This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- how many people here smoke?
- Labour plans to add 20% VAT to Private School fees.
- Breaking up with someone I live with
- Tax code question
- Starting a small business age 17?
- Working 50 hours and wondering if its worth it?
- Whats the rules on importing stuff from the EU now and China or America?
- Cost of living in london
- Will I start getting taxed more once I’ve paid my season ticket loan?
- Graduate Role - Recruitment or Personal Tax ADVICE PLEASE
- UK Medical School Debt is about £184.5k over 30 years
- Is paying back maintenance loan same whether you get loan based on household...
- 2024 Budget: Chancellor Jeremy Hunt under pressure to cut taxes
- Was my employer over taxing me?? Please help
- Tax
- CTA exam distance learning
- How much should I pay for tax?
- gcse english lang paper 2 question 5
- Paye tax
- Court summons
Should obese people pay extra tax
Scroll to see replies
mart1203
In 99% of cases, yes obesity is the choice of the individual. 1% yeah fair enough are genetically predisposed with bad genes/low metabolism. Too many use excuses for their obesity. Sounds like you need to research Amber.
Sweden (or is it Finland) have it best, they get financial incentives for exercising and staying fit, and not smoking.
Sweden (or is it Finland) have it best, they get financial incentives for exercising and staying fit, and not smoking.
I don't even think genes and metabolism are to blame, the main excuses are thyroid problems and that it's a mental illness.
AmberH
PS apagg, how about you research first, type second. Obesity is always the choice of the individual? Oh dear me, research research research, my love.
Generally, if you're fat, it's because you eat too much and/or exercise too little. Even when it comes to disorders, people can usually make choices which control their body fat. The only exception being a particular disorder in which the sufferer is compelled to eat constantly and never feels full. (Which accounts for 2% of obese people in the UK - I knew that 2% thing came from somewhere)
Let me call this a proposal of Harsh Regulation, as opposed to one of Soft Regulation (e.g. government trying to get more people to the gym, inform about obesity, etc.).
Harsh Regulation has its benefits in certain conditions. When a trend that is seen as negative by the governing/educated/majority of the population is not Harshly Regulated, it might have the snowball effect that because more and more people will start to be affected by the trend, it will reach a point when the general view of the people on the trend is no longer negative.
But Harsh Regulation is HARD to pass, since when there is a need for Harsh Regulation, it means the effect of that which must be regulated has already reached such a level that there is much opposition against it. Add to that the groups of anti-regulation people, anti-racists and other fundamentalists who will condemn any or certain types of Harsh Regulation anyway.
So if we want such a tax to be accepted, we probably need to keep things fair. This implies introducing Harsh Regulation in other situations, for other trends, to disadvantage other people as well. This would actually create a sort of a Utopia from a certain perspective, the evolutionary. Since the strongest will be least disadvantaged and the weakest the most, only the strongest will survive (hopefully
). But apart from the highly probable fact that such a society wouldn't exists outside the virtual world, if there would exist a society in which everything was Harshly regulated, it would mean that in order to let it function well, power cannot be distributed evenly between the strong and the weak, and the power difference will be tremendous. Only the group that feels least disadvantaged (clearly much less than 50% of the population, since those on the edge will feel insecure and join the bottom group) will embrace such a society. The rest of the population, the very large group, will long have destroyed the society if they had just a little too much power.
But such a society would be very close to an absolute dictatorship, and thus one may question whether there will be enough mobility and meritocracy in such a society so that it can be sustained.
Oh, I am now talking ****** I guess
. I mean, stealing a few cents from the pockets of fat people is not really comparable to comparing two things that are not really comparable, is it 
? I guess I tend to think in extremes too much :s.
So... my conclusion is that it is an excellent idea that will only work in a society that doesn't work (unless we find some genius way to fix the problem
).
Harsh Regulation has its benefits in certain conditions. When a trend that is seen as negative by the governing/educated/majority of the population is not Harshly Regulated, it might have the snowball effect that because more and more people will start to be affected by the trend, it will reach a point when the general view of the people on the trend is no longer negative.
But Harsh Regulation is HARD to pass, since when there is a need for Harsh Regulation, it means the effect of that which must be regulated has already reached such a level that there is much opposition against it. Add to that the groups of anti-regulation people, anti-racists and other fundamentalists who will condemn any or certain types of Harsh Regulation anyway.
So if we want such a tax to be accepted, we probably need to keep things fair. This implies introducing Harsh Regulation in other situations, for other trends, to disadvantage other people as well. This would actually create a sort of a Utopia from a certain perspective, the evolutionary. Since the strongest will be least disadvantaged and the weakest the most, only the strongest will survive (hopefully
). But apart from the highly probable fact that such a society wouldn't exists outside the virtual world, if there would exist a society in which everything was Harshly regulated, it would mean that in order to let it function well, power cannot be distributed evenly between the strong and the weak, and the power difference will be tremendous. Only the group that feels least disadvantaged (clearly much less than 50% of the population, since those on the edge will feel insecure and join the bottom group) will embrace such a society. The rest of the population, the very large group, will long have destroyed the society if they had just a little too much power.But such a society would be very close to an absolute dictatorship, and thus one may question whether there will be enough mobility and meritocracy in such a society so that it can be sustained.
Oh, I am now talking ****** I guess
. I mean, stealing a few cents from the pockets of fat people is not really comparable to comparing two things that are not really comparable, is it ? I guess I tend to think in extremes too much :s.So... my conclusion is that it is an excellent idea that will only work in a society that doesn't work (unless we find some genius way to fix the problem
).
lol_nl
Heaven forfend people don't have to live according to the dictates of an elite plutocracy! Jesus wept...
Related discussions
- how many people here smoke?
- Labour plans to add 20% VAT to Private School fees.
- Breaking up with someone I live with
- Tax code question
- Starting a small business age 17?
- Working 50 hours and wondering if its worth it?
- Whats the rules on importing stuff from the EU now and China or America?
- Cost of living in london
- Will I start getting taxed more once I’ve paid my season ticket loan?
- Graduate Role - Recruitment or Personal Tax ADVICE PLEASE
- UK Medical School Debt is about £184.5k over 30 years
- Is paying back maintenance loan same whether you get loan based on household...
- 2024 Budget: Chancellor Jeremy Hunt under pressure to cut taxes
- Was my employer over taxing me?? Please help
- Tax
- CTA exam distance learning
- How much should I pay for tax?
- gcse english lang paper 2 question 5
- Paye tax
- Court summons
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
