The mere proposal in a regional Australian town to ban smoking in its CBD is a sign the decades-long public policy assault on tobacco has succeeded. The Rudd Government introduced a Great Big New Tax on Cigarettes weeks ago to barely a feather of resistance. Attitudes have changed. The war on smoking has been won.

Detail from The Judgment of Paris by Paul Rubens.

But smokers have been replaced by another group who present a similar public health challenge. They, too, risk dying early. They could be harming their children, are a drag on the economy because of frequent illness, and impose multi-million-dollar healthcare costs on the rest of the healthy community.

They are the overweight and the obese.

As a long-term threat to public health, obesity is now potentially as damaging and costly as smoking, if not more so. The case for dramatic policy intervention is mounting with every survey of the nation’s weight profile.

A landmark report in the early 1990s put the cost of smoking to the national economy – when smoking rates were higher – at $12.7 billion a year. A more recent estimate pegged it at over $30 billion.

In 2008, Access Economics put the cost of obesity to the national economy at a mining-tax-consuming $58 billion a year.

Is it time to apply some of the harsh public health policy measures used to cut smoking rates to obesity?

Imagine Leonard Cohen singing “Everybody Knows” as a soundtrack to a TV ad showing a big fat person getting open heart surgery, and you’re on the right track.

“Our forefathers were not obese,” says Simon Stewart, head of Preventative Cardiology at the Baker IDI Heart Research Institute in Melbourne. “We certainly know there are genetic predispositions to being overweight… but there’s many things we can do to counteract inherited predilections to obesity.”

Everyone acknowledges some people can’t control their weight. It’s not quite like smoking, in that being overweight isn’t always entirely a matter of personal choice.

But anyone who is overweight can also do some things to keep their weight down.

By many measures over half of Australians are overweight or obese. Not only is there a direct risk to overweight or obese people themselves, but the increasing prevalence of obesity means that as big waistlines become more common it becomes more acceptable to be unhealthily fat.

Many people my age will remember “the fat kid” in school. Go down to the local soccer league on a Saturday morning and you’ll see there are now, literally, football teams full of them.

In 20 to 30 years these kids will have more health problems, which will start to develop in middle age, right when should be at the height of their earning power and tax contribution.

For these kids being big is normal. Who is going to pay for the health problems that come with obesity?

Contrast this to smoking which is now a marginal social choice. Yet thanks to the new tobacco tax, Australian smokers will pay an extra $5 billion to the Treasury bottom line over the next four years.

As with other problems, weight issues tend to be intergenerational and affect the less well-off. But research has shown that it’s not just a problem in families: there is a social phenomenon of being bigger becoming more normal.

The trouble is while being big might become more acceptable, the health problems don’t change. And they are strikingly similar to those caused by smoking.

Obesity carries a higher risk of heart disease, stroke, and certain types of cancer. It can cause complications in pregnancy and force workers into early retirement or extended absence from work due to illness. Obese people may also pay less tax over their lifetimes because they die early and so contribute less to society. They also impose a financial burden on others who lead healthier lifestyles.

All of these problems are cited by governments as justification for the draconian, increasingly brutal financial and social interventions against smokers.

In looking at how to deal with obesity, some lessons from the campaign against smoking are instructive. It started with health warnings, creeping advertising bans and public education campaigns. Smokers were socially marginalised through bans – first in workplaces, then in restaurants and pubs, and now in public places, and warnings about the dangers of passive smoking

Lately the methods have been financial penalties in the form of dramatic direct tax increases, sold with a political message that smokers are enemies of the state because they are a public health burden.

Then there are the distressing advertising campaigns.

Now punishing people for being fat just as smokers have been punished for smoking is a ludicrous proposition. Individuals have varying underlying causes of their weight problems.

But there are lessons to take from the broad thrust of the anti-smoking movement. It has been successful through a combination of marketing restrictions, public awareness campaigns, financial incentives to manage the problem, and a gradual shift in social attitudes.

So what would a comprehensive anti-obesity campaign look like? Prof Stewart of the Baker IDI Heart Research Institute has outlined some of the radical ideas – and successes they have had with them - here.

Some other thoughts: financial incentives such as tax breaks or increased family payments for commitments to physical activity – say sending the kids to sport training twice a week - could be a start.

A barrage of health ads, as confronting and dramatic as those used against smokers, could help too. Have an obese person talk mournfully to camera about how they had to quit their job because they couldn’t do it any more.

You can’t tax fatty food – why shouldn’t healthy people be able to enjoy a Big Mac, a triple cream Brie or Mississippi mudcake? – but what about subsidies for healthy food?

And I’m no fan of tighter advertising restrictions but it’s probably worth reviewing which products can justifiably claim to be healthy. Perhaps certain foods could be forced to carry messages about the importance of a healthy lifestyle and balanced diet.

That is, after all, the eventual goal of an obesity policy: people doing exercise and having a healthy diet.

But after the war on smoking has practically been won, do we have the stomach for a similar war on obesity?

155 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      06:18am | 26/05/10

      And after the war on obesity has been won, what next? Alcohol would be my guess. And then the wowsers would have to find something other excuse to demonise people, all for the “cost to society” and that warm inner glow of smug moral superiority.

      Where will it end? There is more to life than seeking perfect health, perfect safety, and perfect financial outcomes.

    • Geoffrey Malone says:

      11:01am | 26/05/10

      Eric! Maaaate! More half wit responses!

      There is more to life than health??? Try living without it.

      Bit surprised you haven’t blamed this on the feminists yet…

    • David says:

      11:33am | 26/05/10

      Couldnt agree more Eric. People should watch the movie Gattaga to see how our future is heading , all in the name of the good of the people.

    • Scarlett Street Rocker says:

      01:11pm | 26/05/10

      Couldn’t have said it better myself Eric. Having said that I have to come out as “Fattist”. If they smoked we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

    • Peter says:

      02:03pm | 26/05/10

      My two favorite things are smoking and the pokies and the governement taxes the crap outa both… dunno what the mining industry or fat people have to whine about? They get off lightly… ! Do they pay 50-80% of their investments in tax…?

    • Greek Snake says:

      02:53pm | 26/05/10

      Eric you generally make a good point. This time however, it is harder to find without the accompanying anti-feminist pejoratives.

      “There is more to life than seeking perfect health, perfect safety, and perfect financial outcomes”

      What the hell else is there? You’ve shot down health, safety and money. All these three rate very highly in those “happiness” style surveys conducted. We might not have to be spot on perfect in every aspect, but we sure as hell can aspire to it.

    • Huddo says:

      03:55pm | 26/05/10

      Greek Snake, you may not know but there is this little thing called “Happiness”......

    • Frank says:

      05:39pm | 26/05/10

      No. We are borg.

      Did we have a problem with smoking? You mean we have a problem with free choice about what we put into our bodies?

    • Eric says:

      06:12pm | 26/05/10

      Greek Snake, please note that I mentioned seeking *perfect* health, happiness and finance. There’s nothing wrong with doing the best you can, but perfection is impossible for humans. No matter how well you do, it’s always possible to do better.

      This is the problem for those obsessed health and safety and money. They just have to keep pushing harder and harder, rather than accepting that some level is good enough for mere mortal happiness.

    • Charlotte says:

      06:17pm | 26/05/10

      I am half European, half Australian and notice that Aussies - like Americans - tend to put legislations on everything. What about education and parental guidance when it comes to alcohol and smoking and as well obesity? Making things “forbidden” is just making it worse.

    • dancan says:

      01:03am | 27/05/10

      The problem Charlotte is that a large number of people these days are just too stupid and greedy to do something for themselves.

      - People will smoke, get lung cancer and sue the tobacco companies
      - People will get fat, have a heart attack and sue the food companies
      - People will buy coffee, burn themselves on it and sue the cafe for “hot coffee”
      - People will cross the road without looking and sue the government for not installing a big red flashing sign saying “traffic”

      And the list goes on and on and on, stupid people doing stupid things but getting a payday out of it.  But what can we do?  The more stupid a populace the more you have to regulate it.
      For the record I hate regulating and imposing stupid laws on people’s freedoms, but I hate stupid people more.

    • Anne71 says:

      08:17am | 27/05/10

      @dancan - and the truly sad thing about these nanny-state laws and taxes is that they are undoing the years of good work put in by Darwinism. The stupid are able to survive long enough to breed and pass on stupid genes to the next generation. There goes civilisation - anyone seen Idiocracy? wink

    • acker says:

      06:50am | 26/05/10

      Good article I will offer 2 suggestions I hope get debated…. Has free trade of farm produce gone too far encouraging Australian Growers to drop out of growing some produce locally because it has become uneconomic, which in effect is making fresh produce in areas outside the central parts of the major cities more expensive (the imported produce shelf life has already reduced just getting to the city from the other country) and what produce does get back into rural areas often has a very short shelf life and in remote aboriginal communities has a short shelf life and is extremely expensive..

      Add to that the average earning per capita tends to reduce the further you get away from most city centres and the cost of fresh food increases the further you get away from most city centres and the shelf life of fresh food reduces the further you get away from most city centres….The lower socio economic people of Australia are often probably buying frozen and tinned foods in preference to the fresh stuff.

      I don’t deny people should do the right thing and individualy buy the fresh food, but still this is a reason.

      I suggest a wholesale tax based on a distance from source of produce to the metropolitan wholesale market be introduced, including overseas produce, and including private supermarket and fast food chain distribution centres….and the money collected from that tax be used to help improve the price and shelf life of the produce in outer suburban and rural areas…this might also encourage wholesalers to source produce localy.

      It wont solve everything about obesity, but I think it could be one peice of the jigsaw puzzle, and a start.

