is government controlling people by playing on emotions. Taxing fatty foods isn't going to bring obesity levels down. Its going to give people a reason to turn to bread and sugar for calories, especially in world where money is becoming tighter and tighter for the majority.

Even if this DID work and a few million was saved from the reduction in health care costs do you honestly think you're going to see a reduction in your taxes? You're gonna pay more for your hamburger and just as much as you did before everywhere else while someone else gets richer.

The proper way to do something like this is to reward the fit and healthy, not try to strongarm the fat and slovenly. Why not make government run gyms and fitness centers that are free to the public? It would create jobs for the staff, give those without the money for a gym membership an option, and allow people to take responsibility for their health and fitness level.

Chef In Jeans
A culinary website for men