Time for a Sugar Tax or VAT on some foods

posh*spice

Generali wrote: »

Aren't refined carbs the problem rather than all carbs when it comes to diabetics? Booze, sugar and white flour are high GI foods so will cause a spike in your blood sugar, oats, brown flour and brown rice are low GI foods as the carbohydrates are absorbed into the bloodstream slowly as the starches are broken down into carbohydrates (glucose AIUI).

That's what the CSIRO tells us here anyway and they are pretty good at this sort of thing.

Certainly you need carbohydrates to survive as glucose powers your brain. The CSIRO advice basically breaks down as eat mostly veggies, may your carbs be brown and have 100-150g meat on the side.

I thought spirits were zero GI. Wine is 15??

posh*spice

purch wrote: »

By the way, I am not in anyway saying that being overweight is not the primary cause for people developing Type 2 Diabetes.

My point is that if you take 10 equally obese people, only 2 are likely to develop the disease due to the reasons pointed out, whilst the other 8 will not.

Of course, and not all smokers will die of lung cancer and not all alcoholics will die of liver disease. But smoking still causes lung cancer and alcohol still damages the liver. And being overweight causes type 2 diabetes.

purch

posh*spice wrote: »

Using Purch's logic all the smokers who get lung cancer should blame their faulty genes for their disease and not the fact that they smoked.

Obviously this subject is a little difficult for you to understand.

I have not tried to make that argument, so clearly you have misunderstood.

It's a shame when people allow their prejudices to get in the way of sensible debate, but that is only to be expected on this forum

posh*spice

purch wrote: »

Obviously this subject is a little difficult for you to understand.

I have not tried to make that argument, so clearly you have misunderstood.

I understand that being overweight causes type 2 diabetes - why is that so hard for you to understand?

I understand that pouring massive amounts of glucose into your body until your body can't function is not a good thing to do.

It's not rocket science.

purch

posh*spice wrote: »

I understand that being overweight cause type 2 diabetes - why is that so hard for you to understand?

I fully understand that, and I have made that very clear.

Not very bright are you ?

wotsthat

If most people just ate less and didn't worry about what they ate less of then health problems would dramatically fall.

If I need 2500 calories per day and I'm eating around that amount then it's an interesting discussion about the optimum balance of carbs/ fat/ protein. If I'm eating 5000 then it's irrelevant - I'm just eating too much, I'm going to get fat and I'm more likely to suffer health problems.

As far as diabetes is concerned then if there's a genetic link there always has been and this will contribute to a baseline. However, the beeb have an article which, if correct, suggests diabetes has increased by 60% in the last decade. Given the timescale that can only be lifestyle related.

I don't think there should be any 'fat' taxes and the government should leave people to live their lives as they see 'fit'. What I would do though is look at industries which are contributing to poor health (meat, dairy, sugar) and ensure they aren't receiving any taxpayer subsidy.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-33932930

purch

posh*spice wrote: »

Bright enough not to have diabetes

What a sad pathetic person you are.

SnooksNJ

setmefree2 wrote: »

UK Obesity Crisis

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-33932930

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/17/diabetes-bring-down-nhs-charity

!!!!!! the condition leads to 135 foot amputations every week across the country.

Imho we need VAT at 20% on all foods except raw fruit , veg, meat, fish, and pure dairy products.

Sin taxes work and would lower the deficit too.

Why stop there, how about everyone should have genetic testing and if BRAC1 and BRAC2 genes are mutated you should have to pay more in taxes as well. That would have the potential of costing more to treat than someone who will drop dead of a heart attack at 55.
IMO I'm against any new taxes. Eventually a lifestyle tax will filter down to me because I like to lay out in the sun. Maybe add more VAT tax to beach chairs.

wotsthat

SnooksNJ wrote: »

Why stop there, how about everyone should have genetic testing and if BRAC1 and BRAC2 genes are mutated you should have to pay more in taxes as well. That would have the potential of costing more to treat than someone who will drop dead of a heart attack at 55.
IMO I'm against any new taxes. Eventually a lifestyle tax will filter down to me because I like to lay out in the sun. Maybe add more VAT tax to beach chairs.

The debate is really about whether taxes should be introduced to prevent people from knowingly damaging their own health and thus saving the taxpayer long term.

We're a long way from answering that question so the debate about whether people should be taxed for being unlucky is some way in the future.

What taxes are good for (and I'm generally against the involvement of government) is to highlight a cost now because people are generally better at thinking about now rather than the long term. Even then thinking is flawed - I know friends who are obese and yet terrified of being in an air crash - it's a near certainty their lifestyle will kill them before an air crash does.

SnooksNJ

wotsthat wrote: »

The debate is really about whether taxes should be introduced to prevent people from knowingly damaging their own health and thus saving the taxpayer long term.

We're a long way from answering that question so the debate about whether people should be taxed for being unlucky is some way in the future.

What taxes are good for (and I'm generally against the involvement of government) is to highlight a cost now because people are generally better at thinking about now rather than the long term. Even then thinking is flawed - I know friends who are obese and yet terrified of being in an air crash - it's a near certainty their lifestyle will kill them before an air crash does.

I'm against Government involvement as well and think if you allow the government to intervene with the lives of obese people what's to stop the Government to take it further and tax other activities that endanger people's lives like working with haz mats, Dr. and nurses who work with infectious diseases, sky divers, skier's, surfers, ect.
To answer the question, the good taxpayers of this country are taxed enough so I am against any new taxes.