State Funded Slimming Classes

All these slimming clubs/classes/things and businesses..... they do it to make money lol. Yes 1/10 will do it and keep it off, but generally the majority of them are designed to get the weight off then toss them back out to the world to gain..... only to come back and pay again :D.

It is a great business plan you have to admit!
 
Personally I'm sick of this government mentality that the solution to all issues is tax. The attitude seems to have spread to a scary proportion of the population too. Green taxes, fat taxes, (attempted) pastie tax, fuel tax (duty), the list goes on.

All that happens in these cases is the tax comes in at level most people don't hate enough to oppose it, then creeps further and further into more people's lives, so that:

- Stamp Duty is no longer an issue for the richest and almost everyone's paying it.
- Inheritance tax is no longer an issue for the richest, with many more people's homes causing their estates to breach the threshold.
- Fuel duty going up almost every year, with Labour having actually implemented a Fuel Duty Escalator many years ago that people didn't seem to realise would practically cripple them when oil prices rose.
- Massive increase in VED for cars that people had already bought, being a false economy because continuing to run a car that's less fuel-efficient is still less damaging to the environment than manufacturing a new, more efficient car.

Tax just doesn't fix problems. All it does is reduce people's standard of living. If you really want to make people eat and live more healthily, target the industries that make the wrong choices so easy/cheap/attractive. Oh no, hang on - that will damage the government's corporate sponsors, we can't have that.
 
Matutu said:
All these slimming clubs/classes/things and businesses..... they do it to make money lol. Yes 1/10 will do it and keep it off, but generally the majority of them are designed to get the weight off then toss them back out to the world to gain..... only to come back and pay again :D.

It is a great business plan you have to admit!
Click to expand...

They're hardly going to do it for completely altruistic reasons, are they? Businesses exist to make money. If there's a demand for what they offer, then they can be successful. It's as simple as that. There'll always be more fatties around looking for help, regardless of however many manage to lose weight and keep it off following the 'services' of the company.

I don't think the lot of them are quite as evil as made out. It simply wouldn't be good business to end up with a reputation for just keeping people in a weight loss/gain loop in order to mill money out of them. For many, the service can help and get their physical stature to the point that a lifestyle of consistent exercise and healthier eating choices aren't a problem. The onus there, however, is on the individual. The business can only do so much.
 
RichDuffy said:
Personally I'm sick of this government mentality that the solution to all issues is tax. The attitude seems to have spread to a scary proportion of the population too. Green taxes, fat taxes, (attempted) pastie tax, fuel tax (duty), the list goes on.

All that happens in these cases is the tax comes in at level most people don't hate enough to oppose it, then creeps further and further into more people's lives, so that:

- Stamp Duty is no longer an issue for the richest and almost everyone's paying it.
- Inheritance tax is no longer an issue for the richest, with many more people's homes causing their estates to breach the threshold.
- Fuel duty going up almost every year, with Labour having actually implemented a Fuel Duty Escalator many years ago that people didn't seem to realise would practically cripple them when oil prices rose.
- Massive increase in VED for cars that people had already bought, being a false economy because continuing to run a car that's less fuel-efficient is still less damaging to the environment than manufacturing a new, more efficient car.

Tax just doesn't fix problems. All it does is reduce people's standard of living. If you really want to make people eat and live more healthily, target the industries that make the wrong choices so easy/cheap/attractive. Oh no, hang on - that will damage the government's corporate sponsors, we can't have that.
Click to expand...

Good post! The rich get richer the poor get poorer, That's what it's all about...
 
RichDuffy said:
Personally I'm sick of this government mentality that the solution to all issues is tax. The attitude seems to have spread to a scary proportion of the population too. Green taxes, fat taxes, (attempted) pastie tax, fuel tax (duty), the list goes on.

All that happens in these cases is the tax comes in at level most people don't hate enough to oppose it, then creeps further and further into more people's lives, so that:

- Stamp Duty is no longer an issue for the richest and almost everyone's paying it.
- Inheritance tax is no longer an issue for the richest, with many more people's homes causing their estates to breach the threshold.
- Fuel duty going up almost every year, with Labour having actually implemented a Fuel Duty Escalator many years ago that people didn't seem to realise would practically cripple them when oil prices rose.
- Massive increase in VED for cars that people had already bought, being a false economy because continuing to run a car that's less fuel-efficient is still less damaging to the environment than manufacturing a new, more efficient car.

Tax just doesn't fix problems. All it does is reduce people's standard of living. If you really want to make people eat and live more healthily, target the industries that make the wrong choices so easy/cheap/attractive. Oh no, hang on - that will damage the government's corporate sponsors, we can't have that.
Click to expand...

lowering VAT to and then doubling the difference was the best one :mad:
 
TheMightyTen said:
How are people who play sport, climb mountains, cyclists, DIYers etc. taxed to compensate for the extra burden on the state?

Where's your boundary for who's fat and who isn't? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Those previous things listed don't automatically cause health problems and they also have benefits to them.

Over-consumption of food doesn't have a benefit.
 
arknor said:
They already did when they started putting tax on sports supplements like protein powder
Click to expand...

