Taxes, surcharges and freedom.

[Maria Caliban]

The real reason people eat unhealthily is because they like the taste.

Hardly. The reason people eat what they do is a combination of social and economic factors.

 

For example, in the USA, Detroit was the fattest city in the USA in 2004. It also has some of the largest food deserts in the states. In the average urban neighborhood, you'd have to walk an hour to two hours to get to the grocery store, and there's little in the way of public transport. Unless you have a car, your ability to get fresh fruits, vegetables, meat, and milk is quite low. The average apartment doesn't have a pantry, so even if you have a car, you're unlikely to buy things like rice and beans in bulk.

 

Alternatively, you're surrounded by fast food places and convenience stores.

 

You can see the same thing in Huston (fattest city in the USA about 5 times now) and Las Vegas (which has gotten it once.) There are two grocery stores within a block of my house, and another three blocks from my house. As well as two 24 gyms and three martial arts/dance studios. Last week, I drove up NE Las Vegas and spent 20 minutes driving down Sahara (major street) and saw no grocery stores, no gyms, and no public parks.

[Orogun01]

I would like to add 2 factors to that list

 

Healthy food is more expensive and has to be prepared, for someone living under means its easier to grab fast food on their way back home than to make their own. Seen it a hundred of times while on the bus.

[Zoraptor]

Funny thing is, you actually can make a healthy meal as quick as and almost always cheaper than fast food, if you know how.

 

Don't confuse trans-fats with the naturally produced fats (saturated or not) - it's ignorant.

That Doesn't Mean What You Think It Does or, alternatively I don't post rolleyes for no reason.

 

It's not that vegetable oil produced trans fats aren't bad, of course. But what you are doing is making a blanket statement similar to "cholesterol is bad!!!" (cholesterol is actually essential to proper cell membrane function, and without it you will die) and only slightly better than "aromatic rings are bad!!!" (good luck living without 3 amino acids ++).

Edited October 4, 2011 by Zoraptor

[Orogun01]

Funny thing is, you actually can make a healthy meal as quick as and almost always cheaper than fast food, if you know how.

Funny thing is that they guy/gal riding the bus to and back from a bad job, doesn't have the money, desire, skills or time to prepare a healthy meal.

[Volourn]

"Hardly."

 

Nonsense. Don't be ignorant. I love fast food because it tastes good. Eating 'healthy' is for losers or for people ALREADY in poor health.

 

I eat what's good. I'm not going to live forever (nor am I sure I want to) and I'm gonna have to eat something 3 times a day I might as well friggin' enjoy . Why do you think people read in the bathroom or have sex in the shower/ It's sop they can otherwise get some enjoyment out of otyherwise boring activities.

 

And, no, i'm not fat. I could probably eat fast fioodm 24/7 and still not get fat. So HA!

 

Nor have I needed to go to the docvtor since I became independent. Not that I'm perfectly healthy but an issues I have nothing to do with the food I eat... and I happen to get a goo havit based sickeness then so be it.

 

I SHOULD EB ALLOWED TO CONTROL WHAT GOES IN MY BODY!

 

End. of. line.

[Walsingham]

The real reason people eat unhealthily is because they like the taste.

Hardly. The reason people eat what they do is a combination of social and economic factors.

 

For example, in the USA, Detroit was the fattest city in the USA in 2004. It also has some of the largest food deserts in the states. In the average urban neighborhood, you'd have to walk an hour to two hours to get to the grocery store, and there's little in the way of public transport. Unless you have a car, your ability to get fresh fruits, vegetables, meat, and milk is quite low. The average apartment doesn't have a pantry, so even if you have a car, you're unlikely to buy things like rice and beans in bulk.

 

Alternatively, you're surrounded by fast food places and convenience stores.

 

 

I didn't know any of that, but yes. That's the sort of thing I'm really talking about. Functional drivers to the behaviour. If they stay the same then a 'fat' tax is just a tax on folks with no cars who live in badly designed neighbourhoods.

 

Volo, do you take special memory altering drugs? *waves* I'm hardly a communist.

[Humodour]

"Hardly."

 

Nonsense. Don't be ignorant. I love fast food because it tastes good. Eating 'healthy' is for losers or for people ALREADY in poor health.

 

I eat what's good. I'm not going to live forever (nor am I sure I want to) and I'm gonna have to eat something 3 times a day I might as well friggin' enjoy . Why do you think people read in the bathroom or have sex in the shower/ It's sop they can otherwise get some enjoyment out of otyherwise boring activities.

 

And, no, i'm not fat. I could probably eat fast fioodm 24/7 and still not get fat. So HA!

 

Nor have I needed to go to the docvtor since I became independent. Not that I'm perfectly healthy but an issues I have nothing to do with the food I eat... and I happen to get a goo havit based sickeness then so be it.

 

I SHOULD EB ALLOWED TO CONTROL WHAT GOES IN MY BODY!

 

End. of. line.

 

Volourn, do you age backwards by any chance?

[Meshugger]

Weird.

 

Last thing that i have heard is that carbonhydrates and sugar are the culprits here. Not fat. Considering what man has eaten through history, i guess that it makes sense as well.

[Orogun01]

I didn't know any of that, but yes. That's the sort of thing I'm really talking about. Functional drivers to the behaviour. If they stay the same then a 'fat' tax is just a tax on folks with no cars who live in badly designed neighbourhoods.

 

Volo, do you take special memory altering drugs? *waves* I'm hardly a communist.

I thought about this and I still think that's a good idea, forces them to change their consumption into either healthier eating habits or reduce their portions. Come on Wals, its price elasticity 101. How much do you think that fast food joints can charge and get away with it?

[Zoraptor]

Funny thing is, you actually can make a healthy meal as quick as and almost always cheaper than fast food, if you know how.

Funny thing is that they guy/gal riding the bus to and back from a bad job, doesn't have the money, desire, skills or time to prepare a healthy meal.

Costs half as much to live on decent food as fast food*, and takes about ten minutes to do as well- and that's from someone who doesn't live on bread and potato but buys choccy biccies, coffee, pork fillet and the like**. Not having a stovetop or fridge would be a good excuse certainly and no doubt living in a high rent area with low income can be a problem too, but for most people it's never having thought about cooking/ can't be bothered rather than genuinely not having the time, and especially not having the money. Anyone can cook, it's hardly rocket science, and there's plenty of stuff that'll take ten minutes or less of their time.

 

More relevantly if they can't be bothered buying cheaper now a little tax based surcharge ain't going to change their behaviour, is it? Having it pointed out to them that they can be healthier for cheaper with minimal effort might.

 

*Taking 2 x MaccyD's meals/day @5USD a pop, average grocery bill for two people 50-70USD excluding non foodstuffs.

**And lots of vegies, since that list doesn't sound too healthy. Normally around four types of vegies per meal, since they're far cheaper than meat (or dairy) by weight.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Zoraptor

[Volourn]

"Volourn, do you age backwards by any chance?"

 

Nope. My balding head (loss of hair has nothing to do with eating habits but internet surifing habits, r00fles!) suggests otherwise.

 

 

Fact is fact. People shouldn't be trying to tell me what I cna eat. That's more disgusting than a 1000lb fatso.

[Guard Dog]

I eat pretty healthy I guess. I do not eat "fast food". I eat beef only occasionly and then steaks almost exclusively. In fact I've started growing my own food a least a little bit. But these are all choices I've made myself. It strikes me wrong for government entities to presume they have final say over what goes in my mouth. And to tell the truth this is an issue that does not really beg for a solution. Since this thread popped up I've been reading about it and a number of big companies and restraunts are already stopping the use of transfats. Arbys, Whattaburger, White Castle, KFC, Nabisco, Kal-Can, come to mind readily. The truth is, as eople find out what transfat is and what it does to you they will drive the change in the marketplace by buying non-transfat products which will ultimatly complet companies that use transfat to stop.

 

As far as taxing it using "sin taxes" I guess I have no objection to that. Exorbirant taxes on cigarettes combined with public education has made a hell of a dent in smoking and that is not a bad thing. But banning it going too far.

[LadyCrimson]

Making high-fat frying oil a bit more expensive isn't going to teach certain groups of folk to not fry everything they eat and even 2.3 saturated fat is going to be bad if all you eat is fried chicken, fried tortillas, fried potatoes and so on.

 

And if you're going to tax fat, why not an extra tax for even lean red meat (colon cancer). An extra high sodium tax for cheeses, canned soups, crackers, many breads, etc. How about a huge tax on restaurant meal offerings that exceed 800 calories per dish (those 2000 calorie Applebee/Chili meals etc.)? People can always order 5 rounds if they're really hungry....and rich.

 

....in other words, I think it's silly. Educate and then it's up to the people whether they want to be fat/high risk or not. Government shouldn't be part of the 'what you can eat' equation in this sense.

 

But if you're going to do it, do it. Make the tax high so people don't want to spend $5 on a single small candy bar/soda or $25 for small bag of Milky Ways/box of soda or $15 for a McD's McMuffin or $20 for pork won ton soup, except as a very once in a while thing, otherwise it's pointless as a preventive measure, imo. I don't know how much Denmark's taxes will be, but 25 cents, say, is only for making the government money. Of course, if a McMuffin cost $15, McD's would soon lose lots of business, and then you have a possible employment issue (not just at McD's either, trickle down effects)....so I'm guessing it'll be in the cents category. At least at first. Maybe you can raise it a little every year or couple of years to get people used to it.

Edited October 5, 2011 by LadyCrimson

[Gorth]

...or $20 for pork won ton soup

That it, a line has been crossed. People, leave Won Ton soup alone!

[LadyCrimson]

As long as they leave the Mongolian Beef and Green Bean Chicken alone, I'm good.

[Hurlshort]

Since this thread popped up I've been reading about it and a number of big companies and restraunts are already stopping the use of transfats. Arbys, Whattaburger, White Castle, KFC, Nabisco, Kal-Can, come to mind readily. The truth is, as eople find out what transfat is and what it does to you they will drive the change in the marketplace by buying non-transfat products which will ultimatly complet companies that use transfat to stop.

 

That's a very good point, the marketplace is doing some pretty remarkable things to try and get healthier. Most fast food joints are trying to put a few healthy choices on the menu, and I've seen a huge movement against trans fats. I would say this is a result of both educational campaigns and the success of healthier choices like Jamba Juice. I love that many of these places have started to diversify sides, it's nice to have an option other than fries.

[Oblarg]

I eat pretty healthy I guess. I do not eat "fast food". I eat beef only occasionly and then steaks almost exclusively. In fact I've started growing my own food a least a little bit. But these are all choices I've made myself. It strikes me wrong for government entities to presume they have final say over what goes in my mouth. And to tell the truth this is an issue that does not really beg for a solution. Since this thread popped up I've been reading about it and a number of big companies and restraunts are already stopping the use of transfats. Arbys, Whattaburger, White Castle, KFC, Nabisco, Kal-Can, come to mind readily. The truth is, as eople find out what transfat is and what it does to you they will drive the change in the marketplace by buying non-transfat products which will ultimatly complet companies that use transfat to stop.

 

As far as taxing it using "sin taxes" I guess I have no objection to that. Exorbirant taxes on cigarettes combined with public education has made a hell of a dent in smoking and that is not a bad thing. But banning it going too far.

 

I'm wondering, though, just how unhealthy/toxic does something have to be to warrant banning its sale as food, in your opinion? Not trying to be aggressive here - I'm not sure banning trans-fats is a smart idea, either. Just curious as to where you'd draw the line.

[Volourn]

" I love that many of these places have started to diversify sides, it's nice to have an option other than fries. "

 

There's always been that option. I woudlw ager since the existence of the restuarant, people have always had a choice of varying offerings - healthy, unhealkthy, expensive, inexpesnive. There is absolutely no reason for stuff like this to be forced on anyone.

[Gfted1]

Exorbirant taxes on cigarettes combined with public education has made a hell of a dent in smoking and that is not a bad thing.

 

IMO, education had a far larger affect in reducing smoking than the taxes ever did. Ive never known one person to quit smoking because it was too expensive, only for their health. Now that I think about it, Im not sure Ive ever seen anyone quit any vice due to cost.

[Hurlshort]

Exorbirant taxes on cigarettes combined with public education has made a hell of a dent in smoking and that is not a bad thing.

 

IMO, education had a far larger affect in reducing smoking than the taxes ever did. Ive never known one person to quit smoking because it was too expensive, only for their health. Now that I think about it, Im not sure Ive ever seen anyone quit any vice due to cost.

 

Ah, but don't the taxes pay for the education campaigns?

[Gfted1]

Exorbirant taxes on cigarettes combined with public education has made a hell of a dent in smoking and that is not a bad thing.

 

IMO, education had a far larger affect in reducing smoking than the taxes ever did. Ive never known one person to quit smoking because it was too expensive, only for their health. Now that I think about it, Im not sure Ive ever seen anyone quit any vice due to cost.

 

Ah, but don't the taxes pay for the education campaigns?

 

I dunno. Arent all taxes simply put into a pool? Meaning, whatever revenue is generated from tax on cigarettes isnt put into a solitary account to be used only for anti-smoking educational campaigns, its used for whatever public and social programs that feed off tax monies. I suppose some tax money is used for that but the billions made each year in cigarette tax cant possibly be used soley for education.

 

Im not arguing that the taxes dont have some benefit overall, Im saying I dont think they directly contribute to the decline in use of (x) product. People will always find a way to fund their vice of choice.

[Guard Dog]

It seems the French have declared war on soda.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-20...Cola-Fanta.html

[Guard Dog]

I eat pretty healthy I guess. I do not eat "fast food". I eat beef only occasionly and then steaks almost exclusively. In fact I've started growing my own food a least a little bit. But these are all choices I've made myself. It strikes me wrong for government entities to presume they have final say over what goes in my mouth. And to tell the truth this is an issue that does not really beg for a solution. Since this thread popped up I've been reading about it and a number of big companies and restraunts are already stopping the use of transfats. Arbys, Whattaburger, White Castle, KFC, Nabisco, Kal-Can, come to mind readily. The truth is, as eople find out what transfat is and what it does to you they will drive the change in the marketplace by buying non-transfat products which will ultimatly complet companies that use transfat to stop.

 

As far as taxing it using "sin taxes" I guess I have no objection to that. Exorbirant taxes on cigarettes combined with public education has made a hell of a dent in smoking and that is not a bad thing. But banning it going too far.

 

I'm wondering, though, just how unhealthy/toxic does something have to be to warrant banning its sale as food, in your opinion? Not trying to be aggressive here - I'm not sure banning trans-fats is a smart idea, either. Just curious as to where you'd draw the line.

If it WILL kill/harm the consumer with just small doses in a short to moderate time then ban it. Fen-Fen comes to mind. If it MIGHT kill/harm in large doses over a long time, don't ban but educate on the dangers and benfefits of moderation. Tobacco, trans-fat, etc.

[Calax]

I eat pretty healthy I guess. I do not eat "fast food". I eat beef only occasionly and then steaks almost exclusively. In fact I've started growing my own food a least a little bit. But these are all choices I've made myself. It strikes me wrong for government entities to presume they have final say over what goes in my mouth. And to tell the truth this is an issue that does not really beg for a solution. Since this thread popped up I've been reading about it and a number of big companies and restraunts are already stopping the use of transfats. Arbys, Whattaburger, White Castle, KFC, Nabisco, Kal-Can, come to mind readily. The truth is, as eople find out what transfat is and what it does to you they will drive the change in the marketplace by buying non-transfat products which will ultimatly complet companies that use transfat to stop.

 

As far as taxing it using "sin taxes" I guess I have no objection to that. Exorbirant taxes on cigarettes combined with public education has made a hell of a dent in smoking and that is not a bad thing. But banning it going too far.

 

I'm wondering, though, just how unhealthy/toxic does something have to be to warrant banning its sale as food, in your opinion? Not trying to be aggressive here - I'm not sure banning trans-fats is a smart idea, either. Just curious as to where you'd draw the line.

If it WILL kill/harm the consumer with just small doses in a short to moderate time then ban it. Fen-Fen comes to mind. If it MIGHT kill/harm in large doses over a long time, don't ban but educate on the dangers and benfefits of moderation. Tobacco, trans-fat, etc.

Just a question, but, do you support legalization of Pot?

 

Also, this is somewhat related, but I had to laugh when a girl I'm hanging with did the math in her head and justified buying a set of speakers and a camera by "That's only four hamburgers of money!"

[Gorth]

Also, this is somewhat related, but I had to laugh when a girl I'm hanging with did the math in her head and justified buying a set of speakers and a camera by "That's only four hamburgers of money!"

Big Mac Index

 

Before I heard of that one, I used the "Beer Index" to compare my salaries and expenses in New Zealand and Australia compared to UK, Denmark and Germany.