    • Brian says:

      07:05am | 26/05/10

      “barely a feather of resistance.” was your comment, there really is no way WE the people can offer resistance…UNTILL its polling day, then watch the resistance come out of the woodwork. your time is very nearly up Rudd, start packing your bags BOZO

    • mutombo55 says:

      04:56pm | 26/05/10

      lol, Rudd’s not gunna get voted out for the higher smoking tax. Perhaps you just need to grow some backbone and quit smoking, or are you just a weak minded fool.

    • Arthur George Manche' says:

      10:09am | 26/05/10

      Choice recently did a survey on “meat pies” . It gave results in percentages of meat content. None turned out to show a content of 30%. However Choice failed to tell us what the other 70% content represented. It also did not tell us what meats were used in the production of the humble “meat pie” !!
      Labelling a product as a meat pie , having less than 30% meat, is a joke. You either show the full contents, or do not bother. Let us therefore go on taste. That is something that individuals can attest to.

    • me my mo says:

      04:02pm | 26/05/10

      I haven’t seen it here, but when I visited America, their restaurants often had a calorie estimate for the meal on their menus. To me, it’s an excellent idea because some foods may look healthy but aren’t while others look unhealthy but aren’t too bad.

    • Mark says:

      07:16am | 26/05/10

      ‘You can’t tax fatty food – why shouldn’t healthy people be able to enjoy a Big Mac…’ .
      Why not? It becomes a luxury item, taxed at a luxury rate. Consume it occasionally and the tax hit is not significant.

    • Greek Snake says:

      10:35am | 26/05/10

      Spot on Mark. I agree completely. The tax on these foods should represent the frequency of which they are eaten. It is indeed a sad day when the government needs to tax foods to deter the undisciplined.

      If a tax on fat food is not favourable, stop spending tax dollars on the hugely obese with lap-band surgery. Let them fork out the cash, or learn to control themselves.

    • Stephanie says:

      11:00am | 26/05/10

      I agree with this too, I don’t mind eating a bit of junk food every once in a while, but if they tax it more and in turn bring down the cost of staple foods especially fruit and vegetables, then I can bet that my grocery bill will actually come down! Win Win!

    • Tim says:

      11:50am | 26/05/10

      The problem is that it is quite possible to eat plenty of Big Macs and still be completely healthy if you are doing enough excercise.
      The problem isn’t the fatty food, it’s the lazy people eating them. Personal responsibility should take precedence.

    • Anne71 says:

      12:54pm | 26/05/10

      I don’t know, it seems a bit unfair to tax junk food just because some people can’t stop gobbling it down.  It’s just like the anti-drinking lobby wanting to raise taxes on wine because some people drink too much. Whatever happened to self control and personal responsibility? Why should those who exercise a bit of moderation (not to mention just exercise! wink ) have to pay for those who can’t or won’t?

    • Stephanie says:

      01:26pm | 26/05/10

      Tim & Anne71, I am all for personal responsilibity but do you know how many people willing to put blame on themselves rather than society, governments, television programming, lack of time, work, kids and more?

      Australians have become accustomed to being taken care of… hence personal responsibility is now more or less, non existant!

    • oldschool young-en says:

      11:03pm | 26/05/10

      YES! tax fatty food! i dont eat it much, but would eat it even less if it cost more - already maccas is too expensive for what it is, i would be avoiding these types of foods even more if they hiked the tax like they do on dirty ciggies. the overweight people should pay for their burden to society! (to think if they did tax fat food the $$ would actually go to health instead of pollies…pfft)
      i grew up in a family where we ate out once a week - on thursday night shopping night. if mum couldnt be bothered to cook (who does 6 nights a week 52 weeks of the year?) - have eggs on toast! the way kids are brought up is shameful these days. YES both parents work more hours now - why not make soup, spag bol, stew etc and freeze it so it take 5 miins of re-heating to have a home cooked meal on the table when your short of time? of course kids are going to grow up and pass on what they experienced to their children. they would be lucky to know how to cook a homecooked meal!
      i am also SOOOO sick of the ‘support curvy models’ campagin. YES support models of size 10 - 12 instead of 4-6, but to hail the size 20 model is disgusting. thats not ‘healthy’ its FAT. normalising fat is not healthy to the overweight people, its letting them think that its ok not to eat healthy and go excercise because people still think its beautiful eww.

    • Anne71 says:

      08:22am | 27/05/10

      @oldschool young en - so you’re saying you’d eat even less junk food if it cost more. In other words, you think that rather than exercising a bit of self control and not buying it, it’s much better to force everybody to pay more for it so YOU won’t be tempted. I can’t even remember the last time I had a Big Mac! I’m bombarded by the same ads as everyone else but I’m able to say “No thanks” and walk past.  Apparently that’s too hard for a lot of people out there, so they want someone else, ie the government, to make the decision for them by making it too expensive. Stupid, silly sheeple! This country is doomed.

    • oldschool young-en says:

      09:30am | 27/05/10

      @ Anne71, i have never eaten a big mac…and yes i can resist and walk past junk food, i was simply saying it would discourage the food even more. i am not overweight and not a burden on the health system and thats because i do have self control. of course we’d all love for people to take responsibilty for themselves…apparently that doesnt happen, so instead the hard earned tax payers money is being spent on these greedy lazy people…so im assuming your happy that your hard earned money being spent on peoples lack of self control? why dont they pay for their burden directly - from the food they eat? as Mark said, a luxury item taxed at a luxury rate - dont eat it much and its an insignificant hit…

    • acker says:

      07:19am | 26/05/10

      And you can tax fatty food, healthy people will probably be earning more than chubsters so they can still afford to buy it…but it is a good way of lifting the price of those high fat, high salt, high sugar and high preservative Generic Brand processed foods that supermarkets are peddling to the obese and about to be obese at ridiculously cheap prices….Again the tax collected could be used to help get more fresh healthy produce out to and more available to the masses and at risk communities.

      Remember in the 1960’s and 1970’s when small farmers got a better deal obesity was not a major problem in Australia, fresh farm produce was eaten by more Australians, rural towns were more vibrant and farmers would often market locally at a local market. We also had a more diverse range of supermarkets back then as well.

      If you live in the inner city you should be paying a fair price and tax for fresh produce travelling in most cases hundreds and thousands of kilometres often past remote communities to get to the city. It’s not grown in the bloody city !

    • acker says:

      10:11am | 26/05/10

      @DocBud..glad the article in your link was written by such an authority ......By Paul J. Rosch, M.D.
      President, The American Institute of Stress
      Clinical Professor of Medicine and Psychiatry
      New York Medical College
      Originally published in the Health and Stress newsletter of The American Institute of Stress

    • acker says:

      11:04am | 26/05/10

      @DocBud ...you crafty forumer Doc, you have mastered the art of producing a lone crediable source to support your assertion. So I will produce the Victorian Department of Health to support mine….. http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Salt

      This page has been produced in consultation with, and approved by:
      Deakin University - School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences

    • Brett says:

      01:31pm | 26/05/10

      Every second person smoked then too, with the majority living to ripe old age.  It’s ALL about moderate excercise and diet.

    • Greek Snake says:

      04:52pm | 26/05/10

      @DocBud, what your sources argue is the allegation that salt can be a poison that causes cancer. He goes on to show how salt was used in ancient times and the references to it in religious doctrine, but he does not show any studies linked to the effect of salt intake on the human body.

      The 80% of the piece is all history and religion. There is one small paragraph at the bottom which tells that salt isn’t the demon it’s made out to be, with no supporting evidence.

      He talks of a study in 1979 with government involvement, implying corruption, but he fails to mention another study conducted in 1984. A study that found that higher salt intake is associated with higher risk of stroke and cardiovascular disease.

      The same study conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration found excess consumption of salt is linked with:

      # Hypertension (high blood pressure): “Since 1994, the evidence of an association between dietary salt intakes and blood pressure has increased. The data have been consistent in various study populations and across the age range in adults.”  A large scale study from 2007 has shown that people with high-normal blood pressure who significantly reduced the amount of salt in their diet decreased their chances of developing cardiovascular disease by 25% over the following 10 to 15 years. Their risk of dying from cardiovascular disease decreased by 20%.

      # Left ventricular hypertrophy (cardiac enlargement): “Evidence suggests that high salt intake causes left ventricular hypertrophy, a strong risk factor for cardiovascular disease, independently of blood pressure effects.”. “…there is accumulating evidence that high salt intake predicts left ventricular hypertrophy.” Excessive salt (sodium) intake, combined with an inadequate intake of water, can cause hypernatremia. It can exacerbate renal disease.

      # Edema (BE: oedema): A decrease in salt intake has been suggested to treat edema (fluid retention).

      # Duodenal ulcers and gastric ulcers.

      # Heartburn.

      # Osteoporosis: One report shows that a high salt diet does reduce bone density in women. Yet “While high salt intakes have been associated with detrimental effects on bone health, there are insufficient data to draw firm conclusions.”

      # Gastric cancer (stomach cancer) is associated with high levels of sodium, “but the evidence does not generally relate to foods typically consumed in the UK.” However, in Japan, salt consumption is higher.

      # Death: Ingestion of large amounts of salt in a short time (about 1 g per kg of body weight) can be fatal. Salt solutions have been used in ancient China as a method of suicide (especially by the nobility, since salt was quite valuable). Deaths have also resulted from attempted use of salt solutions as emetics, forced salt intake, and accidental confusion of salt with sugar in child food.

    • FB4ME says:

      07:50am | 26/05/10

      Yeah yeah yeah I’ve heard it all before. We’ve seen an obesity epidemic develop over the past thirty years. Strangely though we have concurrently seen the biggest jump in life expectancy in human history. So not only are we getting fatter bit we’re living longer yet somehow this is a problem.

      I recently read a survey where it said having a BMI over 30 shortened your life by 2-4 years and over 40 by 8-10 years.

      http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60318-4/fulltext#article_upsell

      So basically I can be a complete blob and only live 8 years less. Hmmm that’s a deal worth considering. I mean it’s the last years you lose, it’s not as though they’re going to remove your 20’s.

      I recently spent two nights in hospital for some small elective surgery and surprisingly my ward wasn’t full of fatties. In fact most of the patients I saw were surprisingly thin.

      I have a doctor friend who works in the emergency department of a western Sydney hospital. You know what fills up the ER on weekends? Here’s a hint it’s not fatties having heart attacks. During the day it’s sporting injuries (and a lot of D.I.Y. junkies) and the night it’s alcohol related injuries.

      In fact I’d suggest we spend far more of our medical budget fixing sporting injuries than we do on obesity. Working in the insurance industry I’m amazed on how many young and supposedly healthy people have had numerous medical procedures done and when you get to the pastimes section it become clear why.

      Talk to sports junkies and they talk about their operations with pride as though it’s some sort of badge of honour.

      Yet not only do we not tax sports we give it billions in subsidies because it’s healthy and nobody complains about the multiple billions upon billions we spend every years on people who push their bodies beyond their natural limits.

    • T.Chong says:

      09:05am | 26/05/10

      Acker : is it possible"a better deal for farmers” equals higher price for consumers = less likelyhood that people from poorer socio economic groups will buy less fresh foods, with the obesity / malnutrition cycle remaining unbroken ?

    • Jax says:

      09:44am | 26/05/10

      You are right - you don’t find many smokers in ER either- because, just like obesity, many of the consequent diseases (i.e. for obesity, type II diabetes) are chronic and far more costly to the taxpayers (a lifetime of support) than a quick heart attack or a pulled muscle. A lifetime of support not just in hospital (or more accurately GP) bills but as the article suggests lower work productivity - more time off visiting the GP over a lifetime, etc, etc.

      As the stats in the article suggest I also suspect there are SIGNIFICANTLY LESS people in this country that push their bodies beyond their natural limits through sport than people who push their organs daily in to overdrive trying to support a massive frame.

    • acker says:

      10:24am | 26/05/10

      @T.Chong ....consumers paid $11 per kilo plus for Bananas a couple of years ago after a cyclonic event. So like the proposed mining tax how much someone is prepared to pay for a peice of fruit is debatable.

      But I did say a source to distribution source tax could be reinvested back in the more remote communities where often the produce when fresh travels past or through to the city market/distribution point. And the tax in itself may encourage fresh produce to be sourced more locally. Considering I often see signs such as product of USA or product of China or Product of New Zealand in supermarkets, I don’t personally think that is such a bad thing and might help our Australian fresh produce growers.
      It might also nudge city people into wanting to grow there own fresh produce at home rather than unproductive water intensive suburban lawns. Which I also personally think is a good thing.
      And if you read my posts you will also notice I support increased tax on high fat, high sugar, high ssalt and high preservative foods in the hope of it detering people from choosing these cheap often genereric options when shopping.

    • KJ Storm says:

      04:17pm | 26/05/10

      I would like to agree with you FB4Me. If I am being 100% honest with myself I am one of the people who will probably have health problems later on in life due to the fact that I am extremely overweight. I am now working on reducing this weight and have lost 12 Kgs in the last 4 months. The problem I keep having is that I keep getting injured with the excercise. My friends who are little skinny bits get just as injured as me if not more so. I think it can be a little bit difficult to lump everyone together and say that Obese people tax the health system more.

      If you really want to relieve pressure on the health system start putting some serious money towards research for cancer and other non-curable diseases. If you are obese you can lose the weight. It will probably take as many years as it took to put on (which I know isn’t a favourite view at the moment with shows like the biggest loser showing people losing a lot of weight in a short period of time) but the people who really cost the government and the health system are the people for whom nothing can be done for over the long term.

      Take some responsibility for yourself, recognise that the person you are looking at in the mirror didn’t develop overnight and isn’t healthy and do something about it.

      Government go help someone who can’t help themselves.

    • John A Neve says:

      07:56am | 26/05/10

      Tax is the primary source of government income. Everything the people demand of government, comes out of taxes.

      Tax is increased on tobacco and people whinge. A new SPT is proposed for the mining industry and the industry whinge. A tax subsidy is taken off petrol (QLD), the public whinge, I could go on, but all this proves one thing. Our taxation system is stuffed.

      Over 120 taxes, raise any one of them and a section of our community will whinge and why shouldn’t they?  The current taxation system is divisive and unfair. Sadly it will only get worse.

      We need a fulsome taxation review, with input from all sections of our community. One simple, fair, equitable tax for all, no exemptions. There is such a tax, it is called a Financial Debit Tax. Increase the size of the taxation pool and we would all pay less. Why don’t we have such a tax?

      Because big business does not like it and governments are too scared to implement it. Governments today are not about the people, rather they are about control and keeping their jobs.

    • Fittler says:

      08:56am | 26/05/10

      It doesn’t show that there’s anythign wrong with the Australian tax system, it only shows that there are a lot of whingers out there.

      A Financial Debits Tax would encourage a cash economy and hurt a financial system that the Australian government is trying to promote to the rest of the world and make Australia a regional financial services hub - considering we are currently relying too heavily on the resources industry for our ‘prosperity’ it is evident we need to foster other teriary industries (as opposed to primary and secondary industries which are best left to cheaper less developed economies).

      A broad based consumption tax with lower income taxes is a far better solution.

    • John A Neve says:

      10:35am | 26/05/10

      Fittler,

      With a FDT you would not need any other taxes. Added to which a FDT would totally or almost totally kill a cash economy (black money).

    • James Y says:

      11:28am | 26/05/10

      The govt needs to back right off nanny taxes full stop.  Its up to the individual to do what thou wilt.

      An FDT would be a disaster and just hammer high transaction business.

      The govt needs to build industry assisting infrastructure, reduce the red-tape on business then get the f out of the way.

    • John A Neve says:

      02:50pm | 26/05/10

      James Y,
      Might like to advise us all why a “FDT would be a disaster and just hammer high transaction business”?
      The fact is all taxpayers would pay a smaller % in the dollar than currently. Logic suggests the bigger the tax pool, the less individual tax needed to create the same income.

    • Thomas G says:

      04:43pm | 26/05/10

      An FDT uses nut-job logic.  Tax transactions? Madness.  Thankfully it will never be implemented anywhere.

      Infrastructure, less red tape, less govt interference and a flat income tax.

      Growth not handbrakes.

    • John A Neve says:

      07:14pm | 26/05/10

      Thomas G,
      Says a “FDT uses nut-job logic. Tax transactions? Madness”

      For those a little slow like me, could you please put your reasons into English? Just what is wrong with a FDT?

    • T.Chong says:

      07:56am | 26/05/10

      Part of the problem with smoking,  is how it affects other people, via passive smoking.
      Being in proximity to a smoker can actually harm some one else,while you cant catch obesity from an ample person.
      Also,we are constantly bombarded with stories about how skinny models etc adversley affect young people, particularly girls, via anorexia. Anorexics only make up a very small percentage of eating disorders. Obesity is a far more serios problem in terms of overall numbers.

    • Wallaby says:

      08:47am | 26/05/10

      T.Chong, obese people can harm you if they are in lose proximity. They can fall on you. Ha. Ha. Ha.

    • T.Chong says:

      08:53am | 26/05/10

      Agree,Wallaby, but I was trying to be highbrow ,(for a change)

    • KH says:

      09:35am | 26/05/10

      Actually, I read somewhere that this is not true - if you have predominantly obese friends, the types of foods and the amounts that are eaten whilst with them, and physical activity will be commensurate with the general size of the group, particuarly if you socialise with them regularly.  Inversely, if you have mostly thin friends, you tend to eat like they do, and do the same kind of things - e.g. exercise etc. 

      This is true for anything - if you hang out with drug users, it is much easier to justify using yourself; if you hang out with people who binge drink every weekend, its easier to do it yourself and justify it…..why not for poor food choices?

    • Greek Snake says:

      10:43am | 26/05/10

      Do you not live in constant fear T. Chong, that some obese freak might just eat you?

    • Andrew says:

      12:16pm | 26/05/10

      Are you really aware of anyone who has actually died from passive smoking? The argument is a little thin. I’m sure the damage can occur but i’d say it would have to be pretty constant and that is unlikely in our society today.

      When it comes down to it today the biggest social problem and the greatest cause of injury in our society is alcohol. Everyone knows it we just let it happen because to regulate it or restrict it would cause commensurate problems.

      Typical government, if you can’t ban it or control it, tax it, at lest you’ll make a buck out of it.

      If our governments wanted to cure social issues they would direct taxes raised from smokers to programs and incentives to make smokers quit and remove all access to health care to those who refused to quit. They would put all taxes from alcohol toward reducing alcoholism and moderation education and most importantly they would direct all proceeds from gambling to curing problam gambling and limit how much gamblers can spend at any venue.

      They don’t because they are addicted to the taxes they get from these areas.

    • Too Young To Be Eaten says:

      01:31pm | 26/05/10

      @ Green Snake
      I do.

    • nic says:

      07:35pm | 26/05/10

      @ Andrew

      I know of two people who have died from passive smoking.  One last year - she was a non-smoker, her husband was the smoker and two months before he died, she was diagnosed with lung cancer due to passivley inhaling his smoke.  The worst thing was this guy spent the last two months knowing he killed his wife - so yeah, its an issue.

    • xiaoecho says:

      08:07am | 26/05/10

      Hey, what do the mob care if ‘Individuals have varying underlying causes of their weight problems’
      They just want some-one to hate

    • Greek Snake says:

      10:31am | 26/05/10

      And hate they should xiaoecho!

      Tell me how it is fair that smoking (a known harmful pass-time) can be taxed into oblivion, but Mr and Mrs Fatty can feed their entire family Big Mac meals for under $20?

      People are stupid, they will continue to smoke, so let them fund the world. Problem with the tax is that it relies on people smoking to reap the benefits. In effect it is sending a mixed message, please keep smoking we need your tax dollars. It does very little to stop people smoking. But enough about smokers, they can kill themselves for all I care and fund my country in the process, if you are stupid enough to continue doing something that has been proven harmful, you deserve all you get.

      Onto fatties…. There is no physical addiction to fat laden foods. There is no mental addiction to fat laden foods. Unlike nicotine, fatties do not have a dependence on food. They are (for the most part) lazy and uninformed. There needs to be initiative taken in high schools to educate children on the nutritional components of food. Teaching young students has more hope than trying to teach their stupid, fat parents.

      Subsidise gym memberships! This will encourage people to at least give it a go if the money was deterring them previously.

      Subsidise healthy food! How simple is this? As a generally healthy eater, I know it is far more expensive to keep my meals healthy than it would be to eat junk food. Put it into perspective, I can buy 4 large meat pies from 7-11 for under 6 dollars. However, an entire roast chicken costs around 12 dollars.

      Let’s not forget the detrimental effect of hugely obese people on our lifestyles. How many times have you sat on a train or tram and 1 person takes up almost 2 seats? How many times have you got a tubby next to you on a flight only to realise their back fat is now your arm rest?

      Fat storage is a human survival mechanism, NOT a lifestyle. If you overeat, you store it as fat “in case” you are short on food one day. This makes sense in a hunter-gatherer society where people need to hunt for food and may not be so fortunate everyday. Today however, our survival instincts will end up getting us killed.

      People need to learn the benefits of a calorie deficit, or at least caloric balance in which their caloric expenditure outweighs or equals their caloric intake. It is as simple as that.

    • SD says:

      08:46am | 26/05/10

      “You can’t tax fatty food – why shouldn’t healthy people be able to enjoy a Big Mac, a triple cream Brie or Mississippi mudcake?”

      If the same logic from smoking is applied here- then high fat /high sugar foods can and should be taxed.

      Let’s be honest - a single smoke is doing you very little damage (despite what the ads say). Less harm than riding to work in peak hour traffic. The problem is when you have 20 of them a day.

      Same prinicple applies to high sugar high fat foods.

      Eat these foods all the time and you will have a problem.

      So.

      Best way to implement the tax?

      Tax the raw ingredients.

      Personally - I have a big problem with governement health intervention and the worrying ‘let’s live forever’ mindset. But that’s me.

      A tax on sugars, fats and oils would be the best way to implement a fat tax.

    • Tim says:

      09:09am | 26/05/10

      SorrySD,
      you can still be extremely healthy eating high sugar, high fat diets if you burn enough energy during the day.

      The same cannot be said for cigarettes, which are basically poison ingested by the user.

      There are no inherent dangers to sugars, fats and oils.

    • Anna says:

      03:03pm | 26/05/10

      Uh, Tim, that’s not really true. You see, you still ingest the fat, and it still enters into your blood stream. It just doesn’t get stored. The problem is the fat in the blood stream which damages the arterial walls. 
      See here, diet independently correlates with heart disease: http://nejm.highwire.org/cgi/content/full/343/1/16/T1

      Just because you are not fat doesn’t mean you are healthy. Exercise may only prevent you getting type 2 diabetes, but you’d be better off not howing down on the Krispy Kremes.

    • Anna says:

      03:17pm | 26/05/10

      Nice non sequitur, but death isn’t really all that expensive. It’s the drugs that are changing the mortality rate that cost the most. Statins are great at lowering mortality rates and they cost a tonne: http://www.australianprescriber.com/magazine/22/5/artid/328
      Also, considering that people dying from things such as cancer etc, are going to be underweight due to treament etc. it seems obvious that skinnier people would seem to be dying more. It’s that the dying tend to be skinnier.

    • Anna says:

      03:46pm | 26/05/10

      Whoops, well the second reply went in the wrong thread and was meant to be to DocBud’s spam below.

    • Fittler says:

      08:50am | 26/05/10

      A consumption tax is the most fair tax of all.

      A consumption tax should be imposed at a higher rate on fatty/unhealthy foods to either discourage people from eating them or to collect taxes to pay for the people that allow themselves to get unhealthy (excluding the vast minority of people that can’t help it).

      There’s very little need to go into the details of the costs to the health system of overweight people. They are similar to smokers. Everyone knows there are increased risks if you are overweight (even moreso when armed with the facts of the drain on the health system that they pose).

      I, for one, would thoroughly support a 30% increased GST on sugary drinks, fatty foods, high salt foods etc

    • acker says:

      10:43am | 26/05/10

      And you don’t think people in cities which actualy produce no primary resources (agricultural or mining) should not be taxed on fresh food being shipped into them from where it is produced ?

      Some poor bugger in Jerilderie often has to pay more for fresh produce sometimes grown in Griffith which under the Australian system often ends up going to Melbourne to the wholesalers then back to the country towns.

      Same poor bugger in Jeriderie is possibly having his council rates used to fix a pot hole in his main street caused by the truck taking that produce to the wholesale market or Woolies or Coles distribution point in Melbourne.

      Problem in this country is that areas like the Riverina have grown the wool during the wool boom of the 50’s & 60’s that afforded Sydney the Harbor Bridge and Opera House so a heap of bludgers with SFA skills other than selling real estate, insurance, cars, face-lifts, bum-jobs, hairstyles, resteraunts, coffee shops, imported products, loans, financial services etc to each other could settle on top of each other causing traffic congestion, population pressure and even bloody social isolation !

    • John A Neve says:

      11:03am | 26/05/10

      Fittler,
      What you suggest is just going backwards. The GST was introduced to simplify tax. We used to verying rates of purchase tax, it was a mess.
      We want less taxes not more.

    • Fittler says:

      01:18pm | 26/05/10

      Actually John, a varying rate of tax isn’t necessarily “more taxes”.

      There will have to be income taxes but these can be minimal under a broad based consumption tax. A higher rate on unhealthy foods would also discourage spending on these types of foods or at the least increase tax revenue for more beneficial projects.

      A FDT would merely punish high transaction businesses - namely tertiary businesses which are the ones that will sustain our economy in the future after everything we can sell has been dug out of the ground.

      acker - the cities are where our real growth potential lies. Tertiary business cannot be supported in small towns. It’s our services industries that will help grow our nation. Taxing them would be hamstringing ourselves.

    • acker says:

      01:51pm | 26/05/10

      @Fitler…what wealth potential is there in cities looking forward ??? we import most of our manufactured consumables from China and do our banking in the internet !!!! ..Cities do not produce primary resources and thats what we are exporting

    • John A Neve says:

      03:01pm | 26/05/10

      Fittler,
      Should you be correct and I don’t think you are, a reduction in the amount of takeaway foods sold, would mean a reduction in staff at these establishments.

      Again with this form of taxation you are penalising one group in our community and possibly the poorest at that.

      Rather than punish any one, a FDT would reduce the % in the dollar of tax paid, for all taxpayers.

    • DocBud says:

      08:52am | 26/05/10

      Yawn, more received wisdom based nannying.

      The money numbers are designed to make a case, the studies set out to find an outlandish number to justify government interference in people’s lives.

      So are we really likely to die earlier because we are overweight:

      http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/293/15/1861

      “Using relative risks from the combined survey data, we estimated that 111 909 excess deaths in 2000 were associated with obesity (BMI ?30). Of the excess deaths associated with obesity, the majority (82 066 deaths) occurred in individuals with BMI 35 or greater. Overweight was associated with a slight reduction in mortality (–86 094 deaths) relative to the normal weight category. Thus, for overweight and obesity combined (BMI ?25), our estimate was 25 814 excess deaths in 2000, arrived at by adding the estimate for obesity to the estimate for overweight. Underweight was associated with 33 746 excess deaths.”

      What these numbers say is that having a BMI between 25 and 30 is healthiest, so why does everybody want us to be below 25, are they trying to kill us?

      The excess deaths for a BMI of 30 to 35 (29843) is less than the excess deaths for underweight.

      The lesson: if you have a BMI between 25 and 30 don’t worry, you’re likely to live longer than those skinny people who are stressing about your shape and let’s help the morbidly obese if they want to be helped. Those who advocate intrusive measures “to save health bills” should add force feeding the underweight to their list.

    • Tren says:

      08:54am | 26/05/10

      I am all for the “taxing” of “fat people” so long as whatever is introduced doesnt also effect the racially healthy despite their appearance and the generally healthy.

      Simmilarly I would back any program that “taxes” those that are too skinny regardless of the actual toll on our health system.

      We risk “evolving” into a species that is so intellectually developed that our bodies wont be able to maintain a functioning brain and the sooner we can keep this process in chech the better.

    • buzz says:

      09:00am | 26/05/10

      paul barely a feather of resistance
      well you would hardly expect any one who is a non smoker
      to care about the fact smokers are now paying 100% tax
      on a leagal product.so it would stand to reasson 3 million smokers
      will suport any move to raise taxes to combat obesity after all
      its about user pays…. the resistance will come in the form of
      the loss of a million + lost votes for labor and if theres ever a fat
      tax let the obese have there say at the ballet box
      the war has not been won on smokers
      kev rudd will feel the damage come the ellection

    • Kenny says:

      09:08am | 26/05/10

      The reason a labor government taxs everything is because they waste money all the bloody time!

