Should being fat result in having to pay more taxes?

[druenos]

Being fat costs the state more, therefore it is only fair that you have to pay more taxes.

Then the same should go for smokers, drinkers, people who do extreme sports etc

[Machismo]

I'll bite.

Two questions.

1) Please tell me, to the exact calorie, with referenced source material, how many calories I should have per day. I'm 36, 6'5" (195.5 cm), 300 lbs. (136 kg) I play sports 3 times a week, and go tot he gym 3 days a week.

2) Since so many people seem fixated on "choice", should that apply to everything in life? People who get hurt playing sports should pay more, because it was their "choice" to play. People who get into car accidents should pay more because it was their "choice" to drive. You could go on and on with examples. Where do you draw the line?

You do realize that caloric intake requirements are different for each person, right? Just because someone does not have an exact calorie total, does not mean that you cannot lose weight (assuming you want to lose weight). You could simply be very muscular, and not have a high BMI. If you are fat, and do not wish to remain fat, cut your calories, or burn more of them.

If it were up to me, everything would be about "choice," which would mean that people should be responsible for their own lives, including health care.

[schwarzkopf]

How can you only afford to walk outside (or even in your own room) three times a week?

Ok - I can't go for walks, I have to exercise differently... however that isn't the core issue because if I was able to be healthier, then I could then go for walks with assistance as well.

The core issue is mental disability/disorder ... which makes my existence very complicated. Well - it doesn't in some ways as I spend lots of time staring at the wall or asleep.

[Independent voter]

I think this paying more taxes is a European thing with your free health care and all. I mean you pay a lot in taxes for your "free" health care.

[Granyala]

No it should happen directly, otherwise others are effected.

That is the POINT.
Deter overly excessive sugar consumption BEFORE people get fat.

Much better approach for everyone (minus the sugar industry) in the long run.

We should look at sugar as the "unhealthy indulgence" it is and treat it accordingly.

[Spectral]

People sure are proposing a lot of stupid, totalitarian schemes out of what mostly just seems like spite.

[Machismo]

See, that is what I mean. I never said you should cheer obese people on. But just not berating them or ostracizing them is already enough.

Telling them that it is a choice is not berating them. Telling them that the way to lose weight is to exercise more and/or eat less calories, is not berating them. Saying that people choose to be obese, is not berating them. All I'm hearing, is a million and one excuses why they cannot do something...

[Ilir]

Now this will be interesting....

All the fat people I know over a long period of time used to be much thinner and they all have "interesting" eating habbits. Or are you saying they have a compulsory disorder of stuffing their face with food that increases their weight? As in: "Obesity is a mental illness"?

Saying that all fat people are fat by choice is dumb.
Saying that all fat people aren't fat by choice is dumb.

Trying to overcome obesity is intelligent.
Insulting/discouraging someone who's fat is dumb.
Trying to support/minding your own business is intelligent.

(And yes, if a fat person takes 2 seat on a plane he or she should pay for both seats)

Also you logic is flawed : if someone got fat because of any kind of mental disorder/illness/distress ... doesn't make their obesity a mental disorder. It just makes it a consequence (forgot the actual term).

[schwarzkopf]

If it were up to me, everything would be about "choice," which would mean that people should be responsible for their own lives, including health care.

In a computer generated world - this would be fine.

However 'choice' in this world is rarely really choice. For a normal person - choice is a small part of the end result.

What should happen is a dual approach - HELP those who WANT help, and TAX those who DO NOT.

Lumping everyone into a one bucket is just wrong, may as well say all blacks are bad because a black guy robbed my house.

[chipwood]

For future reference

!=

or

=/=

is "not equal to". I've never seen a S.T.E.M. textbook ever use less than/greater than symbol for "equal too".

There are quite a few computer languages - mostly older ones - that use <> ("less than or greater than") for "not equal". A lot of the reason for that is that the not symbol (^) varies greatly among code pages. Using ! instead of ^ is a relatively recent standard (late 80's on).

[Deleted]

That is the POINT.
Deter overly excessive sugar consumption BEFORE people get fat.

Much better approach for everyone (minus the sugar industry) in the long run.

We should look at sugar as the "unhealthy indulgence" it is and treat it accordingly.

There are quite alot of people who can eat lots of sugar products without gaining weight. Maybe tax fat meat products instead.

[Deleted]

Brilliant. And seeing as this is The US, this could singlehandedly pay for universal healthcare and college!

[Machismo]

Ok - I can't go for walks, I have to exercise differently... however that isn't the core issue because if I was able to be healthier, then I could then go for walks with assistance as well.

The core issue is mental disability/disorder ... which makes my existence very complicated. Well - it doesn't in some ways as I spend lots of time staring at the wall or asleep.

So, you are not able to walk?

[schwarzkopf]

Telling them that it is a choice is not berating them

But it is - if it isn't a choice.

Telling a guy falling off a building that all he needs to do is fly - isn't constructive.

People frequently need help, we do it for drugs, we do it for exercise, we do it for alcohol - but we don't do it for diet.

Why - because obesity seems more unpopular than drugs, exercise and alcohol.

- - - Updated - - -

Brilliant. And seeing as this is The US, this could singlehandedly pay for universal healthcare and college!

Savings from Universal healthcare done properly would pay for college all by itself.

- - - Updated - - -

So, you are not able to walk?

The answer isn't that simple. It isn't about ability to walk, it is about the conditions that need to be present for me to do so.

Not just for walking EVERYTHING in my life is impossible unless the right conditions are met.

[Kiri]

Telling them that it is a choice is not berating them. Telling them that the way to lose weight is to exercise more and/or eat less calories, is not berating them. Saying that people choose to be obese, is not berating them. All I'm hearing, is a million and one excuses why they cannot do something...

Saying that they have low willpower is berating them. Saying that they could 'just' eat less is berating them. No one says it is impossible. It does take a lot of effort though.
And that effort is not helped by a tax only on obese people. That will just mean that they can afford less healthy food, as that tends to be more expensive...
I don't mind sugar taxes in general though.

[Dug]

Science calls bullshit on your answer.

http://time.com/14407/the-hidden-dangers-of-skinny-fat/

Also:
http://www.shapefit.com/health/metabolic-rate-myth.html

TDLR, some people can win/lose the genetic lottery and have a way easier / harder time maintaining what is considered a "healthy" weight. And even if they do, they still might not be heaithy.

You're entirely right and in no way was I trying to imply skinny = healthy automatically I just mean when looking at weight skinny people obviously eat less than fat people. There's no way a skinny person can eat the same amount as a fat person and actually stay skinny bar some really weird medical conditions or constantly burning a lot off through exercise.

[rosebull]

Fat people arent fat by choice. Why punish them when they likely are already suffering? Should people with asthma or type 1 diabetes also pay more taxes?

Increasing taxes on shitty foods or making it less obtainable seems more reasonable.

Literally like 1% of fat people "aren't fat by choice" I am insanely tired of hearing this. You are almost always ( 99% of the time ) fat because of your lifestyle and eating habits. I dont know how many times people tell me this, get off your couch.

You could just wear ankle weights like 4 days in the week for a year and probably lose a good 50+ pounds, thats not even accounting for actually working out and eating good food.

[Krastyn]

You do realize that caloric intake requirements are different for each person, right? Just because someone does not have an exact calorie total, does not mean that you cannot lose weight (assuming you want to lose weight). You could simply be very muscular, and not have a high BMI. If you are fat, and do not wish to remain fat, cut your calories, or burn more of them.

If it were up to me, everything would be about "choice," which would mean that people should be responsible for their own lives, including health care.

But you're saying it's just a simple choice of eating less than you burn. In order to do that, you need to know how much you're burning and how much you're taking in. Since you imply it's so simple, tell me how many I burn a day. By your statement, if I need 3000 calories a day, I could eat 2900 calories of sugar before I go to sleep at night, and that's a good way of doing things.

Are you concerned about weight, or health? Because all your talk so far focuses on the former, which may not affect the latter.

[Machismo]

But it is - if it isn't a choice.

Telling a guy falling off a building that all he needs to do is fly - isn't constructive.

People frequently need help, we do it for drugs, we do it for exercise, we do it for alcohol - but we don't do it for diet.

Why - because obesity seems more unpopular than drugs, exercise and alcohol.

There's plenty of help for dieting, a multi-billion dollar industry is built on it. You can get plenty of free help via Youtube.

Unless you can show me that there is no possible way for you to eat less calories, and no possible way for you to get more exercise, you are still making a choice. So far, I have not seen that from you. I have seen a lot of excuses, but nothing that shows why you actually cannot do it. Mind you, I have watched guys with no legs recover and lead productive lives, so it better be a pretty damn good excuse.

[schwarzkopf]

I don't mind sugar taxes in general though.

Put those taxes into subsiding healthy options ... now that would be useful too.

- - - Updated - - -

There's plenty of help for dieting,

Nope - there is just plenty of books and videos and online food companies, very little to no help for ACTUALLY dieting is available.

I'm talking about the diet equivalent of a gym.