Govt cash incentives

tebbit

Frank,

You are looking at this issue from the wrong angle perhaps by encouraging the lower orders to smoke more, eat unhealthily and generally have a poor lifestyle which results in an early death, it is a form of culling, using "lifestyle choices" as the means of reducing the size of the underclass. Deficit reduction by getting the long term unemployed to eat, drink and smoke themselves into an early grave.

Chip \'oyler

The problem is that in one hand NICE always seem to be refusing drug treatment to very sick people on the grounds of cost - then on the other offer to pay salad dodgers incentives.

I know that's a very basic argument, but you can see where the anger comes from about the proposal

verylonglegs

Frank the tank wrote:

Ollieda wrote:

Why not have a fat tax / smokers tax - ladies and gentlemen, I bring you the carrot and the stick argument!

I think you'll find smokers pay a fortune in extra tax, it's on each packet they buy.

As for fat taxperhaps we should all have a annual medical and people who are deemed to be dangerously over or under weight pay a levy.

None of the smokers I know smoke products bought in the UK with duty paid. They all have access to a supply of imported duty free products one way or another.

Frank the tank

verylonglegs wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Ollieda wrote:

Why not have a fat tax / smokers tax - ladies and gentlemen, I bring you the carrot and the stick argument!

I think you'll find smokers pay a fortune in extra tax, it's on each packet they buy.

As for fat taxperhaps we should all have a annual medical and people who are deemed to be dangerously over or under weight pay a levy.

None of the smokers I know smoke products bought in the UK with duty paid. They all have access to a supply of imported duty free products one way or another.

Well, they can bu99er off abroad for their medical treatment.

MattC59

Surely this is easy............

If you smoke or eat sufficiently to damage your health, then this is catered (possibly the wrong word for the overweight) for and dealt with on the NHS.
You are then given a program to stop smoking or lose weight.
If you then have to go back to hospital with the same complaint, or a related complaint, then you have to pay for the treatment.

Surely if you eat/smoke too much, have a costly operation, then continue to eat/smoke too much and have the same health issues, then you should pay for the treatment yourself. You've chosen to eat/smoke too much, been treated and then chosen to continue to eat/smoke to much. You still have the choice, but abusing that power to choose, and the subsequent medical support, should result in the NHS withdrawing treatment for related issues.

A prime example of this is surely George Best. How many livers did he have ? Three I think !! After the first, he should have been refused a second, because he continued to abuse his liver against Doctor's advice. Somebody didn't get a liver transplant because George Best had his first, promptly wrecked the donated liver, then went back for a second !!

OK, I'll now get my tin hat and dig in, I suspect that won't go down too well with some

Stewie Griffin

Don't think Best had two transplants.

MattC59

Stewie Griffin wrote:

Don't think Best had two transplants.

Did he not ? I was sure he did, but I'll stand corrected.
Either way, he still wasted a good liver and then needed medical care due to continued alcohol abuse. (Yeah, I know, he'll have paid for this himself).

shouldbeinbed

rake wrote:

Keith47 wrote:

but we all choose our own lifestyle

its a ridiculous idea to be paying smokers and fat people. agreed.
i dispute that we all choose our own lifestyle. not everyone can afford gym membership, bikes, sports activities, healthy food etc

agree to a point but you fail to mention the rather less expensive forms of getting fit - primarily using your legs to get you from one place to another, theres 3 settings

slow = walking
moderate = jogging
quick = running

& its not true that you NEED a £130 pair of trainers and £70 body sculpting clothing to do it.

you can also use stairs or the front step of the house for step up's, your own body weight and a few square feet of floor space for press up's, abdo curls, sit ups etc.

all free and all work

healthy eating helps of course, maybe it would be better to add tax to unhealthy foodstuffs at a punitive rate. Then I'd zero the VAT on fruit & veg & healthy food and pay a subsidy to the retailers; if they agree to sell at break even or loss leading prices; based on proven sales, rather than gving payment in kind/vuchers to the people.

then reward the ones that are proving commitment to chosing to change their lifestyles by losing X % of body weight/fat by providing subsidised Gym membership to help them embed their good practice and changed attitudes.

put GB155 up as an example to others that you can do it, it's not genetic (mostly) and you're not so fat that it's guaranteed to kill you by just thinking about exercise and celery. (soz Gaz, flippant but you know what I mean)

Oh and douse smokers in petrol at 6am every morning and let them decide of they want to spark up or not after that. (joke -just)

PedalPedant

rjeffroy wrote:

But if paying someone £100 to lose weight saves the NHS £500.....

It won't though. Even if you are fit and healthy you are still going to die and there is no reason to assume that your terminal disease is going to be cheap for the NHS

Also got to consider the costs on our creaking pension system of increased longevity.

There are a lot of good reasons to encourage people to live healthily but saving money is not one of them.

+1, Anyone whose lifestyle kills them prematurely can only be saving the NHS and society money in the long run. The cost of slowly dying of dementia over several years in a care home must be enormous.

I don't really understand the logic of paying someone to look after themself only *after* they've neglected themselves first. Surely encouraging people to not get fat / start smoking in the first place is a far better approach.

PP

Keith47

The argument about not being able to afford gym memberships or new bikes doesn't wash with me either I'm afraid. I am in full time employment but on a relatively low wage, with very little "disposable income" (god I hate that expression!), and it took me over two years to save £500 for my bike, but if you want something badly enough you can get it. My wife and I regularly go for long walks as a form of exercise and it's very easy to create a home gym for very little cost. It's all about personal values, what each individual considers important, and society as a whole has most definitely lost it's way.
Sermon over :roll:

Headhuunter

A while ago there was talk of making things like gym membership VAT free, that would allow everyone joining a gym to benefit making it fairer. I pay £400+ per year for my gym membership and along with cycling it keeps me very fit, why shouldn't I get some kind of financial reward for having kept myself in tip top condition and not cost the NHS anything (whilst paying an enormous amount in NI) whereas someone who has been referred to the gym on discounted membership for being obese, having already cost the taxpayer a few grand benefit from a cheap deal? It's a bit like paying criminals not to commit crime/stay out of jail. Whilst I can see that they're trying to use the carrot rather than the stick in this case, perhaps a bit of stick would be helpful. What about raising VAT and tax on foods with high fat content (just as tobacco and alcohol are taxed highly) to offset the money lost in VAT on gym membership?

Smokin Joe

Keith47 wrote:

The argument about not being able to afford gym memberships or new bikes doesn't wash with me either I'm afraid. I am in full time employment but on a relatively low wage, with very little "disposable income" (god I hate that expression!), and it took me over two years to save £500 for my bike, but if you want something badly enough you can get it.:

Can we please get it into our heads that 90%+ of the population are not non-cyclists because they cannot afford a bike or have forgotten about the pleasures it brings. They don't cycle because they detest cycling, which is why they gave it up as soon as they could afford a car.

You cannot make people exercise or stop smoking, and nor should you. I am a smoker and whatever it may eventually cost the NHS should I succumb to a smoking related illness will have been covered many times over in tobacco tax. And the more fat bastards around the better, it means us slim chaps have more chance with the totty.

Pross

Keith47 wrote:

Just heard on the news that the Govt is considering offering cash incentives to encourage people to give up smoking and for overweight people to adopt healthier lifestyles!! WTF!!? :evil: Why not just threaten to stop their benefits instead, that would save the taxpayer a lot more money.Sorry if that sounds self righteous, but we all choose our own lifestyle, if people choose to smoke and overeat by all means educate them (where possible) but to pay them to change.....?
Is it me or has the world gone mad...............

So are only people on benefits in need of a healthier lifestyle then? Very presumptuous!

Also, it isn't the Government who are considering it, it is NICE who are opening a debate (and the suggestion is that they would pay a subsidy for gym membership or similar for a short time to kick start people rather than handing out cash) on the idea of it but don't let facts get in the way of a rant.

Prevention is better than cure although having said all that and before I start to sound a bit like Rick Chasey I doubt the effectiveness of the idea. It may help in some cases where people really want to start the gym to lose some weight but there are plenty of free exercises people can do if they really want to change.

simonaspinall

Surely fat people should have to carry a spare tyre around their spare tyre?

A bit like Homer Simpson in the Stonecutters episode.

Calorie burning technology based on HRM/activity rates are able to be measured already at about £250 a year including online subscription to upload data and get advice/training.

Give obese people one of these to wear and give them responsibility but empower them with the knowledge. Maybe take a financial deposit to stop them being nicked.