    • centurion48 says:

      09:09am | 26/05/10

      You might notice a difference if airlines charged by weight for passenger and luggage. All the bogans going to Bali or Thailand might not like it.
      And why shouldn’t airlines charge this way? They are currently doing it for my luggage. Aircraft operate on payload not numbers of bodies.
      People will soon be too fat to climb into their monstrous 4WD enviro-wreckers.
      I really don’t care if people want to eat themselves to death as long as I don’t subsidise it through taxes I pay or ‘health’ funds. Gastric banding and all the other miracle medical solutions should be banned except in a very few cases.
      Fatties can spend their life lying on a bean-bag in front of television feeling like crap or get off their arse and go for a walk. Losing weight is not rocket science - it takes will-power, a permanent lifestyle change (viz: exercise as a normal part of daily life - forever) and not stuffing your face with non-nutritious food. And, you know something else? It doesn’t cost one cent. You don’t have to join a gym or have expensive equipment. This is Australia. Just go outside and enjoy the outdoors for free.
      But, hang on, doing exercise hurts and weight loss doesn’t happen overnight so that would damage their self-esteem. Therefore, it won’t ever happen.

    • OldGirl says:

      09:16am | 26/05/10

      I agree taxing fatty, I think its a brilliant idea, I am an older Aussie. I get horrified at the amount of overweight children and adults I see. They seem to be everywhere, in years gone by they were more of a rarity. What worries me about this, is their health. As we get older our bodies find it hard to handle the load. The more weight you are carrying the more chance you have of serious health problems. I have neck and back trouble, I am not overweight, and my doctor told me, we were never meant to live as long as we do. More fat would escalate back and bone problems because the body has more weight to carry. Joe Hockey needs to lead by example and shed that weight. He’s far to heavy. It’s a shame because he has a lovely smile, and we would like to keep him around for many many more years

    • Justin says:

      09:22am | 26/05/10

      Why aren’t people allowed to just die any more? Clearly we’re not physically suited to live to past 100 (you could probably argue that even 80 years is pushing it), yet at every turn there is a new policy that’s attempting to make people live longer.

      Have a few beers, have a gasper in private if you like, have the odd Double Whopper with chees,e & have a good life - it doesn’t need to be ridiculously long.

    • KH says:

      09:58am | 26/05/10

      The issue isn’t death - its the health complications and the cost of treating them that is the problem, and that is placing the burden of care on the taxpayer. Money spent treating preventable illnesses is not being spent somewhere else that might be of more value.  The fact is that most people (not all, but most) who are obese just eat too much, and too much of the wrong foods.  Many will deny it, or try to claim some medical/genetic reason, but ultimately they are only lying to themselves.  The issue is exacerbated by the fact that so many poor food choices are available conveniently, and most problematically, cheaply.  For many, the choice between a $5 burger from maccas and a $15 steak from a restaurant is not really a choice.  For others, they claim time is an issue - cooking takes time and effort - take away doesn’t.  The question is, is there a way to make healthy choices more attractive, in this case by making them less cheap.

    • Justin says:

      10:22am | 26/05/10

      KH, the cost of treating preventable illness will be more than matched by the cost of aged care within years. If you’re a burden at the preventable illness stage, you’re less likely to be a burden at the aged care stage.

      I’m all for making some treatments unavailable if you can’t demonstrate good faith with your lifestyle. If you choose to use heroin, forget about getting a transplant. Alcohol abuse means no new liver. That’s how it should be, but the overarching ambition to have everyone live for as long as possible simply isn’t realistic.

    • Lucy says:

      10:41am | 26/05/10

      “The issue isn’t death - its the health complications and the cost of treating them that is the problem, and that is placing the burden of care on the taxpayer.”

      Funny that the government claims to be so concerned over aussie citizens wasting tax payers money when they’re doing such a fine job of it themselves

    • Marion Simpson says:

      09:26am | 26/05/10

      I agree with taxing food that help to stack of the fat. If you can afford to eat all that rich food you can afford to pay a tax. The cost to health care from the terminally over weight must be huge. Everywhere you look appears to be a sea of blubber its very unattractive

    • Lucy says:

      10:46am | 26/05/10

      Junk food is generally cheaper than healthy food.

      What about the cost to health care from the anorexics?

    • Markus says:

      01:20pm | 26/05/10

      Lucy the anorexics do not make up 1/5th of our entire population (obesity only, if including overweight it is almost 1 in 2).
      Anorexia Nervosa is also a classified mental disorder, as opposed to sloth, which is just a deadly sin.

    • Anne71 says:

      07:48pm | 26/05/10

      @Marion,taxing “rich food” will not stop the truly dedicated over-eaters, it will only penalise those that know how to enjoy things in moderation.  Honestly, have we all become so incapable of accepting personal responsibility for our actions that our first response when confronted with a problem is to tax and / or ban it? No wonder we’re turning into a nation of idiots. Completely incapable of thinking for ourselves, we wait for the Government to tell us what is good for us and what is not. Well, sorry Marion but I’m quite capable of figuring that out for myself, even if you aren’t.

    • Sam Chowder says:

      09:52am | 26/05/10

      Taxing fatty and sugary food will force it all underground into dirty uncontrolled, illegal suburban home bakeries.  It will also cause an influx of cleverly hollowed out imported goods destined to wayward WI members.

    • King Tutting says:

      10:11am | 26/05/10

      Without the proper police processes, the illegally manufactured cakes may find their way straight to the local Police Station’s afternoon tea.

    • Bob H says:

      10:20am | 26/05/10

      The specially trained sniffer dogs may disrupt a large number of totally legal and innocent birthday parties, and as usual the Mr Bigs will get away with it.

    • Benjamin says:

      09:54am | 26/05/10

      It’s not the food itself, It’s the exces.

    • Swampy says:

      10:38am | 26/05/10

      Even foods that were once healthy are becoming less so. Animals are being bred so their meat contains more fat so it’s tastier & fruit has also been selectively bred over many years so that it contains more & more sugars to make it sweeter and also tastier. A farmer from a few hundred years ago wouldn’t even recognise many of the breeds of animals & varieties of fruit that we have access to these days.

    • Fish says:

      01:35pm | 26/05/10

      Which is ironic Swampy because the fruit from Coles is tasting blander and blander

    • Martin G says:

      11:20am | 26/05/10

      No, no, no, NO.

      I wonder if some people commenting here have been shopping lately??? I certainly don’t need any more taxes inflating my grocery bill. I already pay income tax, GST on just about anything you care to name - Australia is very highly-taxed as it is. Obese people, through their higher consumption of food, already pay more with GST (i.e. the more food purchased, the more GST paid).

      I’d rather focus on *removing* taxes instead. Stop nannying my lifestyle and looking for quick fixes, start educating children (and parents) about ‘personal responsibility’, which appears to have become a foreign concept to Australians these days.

      With this in mind, we should scale back the socialism of our health-care system - get treatment for self-inflicted issues paid under private cover or out of your own pocket. This way, the Government can actually save some money or re-direct it to the treatments that deserve public funding. Or waste in on another stimulus scheme.

    • Trevor says:

      01:11pm | 26/05/10

      “GST on just about anything you care to name”.

      Well, you don’t pay GST on fresh food.  I frequently come home from the supermarket without having paid any GST.

    • jb says:

      09:39am | 27/05/10

      Totally agree.  All treatments for diseases like high blood pressure, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol etc should be removed from the PBS with exceptions only for those who can prove their treatment requirements are not due to diet/lifestyle.  Treatment could be paid for privately, or via health fund (not that I would be a member of a health fund that funded this)This would free up a significant proportion of the health budget to be spent on real diseases.

    • Ryan says:

      11:31am | 26/05/10

      Is it any wonder kids these days are getting fat, they are forced to live in overcrowded conditions in the cities of one of the most sparsely populated countries on the planet, on top of that, when they do go to the local playing field there is nothing that they are allowed to do, no skateboarding, no flying your kite, no anything or face the wrath of the government. What a joke these Labor people have turned our country into, I personally blame obesity on the Labor governments both state and federal because of their ridiculous schemes, overcrowding and over regulation.

    • Fran Molloy says:

      11:32am | 26/05/10

      Unfortunately despite ongoing raises in cigarette taxes, around 17 percent of Australians still smoke every day.  It’s hard to give up smoking; and so, more taxes means those who are doing it hard already (often people battling substance addiction, or with mental health issues) cop another hit.

      Australia is not a classless society. Smoking is inversely related to socioeconomic status (see http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au). There’s a similar tie between class and obesity. I find the notion of health control through taxes very troubling. Anyone working in social welfare will confirm that people struggling to pay their rent can still find the money for cigarettes. I think plenty of people doing it tough will still find the money for pies, McJunk and Coke too.  And they’ll find it even harder to break the cycle, save, buy shoes for their kids. When you’re having a really crap life, those small luxuries are good consolations. I think we need to look at far more comprehensive and supportive solutions, this is a complex problem that won’t go away with a few punitive taxes and an unhealthy dose of shame.

    • Peter says:

      02:19pm | 26/05/10

      @ Fran. Smoking is not related to socioeconomic status. Plenty of rich people smoke as well.. It’s like me taxing you $20 a day for jogging and telling you that only people from low socioeconomic background exercise. The taxes made you poor you didn’t start running because you were poor…

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      11:39am | 26/05/10

      Alcohol is more of a problem. Binge drinking leads to increased violence, drink driving and increasing prevalence of kidney problems and possible brain damage down the track. Australia has a very serious problem with alcohol.

