Right, This fat tax........

61Sigs

jamesco wrote:

suzyb wrote:

Afaik fatty foods are seen as poor people's food because poorer people are less well educated and less well educated people tend to eat more unhealthily (as well as drink and smoke more).

When you are unemployed, which is to say when you are underfed, harassed, bored, and miserable, you don't want to eat dull wholesome food. You want something a little bit ‘tasty’. There is always some cheaply pleasant thing to tempt you. Let's have three pennorth of chips! Run out and buy us a twopenny ice-cream! Put the kettle on and we'll all have a nice cup of tea! That is how your mind works when you are at the P.A.C. level. White bread-and-marg and sugared tea don't nourish you to any extent, but they are nicer (at least most people think so) than brown bread-and-dripping and cold water. Unemployment is an endless misery that has got to be constantly palliated, and especially with tea, the English-man's opium. A cup of tea or even an aspirin is much better as a temporary stimulant than a crust of brown bread.

-- EB (GO)

I am unemployed, luckily I have bikes .

To be fair, I have only been unemployed for a week now and I am still quite excited about all the free time I have (after 13 years of a pretty time demanding job).

Cue, spiral into misery and obesity :oops:

CrackFox

Rick Chasey wrote:

People who are giving chat about how easy it is to razz up a fresh food alternative are missing the point.

The alternative to unhealthy food is more expensive, in either time, knowledge required, financial, or any combination.

Poor excuses, if you'll pardon the pun. The unemployed are not time poor. And as for knowledge, daytime tv schedules are saturated with cookery shows. Money? I've only been unemployed for two months but I know where to get the best value produce and rustle up good, healthy food for a lot less than I'd spend on take-outs. Of course, I'm sure I could still learn a thing or two from the lithe Somalian immigrants ahead of me at the checkouts.

The difference is attitude. I don't equate wholesome food with bland fare - it's not a question of tasty or healthy (unless quinoa is involved). I don't view cooking as a chore to be rushed or avoided. But most of all, I care about what I eat because I care about my health and my future. And that's probably because I believe I have a future that promises more than the present. But if I had been unemployed for years and not weeks, and if I could see no prospect for an improvement to my situation, and if everyone I knew lived on a diet of processed junk and the rest of my household refused to eat anything else, then maybe I would eventually do the same. You have to give people a reason to care about their health - one that's powerful enough to overcome their unhealthy addictions.

Initialised

Rick wrote:

Have a more equal, wealthy society, then this stuff is less relevant > which is why Denmark can do this stuff. The UK can't.

First step get rid of wealth segregation in the education system. Second get rid of the PLC and link company profits to employee earnings. Third abolish income tax on earnings up to £20k

rick_chasey

CrackFox wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

People who are giving chat about how easy it is to razz up a fresh food alternative are missing the point.

The alternative to unhealthy food is more expensive, in either time, knowledge required, financial, or any combination.

Poor excuses, if you'll pardon the pun. The unemployed are not time poor. And as for knowledge, daytime tv schedules are saturated with cookery shows. Money? I've only been unemployed for two months but I know where to get the best value produce and rustle up good, healthy food for a lot less than I'd spend on take-outs. Of course, I'm sure I could still learn a thing or two from the lithe Somalian immigrants ahead of me at the checkouts.

The difference is attitude. I don't equate wholesome food with bland fare - it's not a question of tasty or healthy (unless quinoa is involved). I don't view cooking as a chore to be rushed or avoided. But most of all, I care about what I eat because I care about my health and my future. And that's probably because I believe I have a future that promises more than the present. But if I had been unemployed for years and not weeks, and if I could see no prospect for an improvement to my situation, and if everyone I knew lived on a diet of processed junk and the rest of my household refused to eat anything else, then maybe I would eventually do the same. You have to give people a reason to care about their health - one that's powerful enough to overcome their unhealthy addictions.

What' all this unemployed chat? I wasn't talking about just unemployed people. Why the hate for them? Plenty of people who have issues with poor food are not unemployed.

Forget that for a moment. Forget your issues and baggage with unemployed people!

You're talking about a lifestyle that not everyone wants. Plenty of people eat sh!t since it's convenient and cheap. You can argue this all you want but it's plainly true. There's a reason why food habbits are the way they are. It's clearly more than the difference of a few quid.

Like smoking, a tax on this stuff won't force people to change their habbits. You make the stuff the harder up use more expensive. That's the short of it. Any other justifications are beside the point with regard to whether the tax is regressive or not.