Teaches routine, self-awareness, what works and what doesn't, gives the 'truth' to the doc, cheaper than drugs and less humilating than wipping them with towels in the shower and mocking them with piggy squeals.

Only problem is how to stop them giving it to a fitter friend to wear during treatment

Ollieda

Making the gym cheap might sound like a good idea but the argument that fat people don't go to the gym is balls! Fat people don't go to the gym because they don't want to exercise......whether the membership is £60 a month or £10 a month its still a gym and still something that most will find an excuse not to go to "I'm too tired today" "It's too far away" "I'll go tomorrow" "I'm too busy"

I'm fat and I go to the gym (mainly for swiming) and I very rarely see another fat person there. I've got a few friends who are fat and all of them have gym membership and use the above excuses or similar.

deptfordmarmoset

Headhuunter wrote:

A while ago there was talk of making things like gym membership VAT free, that would allow everyone joining a gym to benefit making it fairer. I pay £400+ per year for my gym membership and along with cycling it keeps me very fit, why shouldn't I get some kind of financial reward for having kept myself in tip top condition and not cost the NHS anything (whilst paying an enormous amount in NI) whereas someone who has been referred to the gym on discounted membership for being obese, having already cost the taxpayer a few grand benefit from a cheap deal? It's a bit like paying criminals not to commit crime/stay out of jail. Whilst I can see that they're trying to use the carrot rather than the stick in this case, perhaps a bit of stick would be helpful. What about raising VAT and tax on foods with high fat content (just as tobacco and alcohol are taxed highly) to offset the money lost[/b] in VAT on gym membership?

Would it be so hard to impose a heavy tax on trans fats, as a starting point? The Cholesterol Charge...?

simonaspinall

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

A while ago there was talk of making things like gym membership VAT free, that would allow everyone joining a gym to benefit making it fairer. I pay £400+ per year for my gym membership and along with cycling it keeps me very fit, why shouldn't I get some kind of financial reward for having kept myself in tip top condition and not cost the NHS anything (whilst paying an enormous amount in NI) whereas someone who has been referred to the gym on discounted membership for being obese, having already cost the taxpayer a few grand benefit from a cheap deal? It's a bit like paying criminals not to commit crime/stay out of jail. Whilst I can see that they're trying to use the carrot rather than the stick in this case, perhaps a bit of stick would be helpful. What about raising VAT and tax on foods with high fat content (just as tobacco and alcohol are taxed highly) to offset the money lost[/b] in VAT on gym membership?

Would it be so hard to impose a heavy tax on trans fats, as a starting point? The Cholesterol Charge...?

Judging by the fact the Andrew Lansley is constantly lobbied by food agencies and that manufacturers will fight tooth and nail to argue their foods are ok (and not intended for binge eating etc)...yes!

Also, even though it is full of mono and poly fats, what about olive oil? Carb loading drinks powders? Cheese? The list could go on...

Only playing devils advocate, but it's not black and white - why do you think the traffic light system was resisted so heavily?

Headhuunter

simonaspinall wrote:

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

A while ago there was talk of making things like gym membership VAT free, that would allow everyone joining a gym to benefit making it fairer. I pay £400+ per year for my gym membership and along with cycling it keeps me very fit, why shouldn't I get some kind of financial reward for having kept myself in tip top condition and not cost the NHS anything (whilst paying an enormous amount in NI) whereas someone who has been referred to the gym on discounted membership for being obese, having already cost the taxpayer a few grand benefit from a cheap deal? It's a bit like paying criminals not to commit crime/stay out of jail. Whilst I can see that they're trying to use the carrot rather than the stick in this case, perhaps a bit of stick would be helpful. What about raising VAT and tax on foods with high fat content (just as tobacco and alcohol are taxed highly) to offset the money lost[/b] in VAT on gym membership?

Would it be so hard to impose a heavy tax on trans fats, as a starting point? The Cholesterol Charge...?

Judging by the fact the Andrew Lansley is constantly lobbied by food agencies and that manufacturers will fight tooth and nail to argue their foods are ok (and not intended for binge eating etc)...yes!

Also, even though it is full of mono and poly fats, what about olive oil? Carb loading drinks powders? Cheese? The list could go on...

Only playing devils advocate, but it's not black and white - why do you think the traffic light system was resisted so heavily?

It would need some fine tuning but we could start with a tax on trans fats as DM suggests. Trans fats have been proved to be even more harmful than sat fats and are now illegal in Denmark! I think one of the major supermarket chians (M&S?) is aiming to eliminate them in the near future. Most processed, ready foods, cakes and chocolates are loaded with trans fats yet they don't feature in olive oil, meats, cheese, energy drinks etc

garryc

No need to give fat people an incentive to get fitter.

Solution 1:
Start taxing big clothes. And if they can't afford the tax make a range of govenment approved tax free bright orange clothing.

Solution 2.
Free burgers. Anyone over a certian weight gets free burgers/pizzas/cola etc. This will hasten the onset of heart disease/diabeties/death. That way they aren't a problem for very long so won't cost the NHS much. The bonus of this scheme is that most of the fatties will be dead before retirement age thus solving the pension crisis as well.


(please note I'm not being entirely serious about this)

simonaspinall

Headhuunter wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

A while ago there was talk of making things like gym membership VAT free, that would allow everyone joining a gym to benefit making it fairer. I pay £400+ per year for my gym membership and along with cycling it keeps me very fit, why shouldn't I get some kind of financial reward for having kept myself in tip top condition and not cost the NHS anything (whilst paying an enormous amount in NI) whereas someone who has been referred to the gym on discounted membership for being obese, having already cost the taxpayer a few grand benefit from a cheap deal? It's a bit like paying criminals not to commit crime/stay out of jail. Whilst I can see that they're trying to use the carrot rather than the stick in this case, perhaps a bit of stick would be helpful. What about raising VAT and tax on foods with high fat content (just as tobacco and alcohol are taxed highly) to offset the money lost[/b] in VAT on gym membership?

Would it be so hard to impose a heavy tax on trans fats, as a starting point? The Cholesterol Charge...?

Judging by the fact the Andrew Lansley is constantly lobbied by food agencies and that manufacturers will fight tooth and nail to argue their foods are ok (and not intended for binge eating etc)...yes!

Also, even though it is full of mono and poly fats, what about olive oil? Carb loading drinks powders? Cheese? The list could go on...

Only playing devils advocate, but it's not black and white - why do you think the traffic light system was resisted so heavily?

It would need some fine tuning but we could start with a tax on trans fats as DM suggests. Trans fats have been proved to be even more harmful than sat fats and are now illegal in Denmark! I think one of the major supermarket chians (M&S?) is aiming to eliminate them in the near future. Most processed, ready foods, cakes and chocolates are loaded with trans fats yet they don't feature in olive oil, meats, cheese, energy drinks etc

It would be difficult - But I think the Tory government won't go for it as they seem to be very unenthusiastic about meddling with regulation and adding taxes to things.

I think being made to wear Piggywiggy masks and being sent to fat boot camp may help.

verylonglegs

Ollieda wrote:

Making the gym cheap might sound like a good idea but the argument that fat people don't go to the gym is balls! Fat people don't go to the gym because they don't want to exercise......whether the membership is £60 a month or £10 a month its still a gym and still something that most will find an excuse not to go to "I'm too tired today" "It's too far away" "I'll go tomorrow" "I'm too busy"

I'm fat and I go to the gym (mainly for swiming) and I very rarely see another fat person there. I've got a few friends who are fat and all of them have gym membership and use the above excuses or similar.

The most sensible post on here. If the threat of being nailed shut in a wooden box prematurely isn't motivating people to change their ways then a few tokens for the gym is pointless. There is a guy where I work who was effectively told 'lose weight or die' by his gp last year, he is obese and was found to have diabetes. He gave it a go and lost a bit a weight over six months but it's now a year later and he is back down the chip shop at lunchtimes again as well as tucking a bacon baguette away at break. He likes eating and hates exercise and it will not change.

Ollieda

Headhuunter wrote:

It would need some fine tuning but we could start with a tax on trans fats as DM suggests. Trans fats have been proved to be even more harmful than sat fats and are now illegal in Denmark! I think one of the major supermarket chians (M&S?) is aiming to eliminate them in the near future. Most processed, ready foods, cakes and chocolates are loaded with trans fats yet they don't feature in olive oil, meats, cheese, energy drinks etc

Yet danish pastries are still legal, along with very cheap mcdonalds (and free mcflurries for those in the forces!)

Headhuunter

Ollieda wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

It would need some fine tuning but we could start with a tax on trans fats as DM suggests. Trans fats have been proved to be even more harmful than sat fats and are now illegal in Denmark! I think one of the major supermarket chians (M&S?) is aiming to eliminate them in the near future. Most processed, ready foods, cakes and chocolates are loaded with trans fats yet they don't feature in olive oil, meats, cheese, energy drinks etc

Yet danish pastries are still legal, along with very cheap mcdonalds (and free mcflurries for those in the forces!)

"Denmark became the first country to introduce laws strictly regulating the sale of many foods containing trans fats in March 2003, a move which effectively bans partially hydrogenated oils. The limit is 2% of fats and oils destined for human consumption. It should be noted that this restriction is on the ingredients rather than the final products. This regulatory approach has made Denmark the only country in which it is possible to eat "far less" than 1 g of industrially produced trans fats on a daily basis, even with a diet including prepared foods.[75] It is hypothesized that the Danish government's efforts to decrease trans fat intake from 6g to 1g per day over 20 years is related to a 50% decrease in deaths from ischemic heart disease."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat#Denmark

They must've removed trans fats fronm the ingredients then....

Headhuunter

verylonglegs wrote:

Ollieda wrote:

Making the gym cheap might sound like a good idea but the argument that fat people don't go to the gym is balls! Fat people don't go to the gym because they don't want to exercise......whether the membership is £60 a month or £10 a month its still a gym and still something that most will find an excuse not to go to "I'm too tired today" "It's too far away" "I'll go tomorrow" "I'm too busy"

I'm fat and I go to the gym (mainly for swiming) and I very rarely see another fat person there. I've got a few friends who are fat and all of them have gym membership and use the above excuses or similar.

The most sensible post on here. If the threat of being nailed shut in a wooden box prematurely isn't motivating people to change their ways then a few tokens for the gym is pointless. There is a guy where I work who was effectively told 'lose weight or die' by his gp last year, he is obese and was found to have diabetes. He gave it a go and lost a bit a weight over six months but it's now a year later and he is back down the chip shop at lunchtimes again as well as tucking a bacon baguette away at break. He likes eating and hates exercise and it will not change.

I don't think this is true. Yes, some people may be a lost cause and perhaps psychiatry rather than gym membership would help but others I believe would genuinely react to being given subsidised gym membership. Not all fat people are motivated in the same way, just as not all thin people are! Some people are moticvated by the stick others by the carrot. You can't write them all off by saying "ah well, if the threat of death by diabetes doesn't motivate them then nothing will!"

MrChuck

Headhuunter wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

Ollieda wrote:

Making the gym cheap might sound like a good idea but the argument that fat people don't go to the gym is balls! Fat people don't go to the gym because they don't want to exercise......whether the membership is £60 a month or £10 a month its still a gym and still something that most will find an excuse not to go to "I'm too tired today" "It's too far away" "I'll go tomorrow" "I'm too busy"

I'm fat and I go to the gym (mainly for swiming) and I very rarely see another fat person there. I've got a few friends who are fat and all of them have gym membership and use the above excuses or similar.

The most sensible post on here. If the threat of being nailed shut in a wooden box prematurely isn't motivating people to change their ways then a few tokens for the gym is pointless. There is a guy where I work who was effectively told 'lose weight or die' by his gp last year, he is obese and was found to have diabetes. He gave it a go and lost a bit a weight over six months but it's now a year later and he is back down the chip shop at lunchtimes again as well as tucking a bacon baguette away at break. He likes eating and hates exercise and it will not change.

I don't think this is true. Yes, some people may be a lost cause and perhaps psychiatry rather than gym membership would help but others I believe would genuinely react to being given subsidised gym membership.

I think this would be a vanishingly small amount of people. The cost of gym memberships (or bikes) is a total red herring IMO. People who don't want to go to the gym wouldn't go even if it was free, and it suggest that you can't get fit without some specialised equipment (including bikes).

Most people would benefit from simply using their legs more and their car less, as well as pushing less food into their faces.

