Govt cash incentives

MrChuck

It's very short term too. At the start of term at the Uni I work at the sports centre is always rammed for a few weeks but gets back to normal pretty quickly. I'm sure most gyms could tell a similar story every January.

Pross

Another idea would be to allow employers to provide their staff with gym membership without it becoming a taxable benefit. I've never understood why some benefits which can also save Government money are taxed e.g. private healthcare - every employee who gets private healthcare is taking a potential burden off the NHS and reducing the wait for those who aren't fortunate to have the cover so why tax people for being provided with it and deter them from taking it up?

Headhuunter

Pross wrote:

Another idea would be to allow employers to provide their staff with gym membership without it becoming a taxable benefit. I've never understood why some benefits which can also save Government money are taxed e.g. private healthcare - every employee who gets private healthcare is taking a potential burden off the NHS and reducing the wait for those who aren't fortunate to have the cover so why tax people for being provided with it and deter them from taking it up?

This bugs me too. Because I pay tax on BUPA every year I make sure that I get some kind of physio treatment or whatever on some ailment, however small just to get some value for money and whilst there get some general advice on my health etc.

verylonglegs

Headhuunter wrote:

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.

Marketing is only viable up to a point, what it comes down to in the end is how far you want the government to impose its will on people because there is a hardcore who simply aren't going to go for any incentive.

Remember Jamie Oliver's attempt to change school food? I have always found him and his cooking programs fairly irritating to watch but on this issue he had a point. He was up against parents who were happy to go out of their way, indeed down right determined, to ensure their kids got their dose of crap each day. He even had to put up with verbal abuse! Hmmn, that guy has suggested my son eat some carrots...what a f****** c***t eh :? That is not about money or incentives, if they had a choice in the supermarket of free brocolli and rice or paying for pizza's and burgers you can be pretty certain they'd still fork out for the junk.

Now, how on earth do you solve that one? Because that is what you are up against to make any long term difference.

spen666

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.

So because it would not be an incentive for you, it should be denied to everyone else?

The reality as you accept is that scheme if not taken up costs nothing. if taken up it saves the NHS a fortune and you still oppose it? Why?

spen666

verylonglegs wrote:

...

Marketing is only viable up to a point, what it comes down to in the end is how far you want the government to impose its will on people because there is a hardcore who simply aren't going to go for any incentive

Giving somebody an incentive to do something is not imposing your will or the government's will on anybody. It is simply giving an incentive.

Remember Jamie Oliver's attempt to change school food? I have always found him and his cooking programs fairly irritating to watch but on this issue he had a point. He was up against parents who were happy to go out of their way, indeed down right determined, to ensure their kids got their dose of crap each day. He even had to put up with verbal abuse! Hmmn, that guy has suggested my son eat some carrots...what a f****** c***t eh :? That is not about money or incentives, if they had a choice in the supermarket of free brocolli and rice or paying for pizza's and burgers you can be pretty certain they'd still fork out for the junk.

Now, how on earth do you solve that one? Because that is what you are up against to make any long term difference.

Because this incentive does not work for everyone is not a reason to deny the opportunity to those for whom it may be an incentive

Headhuunter

spen666 wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

...

Marketing is only viable up to a point, what it comes down to in the end is how far you want the government to impose its will on people because there is a hardcore who simply aren't going to go for any incentive

Giving somebody an incentive to do something is not imposing your will or the government's will on anybody. It is simply giving an incentive.

Exactly. There are plenty of examples of government sponsored incentives and disincentives. Bike to work - incentive to cycle to work. Tax on alcohol, tobacco and petrol - disincentive to drink, smoke and drive everywhere. Not paying tax on pension contribs - incentive to pay into a pension. Tax credits on childcare - incentive for parents to return to work. These guide behaviour rather than impose government will.

verylonglegs

I don't object to making it available on a 'take it if you want' basis, never said that as such, just dont think it will make a huge difference overall.

MrChuck

spen666 wrote:

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.

So because it would not be an incentive for you, it should be denied to everyone else?

The reality as you accept is that scheme if not taken up costs nothing. if taken up it saves the NHS a fortune and you still oppose it? Why?

Why are you so keen to make out I'm particularly opposed to it?
I'm only taking issue with the implications that you can't improve fitness/lose weight without going to a gym, and that lots more people would go to the gym if it wasn't for the cost.

I don't think either of those things are true, scheme or no scheme. That's it.

Although now you get me on to the scheme, I think it's a bit naive to assume it'll cost nothing to administer even if nobody takes it up.

And I think 'denied' is an odd word to use in this context.

simonaspinall

I think the incentives/disincentives is a red herring - especially when it is about money rather than focusing on results.

I think a lot of overweight people feel like they haven't the confidence or knowledge to do a productive workout, even if they had a free gym membership. What they need is leadership, praise for doing well and seeing the results or a measurement of how they can get on.

Using an activity monitor can do this - showing people how many calories they burned during a day - showing that just walking to the shops or to work did actually do something for them. Do a month of activity and then go back to the doc/show friends/hospital consultant and you can get praise + new ideas and make it a two-way process so they can feed back how they found it with quantiative and emotional results combined - pretty powerful stuff.

This also ties in with the lifestyle change. Maybe not so powerful on the food intake front....but at least it empowers people to think that they are doing something well and with immediate feedback from uploaded data on a computer and real feedback from a health professional online or a doctor at an appointment.