If you consider this not the job of the government, fine. Let Americans get fatter and fatter, social security costs for everyone go higher and higher, MacDonalds further and further ingrained into our society...

See, this is what Soviet-style communism did right (one of the very few things, admittedly). It didn't let a problem like this grip the country.

I'm going to have to agree with Cent here. If the profit from the taxes was used to subsidize the costs of producers of food deemed healthy by the government, then prices of healthy food would drop, meaning that these taxes wouldn't lead to people dying of starvation because they couldn't afford eating.

For everyone who has parroted that fat people should be left alone because it's not the government's job to dictate weight, consider the following proofs:
1. The U.S. government has taxes so it can subsidize health care.
2. Obesity leads to major health problems.
3. Major health problems create a need for health care.
4. Health care must be bought.
5. Therefore, obesity increases the amount of money everyone has to pay for health care.
6. Therefore, obesity is everyone's problem.
---
1. The U.S. government is representative of the country's population.
2. Governments should solve problems that are on large enough scales that individuals can't solve them.
3. Obesity is everyone's problem.
4. Therefore, the U.S. government should try to solve the obesity problem.

Right off the bat I want to reiterate that people in the US can live however the hell they want, as long as they don't hinder or harm anyone else while doing so.

What most people here seem to be urked about, is the obesity of others directly or indirectly affecting their own lives in negative ways. This, IMO, is completely grounds for actual action in response to the problem of obesity.

Now the debate comes up with what to do. In programming, there are a variety of different styles people have, but for the most part there seems to be professional grade programming, and not professional grade programming. In this not category, there is a broad range of intermediate programming to just plain terrible hackish programming tactics. Once you start debugging during coding, you can either search for the problem and fix it at it's lowest level, or you can just patch over the error. As a more tangible example, say you are programming a game in which you created terrible geometry for your walls and ground. Due to this terrible geometry, when you walk, your character falls through cracks in the ground and ends up in a black abyss. There are thousands of cracks in the ground, and to fix the cracks themselves you need to manually find and recreate the floor in specific locations to remove the cracks and holes. Now, there is an easier way to go about this; detect when the player is going to fall through the ground, and then "don't do it". This would be patching over the bug instead of fixing the bug itself.

The purpose for the above scenario was to create a metaphor in which the cracks in the geometry represents the obesity in the USA. There are many different ways to make people become less obese, but many of these solutions are just "patching bugs" instead of fixing the core problem. The core problem is that people are generally more lazy than they used to be, and are required to do less physical work as means to generate money. Taxing unhealthy foods does create a negative incentive to digest unnecessary foods, but this solution would require an elaborate web of taxing methods to ensure success (and would probably end up causing more problems than the patching over the error of obesity), and it wouldn't be solving the core problem of obesity.

I will only condone the taxation of specific foods when the goal of such is to generate revenue, not to create a negative incentive towards becoming obese.

As for what we can do, I already stated that in this post: http://www.staredit.net/187800/

FE explained the issue nicely, and I've stated it multiple times as well.
This is your 'Silver bullet'? Painless. The problem is obesity. Obesity is the underlying problem. My solution changes America's culture to one of healthier eating and reduces weight of the population. Your solution just reduces weight of the population, and costs the government a lot without bringing anything in. If anything, my solution is striking at the heart of the problem much nicer than yours is, and isn't wasting money to do it.

Luckily for me that wasn't my argument, just something I felt necessary to reiterate to show why obesity is a problem that requires action.

The problem is obesity, yes. Taxing unhealthy foods does not solve the cause of obesity, it simply creates negative incentive in which to eat unhealthily. This is a rather lazy solution in my opinion; you would rather go about taxing people and patching the error instead of attacking the cause of obesity. The cause of obesity is partly that people don't need to work as physically hard as they used to, in general, to earn a living. As such, being fit and healthy is now something that must be worked towards more as a hobby, rather than "double dipping", meaning earning a living all the while exercising. People are getting lazy in many aspects of life, and in general consider easier as better. Unhealthy foods aren't the problem, it's eating these unhealthy foods without proper exercise to burn off the excess calories. To solve obesity will require a paradigm shift, not only negative incentive towards unhealthy foods and generated revenue.

About costing the government a lot of money without bringing anything in, hello? The "bringing in" or profit doesn't need to be monetary in order to be worthwhile. The revenue of my specific stairs solution would be that the people who use that escalator are now more likely to use the stairs. Sure this example is costly, but it is only an example and not my argument as a whole. Read my post, I explicitly said that I don't think the government should take any action into solving the problem of obesity. I stated why I believed in this claim as well, I even stated this in the above post with this:
I believe that the people who are obese, or people who want to help those who are obese become healthy, should be the ones to attack the problem. I don't want the government involved, for reasons explained in this post (which also contains a viable example of an innovative solution which strikes at the core problem of obesity): http://www.staredit.net/187800/

About me reiterating what others have said: I have restated a few views which have already been previously expressed, but nobody else has proposed the specific solutions in which I have proposed, or stated my rebuttal towards taxation in general. I expressed in my last few posts different takes on views, those views which have already been stated, though the specific takes on those views have not been previously stated or rebutted.

You need to start backing up your claims with at least logic, rather than just stating your beliefs as your arguments. "My solution changes America's culture to one of healthier eating and reduces weight of the population." That's a nice claim, why isn't it backed up with an explanation of how or why it is a true claim?

"If anything, my solution is striking at the heart of the problem much nicer than yours is, and isn't wasting money to do it." That sure is a nice opinion, though, stating your opinions and stating nothing else in conjunction to your opinion is just a waste of time. Explain how your solution strikes the heart of the problem, explain how it strikes that heart better than mine. About wasting money, that specific example is costly, but it would be payed for those who are obese or want to help those who are obese, and the gain from the investment is both psychological, and numerically/statistically tangible, though not necessarily monetary. Monetary revenues alone won't create a paradigm shift that is necessary to actually strike the heart of the problem of obesity in the US.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Nov 16 2009, 4:33 am by CecilSunkure.

While you aim to tax the obese/over wieght you will ultimately tax the poor and uneducated.

Over the centeries it was always the rich people that were able to become fat because those foods were the most expensive. Something happened in the 20th century(1900's) that changed this. The unhealthy foods are now cheaper than healthier ones. The problem was only compounded by technology.

As the 20th century raged on it became even cheapier and more convient to obtain these unhealthy foods. My parents' generation were actually required to learn to cook and cook. When restaurants first appeared going out for them was a treat or occasional privlage unlike today where for some it is an every day meal.

Everything has become to convient. One does not even need to leave the house anymore to obtain everyday essentials such as food. The current generation has lost much of the essential knowledge to survive properly because of this convience. My generation seems to barely be able to grasp how to prepare boxed meals and for some this is even a bit too complicated and thus they resort to the convience of modern society.

Here is a story i'd like to share about how little the middle/lower class really knows about food. My friend's wife went out for dinner to applebee's and ordered a piece of pie for desert and her friend thinking she was ordering something healthy ordered a muffin. Later on that evening my friends wife who has tried extremly hard to lose weight checked the calories of her pie in her little fast food cheat sheet calorie handbook. Her piece of pie was nearl 600 callories. Her friend's muffing was 750 calories.

This happens all the time. The most common occurance of this is when people order salads at a fast food joint. They think they are eating something healthy when many times they end up eating one of the menu's highest calorie foods add in the dressing and you can hit near 1250 calories on a salad(crispy chicken salad). If that isn't sick idk what is.


Personally, I think government needs to quit putting it's nose where it doesn't belong. Health care is just another thing that the government wants to try and fix but in the end is just going to end up screwing it up worse than it was before. If they wana fix things they would be better off educating the people more and providing cheaper healthier food choices than unhealthy ones.

Ah. Then I suppose I misunderstood your point, though your solution is just as horrendous. When you figure out a way to keep America's productivity and happiness near current levels while having them exercise as part of their job, let me know.

Your solution costs the government. Mine doesn't. Sadly, people using stairs rather than an escalator isn't currency, and having stairs make jingly sounds when you step on them is ridiculous way to get people to take stairs. You're doing nothing to the culture. Will some people be more likely to do it once you implement this? Sure. However, most people will still take the escalator than the stairs, taking the stairs, believe it or not, is NOT enough exercise to stave off American obesity, and this brings in no revenue for a lot of monetary input. My solution? Government tax revenues increase, allowing for the government to subsidize healthy food for the poor, helping THEM get thinner as well. Culture changes slightly in favor of home cooking and greatly in favor of healthy eating.

Your solution is horrendous. I hope that you understood that in reading my last paragraph. Not only doesn't it work, but it's so money-efficient it's what I would expect a MacDonalds career worker to suggest. "Hey, how do we stop obesity?" "Hay, letz make stairs play moosik!"
I'm restating the same things over and over. I'm not going to explain every step of this for everyone every time they ask. A fool can ask more questions than ten wise men can answer. If you believe that my analysis of my solution is wrong, then argue with it. How does my solution not reduce weight, or change American's culture to one of healthy eating? I'm not going to explain every little thing to you (define the, please) without some input on your side.

So, your solution is for the government to do nothing, but at the same time to directly sell healthy food. Rather contradictory, dontcha think?

The example was just to give a general idea of what I am talking about when I said (in my very much so earlier post) "innovative means where everyone wins".

And here is my response:
I've said a couple times that my example solution was paid for by people, not the government. Also, it isn't my solution, it's just an example to give a general idea of what I am talking about when I said (in my very much so earlier post) "innovative means where everyone wins".

Again, it isn't my solution, or my only solution, just an example to help show what I am talking about. Now, I completely agree with the part about generating monetary revenue for the country as a whole. I even said it here (note that "generate revenue" refers to monetary revenue):
However, I don't think that taxing alone will be necessary to create a paradigm shift. As stated here (note that "generated revenue" refers to monetary revenue):

So all in all, our views aren't so different. It's just that money being extracted and inserted into the government, and then spit back out won't, on its own, solve the problem of obesity. It can sure help in raising funds to donate to agencies or groups who are seeking innovative and effective means to combat obesity on a physical and psychological plane.

Ah, you don't need to retype everything, but at least provide some links or quotes to your original claims' backings, like I have been. That way nobody will be made to look like they are just ranting off naked views.

Also, you can't shift the burden of proof upon me. I've had this happen every now and then in debates where someone tries to shift the burden of proof onto me, when they are the ones who need to back their own claims. "If you think I'm wrong, disprove it!" won't be tolerated as a valid argument. If you make a claim, you are going to be responsible for providing the necessary citations or explanations, not anyone else. I think that watermelons are blue on the inside until you cut into them, prove me wrong if you think I'm incorrect.

Note: I am currently formulating a response to [blank's] last post... Will be posted into this post as a modification to this post.
Sent a pm, that seemed more appropriate.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Nov 17 2009, 4:03 am by CecilSunkure.

Are there any facts or figures that show how often said "jingling stairs" were used months after the installation? It really seems like a short-term gimmick that wouldn't be a very good incentive in the long-run. Also, you said that the stairs were paid for by people, and not the government. You know who pays the government? People.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Nov 17 2009, 4:16 am by CecilSunkure. Reason: Removed off topic discussion.

Nah, nothing was said about how the stairs were working long-term. I think the statistics were within the next month or so after installation, I'm unsure.

There is a difference between the government taking the initiative to solve a problem, and people in general participating together collaboratively to solve a common problem. The idea behind the people solving the problem of obesity isn't about the where the money is coming from as much as the psychological and social differences between the two methods. I believe that a large movement, or series of groups, like relay-for-life anti-cancer runs, would be much more effective in combating obesity than if the government were to simply tax unhealthy foods. I also believe a mix of both taxing completely unnecessary foods (like soda), innovative solutions, and mass participation by the general public would be much more effective than the government working alone with just taxes.