You can argue that the regressive nature is worth it, but take a look at any other regressive taxes that try and change people's lifestyles and habbits, and see how well (or not) they work. I can't think of any which are actually very successful.

whyamihere

My uber-poverty recipe:
Dried pulses from the supermarket cost under a quid for 500g. Buy a few bags of different pulses and a fiver's worth will last you a month.
Rice is (currently) 40p for a kilo.
A tin of tomatoes is about 15p.
An onion costs pennies, and a decent sized tub of mixed spices will cost under a quid.

Soak some pulses overnight (takes about 30 seconds to prepare in the evening before bed)
Boil them for 10 minutes, chop an onion while they're boiling.
Chuck the pulses, chopped onion and spices into a slow cooker with a bit more water, maybe a stock cube if you're feeling flush. Ignore it for 8 hours.
After 8 hours, boil up some rice, eat.
Freeze the remaining casserole, and, with sensible portion control, a single cook will last you a week, meaning the soaking/boiling faff can be done just once a week.

That's main meals for a month for under a tenner. Have it for lunch too, with toast made with cheap bread (kept in the freezer) for breakfast and that's all your food for a month at under £20. To add a bit of meat to that can be done for about an extra £5-10. A slow cooker can be had for a tenner.

Now, it's not very interesting. But it tastes fairly good, is nutritious and costs bugger all.

CrackFox

Rick Chasey wrote:

What' all this unemployed chat? I wasn't talking about just unemployed people. Why the hate for them? Plenty of people who have issues with poor food are not unemployed.

Forget that for a moment. Forget your issues and baggage with unemployed people!

You're talking about a lifestyle that not everyone wants. Plenty of people eat sh!t since it's convenient and cheap. You can argue this all you want but it's plainly true. There's a reason why food habbits are the way they are. It's clearly more than the difference of a few quid.

Like smoking, a tax on this stuff won't force people to change their habbits. You make the stuff the harder up use more expensive. That's the short of it. Any other justifications are beside the point with regard to whether the tax is regressive or not.

You can argue that the regressive nature is worth it, but take a look at any other regressive taxes that try and change people's lifestyles and habbits, and see how well (or not) they work. I can't think of any which are actually very successful.

Apologies - you are clearly correct that it is not just the unemployed who eat poorly. But I don't 'hate' the unemployed, I don't have any 'issues' or 'baggage' in that regard. I'm surprised by your vehemence. If I genuinely hated anyone who (for whatever reason) chose to subsist on a diet believed to reduce life expectancy, then I should be happy for them to continue to eat their way into an early grave. As it is, I'm not in favour of a 'fat tax'. That's not due to any particular disposition towards those who might benefit or suffer from it.

The point I was labouring to make is that cost and knowledge are not adequate explanations by themselves. There is no shortage of dieticians, nutritionists and other self-styled 'food doctors' all preaching roughly the same message. Convenience is no doubt a factor, but the fresh produce aisle in Asda is no less convenient than the frozen pizza aisle. The chicken shop on the corner may be even more convenient than the supermarket, but I struggle to understand why anyone would not consider their own health and wellbeing as being worthy of a little extra effort.

suzyb

CrackFox wrote:

The point I was labouring to make is that cost and knowledge are not adequate explanations by themselves. There is no shortage of dieticians, nutritionists and other self-styled 'food doctors' all preaching roughly the same message. Convenience is no doubt a factor, but the fresh produce aisle in Asda is no less convenient than the frozen pizza aisle. The chicken shop on the corner may be even more convenient than the supermarket, but I struggle to understand why anyone would not consider their own health and wellbeing as being worthy of a little extra effort.

But too cook a frozen pizza you bung it in the oven for 20 minutes (or so). To make something using ingredients from the fresh produce isle you need to prepare the ingredients before you even start the cooking.

And these food doctors all preaching that x is good for you or y is bad for you doesn't teach anyone how to actually use x to make quick tasty meals to replace y.

Torvid

suzyb wrote:

But too cook a frozen pizza you bung it in the oven for 20 minutes (or so). To make something using ingredients from the fresh produce isle you need to prepare the ingredients before you even start the cooking.

And these food doctors all preaching that x is good for you or y is bad for you doesn't teach anyone how to actually use x to make quick tasty meals to replace y.

So we should have home economics as part of the core syllabus in schools?

suzyb

Torvid wrote:

suzyb wrote:

But too cook a frozen pizza you bung it in the oven for 20 minutes (or so). To make something using ingredients from the fresh produce isle you need to prepare the ingredients before you even start the cooking.

And these food doctors all preaching that x is good for you or y is bad for you doesn't teach anyone how to actually use x to make quick tasty meals to replace y.

So we should have home economics as part of the core syllabus in schools?

They did when I was at school, first and second years in secondary school it was compulsory. But we were taught nothing about nutrition or healthy eating. I do know how to make a toasted cheese and gammon sandwich though.

Of course it has been a few years since I was at school so things could have changed. But if not then yes, instead of teaching kids how to make useless "meals" use that time to teach them a bit about nutrition and ingredients.

rick_chasey

Torvid wrote:

suzyb wrote:

But too cook a frozen pizza you bung it in the oven for 20 minutes (or so). To make something using ingredients from the fresh produce isle you need to prepare the ingredients before you even start the cooking.

And these food doctors all preaching that x is good for you or y is bad for you doesn't teach anyone how to actually use x to make quick tasty meals to replace y.

So we should have home economics as part of the core syllabus in schools?

Why not?

Food's ridiculously important in our lives.

And none of this "bring £30 worth of food so we can make carrot cake, and you can drop it on the bus on the way home since the tin is totally enormous" - which was my experience.

Torvid

suzyb wrote:

They did when I was at school, first and second years in secondary school it was compulsory. But we were taught nothing about nutrition or healthy eating. I do know how to make a toasted cheese and gammon sandwich though.

When i was at school in the early 90's it was a choice of 2 from 6 for subjects like Home ec, art, electronics wood work and so on. I agree it needs teaching in school but what gets cut to include this?

rick_chasey

Torvid wrote:

suzyb wrote:

They did when I was at school, first and second years in secondary school it was compulsory. But we were taught nothing about nutrition or healthy eating. I do know how to make a toasted cheese and gammon sandwich though.

When i was at school in the early 90's it was a choice of 2 from 6 for subjects like Home ec, art, electronics wood work and so on. I agree it needs teaching in school but what gets cut to include this?

'social & citizenship studies' which was the most pointless class I ever had to do.

Torvid

Rick Chasey wrote:

Torvid wrote:

suzyb wrote:

They did when I was at school, first and second years in secondary school it was compulsory. But we were taught nothing about nutrition or healthy eating. I do know how to make a toasted cheese and gammon sandwich though.

When i was at school in the early 90's it was a choice of 2 from 6 for subjects like Home ec, art, electronics wood work and so on. I agree it needs teaching in school but what gets cut to include this?

'social & citizenship studies' which was the most pointless class I ever had to do.

WTF they make people take something like that? they should defo change them around. I agree on the carrot cake comment too, it should be how to make something thats healthy, cheap and should probably include how to shop for the ingrediants. Markets are great for getting cheap fresh food yet you don't see many young people in them.

suzyb

Torvid wrote:

suzyb wrote:

They did when I was at school, first and second years in secondary school it was compulsory. But we were taught nothing about nutrition or healthy eating. I do know how to make a toasted cheese and gammon sandwich though.

When i was at school in the early 90's it was a choice of 2 from 6 for subjects like Home ec, art, electronics wood work and so on. I agree it needs teaching in school but what gets cut to include this?

Was the same for me when you got to third year. For the first two years though you got 1 hour of HE a week.

If they wanted to cut something (when I was at school) then religious education would have been my choice as we were never actually taught anything about religion or otherwise yet it was compulsory throughout all 4 years.

Although again this was imho a wasted opportunity as a bit more education about different religions would help people understand the differences.

t4tomo

Rick Chasey wrote:

And none of this "bring £30 worth of food so we can make carrot cake, and you can drop it on the bus on the way home since the tin is totally enormous" - which was my experience.

Not sure what was in your recipe, but you can make a carrot cake for about £2 or £3. By the sounds of it, if you dropped it on the bus, it probably crushed the bus flat.

gb155

well, I offered the Govt an alternative to just taxing people

Guess what......they rejected it out of hand

So I went to shadow govt, pitch it that they can say "Look, we have this non tax proposal f dealing with besity"

Guess what

Yup, out of hand rejected it.

Guess we all know whats coming next

Drfabulous0

What is the point in a fat tax? Fact is that if you are obese you will die younger. You must either be ignorant of not care, so why should anyone else. I eat very well because I am something of a foodie but I smoke, drink and take drugs, it is nobody else's business that I am leading myself into an early grave, I won't be a burden on the health service once I'm dead will I? For that matter I'm not now as I am willing to pay a small amount for a service that isn't crap. The government needs to stay out of individual people's lives and concentrate on the business of society's administration. I don't like to look at fatties but it is their own problem.