Only 2 people out of 45 regulars at my Rugby Club take supplements that I know of, yet in the past 5 weeks we've had 6 players have to attend A&E for breaks, dislocations and loss of consciousness. So how does that work then?

Dis86 said:
Those previous things listed don't automatically cause health problems and they also have benefits to them.

Over-consumption of food doesn't have a benefit.
Click to expand...

Many people who play any sport to a reasonable level will suffer wear and tear that generally will need some sort of intervention treatment or drug therapy eventually and the associated specialist time. Hell, in 3 weeks I'm going in for the 3rd shoulder operation in 10 years to fix issues from my sporting life.
 
Last edited:
Dis86 said:
Those previous things listed don't automatically cause health problems and they also have benefits to them.

Over-consumption of food doesn't have a benefit.
Click to expand...

Have to disagree with you there.

Consumption of food is required. Over-consumption is bad for you. In exactly the same way that exercise is good for you, doing too much of it can be bad for you.

There are very real parallels between the 2. Eating lower quantities of poor quality food can still be bad for you, just as exercise with the wrong technique. Over-eating is just more obvious and frequent.
 
memyselfandi said:
How are people who do sport taxed to compensate for their extra burden on the state? Virtually everyone I know who does some form of sport has injured themselves enough to need medical treatment (the last shattering their leg in three places falling down a mountain).
Click to expand...

TheMightyTen said:
How are people who play sport, climb mountains, cyclists, DIYers etc. taxed to compensate for the extra burden on the state?

Where's your boundary for who's fat and who isn't? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Ah the good old hilarious sport counter argument, which isn't really an argument, usually spouted by fat people. We've had this debate over and over on these forums. I'm not interested in doing it over again because there isn't really a debate there.

If people are adding an extra burden to the NHS by being wreckless with their habits (yes eating like a pig is as wreckless as smoking 40 a day), then you should pay for that burden.
 
Captain Planet said:
Ah the good old hilarious sport counter argument, which isn't really an argument, usually spouted by fat people. We've had this debate over and over on these forums. I'm not interested in doing it over again because there isn't really a debate there.

If people are adding an extra burden to the NHS by being wreckless with their habits (yes eating like a pig is as wreckless as smoking 40 a day), then you should pay for that burden.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm a bloater me :rolleyes:

And there is a debate there you're but you just want to be a "cool sheep" and hate the fat people for all your woes ;)

You still haven't defined what your boundary for what constitutes enough fat for you to no longer be deserving of free NHS treatment.
 
That's why they have different tax rates for different foods, that's nothing new.

Unprocessed raw ingredients have zero or non standard (low) rate VAT.

Things like crisps, biscuits, cakes and a lot of processed foods have full rate or non standard (high) rate of VAT.

That's how fat people pay extra, if they're truly fat because they're eating crap all day then they're paying more than the person who cooks their meals and balances their diet.

I do reckon we should start doing plane tickets based on BMI, I say that as a overweight person. If you're a bloody narwhal you can take your fat ass on for free but I have to pay extra for my baggage? Sod that.
 
Last edited:
TheMightyTen said:
Yeah, I'm a bloater me :rolleyes:

And there is a debate there you're but you just want to be a "cool sheep" and hate the fat people for all your woes ;)

You still haven't defined what your boundary for what constitutes enough fat for you to no longer be deserving of free NHS treatment.
Click to expand...

If you search these forums there is plenty discussed about this. I'm not interested in sitting here tapping it out again.
 
Captain Planet said:
Ah the good old hilarious sport counter argument, which isn't really an argument, usually spouted by fat people. We've had this debate over and over on these forums. I'm not interested in doing it over again because there isn't really a debate there.

If people are adding an extra burden to the NHS by being wreckless with their habits (yes eating like a pig is as wreckless as smoking 40 a day), then you should pay for that burden.
Click to expand...

So that people who do activities which are by their choice and injure themselves don't count ... more selective cretinism from the people who find it easy target overweight people because it's seen as easy and the cool thing to do (particularly on here).

:rolleyes:
 
memyselfandi said:
So that people who do activities which are by their choice and injure themselves don't count ... more selective cretinism from the people who find it easy target overweight people because it's seen as easy and the cool thing to do (particularly on here).

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

There is a bit of a distinction to be made though.

People who are fat as a result of over-eating are already presenting the problem (they are overweight).

Sports injuries only present a problem when/if they happen. Being fat means things already have happened.
 
memyselfandi said:
So that people who do activities which are by their choice and injure themselves don't count ... more selective cretinism from the people who find it easy target overweight people because it's seen as easy and the cool thing to do (particularly on here).

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

If you seriously believe you are posing some kind of valid point here, I do despair. I understand playing Devils advocate, but the line you're trying to take is just retarded.

Roll eyes too, excellent :D
 
krooton said:
People who are fat as a result of over-eating are already presenting the problem (they are overweight).

Sports injuries only present a problem when/if they happen. Being fat means things already have happened.
Click to expand...

Obesity is not the problem. Diabetes and heart disease are the problems. Therefore they are only presenting the heightened risk of the problems.

Whereas excessive joint wear / hairline bone fractures etc are not externally visible, so even though there are heightened risks of injuries, they are not visible to the rest of the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom