Junk food tax...

Less money for cigarettes - no bloody way those type put cigarettes first or maybe drugs first then cigarettes, alcohol, junk food then all the good stuff and must needs very last or the beg, borrow or steal for those.

Now the other type, can afford whatever amount of tax anyone wishes to impose on junk food but probably don't consume it anyway.

Last month the media was teling us why we should ban thin underweight models, they send out the wrong messages.

Now we are after fat people.
Look, some people want to be fat, some cannot help it.
In some cultures, e.g. Chinese, Italians, fat = prosperity. A skinny wife means the husband is a lousy breadwinner.

The 15% grease tax is culturally insensitive and has the potential to violate human rights and make a mockery of human dignity.

I am fat and I am happy. I choose to be happy, how about you?

Penfold - their is fat, their is obese then morbidly obese which category would you class yourself?

Their is an obesity problem especially in the western world - society as such should be trying to educate without preaching healthy eating. Healthy eating should help both those over and under weight people.

We have recently watched Jamie Oliver's school dinner series - that was such an eye opener. For starters unbelievable what was being served up to these kids as a meal. He did a wonderful job in convincing the schools to change their menus then the hard part was convincing the kids how good/nice his meals were. A lot of health problems were eliminated with good eating.

You probably eat good food choices, unfortunately their are a lot of people who think that unless the meal comes from the freezer section of the supermarket it is far too hard to worry about. Along with the number of kids who will not eat vegetables at all.

A lot has to do with genetics, some lifestyle and in my opinion the chemicals added to our food isn't helping either. Without subtle education things won't change it will only get worse.

Using the tax system to achieve so-called desirable social outcomes is outrageous (and not to say futile). But we do it all the time (with fat-cat bureaucrats sitting in plush Canberra offices deciding what is 'good' and 'bad' for the great unwashed) and setting taxes accordingly. As I say - it's outrageous, and very regressive. Mind you, I can't stand compulsory third-part car insurance either - I am a much better risk than a 21yo hoon in a Torana, but pay the same rate!

Spoken like a dedicated smoker, eh, ian?

<blockquote>Quote
<hr>I am a much better risk than a 21yo hoon in a Torana, but pay the same rate! <hr></blockquote>
Yes, but as a smoker you pay lots of taxes that will help to pay for all the medical attention you are sure to need in later life for your lung cancer or emphysema. That makes me happy (the taxes not the ill health) because I am a much better risk than a 50 something smoker.

The first sentence is deliberately long to test your lung function:)

What a bunch of sanctimonious, precious, condescending, holier-than-thou, shit-don't-stink, lecturing, hectoring, whingeing, whining, moralistic, cry-baby, scaredy-cat slush puppies.

Strike two Ian. You'll be gone by teatime.
How come this is on the agenda when banning junk food advertising in Kiddie programs is the nanny state? Wouldn't have anything to do with the way the money will flow - ie taxes to the govt, political donations from big business taken from the govt.?

I agree with ian. My son is innundated with stuff at school about healthy eating, exercise, obesity, blah blah blah

He came home last week and said, "Why can't they just mind their own business. Why do they tell me what to do about every single thing?

He's only 7 years old and he's already suffering form social engineering fatigue.