heard someone has proposed a tax on foods with high levels of sugar and fat.

at last a tax that will be a win/win.

save a fortune in health care costs and hopefully kick the fruit and vege growers along.

if you want you could even introduce a subsidy on fresh fruit veges and milk.

also heard that there are now estimated to be 20,000,000 roos in qld alone.  why arent we eating them,  so much healthier than pork and beef.

put a tax and pork and beef and subsidise roo.
another win/win/win.

healthy, good for farmers (as opposed to feedlots)  better for the soil.

aquascoot wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 4:28pm:

heard someone has proposed a tax on foods with high levels of sugar and fat. at last a tax that will be a win/win. save a fortune in health care costs and hopefully kick the fruit and vege growers along. if you want you could even introduce a subsidy on fresh fruit veges and milk. also heard that there are now estimated to be 20,000,000 roos in qld alone.  why arent we eating them,  so much healthier than pork and beef. put a tax and pork and beef and subsidise roo. another win/win/win. healthy, good for farmers (as opposed to feedlots)  better for the soil.

Next they will carbon tax me for dropping a fart.

Come on, when's it going to stop.

Verge wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 4:37pm:

aquascoot wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:28pm: heard someone has proposed a tax on foods with high levels of sugar and fat. at last a tax that will be a win/win. save a fortune in health care costs and hopefully kick the fruit and vege growers along. if you want you could even introduce a subsidy on fresh fruit veges and milk. also heard that there are now estimated to be 20,000,000 roos in qld alone.  why arent we eating them,  so much healthier than pork and beef. put a tax and pork and beef and subsidise roo. another win/win/win. healthy, good for farmers (as opposed to feedlots)  better for the soil. Next they will carbon tax me for dropping a fart. Come on, when's it going to stop.

I agree. How about letting us run our own lives and take our own risks. Its one thing to smoke and virtually ensure lung cancer or other diseases. It is another to use sugar... or salt... or fats... or where does it end?

Stay out of my pantry.

the id gold medal is in illusion

when you vote you give your power unto that

which is external

these freemasonic dupes you elect bring new taxes in

which you do empower and permit

to complain about taxes in your pantry is a bit rich,

are you familiar with the term, reap the whirlwind?

can you spell hypocrite?

ok cool

so be it

namaste

-:)

gold_medal wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 4:55pm:

Verge wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:37pm: aquascoot wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:28pm: heard someone has proposed a tax on foods with high levels of sugar and fat. at last a tax that will be a win/win. save a fortune in health care costs and hopefully kick the fruit and vege growers along. if you want you could even introduce a subsidy on fresh fruit veges and milk. also heard that there are now estimated to be 20,000,000 roos in qld alone.  why arent we eating them,  so much healthier than pork and beef. put a tax and pork and beef and subsidise roo. another win/win/win. healthy, good for farmers (as opposed to feedlots)  better for the soil. Next they will carbon tax me for dropping a fart. Come on, when's it going to stop. I agree. How about letting us run our own lives and take our own risks. Its one thing to smoke and virtually ensure lung cancer or other diseases. It is another to use sugar... or salt... or fats... or where does it end? Stay out of my pantry.

i have no problem with that provided you

1  are willing to pay a much higher private health insurance premium due to your risk of diabetes and heart disease and stroke.

2  are willing to admit that childhood obesity in the under 10"s  is a form of child abuse , no different to blowing smoke in your kids face.

3  are willing to fore go  government pensions and access to superannuation early if you cannot work due to self inflicted health conditions.

fair is fair,  lets let the market sort this out.

i'm also calling for all people over 100 kg to be charged excess baggage on plane flights.  why should a 70 kg person with 30 kg of baggage pay more than a 150 kg person.

lets let the market sort this out as well.