    • DM says:

      10:42am | 27/05/10

      It also makes you think you can dance and sing when really you shouldn’t

    • Annoyed says:

      11:48am | 26/05/10

      “Obese people may also pay less tax over their lifetimes because they die early and so contribute less to society. They also impose a financial burden on others who lead healthier lifestyles.”

      This is quite possibly the worst two sentences I have ever read on this website.

      It is arrogant, assuming and stupid. I have one overweight parent, and one standard weight (who, in her immediate family has lost two brothers and a sister - all a healthy weight). The overweight parent is a product of stress. He exercises every day. He goes to the markets every weekend to buy his fresh vegetables. He doesn’t drink, yet YOU say he is a burden on society because he has a bigger belt?

      You are disgusting.

      People don’t smoke for medicinal purposes, yet a majority of overweight and obese people are in such a condition for medicinal reasons. Have you heard of a thyroid problem? Have you heard of PCOS? I assume not.

      Please, do some balanced research. Stop playing the victim and stop crying about (welcomed) attitude changes to smoking.

      I have always been a fan of your writing, but this is a disgrace. Open your eyes and look at the bigger picture, rather than looking at the effect of the tax your wallet.

      Don’t be so selfish.

    • Paul Colgan

      Paul Colgan says:

      01:28pm | 26/05/10

      One of the problems with managing obesity as a social problem is that it is almost impossible to make any sort of rational assessment when you look at any one individual. You cannot isolate an individual case and say they are a problem - think about it: that’s like saying anyone who is sick should be taxed.

      But there is an undeniable trend of greater obesity rates across the population. This is exactly the bigger picture to which you refer.

    • JT says:

      01:47pm | 26/05/10

      ‘‘think about it: that’s like saying anyone who is sick should be taxed. ‘’ You are basically saying exactly that. Yesterday smoking was the huge social problem that needed to be taxed out of existence, despite the fact medical costs from smoking are approx $300 million per year (while tax revenue is 5 billion+) and now its obese people, what’s next? us skinny people? for living too long and thus costing more in our retirements?

      In fact this topic is simply more evidence of the evils of socialism, when the state pays for health, they need to dictate who gets what from the limited health resources available. As such we have more and more measures introduced to control our lives.

    • Scott Glennon says:

      01:50pm | 26/05/10

      @Annoyed, I think the comparison that Paul has made is fair. Fat people cost money too. Just as you’ve said your overweight father appears healthy, there are smokers who also live long healthy and interesting lives. Yes Paul’s openly a smoker and we all hate hearing how much smokers whinge about paying everyone’s way. It’s unfortunate to your argument that he is right. Fat people eat more of the health pie then they contribute to, as they to fall into the largest killer in Australia (heart disease) in addition to others Paul has mentioned.
      Furthermore, I think you’d find there are people that smoke tobacco for medicinal purposes.

    • Dan says:

      01:58pm | 26/05/10

      ‘Annoyed’, the majority of overweight people do not have a specific medical cause for their weight gain. The best estimates show less than 1% of overweight people have a specific medical cause - and most of those causes can be managed.

    • Stephanie says:

      02:45pm | 26/05/10

      Annoyed, did you also read this?

      “Everyone acknowledges some people can’t control their weight. It’s not quite like smoking, in that being overweight isn’t always entirely a matter of personal choice.”

      Because if you did and you still chose to post such an attack to the writer, using words like disgusting and selfish and disgrace then the one who’s a disgrace is you! He’s made it perfectly clear that its not everyone, your post therefore is automatically null and void, so what was the real reason you posted? Had a bad day?

    • Sealy says:

      03:46pm | 26/05/10

      Must admit, I thought your statement that “Obese people may also pay less tax over their lifetimes because they die early and so contribute less to society”, was a very weak argument. Perhaps if a fat, overeducated professional dies at 29 before they have paid off their HECS debt, you might have a case, but the general gist of your argument and most of the comments here seems to be “let’s have a go at the obese westie bogans who eat Maccas every day.” A single, blue collar worker with virtually no superannuation, obese or not, who dies at 60 from their first heart attack is doing the country a favour financially. Much more of a drain on the public purse are the ‘healthy’ but poor retirees who have the heart of an ox and are able to survive multiple joint replacements, cancer treatments and numerous other surgeries. In fact, these people are actually better off financially the longer they can stay in public hospitals, being fed and warmed for nothing, while still drawing a pension.

    • Stephen says:

      04:29pm | 26/05/10

      “People don’t smoke for medicinal purposes, yet a majority of overweight and obese people are in such a condition for medicinal reasons.”

      This is quite possibly the worst sentence I have ever read on this website. The “majority” of overweight and obese people most certainly are NOT in such a condition for medical reasons. The “majority” of people are overweight or obese because they are lazy.

    • acker says:

      11:54am | 26/05/10

      I’m amazed people here are arguing about how a fat tax or a source to city produce distance tax would be a great evil hitting the urban poor, yet most of the poor happily go out buying plasma TV’s..

    • Simon the Pieman says:

      12:11pm | 26/05/10

      Obesity is caused by overly comfortable furniture and wireless infrared equipment.  Any taxation should be aimed at foam cushioning and TV remotes.

    • Stephanie says:

      01:20pm | 26/05/10

      I watch TV every day before work whilst I have breakfast and then after work I watch lots more.  I have a very comfortable couch and hammock in my lounge room, a PS3 and Wii as well as DVD player and home theatre, stereo and tv remotes (and Air Con), Hence by your assumption I should possibly be overweight, correct?

      However I also eat well (with the exception that I eat a chocolate something every day) and exercise a few times a week and have a BMI of 21, I make time to cook healthy meals every morning and dinner every night and make my lunch to bring to work… cheaper and healthier than buying it… 

      Its the choices we make that allow us to have our cake and eat it too… literally raspberry

    • Elphaba says:

      02:06pm | 26/05/10

      @Stephanie, I’m like you.  I buy and cook all my food for the week on the weekends, making healthy stuff like soups in bulk and freezing them, take my lunch to work (except every Friday), and bake home made biscuits as my treat in my lunchbox.

      But I like a bit of indulgence now and then - like a gourmet pizza.  It makes life worth living.  Taxing it will make me think twice about buying it - but why should I if I look after myself?  Must all the enjoyment be sucked out of life?

      Gotta die sometime.  I could easily turn eating into an endurance sport, but I have other things I want to do in my life that would be hindered by being obese. 

      People who abuse drugs, or drink excessively, or overeat, have lost sight of the things they want to achieve in life.  Taxing them for a bag of chips is like kicking them whilst they’re down.

    • Elphaba says:

      12:37pm | 26/05/10

      Whilst I agree with living a healthy lifestyle, just exactly how long are we supposed to live?

      We’re all going to become a massive burden on the health system if we all start living to 90.  Especially if he birth rate falls.

      There’s no point taxing junk food, just like there’s no point taxing ciggies or alcohol.  Educate people about balance, but ultimately, leave it up to themselves.

      I’d rather see time and effort devoted to better transport services, education, housing, and health care.  If Kevvy wants his big Australia, those are the things that are going to matter…

    • Dale says:

      12:42pm | 26/05/10

      Obesity is far too complex an issue to resolve by putting a fat tax on food. The myth out there is that fat people eat too much - this is not always true. Some skinny people eat too much too but we all have completely different genes and metabolisms to deal with the recent phenomenon of over abundance of food. I think reduce the availability of cheap, nutritionally poor food and make fresh fruit and vegies cheaper through the tax raised on fatty foods.

    • acker says:

      01:16pm | 26/05/10

      And obesity problem growing so fast that not quickly introducing a tax on high fat, high sugar, high salt processed food quickly will end up costing Australia a lot more.

    • JT says:

      01:03pm | 26/05/10

      Here’s an idea, might be a bit out there in todays screwed up society but how about the government (and others) stop trying to control our lives and keep the hell out of dictating what we can or can not do (within the law).

    • Scott Glennon says:

      01:12pm | 26/05/10

      Just like they have with smokers?

    • Peter says:

      01:23pm | 26/05/10

      Obesity problem? No problem, just eat real food and be active.. Some parents should be shot for all the soft drink and sweets they provide their kids and for the regular take away food they eat because they are too lazy (yes lazy, not time poor) to cook proper food.  We were lucky to have take away once a month as kids and both my parents worked..

      I think to we have to blame our increasing desires for gourmet food for breakfast, lunch and dinner as well.. If we keep it simple, ie meat and 3 veg, no processed foods, minimum soft drinks and being a bit active, we wouldn’t have this problem…

    • Rotfai says:

      01:39pm | 26/05/10

      Why do you have to use a beautiful peice of art like The Judgment of Paris by Peter Paul Rubens in this article to emphasize the problems of obescity.
      Do you think a lot of people would be thinking “If I don’t stop eating all of this junk food I might be featured in a famous painting by a seventeenth-century Flemish Baroque painter.
      His paintings are beautiful representations of Women’s physique. Hence becoming famous pieces of art.
      You may also make women that have normal physiques think that they are overweight. Remember there is also a problem with anorexia in this country as well.

    • Melanie says:

      11:50am | 27/05/10

      I agree with this statement. I also found the use of the art piece very strange and unnecessary.

    • demeter says:

      01:43pm | 26/05/10

      come on folks what do you want a raise in GST or a mining tax?

      Ill have the mining tax every day thanks

    • MenarefromMars says:

      08:53am | 27/05/10

      You’ll find the sticking point about the mining super profits tax is not whether it should exist but at what level it should kick in.

      The government says 6% above the long-term bond rate. Most people think that is too low and unfair sue to the amount of risk involved in operating a mine.