Headhuunter

MrChuck wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

Ollieda wrote:

Making the gym cheap might sound like a good idea but the argument that fat people don't go to the gym is balls! Fat people don't go to the gym because they don't want to exercise......whether the membership is £60 a month or £10 a month its still a gym and still something that most will find an excuse not to go to "I'm too tired today" "It's too far away" "I'll go tomorrow" "I'm too busy"

I'm fat and I go to the gym (mainly for swiming) and I very rarely see another fat person there. I've got a few friends who are fat and all of them have gym membership and use the above excuses or similar.

The most sensible post on here. If the threat of being nailed shut in a wooden box prematurely isn't motivating people to change their ways then a few tokens for the gym is pointless. There is a guy where I work who was effectively told 'lose weight or die' by his gp last year, he is obese and was found to have diabetes. He gave it a go and lost a bit a weight over six months but it's now a year later and he is back down the chip shop at lunchtimes again as well as tucking a bacon baguette away at break. He likes eating and hates exercise and it will not change.

I don't think this is true. Yes, some people may be a lost cause and perhaps psychiatry rather than gym membership would help but others I believe would genuinely react to being given subsidised gym membership.

I think this would be a vanishingly small amount of people. The cost of gym memberships (or bikes) is a total red herring IMO. People who don't want to go to the gym wouldn't go even if it was free, and it suggest that you can't get fit without some specialised equipment (including bikes).

Most people would benefit from simply using their legs more and their car less, as well as pushing less food into their faces.

Yes, I agree that some people could just as easily get fitter with a change of lifestyle, but that takes personal willpower and though and we're dealing with people who have very little willpower or possibly capacity to think. I still that that if you get certain people into a gym and possibly signed up with a trainer who could motivate them, they may find that they enjoy it. I would never have considered joining a gym 10 years ago, I just thought it was full of grunts pushing heavy weights and giving each other high 5s but in 2003 after I'd put a bit of weight on I signed up and haven't looked back since. In 2003 I wasn't earning a lot and I think if someone had offered me a price discount I would've jumped at it even sooner. I find motivation through being with other people who are keeping fit. Same with my cycling and running, I don't mind going out on my own but I much prefer going out with a club. Some people are motivated this way. Others aren't and giving someone a discount on the price might just tempt them to actually enter a gym and give it a go.

spen666

MrChuck,

Aren't you missing something here.

This would be something offered as an incentive, not forced on people.

If you are right and no one takes up this incentive, then the cost to the nation is £0 in extra expense

If people do take it up, then there is a significant saving to the NHS

deptfordmarmoset

If you are right and no one takes up this incentive, then the cost to the nation is £0 in extra expense

If people do take it up, then there is a significant saving to the NHS

Eek! That is exactly what I was about to post.

MrChuck

spen666 wrote:

MrChuck,

Aren't you missing something here.

This would be something offered as an incentive, not forced on people.

If you are right and no one takes up this incentive, then the cost to the nation is £0 in extra expense

If people do take it up, then there is a significant saving to the NHS

Actually I hadn't really thought about how it would be administered, but I don't think it matters- it still presumes that people would be interested in going but don't because of the cost, when I think the reality is that most people don't because they can't be bothered.

To be fair though, I couldn't be bothered either. I used the treadmill in a hotel gym out of necessity last week and found it all really tedious.

Headhuunter

MrChuck wrote:

spen666 wrote:

MrChuck,

Aren't you missing something here.

This would be something offered as an incentive, not forced on people.

If you are right and no one takes up this incentive, then the cost to the nation is £0 in extra expense

If people do take it up, then there is a significant saving to the NHS

Actually I hadn't really thought about how it would be administered, but I don't think it matters- it still presumes that people would be interested in going but don't because of the cost, when I think the reality is that most people don't because they can't be bothered.

To be fair though, I couldn't be bothered either. I used the treadmill in a hotel gym out of necessity last week and found it all really tedious.

As you say, ultimately cost is probably a red herring but it still attracts people. Think of sales in shops. How often do people buy things that they didn't really need simply because it was "in the sale"? Think about bike to work, how many more people ride to work simply because they have realised they can get a discount on the bike price, which makes them feel good. It's more about marketing than an actual reason to go to the gym as you say, very few people are actually so badly off that they can't afford to join a gym and that 17.5% off will make a difference but you can be sure if VAT was axed on gym membership it would attract attention in the press and much debate and discussion and generally draw people's eye as it were. Publicity.