and if you want the tax payer to stay out of your pantry, stay out of his hospital

aquascoot wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 5:33pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:55pm: Verge wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:37pm: aquascoot wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:28pm: heard someone has proposed a tax on foods with high levels of sugar and fat. at last a tax that will be a win/win. save a fortune in health care costs and hopefully kick the fruit and vege growers along. if you want you could even introduce a subsidy on fresh fruit veges and milk. also heard that there are now estimated to be 20,000,000 roos in qld alone.  why arent we eating them,  so much healthier than pork and beef. put a tax and pork and beef and subsidise roo. another win/win/win. healthy, good for farmers (as opposed to feedlots)  better for the soil. Next they will carbon tax me for dropping a fart. Come on, when's it going to stop. I agree. How about letting us run our own lives and take our own risks. Its one thing to smoke and virtually ensure lung cancer or other diseases. It is another to use sugar... or salt... or fats... or where does it end? Stay out of my pantry. i have no problem with that provided you 1  are willing to pay a much higher private health insurance premium due to your risk of diabetes and heart disease and stroke. 2  are willing to admit that childhood obesity in the under 10"s  is a form of child abuse , no different to blowing smoke in your kids face. 3  are willing to fore go  government pensions and access to superannuation early if you cannot work due to self inflicted health conditions. fair is fair,  lets let the market sort this out. i'm also calling for all people over 100 kg to be charged excess baggage on plane flights.  why should a 70 kg person with 30 kg of baggage pay more than a 150 kg person. lets let the market sort this out as well. and if you want the tax payer to stay out of your pantry, stay out of his hospital

Thats a bit simplistic isnt? How about making it even simpler and have government both stay out of the pantry and provide no medical health care at all. That way I end up paying just for the damage I cause to my body. sound fair?

and I am sick of people using the term 'obese' to refer to others - especially children - who are nothing more than overweight by a definition that is in itself flawed. BMI is a crap definition that is a culturally defined as it is medically. Some kids and people are just overweight. Some are fat and others are obese. I object to a doctor referring to a person as obese because their weight is 5kgs over a statistical norm that is in itself wrong.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 5:52pm:

and I am sick of people using the term 'obese' to refer to others - especially children - who are nothing more than overweight by a definition that is in itself flawed. BMI is a crap definition that is a culturally defined as it is medically. Some kids and people are just overweight. Some are fat and others are obese. I object to a doctor referring to a person as obese because their weight is 5kgs over a statistical norm that is in itself wrong.

You're right. Some people's bodies just absorb the fat. It must be pretty insulting to be told you're unhealthy.

How great it would be if we went back to the good old days when there was no difference in perceived health terms between fat and skinny people. Women have started thinking it's beautiful to be skinny.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 5:52pm:

aquascoot wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 5:33pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:55pm: Verge wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:37pm: aquascoot wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:28pm: heard someone has proposed a tax on foods with high levels of sugar and fat. at last a tax that will be a win/win. save a fortune in health care costs and hopefully kick the fruit and vege growers along. if you want you could even introduce a subsidy on fresh fruit veges and milk. also heard that there are now estimated to be 20,000,000 roos in qld alone.  why arent we eating them,  so much healthier than pork and beef. put a tax and pork and beef and subsidise roo. another win/win/win. healthy, good for farmers (as opposed to feedlots)  better for the soil. Next they will carbon tax me for dropping a fart. Come on, when's it going to stop. I agree. How about letting us run our own lives and take our own risks. Its one thing to smoke and virtually ensure lung cancer or other diseases. It is another to use sugar... or salt... or fats... or where does it end? Stay out of my pantry. i have no problem with that provided you 1  are willing to pay a much higher private health insurance premium due to your risk of diabetes and heart disease and stroke. 2  are willing to admit that childhood obesity in the under 10"s  is a form of child abuse , no different to blowing smoke in your kids face. 3  are willing to fore go  government pensions and access to superannuation early if you cannot work due to self inflicted health conditions. fair is fair,  lets let the market sort this out. i'm also calling for all people over 100 kg to be charged excess baggage on plane flights.  why should a 70 kg person with 30 kg of baggage pay more than a 150 kg person. lets let the market sort this out as well. and if you want the tax payer to stay out of your pantry, stay out of his hospital Thats a bit simplistic isnt? How about making it even simpler and have government both stay out of the pantry and provide no medical health care at all. That way I end up paying just for the damage I cause to my body. sound fair? and I am sick of people using the term 'obese' to refer to others - especially children - who are nothing more than overweight by a definition that is in itself flawed. BMI is a crap definition that is a culturally defined as it is medically. Some kids and people are just overweight. Some are fat and others are obese. I object to a doctor referring to a person as obese because their weight is 5kgs over a statistical norm that is in itself wrong.

you can call them whatever you want, i call them unhealthy

and your solution would appear a bit simplistic,
cost of one admission with coronary stents (cost to the taxpayer)  $20,000.

think the health minister is going to adopt your simplistic solution and let the dude die.

dialysis  $60,000 a year. commonest cause, type 2 diabetes. commonest cause  diet.

think society will just simplisticly let the kidney patients die.

the cost will always be met.

so you approve of a packet of tim tams being cheaper than a lettuce  and farmers chucking excess fruit and veges away.

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 6:19pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 5:52pm: and I am sick of people using the term 'obese' to refer to others - especially children - who are nothing more than overweight by a definition that is in itself flawed. BMI is a crap definition that is a culturally defined as it is medically. Some kids and people are just overweight. Some are fat and others are obese. I object to a doctor referring to a person as obese because their weight is 5kgs over a statistical norm that is in itself wrong. You're right. Some people's bodies just absorb the fat. It must be pretty insulting to be told you're unhealthy. How great it would be if we went back to the good old days when there was no difference in perceived health terms between fat and skinny people. Women have started thinking it's beautiful to be skinny.

could you give me the scientific reference for "some peoples bodies just absorb fat" :o :o

Like fat then go take the tour, visit Penrith Plaza and watch the sloths of Australia Strut their stuff...and stuff they go. They stuff everything in their mouths they can. Check out the food court where Maccas and Kentucky Fried Chicken reign supreme. Check  out the big mommas and poppas with guts bulging over their waistbands and their sloth offspring as they sloth gracelessly through the beautiful shopping centre in their uggs boots...pearls before swine.

Don't get me wrong - obesity is a big (heh) problem, but a "fat tax" is a step in the wrong direction. 

There is nothing wrong with fat per se.  Pensalising that will push people towards carbohydrates, especially grains, and you the problem will grow.

A better way to target it would be -

1.approving more of exercise.  No public libaility excuses.  No "everyones a winner" sport with noone keeping score. No "someone could get hurt" BS.  let people run around for gods sake, especially in schools. 
2. Education - I know it's not "PC" for women to take home-ec, or learn to cook, but FFS at what price?   I'm lucky that i married a chef, but it shouldn't be an oddity that my wife actually knows and values good food. 
There's also the little problem of who's gonna teach what a good diet is.  It does vary slightly betwen people/races/body types but I think one of the main causes of our increased waistlines and plummeting fitness levels, is that bogus "daily food pyramid" that kelloggs brought out and passed off as truth. 

Piss off the soft drink.  Piss off the grains. Piss off the highly processed faux-food.
There is no better start to the day than bacon and eggs.  Seriously.

Allow private health insurers to discriminate against certain types of people seeking insurance.

aquascoot wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 6:21pm:

could you give me the scientific reference for "some peoples bodies just absorb fat" :o :o

I remember a TV program that explained how the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids in cells influenced metabolic rates, and therefore fat absorption.

... wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 7:13pm:

Don't get me wrong - obesity is a big (heh) problem, but a "fat tax" is a step in the wrong direction.  There is nothing wrong with fat per se.  Pensalising that will push people towards carbohydrates, especially grains, and you the problem will grow. A better way to target it would be - 1.approving more of exercise.  No public libaility excuses.  No "everyones a winner" sport with noone keeping score. No "someone could get hurt" BS.  let people run around for gods sake, especially in schools.  2. Education - I know it's not "PC" for women to take home-ec, or learn to cook, but FFS at what price?   I'm lucky that i married a chef, but it shouldn't be an oddity that my wife actually knows and values good food.  There's also the little problem of who's gonna teach what a good diet is.  It does vary slightly betwen people/races/body types but I think one of the main causes of our increased waistlines and plummeting fitness levels, is that bogus "daily food pyramid" that kelloggs brought out and passed off as truth.  Piss off the soft drink.  Piss off the grains. Piss off the highly processed faux-food. There is no better start to the day than bacon and eggs.  Seriously.

i like some of that.

i suppose my point would be this.

if we accept obesity is a major drain on health and productivity (and the figures i saw were about $15 billion a year)
then how is this different from  a extra tax on smokes and alcohol.

surely gold medal doesnt wish to remove those taxes which i would also see as a win win.

give the tax back to people as an income tax reduction,

i agree grains are an interesting issue and apologies mnemonic, my previous post was not meant as a put down and the issue is very complicated.

