lold

I actually kind of agree that high fat foods should be highly taxed and healthy foods be subsidised.

sif fat food = fat people, only complete morons still think that's true.

I didn't say otherwise.

The issue is healthy foods tend to be more expensive. Tax the unhealthy ones and subsidise the healthy stuff.

what's "healthy" food anyway? people are simply too uneducated when it comes to food and proper diets.

going into one of those flashy "bio" supermarkets drives me insane... everyone thinking this will magically fix our lifestyles without actually changing what we eat...

Most healthy food is tax free - sorry but your argument is mute.

In the UK? I've never heard of that myself.

Regardless to whether It's true or not, the reasons you mentioned in your below post's are still valid.

Yeah check your receipt next time you go shopping for groceries - it's been that way for yeeeeeeeeeeeears.

eat less shit more, always worked.

agree

There is however a good argument to be made.

Society already deems it acceptable to tax risk. We do this through applying additional duty to fuel, alcohol and tobacco to name a few.

Each of these activities constitutes an increased risk of either developing personal illness, negatively impacting local society or harming global climate. Each of these activities creates a negative externality that creates a net burden on the government coffers - through drinking the harm to health and increased policing plus the impact of broken families, through smoking an increased risk of cancer and many other health defects and driving through global warming and localised pollution.

As such government has deemed it necessary to tax these risks in order to be reduce the prevalence of these actions and also to reactively deal with the externalities caused through raising revenue to deal with the consequences.

Given this - is there any logical argument to be made against the taxation of fatty foods in order to reduce the use of fatty foods and consequently the increased burden on health services and the increased propensity of family genetics and / or learned behaviors?

It’s also worth noting that each of these actions only constitutes an increased risk (yes the risk is high in certain circumstances) – there is however no guarantee that performing X action leads to Z illness, just an increased risk that it will.

And if you don't accept the premise of the logic, do you also oppose the morality of taxing the risks of previously aforementioned actions?

I believe in consistency of logic. If it’s morally acceptable for the state to impose on personal freedom in certain circumstances due to the increased risk of developing illness it should also be acceptable to tax other unnecessary risks to decrease the impact on society.

I would be in full support of a McDonalds or chocolate tax.

you could take of the red glasses and
make a society where the individual take the risk (where its possible), aka eliminate the nanny state. If ppl want to kill themselves its up to them just as long as they take the consequence and cost.

I'm not in disagreement with the logic - I do however like the NHS & the ideology of free at the point of service. That doesn't necessitate the need to tax risk. In doing so we're effectively creating a privatised system in that those with the highest risk are paying the most (with the exception of the elderly).

Think you'd be hard pressed to find support for that idea :p

maybe some people simply don't know any better. i've seen loads of programs where mothers are feeding kids TV dinners and processed garbage and they seem to be completely unaware of the effects - they like it just because it's quick and easy. But healthy, home-made food can be quick and easy too, so WTF?
for example: get chicken --> put in oven --> serve after ~1hr
vs
(processed) chicken nuggets (made from bones and sinew of chickens, sterilised with ammonia) --> remove from packet --> put in oven --> serve after 20 mins - which one do you think would taste better and be healthier?

So i'm just hoping that people are simply unaware of how easy cooking is :x

we all know that reality TV is true way to gather knowledge. ;P
but really a government should only be considered with the basics of; education, physical safety of the citizens, infrastructure, making sure that the free-market is free.
The rest should the sleazeballs from EU / government just keep their filthy hands off.

wall of textshit.

I call godwins.

Win!

i read that chocolate is actually good for you :) (ok, the dark, bitter stuff that hardly anyone likes.. but still!)

I would also vote "yes" for tax on fast food and deep-fried stuff. I love it, but it really shits me that it's cheaper and faster to get a kebab than to cook something simple and healthy like coq au vin. since i'm a poor student now, i would be more motivated to cook every day if fast food wasn't so cheap -.-;

on second thoughts... i'd be happy to pay a tax that went to a science research budget.... not to fund wars :(

Win!