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.

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



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.

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



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.

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.

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


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.

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



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....?