      But as per usual the Rudd government don’t want to budge an inch and the tax will not pass the Senate. Instead if the 6% is set to something more agreeable then everyone will be happy.

      Its common sense.

    • Steve says:

      01:44pm | 26/05/10

      You can talk up all sorts of taxes all you like, but unless it is a higher income tax rate for the fatter it won’t have much impact. 

      The real change over the past 50 years has been the loss of movement and physical effort - not exercise as such - such as walking or cycling to work / school, pushing a mower, washing clothes, etc.

      Every modern convenience and labour saving device has reduced our energy output.  Kids are no longer allowed to roam, run and play for fear of germs, injury or pedophiles.  We spend more and more time in front of screens.

      At the risk of sounding truely retrograde - ban television!

    • Zeta says:

      01:58pm | 26/05/10

      Anyone else think it’s a bit rich of the Government to admonish us all for getting fat when our bureaucracy is a stinking, corpulent, obese mass of excess fat sliding around Canberra, fornicating in great wads of money all day?

      Government is a digestive system. It eats tax and shits out services. We’re like little peasants scrapping around the edges of the Government’s cesspits, trying to find something worth using in the sluice. Meanwhile, the Government bends over occassionaly, grabs all our money and eats it, until the lean, efficent organism our Constitution’s drafters dreamed of are instead resembles a giant, wobbling block of cottage cheese that looks like the inside of Matt Preston’s thigh.

      It’s a perpetual motion machine. We watch our tax dollar disappearing into the mealy mouth of the Government, only to receive a dribble in return. And so we say, ‘we’ll fix that, we’ll vote in a new brain for the Government that will tell it to use our tax better.’ But have you ever tried to stop your own digestive system from working? I’ve got shocking indigestion and I’ve been trying to get rid of it through force of will alone and it’s not working. So the next Prime Minister takes his seat atop the great undulating mass of bureaucratic flesh and says ‘it’s time to stop eating, time to work out’ but none of the other organs are listening to it.

      See that’s what its doing. The Government doesn’t care about you. The Government doesn’t want you to be thin and beautiful. It doesn’t want you to be smarter, better looking, more interesting and less likely to top yourself when the horrid, stark meat hook realisations of this farce settle in around you like a foul smell - the Government wants your money. We’re like flies buzzing around its toilet seat. Mild annoyances. Occassional sources of nutrition. At most, the Government wants you to be efficent sources of food. That means living long, taxable lives.

      Hopefully, one day the Government will eat too much and die. And then we can decide what to do on our own.

    • Mr Pastry says:

      06:12pm | 26/05/10

      If you feel that strongly take a look at Direct Democracy http://www.rulebythepeople.org  Democracy is broken and it needs a revamp. It could also reduce the disgusting bloating of our obeseurocracy.

    • Lyn says:

      08:46pm | 26/05/10

      Wow! You really have a way with words - Love it.

    • Peter says:

      01:48pm | 27/05/10

      Democracy will not be fixed until we can vote on everything. Im sick of voting in a different dictator every 3 or 4 years..

    • Jon says:

      01:59pm | 26/05/10

      With the black irony being smoking supresses your appitite and helps you loose weight (that’s BEFORE the chemo or radio therapy kicks in, just to stop the rabid anti-smoking brigade complaining). Wonder if the two are connected in any way…?

      JT, couldn’t agree more.

    • Peter says:

      02:54pm | 26/05/10

      @ Jon. It is not true that smoking supressses appetite or helps you lose weight. Smoking keeps people fat. It’s these kind of lies (that probably originate from tobacco companies) that get kids smoking in the first place. One of the favourites to get young girls smoking is that smoking stunts your growth. What better way to get a young girl smoking who fears she might grow to be too tall? There are ZERO benefits to smoking, and we should stop the lies about it if we are to stop kids from taking it up.. Having learnt what i know about tobacco, i would be surprised if tobacco companies start half these rumours in the school yards… It’s a scandal…

    • Jon says:

      05:37pm | 26/05/10

      Peter,
        “Cecil says:

        03:39pm | 26/05/10

        I don’t know the answer here but I agree obesity is a real problem, I am a smoker, now I assuming if I try to give up the ciggies, I will eat more…”
      Enough said.
      Nicotine IS a natural appitite supressant, like it or not. It would appear that the anti-smoking lobby has won a victory with you. Propaganda is propaganda, no matter who it comes from - even the anti-smoking lobby and their stated goal of wiping out smoking entirely. Don’t forget they have cleary stated their goals and like ANY other fanatical group will stoop to any level to win. You can’t argue with a fanatic, right? Tell me, when smoking is history do you think they’ll jump onto alcahol, which is responsible for far more violence, bloodshed, vehicular death and relationship pain/abuse than ANY other recreation thing in the country? I can’t remember the last time I heard of a guy smoking a pack of ciggies and going home to beat his wife and kids because of it, can you?

    • Peter says:

      06:42pm | 26/05/10

      @ Jon, i smoked cigarettes for 24 years. I am now a non-smoker. I know when most people cease smoking they have more energy, more concience of their health and they watch what they put in their mouths. Some smokers who are probably not in the right mindset to stop smoking might gorge themselves on food. Mate don’t think i am defending the anti-smoking lobby ,they are a con, they have no interest in stopping people from smoking, they are just mouth pieces for pharmaceutical companies etc, they are part of the problem.

      But do not deceive yourself about cigarettes and just how evil this product is. Just how evil the marketing and the mind games behind it and just how evil these tobacco companies are. The whole notion of smoking is based on lies, evil, deception and clever marketing. How else do you think you get people to start smoking in the first place and then to have them defend their cigarettes till their last coughing dying breath.. Do not underestimate the amount of properganda that has gone in to the most evil product devised by man.. It’s time people opened their eyes..

      If you want to smoke, i will defend your right to do it and to not be unfairly taxed, but don’t defend smoking, there are no benefits in it at all. They do not keep or make you thin, they do nothing good for you. They make you lazy, you can’t exercise, their is no oxygen going through your blood. That does not help keep you thin..

    • Andy says:

      02:06pm | 26/05/10

      Current anti-smoking campaigns try to convince smokers that it is a bad idea to smoke by using evermore shocking images, however I still see plenty of smokers out there.  Would it be better to present positive images of non-smokers & healthy people, thus giving people something to aspire to?  Smokers & fatties might see these more positive images & think - I want to be like that.  And it should cover all types of people, not just the good looking, perfect young people.  BTW, read Michael Pollan’s books “In Defence Of Food” & “The Omnivores Dilema”.

    • Peter says:

      07:21pm | 26/05/10

      Andy, the average smoker pays around $3,500 a year in tobacco taxes. About 0.002 cents from each smoker goes to anti smoking campaigns. The campaings (just TV commercials) are designed to make non smokers believe they are doing something about getting people to stop where in reality these Anti smoking groups know they do nothing. The first thing a smoker does when they see those ads is light up, because these con groups (or Anti Smoking Groups) know that this fear will keep most smokers smoking. It all about money Andy…

    • Vanessa says:

      02:29pm | 26/05/10

      Home economics (or a similar subject) should be reintroduced to our schools and made mandatory so as kids can learn how to cook healthy meals for themselves.

    • Amanda says:

      07:23am | 27/05/10

      Cooking and health are already subjects in our schools, but I definitely agree with you. In the olden days girls studied Domestic Science or Home Economics where all types of specialized diets, nutrition, health, domestic chores, budgeting and organic chemistry were learned. Also at that time, the majority of mothers were full time mothers, far less women smoked and obesity was not so widespread. Women left their female dominated careers, such as nursing, when they started families. Takeaway was a treat as household incomes could not stretch to such luxuries. Over the years the trend has changed with more working mothers, more women smoking and higher household incomes. Kids might learn about healthy eating, risks of smoking etc at school but it has become a theory only subject in that what is studied at school it’s not always followed through with on a practical level at home. My intention is not to make a judgement between working and non working mothers here,but rather to show the generalized trend of society over the past 30 or 40 years in relation to obesity, smoking, alcohol abuse and all the other problems of society. No one factor is to blame; it’s just the way things are, always have been and always will be.

    • Troy says:

      02:48pm | 26/05/10

      Want a fitter Australia? Let’s talk about some simple changes like extending daylight saving to all year round. It’s dark before most of us get home from work. I’d love to be able to play in the park or play footy with the kids after work, just like in summer. How about the CSIRO developing a diet (incl shopping list) that everyday Australian can buy cheaply and easily from their local supermarkets.

    • marley says:

      07:30pm | 26/05/10

      Sorry, but why should taxpayers have to finance CSIRO to provide you with a shopping list?  Look at any government health site and find out what healthy foods are.  Then buy a cookbook.  Your future (and your kids’ future) ought to be in your hands, not the state’s.

    • Rob says:

      03:10pm | 26/05/10

      I’m getting lazy. I used this inanother blog, but it seems to fit the subject.

      If Rudd really wants to make money he should slap a 40% tax on fast food. He could claim he was fighting obesity and make it part of his health policy.

      Not sure how the Unions or young voters would react. They might feel deprived.

    • Cecil says:

      03:39pm | 26/05/10

      I don’t know the answer here but I agree obesity is a real problem, I am a smoker, now I assuming if I try to give up the ciggies, I will eat more. That seems to be par for the course, in my trade I can’t afford to be fat or I won’t fit into confined spaces. I think fast food is to easy to access, I think its the lazy choice for many and others just simply overeat. Maybe they should give away courses to Weight Watchers or somewhere like that, with the proviso that if you put the weight back on withinn 2 years you have to pay the full cost of the course.

