Minimum Pricing on Fast Food?

matthew8

eeguy wrote: »

The entire government budget of near every western country is designed to penalise and insentivise grown adults.

Doesn't matter what you do. Think of VRT, motor tax, sugar tax, home improvement grants, tax exemptions etc etc etc, they're all to encourage certain behaviour and dissuade other behaviour.

It's what economics is based on. Not realising this is idiotic and blind to what makes the world go round.
Education is near useless. You can't teach someone to do something they don't want to do.

Everyone accepts that the government incentivises certain behaviour, and most would agree that at least some incentives make sense (I don't have a problem with incentivising environmentally friendly behaviour for instance). What people have a problem is when they use incentives to protect people from themselves. If someone has an unhealthy lifestyle that's their problem and nobody else's. I don't see why the government has to intervene.

eeguy

matthew8 wrote: »

Everyone accepts that the government incentivises certain behaviour, and most would agree that at least some incentives make sense (I don't have a problem with incentivising environmentally friendly behaviour for instance). What people have a problem is when they use incentives to protect people from themselves. If someone has an unhealthy lifestyle that's their problem and nobody else's. I don't see why the government has to intervene.

Again, most government incentives are designed to do just that. The government doesn't want a sick population. So we get vaccinated, medical cards, free trips to the dentist and fluoride in the water. Millions are put into GAA and other sports to encourage fitness.

Drugs are largely banned, smoking and alcohol are heavily taxed and advertisement is limited and sale of alcohol is limited to certain hours. We now have a sugar tax on drinks. There's hugely complex VAT rules for food. Most of the bad stuff is at 23%, while necessities and goof stuff is much lower.
Having a higher rate of tax on high calorie food isn't a huge leap from where we are now. You can complain about the nanny state, but most of this stuff is already in existence and either you're unaware or just used to it.

matthew8

eeguy wrote: »

Again, most government incentives are designed to do just that. The government doesn't want a sick population. So we get vaccinated, medical cards, free trips to the dentist and fluoride in the water. Millions is put into GAA and other sports to encourage fitness.

Drugs are largely banned, smoking and alcohol are heavily taxed and advertisement is limited and sale of alcohol is limited to certain hours. We now have a sugar tax on drinks. There's hugely complex VAT rules for food. Most of the bad stuff is at 23%, while necessities and goof stuff is much lower.
Having a higher rate of tax on high calorie food isn't a huge leap from where we are now.

Everyone you're arguing against can see the government already engages in nanny state behaviour, we just don't like it. I don't want drugs banned and I don't want smoking, fizzy drinks and alcohol heavily taxed (not as a means of changing behaviour anyway, if they feel it's an effective way to raise money that's another matter).

eeguy

matthew8 wrote: »

Everyone you're arguing against can see the government already engages in nanny state behaviour, we just don't like it. I don't want drugs banned and I don't want smoking, fizzy drinks and alcohol heavily taxed (not as a means of changing behaviour anyway, if they feel it's an effective way to raise money that's another matter).

Well that's tough unfortunately. The countries who don't limit the indulges of their citizens are usually the countries which have huge inequality and social problems because of it.

Kirby

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Any takeaway food should be subject to a calory count. Have bands 0-100, 101-200 etc with a 25% price hike for every band above the first.

Example

WHOPPER® Sandwich with Cheese w/o Mayo - fat calories 220
WHOPPER® Sandwich with Cheese with Mayo - fat calories 380

Harry Palmr wrote: »

I'm no vegan or veggie I love meat but I'm not a fool about the way people have become slothful dribbling wallowing fatburgs in the last 20 years (when TV does a report about obesity they always make sure not to show faces, that's not true if the pictures relate to specific healthy people which also tells me something).

Harry Palmr wrote: »

What's wrong with penalising fat intake - have you seen the state of the population?

Because you have no right to tell people how to live their lives.

No wait, I've come around to your way of thinking. I've decided that all football related products and activities should be subject to a 25% tax. Why? Clearly its a waste of time that could be better spent helping humanity. Oh, you are a football fan? Oh well. I'm just going to tell you why you are wrong for being one and charging you an arbitrary tax.

I hear you also like a flutter. Gambling is very bad for you. tut tut. I'm going to have to add a penalty tax I'm afraid as you are contributing to this awful vice that is gambling. Whats that you say? Personal responsibility? You can gamble if you want? No No. Sorry. I have decided that it disgusts me to see you waste your money on this pastime.

I've also decided that people from Waterford should have to pay me a tribute tax for the crime of being from Waterford. Oh....you live there Harry? Jeez sorry bout that. I'll make sure you can pay me in installments.

Don't worry Harry. I'm doing this for your own good.

MadDog76

eeguy wrote: »

The entire government budget of near every western country is designed to penalise and insentivise grown adults.

Doesn't matter what you do. Think of VRT, motor tax, sugar tax, home improvement grants, tax exemptions etc etc etc, they're all to encourage certain behaviour and dissuade other behaviour.

It's what economics is based on. Not realising this is idiotic and blind to what makes the world go round.
Education is near useless. You can't teach someone to do something they don't want to do.