but we could surely agree
soft drinks , lollies, breakfast cereals with over 20 % sugar,
sweet biscuits,
just too cheap.

brocholli, cauliflower, brussel sprouts just too dear.

the wave of health costs are going to kill the government budgets.
already over 1 billion a year just in cholesterol lowering drugs.  10 billion in dentistry

will be interesting to see how china tackles its emerging diabetes problem.

they'll probably take about 15 seconds to ban junk food in schools

I bet that figure of $15 billion (which sounds insanely high) does not net off the enjoyment people get from eating fatty foods.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/

For anyone interested, this is a very informative site Re: health and diet..  I visit a coupla times a week, and give it the elvis wesley tick of approval.

I think obesity has recently overtaken smoking as the biggest killer. There are genuine direct economic costs that are covered from the public coffer, for example to the health system. There are plenty of other indirect costs. It makes economic sense to internalise those costs, and a tax on junk food is a reasonable way to do it. It certainly makes more sense than attempts to regulate what people can sell or eat.

... wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 7:58pm:

and give it the elvis wesley tick of approval.

Why? Because your username sounds similar to that of a deceased pop star?

Obesity is a two pronged issue.

First one is diet.

Second is exercise.

Its not right to try and tax one higher if you arent prepared to do something about the second.

Kids of today dont have the same freedoms of 50 years ago.  Our lifestyles have become more sedinatry and hard labour jobs that kept men fit have been replaced with machines and the like.

Its to simple to just tax the food.  Dual income two working parents is the norm so the healthy family dinner is being replaced with what is easy. 

How about we look at the issue as a whole instead of just picking on one issue.

... wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 7:58pm:

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/ For anyone interested, this is a very informative site Re: health and diet..  I visit a coupla times a week, and give it the elvis wesley tick of approval.

interesting site, cheers for that

Verge wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 9:38am:

Obesity is a two pronged issue. First one is diet. Second is exercise. Its not right to try and tax one higher if you arent prepared to do something about the second. Kids of today dont have the same freedoms of 50 years ago.  Our lifestyles have become more sedinatry and hard labour jobs that kept men fit have been replaced with machines and the like. Its to simple to just tax the food.  Dual income two working parents is the norm so the healthy family dinner is being replaced with what is easy.  How about we look at the issue as a whole instead of just picking on one issue.

verge,

lets just say you raise a couple of billion with a tax on defined bad foods and give people a tax break so mum can maybe reduce her working hours by 1 hour  every now and then and come home and cook something better than pizza or maccas.

we use punitive taxes all the time to change behaviour.
what is a speeding fine if it isnt a punitive tax. now it would be nice if the money from a speeding fine went back into road safety. i doubt it does.
quarantine the fat tax money as subsidies on healthy eating and exercise.

i suspect the government will be forced to do something as the diet of australians is definitely worsening and the health costs and morbidity will cruel them if they dont.
despite gold medal saying "it aint his problem'
it will be his problem when he fronts up to a casualty and discovers theres a 8 hour weight due to all the cardiovascular cases queued up on trolleys in the coridoors waiting to be seen , in front of him.

and it will be his problem when the tax rate goes up to fund pensions for 100's of thousands of blind diabetics on dialysis.

aquascoot wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 11:00am:

Verge wrote on Aug 16th, 2012 at 9:38am: Obesity is a two pronged issue. First one is diet. Second is exercise. Its not right to try and tax one higher if you arent prepared to do something about the second. Kids of today dont have the same freedoms of 50 years ago.  Our lifestyles have become more sedinatry and hard labour jobs that kept men fit have been replaced with machines and the like. Its to simple to just tax the food.  Dual income two working parents is the norm so the healthy family dinner is being replaced with what is easy.  How about we look at the issue as a whole instead of just picking on one issue. verge, lets just say you raise a couple of billion with a tax on defined bad foods and give people a tax break so mum can maybe reduce her working hours by 1 hour  every now and then and come home and cook something better than pizza or maccas. we use punitive taxes all the time to change behaviour. what is a speeding fine if it isnt a punitive tax. now it would be nice if the money from a speeding fine went back into road safety. i doubt it does. quarantine the fat tax money as subsidies on healthy eating and exercise. i suspect the government will be forced to do something as the diet of australians is definitely worsening and the health costs and morbidity will cruel them if they dont. despite gold medal saying "it aint his problem' it will be his problem when he fronts up to a casualty and discovers theres a 8 hour weight due to all the cardiovascular cases queued up on trolleys in the coridoors waiting to be seen , in front of him. and it will be his problem when the tax rate goes up to fund pensions for 100's of thousands of blind diabetics on dialysis.

