Fat Tax (2 Viewers)

[Slidey]

We're talking about involuntary fat camps and seizure of property.

Sounds good to me.

 

[Lentern]

People can choose between multiple brands you idiot. You can't choose between multiple governments with anything other than changing your geography.

Fuck your aspergers is really starting to grate.

Can wholesalers/manufacturers not choose between a range of different ingredients/products some of which would not get hit by the tax?

 

[BlackDragon]

Can wholesalers/manufacturers not choose between a range of different ingredients/products some of which would not get hit by the tax?

But wouldn't the tax be on the end product? So it wouldn't matter what ingredients you choose until it became classed as something else? for example, 'healthier' (if there are some) soft drinks would still be taxed?

 

[XaittyO]

I dont believe we should charge people money for their lifestyle choices. Its their choice to be obese. If we do this we might as well charge people for being homosexual or of a specific religion.

 

[Lentern]

But wouldn't the tax be on the end product? So it wouldn't matter what ingredients you choose until it became classed as something else? for example, 'healthier' (if there are some) soft drinks would still be taxed?

John Hewson and Peter Costello showed us just how tricky these kind of taxes would be so I'm not about about to pretend to have something up my sleeve ready to be implemented by the end of the year but essentially there would be a line drawn somewhere regarding what percentage of the product was what ingredients. If the product was below the line it would not be subject to the tax.

 

[BlackDragon]

I think that works, percentages of certain ingredients. But yes, a tax like this would be extremely difficult to implement.

 

[Lentern]

I think that works, percentages of certain ingredients. But yes, a tax like this would be extremely difficult to implement.

Let's not pretend taxation isn't an extremely complex business. What was the last major tax introduced in Australia? The GST, and how did Keating and later Beazley rubbish it? Attacking the complexity of it. Now we have another major tax being developed by the federal government and whose line is Tony Abbott recylcing? Paul Keatings, and that line was about the complexity of the GST.

Really its the large corporations that are churning out cans of soft drink and boxes of chocolate by the ton where the market really gets flooded with junk. For such places it would just be a case of doing the sums once than applying it back at the factories, not overly problematic. It's the local home made sweetshop and the little pizzeria down the street where it would be unthinkably hard to implement and really they aren't doing much damage. Perhaps if retailers were specifically exempt it would work by protecting those sites that make and market the product.

 

[BlackDragon]

It's the local home made sweetshop and the little pizzeria down the street where it would be unthinkably hard to implement and really they aren't doing much damage. Perhaps if retailers were specifically exempt it would work by protecting those sites that make and market the product.

Yep. I didn't think of this. Easy in the supermarkets, incredibly hard for most other people who would be breaking the law if they didn't comply. And then again, if it is done by percentages of ingredients, does that mean each shop would have to be audited or pass some sort of investigation that would test how much these products need to be taxed?

Perhaps if retailers were specifically exempt it would work by protecting those sites that make and market the product.

What do you mean?

 

[Lentern]

Yep. I didn't think of this. Easy in the supermarkets, incredibly hard for most other people who would be breaking the law if they didn't comply. And then again, if it is done by percentages of ingredients, does that mean each shop would have to be audited or pass some sort of investigation that would test how much these products need to be taxed?




What do you mean?

Well I said before if there was to be a tax it should be on the wholesaler or manufacturer as opposed to the retailer but some personal, local business' they are effectively playing the role of retailer as well as manufacturer particularly in the food industry when people pay for the service of the food being cooked. So if the same site made and sold the product they would not pay tax if their was a blanket exemption on retailers.

 

[SylviaB]

but lentern, you would have to substantially change your product, and hence you are being punished for making that (original) product.

and if you wouldn't need to change it very much to avoid the taxes, then the taxes are pretty much useless

 

[moll.]

Wait, so is the original idea an individual levy upon each fat person, or is it upon the stereotypical foods they eat?
Cos the first is impossibly bureaucratic.
The second is a far better idea, but it would result in higher food prices for the healthy stuff too. Granted, proportionately not as much, but still.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Well I said before if there was to be a tax it should be on the wholesaler or manufacturer as opposed to the retailer but some personal, local business' they are effectively playing the role of retailer as well as manufacturer particularly in the food industry when people pay for the service of the food being cooked. So if the same site made and sold the product they would not pay tax if their was a blanket exemption on retailers.

A tax on the wholesalers still hurts small business.

If you tax cheese for instance, the local pizza shop now has to pay more for it and either increase it's price (and thus loose sales) or slash its margins.

 

[BlackDragon]

A tax on the wholesalers still hurts small business.

If you tax cheese for instance, the local pizza shop now has to pay more for it and either increase it's price (and thus loose sales) or slash its margins.

Yeah but all retailers that sold this product would have to put up their prices and because of this it would all be passed on to the consumer. Although, fast food chains and supermarkets would have a greater ability to incorporate these costs and would be selling things cheaper, but they do that anyway really.

 

[Lentern]

but lentern, you would have to substantially change your product, and hence you are being punished for making that (original) product.

and if you wouldn't need to change it very much to avoid the taxes, then the taxes are pretty much useless

Taxation is not punishment.

 

[Lentern]

A tax on the wholesalers still hurts small business.

If you tax cheese for instance, the local pizza shop now has to pay more for it and either increase it's price (and thus loose sales) or slash its margins.

They wouldn't be exempt to save them money, it was because it was unrealistic to expect an old fashioned bakery to know how much sugar and is in each of their home made croissants.

 

[theism]

seriously, being overweight will make you suspectible to a whole plethora of diseases

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Taxation is not punishment.

Without getting into the whole "taxes is theft thing," lets assume taxation is legitimate. Even so, if you are being taxed more than your competitors this will have a punitive effective.

They wouldn't be exempt to save them money, it was because it was unrealistic to expect an old fashioned bakery to know how much sugar and is in each of their home made croissants.

Oh right, how stupid of me to think that you might actually care that people could loose their livelihood.

More importantly, which wholesale goods would you tax and how much. Sugar, cream, milk, oil? Remember all these things can be used as part of health preparations. There are so many unhealthy alternatives that can be substituted, i.e. sugar for high fructose corn syrup, or artificial sweeteners which while not fattening may have other adverse health consequences. If you tax sugar, would diabetics be exempt?

The whole idea seems to be totally impractical in any form.

 

[Lentern]

Without getting into the whole "taxes is theft thing," lets assume taxation is legitimate. Even so, if you are being taxed more than your competitors this will have a punitive effective.

A similar effect to that of a wholesaler charging more for a brand name than a no frills product.

Oh right, how stupid of me to think that you might actually care that people could loose their livelihood.

More importantly, which wholesale goods would you tax and how much. Sugar, cream, milk, oil? Remember all these things can be used in healthy ways.

Now look taxation is always going to complex, I'm not about to try to write out a workable policy ready for implementation in my spare time. There will be lines drawn at points and sadly it will seem arbitrary and unfair in regards to those products which just narrowly fall on one side of the line by a hairsbreadth. I am not a nutritionist nor an economist both of whom would be infinitely more able to develop answers to those kind of questions.

With that being said like in the GST there would probably be different rules for rawer foods as opposed to processed ones. They are not going to save the world taxing raw sugar and milk. The real target is the cans of soft drinks, tins of biscuits, bags of chips, slabs of beer, boxes of chocolates and packets of pies.

 

[SylviaB]

Taxation is not punishment.

well it fundamentally is, but even in this context, you're having to pay more because you make a certain type of product, while people who make other products don't. This means either less profit or less business (which leads to less profit), so yeah, I'd say it's punishment.

so yeah, this is obviously immoral, but do you not also see the broader consequences of this sort of policy?

"LOL lets tax ppl who make unhealthy food so that ppl get less fat" "lol kk"

meanwhile, economy hurt, small businesses close, jobs are lost, increased welfare expenditure

 

[Lentern]

well it fundamentally is, but even in this context, you're having to pay more because you make a certain type of product, while people who make other products don't. This means either less profit or less business (which leads to less profit), so yeah, I'd say it's punishment.

so yeah, this is obviously immoral, but do you not also see the broader consequences of this sort of policy?

"LOL lets tax ppl who make unhealthy food so that ppl get less fat" "lol kk"

meanwhile, economy hurt, small businesses close, jobs are lost, increased welfare expenditure

Lies make baby Jesus cry.