If you'd posted something new there or something we all didn't already know then I could reply ......... but you didn't. :cool:

bilbot79

I think fast food should be taxed to bejaysus, this would definitely make it easier for me to avoid it.

wakka12

And if this is for health reasons then will fancy restaurants selling burgers and chips on their menu, as many nice restaurants do, be taxed too?

bilbot79

Kirby wrote: »

Because you have no right to tell people how to live their lives.

Said people have no right to cause burden on the health service. No Innocents here.

The nanny state is the lesser of two evils

PARlance

bilbot79 wrote: »

Said people have no right to cause burden on the health service. No Innocents here.

The nanny state is the lesser of two evils

People need to be told what to do. We're getting fatter and have a major issue with obesity. Cheap fast food is a major cause of that. I would look forward to such a tax. I am an ex-smoker thanks to relentless taxation on tobacco and I'm glad I was "told" what to do.

The tax should go towards helping pay for the strain on the Health System but it would also be great if they did something progressive. Giving each child in the State a X hundred € credit p.a to use on sports & leisure activities.

con___manx1

Doubt that will happen with fast food. The min alco policy might not go through if theres an election ðŸ˜႒

ncmc

It wouldn’t work because it’s impossible to police. Why only fast food? What about nice restaurants where even a meal that looks healthy on first sight is full of butter, cream and oil? Why stop at restaurants? What about your shopping, nuts, coconut oil, avocados, cheese, butter etc are all very high in calories but are good for you in small amounts. Taxing high calorie food is just too unsubtle to work, it’s using a sledge hammer to crack a nut.

Education is key. So many people are caught up with calories and don’t understand the role of healthy fats in moderation. Or don’t understand that low fat versions of food can be worse for you than the full fat version. Look at our schools, an hour of PE a week is just not enough plus some schools are nearly afraid to let kids run in the playground in case they fall and have a lawsuit on their hands. Not to mention said kids been driven to and from school and parents being home too late/being too tired to bring them out for exercise.

It’s a complex problem and there’s no easy fix. Taxing fast food is just that - an easy fix that won’t work in the long term. Education, more exercise starting from a young age, cooking lessons and nutrition as a stand-alone subject in school etc is the way to go.

Steve F

I'd bet money on it if you worked in a fast food factory or outlet for a few weeks...you'd never eat fa(s)t food again

suicide_circus

PARlance wrote: »

People need to be told what to do.

Speak for yourself.
No gods, no masters.

archer22

Seeing as how the nanny state wants to keep people alive for ever, why don't they just hit coffins and headstones with a massive tax for users that were under 100

PARlance

suicide_circus wrote: »

Speak for yourself.
No gods, no masters.

At least the no gods part is believable.

ncmc

Steve F wrote: »

I'd bet money on it if you worked in a fast food factory or outlet for a few weeks...you'd never eat fa(s)t food again

I worked in McD’s when I was a student. Never saw anything to turn me off eating there. I’ll wager that the larger fast food joints have more stringent hygiene protocols than a one off restaurant. On the other hand I worked in a chicken factory for a summer when I was young. It would curl your toes to see the carry on that went on there. As that’s your so called healthy chicken fillets. I think if you know too much about any food production, you’d never eat anything you hadn’t grown yourself!

AlanG

Pretty sure when Jamie Oliver was making a song and dance about fast food and school lunches and trying to get them banned it was pointed out that most of the food in his restaurants and cook book have more fat and salt than a burger and chips.
This is just a case of trying to dictate to certain social classes.
It's like the way fast food joints are not allowed open close to some schools but it fine for the local guarage or spar to sell wedges an chicken goujons.
There was talk about a fat tax previously but then they realised cheese would have to be covered and the government ran a mile from it as almost no one wants to admit cheese is one of the fattiest foods available.

All My Stars Aligned

There are numerous studies (one linked below) that indicate that minimum pricing of alcohol reduces consumption. Given these finding is it not reasonable to assume that increasing prices on fast foods and sugar would not have the same results?

http://findings.org.uk/PHP/dl.php?file=Stockwell_T_12.txt

Obesity is a huge problem (no pun intended) and it will be the tax payer that will untimely pay the price for this. I take responsibility for my own health but it seems that I am not in the majority in doing so. Personally I couldn't care less if people want to eat them selves towards greater health problems but I don't want my tax's to be used to pay for their bad decisions.

I would love to see minimum pricing on junk food introduced in tandem with reduced pricing on healthy options thus providing a financial incentive for people to address their eating habits. Education is also need, especially among lower income households.

ncmc

Inverno Pronto wrote: »

Real butter and cream is very good for people, unless. Our grass fed better is up there with the most nutritous foods you can eat. So many food myths need to be dispelled.

Grains, sugars, vegetable oils and trans fats are the real problem.

That’s actually the point I was making though, the OP is talking about a tax on calories, but not all calories are created equal. And many so called ‘low fat’ options are far worse for us than their full fat counterparts. That’s were the education comes in. Teaching people that calorie controlled diets aren’t the way to go, teaching about healthy fats versus unhealthy fats. The tax the OP is suggesting would do nothing to educate people.

Hector Savage

tomwaterford wrote: »

Suprised this got so negative response


Why Is taxing unhealthy food any different to taxing smoking,

Big difference with smoking is the issue with passive smoking, thats what the smoking ban was essentially for.