Giving a tax break so Mum can know off early doesnt work when they are employed full time.

The issues are wide ranging, why are people working more, housing prices come to mind.

Our work lives have become less active.  Diggers, trucks, loaders and an ever expanding white collar work force also spring to mind.

Unless you are going to let things like gym memberships, exercise equipment and dieticians tax deductible I see little value in it.  The tax deduction could be funded by the "fat tax" as you say it.

As a side note, a speeding ticket is a punitive punishments for an illegal offence.

Verge wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 12:39pm:

aquascoot wrote on Aug 16th, 2012 at 11:00am: Verge wrote on Aug 16th, 2012 at 9:38am: Obesity is a two pronged issue. First one is diet. Second is exercise. Its not right to try and tax one higher if you arent prepared to do something about the second. Kids of today dont have the same freedoms of 50 years ago.  Our lifestyles have become more sedinatry and hard labour jobs that kept men fit have been replaced with machines and the like. Its to simple to just tax the food.  Dual income two working parents is the norm so the healthy family dinner is being replaced with what is easy.  How about we look at the issue as a whole instead of just picking on one issue. verge, lets just say you raise a couple of billion with a tax on defined bad foods and give people a tax break so mum can maybe reduce her working hours by 1 hour  every now and then and come home and cook something better than pizza or maccas. we use punitive taxes all the time to change behaviour. what is a speeding fine if it isnt a punitive tax. now it would be nice if the money from a speeding fine went back into road safety. i doubt it does. quarantine the fat tax money as subsidies on healthy eating and exercise. i suspect the government will be forced to do something as the diet of australians is definitely worsening and the health costs and morbidity will cruel them if they dont. despite gold medal saying "it aint his problem' it will be his problem when he fronts up to a casualty and discovers theres a 8 hour weight due to all the cardiovascular cases queued up on trolleys in the coridoors waiting to be seen , in front of him. and it will be his problem when the tax rate goes up to fund pensions for 100's of thousands of blind diabetics on dialysis. Giving a tax break so Mum can know off early doesnt work when they are employed full time. The issues are wide ranging, why are people working more, housing prices come to mind. Our work lives have become less active.  Diggers, trucks, loaders and an ever expanding white collar work force also spring to mind. Unless you are going to let things like gym memberships, exercise equipment and dieticians tax deductible I see little value in it.  The tax deduction could be funded by the "fat tax" as you say it. As a side note, a speeding ticket is a punitive punishments for an illegal offence.

the private health sector already understand (and i imagine it makes economic sense to them ) to allow things like gym memberships and purchase of gym shoes etc to be claimed back against health insurance premiums.

whilst a mother who fills her children with sugar will surely pay the dental bills, there is no economic disincentive to feeding children rubbish food.

re speeding ticket ,possibly a poor example.
increasing costs are a well known ploy for disuading people from bad behaviour.
overdue meter parking is hit with a fine but is hardly an act dangerous to society.

The most powerful weapon against obesity doesn't require government intervention at all.  Quite the opposite in fact - just good ol' societal shame and stigma 

Just kick these "fat acceptance" nuffies in their blubbery arses.  Big is Not beautiful -  Big is fat and ugly.  Stop deluding yourselves and the next generation.

Stop giving the time of day to the fuglies who complain about beautiful people in the media giving people "unrealistic" expectations about their bodies.  It's not unrealistic, it just takes some bloody effort.  Remember what effort is? 

http://i.imgur.com/t3ORi.png

How about the govt keeps out of how we run our lives. Todays its a tax on sugary foods. then a tax on salt. How long before footwear deemd to damage feet is taxed as well? What about a tax on chairs and furniture that cause back problems and resultant health care costs?

WHERE DOES IT END? well we all know where it ends. it never does. So dont let it start.