    • Gunsmasher says:

      05:49pm | 26/05/10

      Tonight I’m going to engage in a sequence of acts of willful civil disobedience that involve risking huge costs that will have to be borne by my fellow citizens who seem so keen to control my behaviour by taxing me into various types of discipline “for my own good”.  First, I will drink a cold, refreshing beer or two while I watch the first half of organised, primitive violence know as State of Origin rugby league.  At halftime I will serve myself a meat lovers pizza and wash it down with a nice glass of rough red wine.  When the match is over I will calm my excitement with a single malt whisky.  Unfortunately I have no interest in smoking or gambling - otherwise I would try to fit them into my evening of rebellion against the nanny state so many seem to support.

    • Steff says:

      05:51pm | 26/05/10

      This seems like an announcement strait out of George Orwells “ninteen eighty-four”

    • Bob Higgs says:

      06:19pm | 26/05/10

      Cholesterol is the Health Services friend - a quick coronary to exit without too much cost is a Health Service accountants dream, so please do not stop the pies, chips, battered pizzas, snags, dim sims, creamy sauces, sugar, fast foods, soft drinks and the like, its cheaper that we arrive in the emergency ward already cold and being just a storage problem.

    • shane says:

      06:31pm | 26/05/10

      For Christ Sake. Enough is enough. I am 54 years old. Don’t smoke or drink and am of average height and weight. Alas I have a terminal illness that will, in the end prove to be fatal. I was born with it and the medical profession have been unable to do anything for me, regardless of what I do. exercise, healthy food, good living, No risk taking in fact no enjoyment of life at all is going to help.  regardless, in the end I am going to die. It’s called LIFE!!! may as well enjoy every minute while it’s there. as for those telling me what I can and can’t do.  BUGGER OFF!!!! you have the same disease. Ha!

    • Jeff says:

      07:19pm | 26/05/10

      Having recently holidayed in Germany (east, west, south and north) I was blown away by how SLIM and fit the vast majority of the population are (of all ages from young to old and of whatever income bracket), and also how few smoke. Not at all what I was expecting!  A surprising number of Germans ride their bikes everywhere as a form of transport.  It was incredibly sad to come home and see so many very fat and unfit Australians - not at all like our mythological bronzed and fit Aussie of folklore. Germany as a country was awesome in so many ways - from its recycling to its dole case management.

    • Astro says:

      07:53pm | 26/05/10

      I’m, what you would call, a fat man. 120kg at 6’. It just happens it has nothing to do with what I eat. I agree with you: tax the sweets and fizzy drinks, american fast foot outlets etc. I exercise and I eat healthy and recommend it to everyone. Mind you, healthy food is very expensive in comparison to junk food so perhaps the fat food tax could subsidise fresh fruit and veggies.

    • Dan says:

      07:55pm | 26/05/10

      It’s not such a big, long-term problem, rather a short term (health risk).  The obesity trend will greatly diminish as soon as the (long waited) 200million Chinease will arrive in Australia.  Then, and only then food will become somewhat less affordable and the “big butts” will become the “big shocked butts”.

    • TC says:

      09:36pm | 26/05/10

      How about taxing those who spend more than they earn?

    • Tanya says:

      10:27pm | 26/05/10

      I’d like to see Norm’s LifeBeInIt! back on mainstream advertising.  I miss that bloke!

    • Tim says:

      10:33pm | 26/05/10

      I think it’s education that is required. How many people do you know, know how many calories in a Carb, Protein and fat? Do they know how fat loss works? No They don’t. You have a mass of uneducated people with obesity problems and they are not educated to deal with it.

    • Nicksta says:

      11:34pm | 26/05/10

      they’re probably putting on weight because now they’ve quit smoking they eat when the cravings come. Seriously people. Personal choice is personal choice. We are now being told we can’t eat, can’t smoke and life should be lived exercising and eating a bucket load of fruit and vegetables. What fun!

    • Anna says:

      12:06am | 27/05/10

      Healthy food is not more expensive than junk food. I feed a family of two adults and two teenagers for under $40 per person per week. That is $5.70 per day for breakfast, lunch and dinner. I cook and we eat very well. Rice, pasta, onions, carrots, etc and a little meat make a perfect meal and are cheaper than any packet of pie you can buy in the supermarket. We have cereals, breat, spreads etc, but very little pre-packaged food, only small amounts of sweets (one bag of lollies each per week) and I never buy soft drink. We have water and milk in the fridge.

      If you ask me, ban soft drink; or tax it out of existence. Like smoking, we know it does nothing good for anyone. It is full of sugar and artificial colours, flavours etc, in fact apart from water there is nothing good in it at all. It rots your teeth, gives you diabetes, is addictive and makes you fat. Why are there no pictures of rotten teeth on soft drink? Like the smoking industry in the past they play with people’s emotions in their advertising. Children are constantly exposed to advertising that tells them drinking soft drink will make them happy, popular and have lots of fun. Why is that allowed?

    • NESLIHAN KUROSAWA says:

      01:15am | 27/05/10

      It is mystery to be that most people do not get it, obesity is directly related to what you actually put in your mouth. Most Australians like to or choose to consume packaged foods that are convenient and easier to prepare. Also unfortunately , they are cheaper than the fresh produce at our supermarkets. You do not have to be brain surgeon to work that out for yourself. Europeans tend to smoke and consume alcohol also, they are educated and smart to know that freshly produced products are better for you. Meaning fresh fruits and vegetables. Being overweight is one thing, but you could still be healthy and i?ve longer, if you have a balanced diet. Most developing and Thirld World countries do not have the same number of people suffering from heart disease, diabetes, and most importantly certain types of cancer.  We just have to make informed and intelligent choices when it comes to our diet and health living habits. Best regards to your editors.

    • John in Alice says:

      01:16am | 27/05/10

      The opening statement regarding the “war on smoking” says it all!  Curiously, smokers are at war with no one, and neither are the overweight.  Special interest enthusiasts who seemingly have taken it upon themselves to dictate what others can or cannot do are the equal to the ancient witch hunters who identified and persecuted innocent victims for years.  Taxation of addictive substances and habits is nothing short of theft, placing an added financial burden on many who can least afford it by immoral leaders bent on gaining personal wealth and power.
      Realistically, smokers place no more financial burden upon society than poor dietary habits, consumption of alcohol or those who indulge in high risk practices from off road racing to mountain climbing to bungee diving.  Literally millions of Australians place themselves and others at risk every day of the year with taxpayers paying millions towards their rescues and medical treatments, while our government dangles the anti smoking campaign under our noses to keep more serious issues out of sight. 
      We may only hope that the day comes when the Australian citizens take their heads out of the bottle to realize how they have been mislead and stolen from through their history.

    • Barry says:

      07:37am | 27/05/10

      So Paul, perhaps being a smoker yourself or having a vested interest in advocating smoking, are you attempting to divert attention away from all decent attempts to stop smoking?

    • Rose says:

      09:35am | 27/05/10

      What about the movie ‘Logan’s run’.
      Interesting that most lap up car fumes as if on a daily suicide mission with most having 2 car/s and off road vehicles at that and causing all manner too for others. But light a cigarette that is more offensive? One wouldn’t want to be fat add in health such as ops causing weight gains such as prostate,  hysterectomy, gall bladder, appendi’s, stomach ulcer and stomach ills add in thyroid, both hyper and hypo weight gains caused by them all and slow metabolism or poisoned brain and body functions by ops. Add in so many medications I could fill many pages just in spelling name of them alone. In additional illnesses. Then names including the meds for heart. Add in depressions, anxiety and heart.  I was on many 5 after heart attack which caused dreadful illnesses though I’d die from them which was caused by them, had the heart attack and block.
      Hang on is this for my benefit? Must be those that claim they are looking after my health?
      Of course add in Fluoride and chlorine, boht affecint thyroid function used in Germany in Hitler’s time. Or drinking RAI 131 to kill thyroid function as i was given.

    • loxy says:

      10:09am | 27/05/10

      Why not put the tax on health instead? If an obese person does not have private health then they should not be getting free healthcare for something that they brought upon themselves (assuming there is no medical reason for their weight). This will force individuals to be responsible for their lifestyle choices and motivate them to make healthier choices.

    • Bronwyn de Aldi says:

      12:07pm | 27/05/10

      Alcohol would be the obvious focus of next wwitchhunt, though we as a society won’t look at that one as it is the accepted social drug.
      Why stop with obesity, if you use this argumeent i.e saving the health dollar then maybe we should check all preganant women for babies with deformities or better still test the unborn for genetic abnormalities and abort them if same found to be present. If we are too abhorred by this then start taaxing the parents for future health costs. I saay back off to all if it is legal then its a matter of choice.

    • Hungry says:

      12:30pm | 27/05/10

      I think it’s education..we’ve been fed (sorry) bullshit for so long..sugar is the enemy and we’ve been eating loads of it since 1970 - right about the time some flawed research came out to tell us saturated fat is bad and we should be eating low fat diets (read high carb n sugar diets) instead…so…fix the food pyramid first..bermuda triangle more like it…put those carbs (sugars) right up the top…vegies and meat /seafood on par at the bottom…then dairy (if you really want it)...then fruit…then your silly grains etc…

    • DeanCassie24 says:

      09:28am | 28/07/10

      According to my own analysis, thousands of people all over the world get the loans from good creditors. Hence, there is a good chance to receive a consolidation loan in every country.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Last year, thousands of Azerbaijanis spontaneously took to the streets of Baku shouting and chanting.…

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Last month, Katy McCaffrey boarded the Disney Wonder cruiseliner. At some point during the trip, a sneaky…

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

ClubsNSW is set to introduce a fresh new effort to combat schoolyard intimidation, insisting on a principal’s…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter