There is that, but given that those taxes have been in place for a long time and food (and levels of physical exertion in daily life) has changed quite a bit over the last 15 years or so... I'm thinking that an analogy can't really be drawn between a food tax and, say, the existing alcohol tax. Eh, just pretend I didn't say anything.
Agreed. Perhaps he's just following in the family tradition; his Dad (Alan) trolls in The Times, ooh, at least once a week, but everyone goes "Oh, it's only Alan Coren, he must be trolling. Ho ho ho!" - and he's also a team captain on Call My Bluff, which is as close to a parlour game based on trolling as we'll ever get, what with 2/3 of the participants trolling at any one time. I suspect I have slightly gone off on one there.
The real lack of quality in the troll is demonstrated by the fact that people with a BMI of 16 (quite different from a BMI of 36) would still be surcharged at 4% rather than 6%, which is not all that different absolutely. (Sure, 6% is 1.5 times 4%, so considerably different geometrically, but it's only 2% more.)
Heh, that tax would never work. I can sort of see that it is a problem for the NHS, but then again so is drinking and smoking, and that problem hasn't gone away no matter how much you tax people. If they taxed me based on weight I'd probably get a discount, the way I'm going! o.O
Anorexia amongst young women is also a huge problem, and sets up all sorts of problems in later life - lack of fertility, may be contributory to later osteoporeosis, smoking addiction, that sort of thing. I don't see Giles CuntCoren putting a tax on the image industry to compensate for that.
*nods* Heh, never mind putting a tax on the image industry, try taxing the bloke who invented the BMI in the first place. I just ranted on my journal about a BMI chart that dubbed me 'fat' at 10 stone and 5'3, which, had I not had my head screwed on, might have led to all kinds of complexes about my body image. But it didn't, so that's OK. :)
I think this is a great idea, partly because I can see myself getting an enormous rebate, but mainly because I can see a lucrative career opportunity as a fiscal geneticist.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-06 10:33 am (UTC)I think we should tax people who come up with stupid half-arsed ideas to solve health problems by taxation.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-06 10:59 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-06 12:01 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-06 12:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-06 01:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-06 02:46 pm (UTC)(Thanks :o))
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-06 11:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-06 11:11 am (UTC)Frankly I think we've already given him more braintime than he deserves.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-06 11:24 am (UTC)The real lack of quality in the troll is demonstrated by the fact that people with a BMI of 16 (quite different from a BMI of 36) would still be surcharged at 4% rather than 6%, which is not all that different absolutely. (Sure, 6% is 1.5 times 4%, so considerably different geometrically, but it's only 2% more.)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-06 11:20 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-06 03:36 pm (UTC)CuntCoren putting a tax on the image industry to compensate for that.(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-06 03:49 pm (UTC)Make anorexia profitable!
Date: 2006-06-06 12:12 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-06 12:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-06 01:00 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-06 01:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-06 01:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-06 01:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-06 01:08 pm (UTC)Government announces new tax allowances for pregnant women of up to 6lbs per infant, come the national weigh-in day on April 2nd.
NHS costs rise as the number of starvation cases in hospital reaches a critical number, as weigh-in day approaches.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-06 03:23 pm (UTC)