Should the government tax fat people higher?

They're the reason healthcare cost is so high. If you just raise the average tax 1% for ever kg (2lbs in freedom units) overweight from excessive fat (more than 20% Bodyfat) we could easily solve all of our problems.

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      disgusting size

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Would

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just increase sales tax on junk food you dunce.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Maybe just maybe, they just need to tax unhealthy food higher. Then instead ofnusing tax money for fatties' medicare, why don't they use it to pay gymbros, personal trainer, rippletits whatever to open a fatso camp and force all fstties to exercise and change their lifestyle into a healthier body? Juat imagine.

      this, obesity in the uk kills more than smoking and ~10% of the nhs' budget goes to type ii diabetes. tax soda the same as cigarettes

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The only problem I have with this is that inevitably it will lead to added tax on healthy food choices and big corporations will find a way around their sugar water being taxed more.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Maybe just maybe, they just need to tax unhealthy food higher. Then instead ofnusing tax money for fatties' medicare, why don't they use it to pay gymbros, personal trainer, rippletits whatever to open a fatso camp and force all fstties to exercise and change their lifestyle into a healthier body? Juat imagine.

      Nothing should be taxed you fucking bootlicking subhumans

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >government subsidizes corn
      >agriculture industry turns it into HFCS and fuel
      >tax HFCS
      >industry continues to make profit, consumer bank accounts dwindle
      This is exactly the kind of money laundering scheme our government would do.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Replace all the useless garbage in school with health & fitness classes. Fail children who don't improve.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      replace the SATs with SQUATs.
      Failed your SQUATs? Have fun being a wagie at McDonalds.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe just maybe, they just need to tax unhealthy food higher. Then instead ofnusing tax money for fatties' medicare, why don't they use it to pay gymbros, personal trainer, rippletits whatever to open a fatso camp and force all fstties to exercise and change their lifestyle into a healthier body? Juat imagine.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They're a burden on you because you end up paying for them needing medical treatment more often but the government doesn't care because they consume more and die younger and end up not being a burden on Medicare and Social Security.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Fat people should have to justify their weight with increased strength according to the square-cube law. A person who weights k times another person should be k^(2/3) times stronger to be in the same tax bracket.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I think we should just kill them all

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, absolutely.
    This is why the US system is uncucked. Everyone pays for their own risks. Just like smokers have more risk of health problems and pay a higher premiums, so should fatties pay higher premiums for all the health risks they come from.

    I laugh everytime some europoor whines about American healthcare because I know they're literally footing the bill every time a fatty is rushed to the hospital.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      based. Let the chaff separate itself from the wheat.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Except were still somewhat cucked in the US. Fat poors just don't pay and hospitals have to recoup their losses somehow. It's literally the worst to be upper middle class and have to visit the hospital.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Just like smokers have more risk of health problems and pay a higher premiums, so should fatties pay higher premiums for all the health risks they come from.
      The problem is the Affordable Care Act made that illegal. Insurance carriers can't adjust premiums based on health conditions so if you're healthy you're paying the same premium as someone who is morbidly obese and chronically unhealthy. That means you're paying way more than you should and they're paying way less than they should. Supposedly this is "fair" because it averages everyone toward the middle, but I say fairness is overrated. Fatties should be charged more for health insurance and if they don't like it they can lose weight.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Supposedly this is "fair" because it averages everyone toward the middle

        Why do people have this weird idea that fairness is determined by equality of outcome in the first place? It's fair for everyone to pay according to their personal health risk since it's what determines how much resources will be used on them

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's just typical gnomish word wrangling that no one sees through, or if they do they're shamed into thinking that makes them a bad person so they never speak up.
          >make everyone pay the same
          >call it "fairness"
          >"Hey, I don't think we should all pay the same, though."
          >"What, you're AGAINST fairness? You want us to treat people UNfairly???"
          Sadly, this very simple psychological trick works on the vast majority of people. See also: anti-racism, equal opportunity, progressive politics, etc. Label your viewpoint with terms associated with virtue and then no one can argue against them without appearing to be anti-virtue.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    In the US we don't have healthcare taxes, so that wouldn't make sense. Their insurance premiums should be higher, though, so that those of healthy people can be lower. We shouldn't be making healthy people subsidize fatties.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Actual economist here. Just have the government stop subsidizing goyslop industries like basedbeans and corn (which is then transformed into corn syrup). No need for these autistic sugar taxes.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That’s only half the problem. You need to end money for welfare for the poor as well.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Well no shit welfare is bad; i just wanted to focus on obesity solutions.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The obvious counterpoint is: where is the line drawn? Who decides what overweight is?

    It sounds like a great idea on paper until you realize the same people who shut down gyms worldwide while simultaneously keeping all fast-food, liquor, and weed places wide open. You want those same people determining the nuances of a health/fat tax?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >where is the line drawn? Who decides what overweight is?
      Actuaries run statistical models to analyze where healthcare costs spike and draw lines accordingly. This is how health insurance premiums were decided up until 2015 and it worked just fine. Making these health-based premium adjustments illegal came from fat, unhealthy people whining about how expensive their insurance was.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Actuaries are honest to goodness garden gnomes that would raise your premium for going to the gym because of the injury risk, and raise your premium for not going to the gym because sedentary life is also a risk factor.
        This needs to be decided by me, as I am objectively correct.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Actuaries are honest to goodness garden gnomes that would raise your premium for going to the gym because of the injury risk, and raise your premium for not going to the gym because sedentary life is also a risk factor.
          This is true, and that's why there need to be reasonable limitations, but that's as simple as telling insurance companies that all premium adjustments must be based on medically observable health markers (from medical tests and lab work) and not lifestyle. The idea that everyone should get the exact same premium no matter what just puts the squeeze on healthy people and rewards unhealthy people.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Actuaries are honest to goodness garden gnomes that would raise your premium for going to the gym because of the injury risk, and raise your premium for not going to the gym because sedentary life is also a risk factor.
        This needs to be decided by me, as I am objectively correct.

        >Actuaries are honest to goodness garden gnomes that would raise your premium for going to the gym because of the injury risk, and raise your premium for not going to the gym because sedentary life is also a risk factor.
        This is true, and that's why there need to be reasonable limitations, but that's as simple as telling insurance companies that all premium adjustments must be based on medically observable health markers (from medical tests and lab work) and not lifestyle. The idea that everyone should get the exact same premium no matter what just puts the squeeze on healthy people and rewards unhealthy people.

        I think you guys are only further proving my original point. You can't apply a "one size fits all" approach to this and you definitely can't rely on the government to NOT apply a "one size fits all" approach. Less taxes, smaller government is the answer.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >less taxes, smalles government
          exactly this.
          but fuck fatties anway (in a non sexual way).

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Just to be clear, I'm advocating health insurance companies charging for insurance based on risk factors such as obesity to incentivize people to get and stay healthy, not government taxes.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Just let insurance companies make people pay according to their health status, then the market will figure out the fair limits.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Let them kill themselves you fucking gays.
    >Muh healthcare cost
    Stop taxation all together and the problem sorts itself out.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The reason healthcare is high is due to vampiric middlemen called insurance, at least in the US.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    why? its working as intended

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm okay with this in theory (taxing people for shitty life choices) but then the government gets to decide what is a shitty life choice and I'm not okay with that.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >then the government gets to decide what is a shitty life choice and I'm not okay with that.
      Welcome to the pandemic years. They did this two years straight and nearly everybody went along with it even though only fatties and the already dead died off from the coof.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >then the government gets to decide what is a shitty life choice and I'm not okay with that.
      Welcome to the pandemic years. They did this two years straight and nearly everybody went along with it even though only fatties and the already dead died off from the coof.

      These.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Should the government tax fat people higher?
    They should, but they should go even further.

    The government should also seriously regulate what is food stamp eligible. In America, there is a strong correlation between wealth and obesity. Poor people have much higher rates of obesity than rich people. Part of the reason is due to the prevalence of food deserts in inner-city and rural areas, which leads many to shop for food at places like Dollar General, 7/11, Royal Farms, etc. And at those convenience stores, virtually every edible item is SNAP eligible. Candy, soda, chips, energy drinks, processed snack foods, all of it. With such a shitty diet, it's easy to see why obesity rates are so high. Ideally, only produce, meat, and dairy products would be food stamp eligible. Health outcomes aside, lower obesity rates save taxpayers money. But I'm sure large junk food companies like Mondelez, Nestle, and Nabisco lobby congress hard to keep this shit in place.

    I also think that HHS should subsidize gyms.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The government should also seriously regulate what is food stamp eligible
      holy shit yes please. i never understood why soda and candy are food stamp eligible. that's retarded.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The government should remove all social nets
        Sounds even better. You wanna help the woman on welfare? Get to it sporky, compelled morality holds no better good to mankind than compelled speech is guaranteed to be objectively true. It only makes the actor resentful.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The no. 1 think bought with food stamps is soda. Let that sink in. You pay taxes so fatty poors can drink almost pure sugar.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      To the best of my knowledge, the only thing food stamps doesn't cover is ready-made food (like rotisserie chickens or deli sandwiches), and alcohol. It really is a free-for-all. But, I think classifying stuff between slop and actual food is a responsibility the government can't handle. Also, lobbyists for the slop industry would make it a joke.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It would just be "pizza is a vegetable" all over again.
        >Don't you see, senator? Our potato chips are really no different from buying whole potatoes! People on food stamps NEED the convenience of our pre-sliced potatoes fried in sunflower oil and covered in sugar!

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Obesity is heavily correlated with low socioeconomic status (at least in the US) so taxing it would be considered a "regressive tax" which is generally a big no-no for politicians. However, it seems fair that such a policy would be implemented into health insurance costs.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No, because I don't want some government official to decide what's "fat". Instead, we should just scrap all publicly funded/subsidized healthcare and allow insurance companies to adjust premiums for health status. No forced participation.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If they are unable to work or are receiving disability they should restrict what they can buy with food stamps. You can buy red bull and chips with food stamps. Restrict them to apples and chicken and then when they lose the weight take away the disability and make them work

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes and fat ass women triple.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Food gibs must end completely.
    Food insecurity is a fucking meme.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    End food stamps and the national weight will come down IMMEDIATELY.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There's two reasons I'm against it. First, it's going to set a precedent that the government can tax unhealthy behavior, which sounds good until you realize that they will define eating bugs and basedbeans as healthy and everything else as unhealthy.

    Secondly, all our taxes go to pay garden gnome bankers interest anyway since the government is trillions in debt, why would I want them to be making more money?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *