The World’s Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

Weighty Matters

Currently, there is much media coverage given to obesity and its effects on communities in what are termed "developed" nations. The costs of caring for those who become sick due to excess weight are frightening. Obesity should be treated by governments in the same way they treat other crises.

I've noticed that, in their capacity of great carers for the health and well being of their citizens, governments impose taxes and excise on alcohol and tobacco products. It's usually claimed these fiscal measures are aimed at curtailing drinking and smoking thereby extending the lives of the populace. Of course, if people are sick less often and able to work longer during their lives, more taxes are raised. This means less is need be spent on healthcare and hospitals leaving more for spending on things which will ensure the re-election of the governing party. You've got to love your government.

Surely, if one follows the gubernatorial wisdom of extracting money from those with addictions to legal substances they should charge the obese extra to buy food and clothing.

I think it would be so easy to install weigh stations in all food stores, cafes and restaurants as well as clothing stores and charity shops and to levy a surcharge or a "Lipo-tax" on purchases or consumption by those who are deemed obese. If they had to pay, for example, 60 per cent more for food they would eat less, loose weight and drop below the "Lipo-barrier". It would also cost less to produce and manufacture clothing in smaller sizes. I've noticed that plenty of clothiers currently charge more for larger sizes so the precedent is already set in this market.

I can envision this system being extended to transport where passengers are liable to pay extra if their body weight exceeds the legal limit or "Lipo-limit". It's obvious that all modes of transport use more fuel to move the obese that those of more diminutive proportions. This will help conserve fossil fuel and other forms of energy.

I'm sure these methods would succeed in curing the "Lipo-challenged", increase revenues for governments and ensure that there are chocolates for all. Every one gains (except those who lose weight)!

Tags: lipo-challenged, sick, weight

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by funk Q on December 8, 2009 at 7:00pm

I know, but I succinctly avoided any reference to the manufacture of votive candles.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Howard S. Dunn on December 15, 2009 at 5:28pm

Votive candles are PEOPLE! (or used to be part of them anyway.) Lol.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Фелч Гроган on December 8, 2009 at 5:16am

You didn't really expect me not to post this did you ?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jaume on December 8, 2009 at 5:39am

Actually I did. I've noticed this thread right after I read the Cynics' discussion on "felching", and my first thought after reading this one's title was -- weight shouldn't matter to a grogan.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chad Wilson on December 9, 2009 at 9:47am

I think my first question is; exactly how “successful” do you see the current taxing strategies working? Assuming that the strategy as you have outlined it is the goal.

I’m not arguing against your statements of how tax regulations are implemented to drive social behavior. But I would suggest that a much more “moral” driven force is the culprit and the design of the argument is based in the taxation logic.
- Peace, Chad

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by funk Q on December 9, 2009 at 4:29pm

I don't see the raising of revenue as the goal. The goal is to assist the "Lipo-challenged" to reduce their consumption of food. The vast amounts of money flowing into taxation coffers is just a side effect. The taxation of those with an addiction or desire is only a form of treatment performed by caring governments.

It would be very cynical to suggest governments would have motives other than the well being of those who could have their life expectancy extended and thence be able to provide more revenue for longer.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Goz on December 10, 2009 at 6:46am

Who really needs to be punished is not the end user,as it were,but the companies who produce cheap,processed food and make huge profits at the expense of the general public.
When I was growing up,one rarely saw an obese person...The reason being is people ate healthy diets.
Now,for the almighty dollar,food has been contaminated with such nasties as hfcs. You would be astounded at what this stuff is put in..
From my reading,Id say it's not the fat person's fault,but the greedy corporations for hijacking our natural desire for sweet and fatty foods and running with it.
One day,as an example,I was reading the ingredients on a can of chili. There was sugar in it.
Who puts sugar in chili I ask you?
Some of the crap they put in processed foods,I can't even pronounce.
And there is another problem...Processed foods...I don't even buy them. I shop around the outer edges of the grocer store and don't even go down the isles.
There is much more to the fat problem than meets the eye and I am not inclined to blame the victim in this case.

You might want to check out this doc' on the subject;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eKYyD14d_0

And:

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by funk Q on December 10, 2009 at 8:13pm

I don't consider the fast food industry should be burdened with all the blame. There are many people who consume this style of food and who can remain within the socially dictated standards of body mass.

The ability to control one's own consumption of high kilojoule food and the practice of exercise are two methods of remaining socially acceptable.

I seem to remember from my growing up there were about as many "Lipo-challenged" bodies as today. The one difference is that then the obese didn't wear skin-tight slack/jeans, horizontal stripes or bare midriff tops. They took the trouble to camouflage and therefore were passed over by the social manipulators.

I also add sugar to chilli as it cuts through the acidity of tomatoes. I even sprinkle sugar on my onion sandwiches to enhance the flavour...mmmhh!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jaume on December 10, 2009 at 10:45am

I don't really see that as punishment. Unless it's autophagy.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by funk Q on December 10, 2009 at 8:19pm

Black: Mandatory anthropophagy for anybody involved in promoting the spread of palm oil!
Baste with their own petard?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by SecretWombat on December 10, 2009 at 10:13pm

I find the notion of punishing fat people simply for being fat absolutely abhorrent. What's more, charging overweight people more for food isn't going to make them thin. Poverty is linked with obesity. The cheapest foods are high in fat, sugars and starches. Making people poorer by charging them extra for food is just going to lead to them making even unhealthier choices.

Why not look at making healthy food more affordable for everyone? Charge more for high fat, high salt, high starch food and use that money to subsidise fresh fruit and veggies. Everyone can benefit from a healthier diet.

An even better idea would be to raise incomes and education levels for everyone. Higher incomes and education are linked with fewer health problems and lower obesity levels.

link and link

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by funk Q on December 11, 2009 at 2:29am

You don't seem to have a problem with the poor who drink and smoke being taxed at high rates for their addictions but take exception to the obese pulling their weight. This seems a very undemocratic attitude.

What is good for one underdog in society is good for all, I say.

I'd better not share my rapist treatment plan.