Waving innovation at my face isn't a solution. You don't see me waving a flag saying 'Innovative taxes! You can't criticize me, because I said innovative!'. Unless you can give me some viable, effective examples of 'innovation', you have no argument. And the only one you've given me so far I've already criticized.

So... you want pressure-detection in most office stairs, to be paid for by charity (instead of those poor kids in Africa, who wants to give them money, much better to get singing stairs for people too lazy to eat decently), and this so people use stairs instead of elevators or escalators. I'm sorry, but charity isn't usually a government policy. Your solution wastes precious (and rare) charity money for almost no gain (I get to take the stairs two extra times a day! The solution to obesity!).

If you have other solutions, share them.

No, giving and taking money from the government won't change anything. But if you change prices at the same time, it will do it. EVEN IF it doesn't work as well as I expect it to, it'll work hell of a lot better than singing stairs (which is your only solution so far), and it'll give the poor a viable source of nutrition apart from greasy burgers.

Not everything is provable. Sometimes we just have to use logic to figure out the probable results. See, if everyone needed proof that something would work before trying it, nothing new would ever be tried. I'll reiterate my logic, in nice linear format, although I really believe you're just trolling me at this point:

Heavy Taxes on unhealthy food, subsidies on healthy food (especially for poor) ->
People will eat more healthy food, because it costs less. && People will eat less unhealthy food, because it costs more. ->
People will get thinner.->
Obesity rates decrease.
(??? -> Profit!)foRvrael

At the same time:
Taxes on people depending on weight, with proper exemptions with medical problems and all that ->
Families calculate that they could save $300 a month if poor daddy lost some weight. ->
Some daddies will take the heroic job upon themselves and will lose weight. ->
People will get thinner.->
Obesity rates decrease.

Really, you couldn't figure that out?

Why would people start collaborating to solve a problem that they don't care about? Look at it here: I think that most people on SEN aren't obese, but there's still plenty of people who want no intervention from the government (You don't count, because you still want intervention, just not from the government). This will not get fixed without government intervention, because:

-People are selfish, they don't want to give money to fatties.
-Fatties could solve the problem by themselves if they wanted to.
-Government alone is powerful enough to get a social movement like this going.

Fat people CAN STOP IT. Cancer patients CAN'T STOP IT. AIDS patients CAN'T STOP IT. Why would you donate money for jingly stairs, when people could easily stop stuffing their faces and/or exercise? I would definitely not donate money to people who drain up government money through larger health care expenses, and who COULD DO IT THEMSELVES.

Its just that, they aren't doing it themselves. In fact, there is an increasing rate of obese people in the United States, and maybe the world. So if you wanted a effective method of dereasing obese people, make a law or an environment that cripples obese people from getting proper jobs. They essentially starve, and get thinner- so they can get a better job. I think they have too much excess ATPs to die anytime soon anyways.

Try convincing the fat senators to go labor in the fields. Sounds effective at first, but then you go into personal rights.

American society today encourages obesity and laziness. The problem stems from the lack of physical activity. There are other Western countries who consume almost as many calories (on average) as America, but have much lower obesity rates. Why? They are more physically active. When Americans stay at home and play simulated football matches, foreigners actually go out and do something real. When Americans drive in their cars, foreigners walk to their destinations. This is largely due to suburban sprawl and the ingrained mindset of the current population. Why walk when we can travel effortlessly in a car? The solution is to change the attitude of the American people, not change their eating habits. A person can eat 3000 calories of vegetables and still become fat if they don't work it off. A person who walks two miles a day can eat dense, high-fat meals and still burn off the calories.

The problem is that it's extremely difficult to adjust 300 million peoples' attitudes. It's difficult to reverse a process fifty or a hundred years in the making, or four million years if one counts genetic shift.

Your plan sounds nice and all but you are aren't considering how this could backfire... Down the road the law gets passed, bad foods cost more, healthy foods cost less. MAYBE people will start to eat healthier, but the amount of food obese people are eating isn't going to change. Why? Take for example some 500lb man who could probably eat a large pizza and still have room for dessert. If the taxes actually affect him and he eats apples and oranges, he's still going to be eating more calories than he's burning off, remaining fat. Now all your plan has done is angered many of the physically active members of society that could eat fast food and remain skinny.

Without any support or prior testing you have no clue what might happen to society if you make such an abrupt change. Your entire theory relies on the one and only outcome you came up with, and if I know Americans they will find someway to work around your tax and remain lazy. Cecil has the right idea at least we need to cut this off at the root and find innovative ways to get people to be more active.

Cecil has no idea. He thinks there exist ideas. There's a fair difference between the two, and I won't accept 'Innovation' as a solution to this problem, just like you won't accept it in a UMS help thread.

People will eat healthier, fruit and vegetables are, pound for pound, healthier than pizzas. At the very least, the fat idiot will be gaining weight slower, and at the same time, thanks to the fat tax, the country will be profiting from it. As for Americans remaining lazy, the lazy solution to this problem IS to eat healthy food. Unless they like to eat bad food regardless of the tax, in which case, again, the country profits. Can there be some unforeseen consequences? Sure. However, no one here has managed to come up with a feasible one that will prevent my idea from being at least (and likely far more) moderately successful. And, again, I won't accept a vague claim that there might be problems as a counterargument. You brought up two examples; in each case, the country, and the people at large, profit from that person's stupidity.

I think you have a point about no one providing a realistic example, so I will post a major legitimate concern:

If the fat tax is effective enough to stop people from buying fatty foods, it will have a huge impact on major food and beverage corporations like Pepsico.
If we examine the net revenue and gross profit of Pepsico in 2008: http://www.pepsico.com/Annual-Reports/2008/financials/selected-data.html
Their revenue for the 2008 fiscal year is 43.2 billion dollars. Their gross profit was 22.9 billion. This means they paid in the ballpark of 20 billion dollars in taxes.
A fat tax would drive down sales of products like pepsi, and if the tax is substantial enough to discourage people to buy its product, Pepsi will take its efforts elsewhere, to more profitable regions in the world. It's entirely likely that if the tax is effective in reducing consumption it will also induce a net loss in government revenue, due to driving away companies which are already heavily taxed: 20 billion is nearly half of Pepsi's revenue, almost a 50% income tax. If you remove the income tax and place the tax on the product sold instead, so that the consumer has to pay that 50%, it will drive down sales as well, and result in less tax dollars than the income tax currently does, due to a reduction in Pepsi's revenue. This of course will result in lost jobs as Pepsi focuses on other countries, and a hit to the USA GDP. On the other hand, if the tax is not effective enough to reduce consumption of a product, then it's essentially failed.

Its possible that companies like Pepsi would adjust over time and sell different products, but there's no guarantee, especially if they would have to make new production plants and hire new workers, or if its really easy and more profitable for them to just focus their efforts elsewhere.

Much, much better. However, on the whole, you have posted a problem, not an alternative - and I see no more effective alternative, as every single solution to the obesity problem would either drive away companies like Pepsico (through lesser consumption) or lower worker productivity (more time on exercise). To me, the former seems like the better way, simply because the system will recover. Eventually, either Pepsico or another company will find a tasty, healthy alternative to take Pepsi's place, and will pick up Pepsi's dropped slack in the job market (hell, maybe this drink will be one of the ones subsidized using the fat tax revenue) and everywhere else. This fictional drink would again be fairly popular, even if not necessarily as tasty, because of the steep price difference between it and Pepsi and other such drinks. And if no such drink comes around, then the government will recuperate the lost tax money through the tax on other drink companies, which will have larger market shares. Basically, I expect the free market to fill Pepsi's place to minimize economic damages from this change, I expect healthy food companies to grow to replace the shrinking unhealthy food companies, and I don't see a better alternative if we want to decrease obesity anyway.

In response to Centeri's view, I am in the military and have constant exercise. I eat a well maintained diet and of course, I eat junk food. However, I eat much less than most people I know and exercise just as much as they do. I have abdominal obesity even though I have very little fat elsewhere. My arms have no jiggle, when their flexed, and when their not, that's loose muscle mass. My legs are just thick muscle, trust me, their hard as rocks, purposely or not. My neck is pretty damn thin, it kind of annoys me. My face is toned. My back, you can fucking touch the bones everywhere. However, my hips, tits and stomach, are that of someone who would weigh 250-300 pounds on your average, fat, 72 inch tall person. Explain this to me?

I think most people who are fat, fall into these categories, in this order:

1. Love the taste of food and over-eat, with out compensating for what they ate. I would say this is your 'diet.' 45%
2. You have your lazy people, who just eat and eat because their bored. Or people who eat with people who have a high metabolism and as such, is the fat person and ignorant of whats going on, wanting to fit in. Then there's the depressed people, who feel they need to eat. Let's just call this the 'ignorance.' 30%
3. Have some kind of medical problem, chemical imbalance, low metabolism, whatever you wanna call it. This would be 'genetics.' 20%
4. We'll even consider someone having their thyroid removed for something like cancer treatment. So this is 'medical.' 5%

The point I am trying to put out there is, not everyone falls under the same scenario. As long as there is one kind of fat person, there will be more of the others. There is no one solution to the whole problem. I mean, we have television based around casting skinny, fit actors. People idolize them. Everyone thinks someone that is skinny/toned, is most definitely cuter than a fat person. In high school, fat kids are actually exiled from most social groups and activities, excluding maybe football linemen. There are plenty of reasons for people to be skinny and it's still a huge problem.

An example to some of these, one is my younger sister. She is ten and most definitely overweight. She likes all those bony kids on TV, idolizing them. Same with all the girls, like Miley Cyrus and such. There's nothing you can do about it, people are always going to be fat and the advancement in technology, is definitely not helping. People no longer walk to get their food or go to work. How many fat people do you see riding a bicycle? Or how about, have you seen a fat guy at an intersection sidewalk waiting to cross the street? Well... I bet there's almost no fatties out fishing... Or on skates... Or maybe going on a run. Even being outside when it's really cold or scorching hot.

However, how many fat people work in offices? How many fat people go to places like 4chan? How many are blogging on the internet? Construction workers, who walk to everything they do? Ha, now that I think about it, hasn't construction been getting slower as the years go by?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 2 2010, 1:28 pm by LoveLess.

Check the eugenics thread. Assuming that those percentages are supposed to be the number of people suffering from it, I'd like a source for that as it seems iffy. Additionally, 'low metabolism' isn't really a factor. People need to keep healthy and eat less fat foods if they have a low metabolism. This is what the fat tax would be for. If someone has a high metabolism, good for them, you get to eat a bit more (though you still pay high taxes on bad food). If you have a low metabolism, you end up eating less. Boohoo. And those factors somewhat keep the number down, but not low enough. So add my taxes in. If they pay for the taxes and stay fat, then other, poorer people would be able to get good food at subsidized prices, and someone, somewhere gets thinner. If they don't pay for the taxes and eat healthier, then the person eating healthier gets thinner. Same principle. With these taxes, no matter what people do, someone somewhere is probably getting healthier. I'm sure your parents would buy your sister less McDonalds (or whatever reason she's overweight - there would definitely be exemption from the fat tax for medical reasons, but the taxes on unhealthy foods are for everyone) when the price triples. Probably not, as better technology and planning is developed. Anyway, this isn't an argument, as my taxes would help those fat people.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jan 5 2010, 12:03 am by Vrael. Reason: removed response to deleted post

In regards to how you talk about all these people eating healthier foods. You know there are actually a lot of people who eat a majority of healthy food, just a lot of it? Take fat vegetarians for example. I knew quite a few.