And let's face it, the health scares that come around as predictably as clockwork are often wrong. Remember the cholersterol scare where pretty much if you level was 10% about some mythical safe level then you were gonna die? Now of course we know that that was basically wrong and ASPECTS of cholestorol may be one of many factors affecting heart disease.

Dont let parliament tell you want you can eat, drink, drive, wear or live in.  Because while they are dissecting your life for things to improve they are ignoring the real purpose they are there for - defence, health, education, roads etc.

aquascoot wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 1:10pm:

Verge wrote on Aug 16th, 2012 at 12:39pm: aquascoot wrote on Aug 16th, 2012 at 11:00am: Verge wrote on Aug 16th, 2012 at 9:38am: Obesity is a two pronged issue. First one is diet. Second is exercise. Its not right to try and tax one higher if you arent prepared to do something about the second. Kids of today dont have the same freedoms of 50 years ago.  Our lifestyles have become more sedinatry and hard labour jobs that kept men fit have been replaced with machines and the like. Its to simple to just tax the food.  Dual income two working parents is the norm so the healthy family dinner is being replaced with what is easy.  How about we look at the issue as a whole instead of just picking on one issue. verge, lets just say you raise a couple of billion with a tax on defined bad foods and give people a tax break so mum can maybe reduce her working hours by 1 hour  every now and then and come home and cook something better than pizza or maccas. we use punitive taxes all the time to change behaviour. what is a speeding fine if it isnt a punitive tax. now it would be nice if the money from a speeding fine went back into road safety. i doubt it does. quarantine the fat tax money as subsidies on healthy eating and exercise. i suspect the government will be forced to do something as the diet of australians is definitely worsening and the health costs and morbidity will cruel them if they dont. despite gold medal saying "it aint his problem' it will be his problem when he fronts up to a casualty and discovers theres a 8 hour weight due to all the cardiovascular cases queued up on trolleys in the coridoors waiting to be seen , in front of him. and it will be his problem when the tax rate goes up to fund pensions for 100's of thousands of blind diabetics on dialysis. Giving a tax break so Mum can know off early doesnt work when they are employed full time. The issues are wide ranging, why are people working more, housing prices come to mind. Our work lives have become less active.  Diggers, trucks, loaders and an ever expanding white collar work force also spring to mind. Unless you are going to let things like gym memberships, exercise equipment and dieticians tax deductible I see little value in it.  The tax deduction could be funded by the "fat tax" as you say it. As a side note, a speeding ticket is a punitive punishments for an illegal offence. the private health sector already understand (and i imagine it makes economic sense to them ) to allow things like gym memberships and purchase of gym shoes etc to be claimed back against health insurance premiums. whilst a mother who fills her children with sugar will surely pay the dental bills, there is no economic disincentive to feeding children rubbish food. re speeding ticket ,possibly a poor example. increasing costs are a well known ploy for disuading people from bad behaviour. overdue meter parking is hit with a fine but is hardly an act dangerous to society.

Its interesting though when looking at the overall health of people.

Freediver was on here some time ago talking about how having improved dental would take the burden off the health system due to the number of infections the body has that come through poor dental hygiene.

Im strongly opposed to any tax that doesnt allow people to offset that tax with inititaves that one can afford.

If you are going to tax their diet, you have to give them something to let them do something about their exercise.

Yes private health have this, but as has already been proven a damn big chunk of Oz dont have private health

Verge wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 2:15pm:

aquascoot wrote on Aug 16th, 2012 at 1:10pm: Verge wrote on Aug 16th, 2012 at 12:39pm: aquascoot wrote on Aug 16th, 2012 at 11:00am: Verge wrote on Aug 16th, 2012 at 9:38am: Obesity is a two pronged issue. First one is diet. Second is exercise. Its not right to try and tax one higher if you arent prepared to do something about the second. Kids of today dont have the same freedoms of 50 years ago.  Our lifestyles have become more sedinatry and hard labour jobs that kept men fit have been replaced with machines and the like. Its to simple to just tax the food.  Dual income two working parents is the norm so the healthy family dinner is being replaced with what is easy.  How about we look at the issue as a whole instead of just picking on one issue. verge, lets just say you raise a couple of billion with a tax on defined bad foods and give people a tax break so mum can maybe reduce her working hours by 1 hour  every now and then and come home and cook something better than pizza or maccas. we use punitive taxes all the time to change behaviour. what is a speeding fine if it isnt a punitive tax. now it would be nice if the money from a speeding fine went back into road safety. i doubt it does. quarantine the fat tax money as subsidies on healthy eating and exercise. i suspect the government will be forced to do something as the diet of australians is definitely worsening and the health costs and morbidity will cruel them if they dont. despite gold medal saying "it aint his problem' it will be his problem when he fronts up to a casualty and discovers theres a 8 hour weight due to all the cardiovascular cases queued up on trolleys in the coridoors waiting to be seen , in front of him. and it will be his problem when the tax rate goes up to fund pensions for 100's of thousands of blind diabetics on dialysis. Giving a tax break so Mum can know off early doesnt work when they are employed full time. The issues are wide ranging, why are people working more, housing prices come to mind. Our work lives have become less active.  Diggers, trucks, loaders and an ever expanding white collar work force also spring to mind. Unless you are going to let things like gym memberships, exercise equipment and dieticians tax deductible I see little value in it.  The tax deduction could be funded by the "fat tax" as you say it. As a side note, a speeding ticket is a punitive punishments for an illegal offence. the private health sector already understand (and i imagine it makes economic sense to them ) to allow things like gym memberships and purchase of gym shoes etc to be claimed back against health insurance premiums. whilst a mother who fills her children with sugar will surely pay the dental bills, there is no economic disincentive to feeding children rubbish food. re speeding ticket ,possibly a poor example. increasing costs are a well known ploy for disuading people from bad behaviour. overdue meter parking is hit with a fine but is hardly an act dangerous to society. Its interesting though when looking at the overall health of people. Freediver was on here some time ago talking about how having improved dental would take the burden off the health system due to the number of infections the body has that come through poor dental hygiene. Im strongly opposed to any tax that doesnt allow people to offset that tax with inititaves that one can afford. If you are going to tax their diet, you have to give them something to let them do something about their exercise. Yes private health have this, but as has already been proven a damn big chunk of Oz dont have private health

When government has mastered the basics of their charter then they can come looking at my pantry. But until they can give us roads without tolls, GOOD education without political bias and access to health care plus a defence force and police as well as pay the basic social welfare any advanced society should provide THEN criticse what foods I eat.

In the meantime get your own house in order before you come to correct mine.

... wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 1:20pm:

The most powerful weapon against obesity doesn't require government intervention at all.  Quite the opposite in fact - just good ol' societal shame and stigma  Just kick these "fat acceptance" nuffies in their blubbery arses.  Big is Not beautiful -  Big is fat and ugly.  Stop deluding yourselves and the next generation. Stop giving the time of day to the fuglies who complain about beautiful people in the media giving people "unrealistic" expectations about their bodies.  It's not unrealistic, it just takes some bloody effort.  Remember what effort is?

You're suggesting that thousands and perhaps millions of women should hate themselves for being fat. If it's a health problem don't turn it into an image problem. The woman is still beautiful if she's a nice person and looks after her loved ones. She's just unhealthy.


gold_medal wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 1:26pm:

How about the govt keeps out of how we run our lives. Todays its a tax on sugary foods. then a tax on salt. How long before footwear deemd to damage feet is taxed as well? What about a tax on chairs and furniture that cause back problems and resultant health care costs? WHERE DOES IT END? well we all know where it ends. it never does. So dont let it start. Dont let parliament tell you want you can eat, drink, drive, wear or live in.  Because while they are dissecting your life for things to improve they are ignoring the real purpose they are there for - defence, health, education, roads etc.

I agree, no nanny state please -- at least when it comes to obesity.

Just let people die if they get too fat .......... no I was kidding. They'll be rushed to hospital if they get a heart attack, but no tax on diet please.

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 5:27pm:

You're suggesting that thousands and perhaps millions of women should hate themselves for being fat. If it's a health problem don't turn it into an image problem. The woman is still beautiful if she's a nice person and looks after her loved ones. She's just unhealthy.

No, I'm not suggesting they hate themselves for being fat - I'm suggesting they be motivated to take action to improve themselves, so that they aren't fat anymore.  There are few more powerful motivators than shame - we seem quite happy to employ it with smokers and other "out" groups - why not fatties?

Interesting that you specifically mentioned women.  Why is that....?