Overweight Haters Ltd

Greebo said:
The one and only time in my life when I was close to my "ideal" weight, everybody said I looked too thin.
Click to expand...

People complain that I look too thin when I get within a stone of what my 'ideal' weight should be, I just think that's because we're used to/conditioned seeing overweight people in western society as the 'norm'...and now to be 'fat' = morbidly obese

The last few trips to Eastern Europe and the girls are so slim (and gorgeous :p), the odd biffer stood out like a sore thumb, whereas over here it's generally the other way around.
 
Longbow said:
Can the low rate be exclusively attributed to tax increase though?
Click to expand...

Not exclusively but it's the most important factor. In the US the smoker rate was 19% in 2014 but in New York, which has very high tabacco taxes, the rate was 14%. None of the other measures have such a large impact.
 
Zethor said:
Energy dense foods such as sugary beverages, including 100% natural ones, and processed carbohydrades would be a good start.
Click to expand...

so butter too?

and oil?

and bread, pasta, rice, potatoes, cream, oats, fruit, nuts, avocados, oily fish

**** tbh we're going to need to massively increase our food bills because we're all going on a ketosis diet it seams.
 
Tunney said:
It does work.

The problem with any value added tax is that makes poor people even poorer while having little effect on richer people.
Click to expand...

I am not too familiar with Brazil. But is it a decent comparison? Wealth distribution/ market competitiveness (with respect to supermarkets) etc.

I just can't see how adding a few extra pence onto a bottle of coke is going to make any difference? Even at 100% tax, all you will get is people possibly switching from premium brands to supermarket brands at probably cheaper than the premium brands before the extra tax?

That's if the extra tax is felt by the consumer at all seeing at how supermarkets are always doing deals and such.

E.g Dr Fizz at Tesco. 4 litres for 90p. 4 litres of coke will be ~£4 usually. So before I am worse off financially they will have to add a 300% tax?
 
Last edited:
Zethor said:
Which is why we need subsidies for healthy food.
Click to expand...

define healthy food? as you just listed "energy dense" as unhealthy an should be taxed, which actually includes most healthy options.

so far your tax law is a shambles, things are going to be both taxed and subsidised at the same time.
 
Tefal said:
so butter too?

and oil?

and bread, pasta, rice, potatoes, cream, oats, fruit, nuts, avocados, oily fish

**** tbh we're going to need to massively increase our food bills because we're all going on a ketosis diet it seams.
Click to expand...

Fruit, fish or nuts are not processed carbohydrades or beverages... Is this a new type of debate where you put words in my mouth and give counter arguments to them?
 
Zethor said:
Fruit, fish or nuts are not processed carbohydrades or beverages... Is this a new type of debate where you put words in my mouth and give counter arguments to them?
Click to expand...

no you said "energy dense foods" those are particularly energy dense.

in fact they're brilliant additives for mass gaining shakes due to their very high calories.


you also said

"including 100% natural ones"

so yeah not processed then?


Zethor said:
Energy dense foods such as sugary beverages, including 100% natural ones, and processed carbohydrades would be a good start.
Click to expand...


perhaps you could actually list the substances you want taxed, not contradictory vagaries.
 
You are being particularly obtuse Tefal, refined sugar has no nutritional value and is pure empty calories.

Now to have sugary drinks absolutely packed full of it is unnecessary and even though it is only one aspect towards the obesity problem we have, it's one area that is easy to isolate and try to tackle.

It has also been identified as a major source of the calorific intake (approx 35% iirc) of children/young teens daily intake - so is an area that could have a large impact for such a narrow target
 
Last edited:
Did I say all energy dense foods? If i worded it with 'foods such as... ' would you conclude I propose taxes on all types of food?

I gave you 2 types of food that would be a good choice for a start. Processed carbs and sugary drinks, including natural ones. What part do you find contradictory?
 
Freakbro said:
You are being particularly obtuse Tefal, refined sugar has no nutritional value and is pure empty calories.
Click to expand...

thats a fun statement.

"no nutritional value"..."calories"...so nutritional value in the forum of a source of glucose then?

It has also been identified as a major source of the calorific intake (approx 35% iirc) of children/young teens daily intake - so is an area that could have a large impact for such a narrow target
Click to expand...

children of course being highly concious of their tax burden.
 
Last edited:
Zethor said:
Did I say all energy dense foods? If i worded it with 'foods such as... ' would you conclude I propose taxes on all types of food?

I gave you 2 types of food that would be a good choice for a start. Processed carbs and sugary drinks, including natural ones. What part do you find contradictory?
Click to expand...

thats typical the meaning when one phrases something like that.

if i say "high powered performance cars such as Ferraris should be banned" people would take it as all high powered performance cars not just Ferraris.

I gave you 2 types of food that would be a good choice for a start. Processed carbs and sugary drinks, including natural ones. What part do you find contradictory?
Click to expand...

the fact that it serves no purpose what so ever?


if you want to tax obesity just bloody tax obesity. Come in for a quarterly body fat measurement and have your NI adjusted.

dont tax sugar for the rest of us because people get fat from eating massively more than they need, cause theyll still eat more than they need even if theres no sugar in it and still be fat.
 
Last edited:
Tefal stop giving him a hard time lol.

Yes it is difficult as you are proving as unlike cigarettes its hard to pin down unheathy food.

What the government is looking at doing is introducing a tax on any product with "added sugar". This will nicely exclude all your fruit items.

Of course I doubt in the early stages it will make any difference just like it didn't with cigarettes. Nobody really bothered about giving up smoking when the tax was 10p a packet but now that its more like £6 then it does make the number of people who smoke less.

The issue is that the government is talking about a 10% tax on food wtih added sugar.

As has been said in this thread the supermarket own brand are cheap already. Take tescos.

Value cola is 45p for 2 litres and pepsi is £1.98. With a 10% tax the Pepsi will be £2.18 and the Tesco's own brand one will be 49p.

Is that 4p going to stop a fat person from buying the coke? Nope.

But perhaps the sugar tax will have to rise to make an affect and when it hits 100%+ then it would make people look at buying the diet equivalent?

And 2p on a tin of beans isnt going to discourage anybody either.
 
Last edited:
Tefal said:
dont tax sugar for the rest of us because people get fat from eating massively more than they need, cause theyll still eat more than they need even if theres no sugar in it and still be fat.
Click to expand...

That's what it comes down to isn't it, every time this discussion comes up all you are bothered about is how it affects you :rolleyes:

Well, welcome to living in a society with other people where sometimes the things you want are 'slightly' restricted by whats best for everyone.

And since you don't over eat or overconsume sugar, it's not going to cost you much is it, so I don't see what you're always moaning about
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom