Daily Mail: Tax 'Fatties'

"People who are able to say 'no thanks, I'm full' when offered second helpings of pud." I'm assuming the Brits define the word "pud" differently then we do. Seriously, though, what can you do? This is the type of person who can only be pitied, really. What a complete moron. I feel sorry for him, in the way I feel sorry for other bullies - you know that deep down, he's feeling angry that God didn't see fit to give him a, um, "second helping of pud."

Sweden did tax fat people briefly in the 1920's. A Dutch group clamored for it in the 60's or early 70's. There have been nut case politicians who sporatically bring it up. I agree with Nellicat. Pity the morons! Really, if they ever got serious about it, maybe people would wake up and educate themselves. People aren't motivated by principles anymore. So fat people won't fight for their rights. But God help anyone who messes with our pocketbooks! Then it is a totally different story.

This is what I wrote to the journalist concerned. I've also sent a copy to his editor. I hope those of you who feel strongly about making oneself out to be a "good" fat person as opposed to a "bad" one will not be too offended I told him I ate "healthily" but, frankly, since health is always the reason they come up with this kind of garbage, I felt it appropriate under the circs. Mr Coren, Re: Shouldn’t We Tax The Fatties? 27.5.06 Before you posed the above question and went on at length to qualify it, hurling statistics about willy-nilly while reducing the complex nature of fat to simple self-indulgence, did you consider that a significant proportion of your readership might actually be fat? (Or was your caveat suggesting that the fuller-figured should block their ears while you vilify them just a formality?) Did it not occur to you, given the law of averages and hefty figures bandied about therein, that this charmless plug for your imminent More4 mockumentary might possibly alienate or grossly offend two thirds, (your figure, not mine), of the people who forked out good money to read it? Or, perhaps, given your belief that the majority of “porkers” are indolent, weak-willed, voracious, junk-food-addicted and health compromised – oh, and let’s not forget overly sweaty, antisocial and physically unprepossessing – you automatically assume they must be illiterate to boot. Well, guess what? I’m not. And you may keep your accusations of low self esteeem and victim mentality too. I don’t think you’re prejudiced, Giles. I know you are. In fact I don’t think I’ve seen quite such a crass, witless and wholly ignorant example of fat-bashing in the national press for years. Everything, from the juvenile taunt-ridden language you use to the fact your benighted editor allowed you a platform to big up your draconian manifesto in the first place, indicates unequivocally that fat people remain the only minority it is socially acceptable to insult. Can you imagine him granting some bible-toting queer-basher the same privilege? One of our recently deported mad mullahs perhaps? Nick Griffin? At 5’ 3”, I probably weigh around twelve and a half stone. Fat is only one of the things I happen to be. I'm also stylish, witty, literate, vivacious, articulate and very well respected in my professional field. I bathe regularly and, being a non-driver, walk a good deal. I rarely drink, don’t smoke and eat reasonably healthily, (no red or white meat; oily fish a couple of times a week; plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables; olive oil to cook with; semi-skimmed milk on my cereal; I mostly drink water or fruit juice, take no sugar in my tea or add salt to anything I cook. I tend to cook from scratch and average a take-away maybe once every month. I’ve a weakness for chocolate, which I indulge on a fairly regular basis, and a fondness for fried things, which I don’t). Sometimes I over eat. Sometimes I comfort eat. And, every bit as often as I do either of those things, sometimes I forget to eat altogether. I’m telling you all this because I’m heartily sick of having clichéd stereotypes foisted upon me by clueless hacks – and because I believe I’m a lot more representative of the average fat UK citizen than some poor, incapacitated sod weighing forty-seven stone. People become fat for a wide variety of reasons. Certain medications, thyroid or endocrine disorders and insulin resistance can all have an impact on weight gain, how and where that surplus weight might be stored by the body and whether or not it's retained, regardless of diet and/or exercise. Numerous other factors, such as poverty, disability, genetics, long-term illness, stop-start dieting, depression and eating disorders also have an impact on body-size.... but, if you want to add greed, apathy and/or a sedentary lifestyle to the list, then be my guest. They can certainly be contributors too – as can a combination of several of the above. However, let’s for a moment focus on those with metabolic problems since you say they warrant sympathy rather than contempt. Firstly, ditch Belsen; think Cold War instead. Ever seen news footage of impoverished Soviet citizens lining up for hours to get their hands on a couple of manky cabbages or a loaf of bread? Notice many skinny ones in the queue, did you? No. Me neither. Let me tell you something about dieting, Giles – which, as a reformed dieter, first put on a diet as a slightly chubby ten year old at the suggestion of her school, (a suggestion upheld by my self-loathing, perennially dieting parents...so yes, I guess they did pass on their lousy eating habits to me along with the accursed apple shape that is my genetic inheritance), I feel more than qualified to do. A “diet”, for the purpose of this exercise, is not the kind of well-balanced, everything-in-moderation eating regime as advocated by your epicurean self, but one involving a deliberate, sometimes drastic reduction in calorie intake for a prolonged period of time with severe restrictions on the types of food which may and may not be consumed. When we diet we semi-starve our bodies, effectively creating a famine situation, and our metabolisms slow down accordingly – so the next time famine strikes, our bodies will have learned to store fat that much more efficiently. That's why the vast majority of dieters put all their weight back on, with a little bit more for luck, every time they stop dieting. This recidivism is one of the reasons people diet repeatedly and the more often they do so the more they compromise their health, metabolism and weight. If fat people had higher metabolisms by virtue of carrying extra weight as you assert then, in theory, the more weight they were carrying, the fatter they...er...wouldn’t be. As well as permanently screwing up metabolism, dieting also affects the mind. Far from teaching one to eat healthily or in moderation, it creates guilt, anxiety and disordered thinking around food. Many fat people and compulsive eaters, (the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive), are serial dieters. We live in an appearance-fixated culture that actively encourages self-hatred by promoting extremely narrow ideals of physical perfection. I believe this is damaging physically, mentally and spiritually to society as a whole; I know it was damaging to my younger self. That’s why, for the last twenty years, I have channeled the energy I previously spent hating my generous body into nourishing and accepting it instead. This too takes willpower – however, unlike dieting, it’s enhanced the quality of my life, boosted my self-esteem and proved to be of long-term value. I also make a point of challenging bigotry, particularly when cloaked in bogus concern for my health. Your rant is not about health; being the focus of contempt, derision and disgust expressed by strangers in positions of power and influence is scarcely beneficial or conducive to anyone's wellbeing. This is about making simplistic value judgments based on aesthetics. Plenty of thin people eat all manner of garbage and wouldn’t go to the gym if you paid them. They also snort coke, sink eight or nine pints in one sitting and have unsafe sex with folk whose names they don’t know and about whose sexual history they know sweet FA. Are you planning to tax them? No, you’re planning to tax me because the size of my arse has you firmly convinced I’m scarfing a family-sized stuffed-crust pizza and chips every night whilst wired up to a two-litre Pepsi IV. I’m sorry but unless you have access to Dawn French’s medical notes you are in no position to pronounce her “in imminent danger of terrible health breakdown”. The only person’s health you can truly discuss with any degree of authority is your own. Self-hatred – and fat-hatred in particular – makes publishers, bariatric surgeons, drug developers, cod-nutritionists and diet gurus obscenely rich. It also makes society vicious, fearful and, more importantly, ever fatter. It is not the likes of Dawn French who are irresponsible by providing a counterpoint to the ever-shrinking physical ideal but intolerant scaremongers like you. In continuing to demonize fat and present it as a moral issue, the media only serves to perpetuate this state of affairs. In truth I don’t give a flying one if my taxes pay towards the upkeep of nine hundred morbidly obese people I’ve never met. I’ll bet there’s a damn sight more anorexics to be found draining the economy. Besides, my taxes go towards a lot of things I neither reap the benefits of nor condone. I am, for instance, childless and never attended a state school myself, but my taxes fund the system anyway. I’m none too keen on my hard-earned dosh funding a war I don’t believe in either. And you may best believe I’m profoundly unamused to have to pay for the privilege of watching the likes of you slag me off on the idiot box. Lastly, your central thesis is flawed. If you plan on linking a tax to BMI then surely, the people you’d stand to make the most money out of – being incapacitated and thus unable to work – would yield precisely bubkes. Yours most sincerely,

Too bad we can't tax stupidity.

Wow...let me tell you what wow.  I started reading that fully expecting to scream out in indignation at my computer screen and wake my 3 yr old, and instead I almost woke him with my gawfing.  I couldn't help but break down laughing at this "journalist's" drivel.  You know what...I'd love to see them try to tax accroding to BMI because they would get a nice hefty sum from professional athletes.  It just amazes me how stupid people can be, but I don't take nearly as much offense to it as I used to.  Thank you Buffpuff for your letter.  It amazes me as I go through a tremendous ammount of medical testing for some very serious issues that...shock and suprise...effect my weight, that people still think that a higher weight only revolves around one thing, food. So Mr. Coren, I'm sorry that a fat person must have scared your mother while she was pregnant with you, because that's the only explination I can come up with for your inherant obvious genetic ignorance. 

Buffpuff, that was a wonderful letter. The thing is, I may be fat (and, indeed, I am) and take more space than some others, and Mr. Coren may not like looking at me, but I don't have an ugly soul, which he surely does. I don't get off saying foul things about people just so I can drum up business for my documentary. There are people who consider me a blessing and absolutely no one who can claim that I ever said anything cruel to them and tried to disguise it as some kind of concern for their health.

Cheers, guys. Klrtink, I wish I'd thought of his pregnant mother being startled by a fat person - that's fabulous! I'll let yall know if I hear anything back in response though I'm sure I won't...

Wow the Daily Mail seems to be promoting some particularly ignorant anti-fat bashing. Here's another story today: Obese pregnant women 'risk baby's health' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/womenfamily.html?in_article_id=389190&in_page_id=1799 Notice there's no actual evidence cited that overweight risks the baby in any specific way, except: "One of the problems is that sometimes you can't see the ultrasound scan of the baby properly in obese pregnant women and this can lead to clinical problems as well as being upsetting for the parents who are not able to see a picture of their baby." It's just laughable. Or it would be if they weren't accusing fat women of willfully harming their children. And on top of it without a shred of evidence.

Well I said my bit in the comments section (see Jim, London) of the Daily Mail site... and to be fair they published the comment straight away...

A question from the American ignorant -- is Daily Mail the equivalent of a National Enquirer-type rag? Does it consider itself "serious journalism" or pure sensationalism? I wouldn't be surprised to see the latter publish this kind of thing.

The Daily Mail is perhaps the most sensationalist tabloid paper in the UK. It panders to the lowest common denominator and is read by those who of a weak mind who wish to be perpetually scared of something (but often don't have an informed clue as to what that might be). It doesn't have the highest circulation (The Sun is the most read) but it plays a significant part in opinion formation in working and middle classes in the UK. The Daily Mail's headlines often revolve around the 'moral outrage' that is most popular at that given time. In the distant past this paper has nodded towards homophobia and racism but has now moved on to more PC ground of witch-hunting Paedophiles, deliberately blurring the public lines of perception between immigrants, muslims asylum seekers & Terrorists, and (most recently) blaming stuff on fat people...

Well, the beeb have covered it and have (to their rare credit) cited a voice of relative reason to contrast Mr Cohens bonkers suggestion... not a complete deconstruction of his arguments but at least a practical viewpoint on why its unworkable and unfair. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5051248.stm

I tabulated the comments to the column. There are a lot of 1/2 ratings because the column made several claims--frex, some commenters agreed that fatness is bad, but had various arguments against taxing it.Out of 23 comments, 6 completely in favor, 6 partially in favor, 8 against, 1 partially against.I don't know that the American equivalent would see as much opposition. Not that it's practical in any sense, but I'd like to see pure-rage columnists taxed. They're got to be bad for people's  blood pressure.

Awesome, BuffPuff, really awesome. And I agree with you about fat people being the last fair game. Can you imagine what happened if people started the "costing tax money" rigmarole on people who, say, had an accident because they ignored a traffic rule and consequently had to undergo long hospital stays/pt/amputation and so on? Or people who have AIDS as a consequence of unprotected sex? Or people who have a family history of disease x, y, or z, but go on and have a child anyway? Can you image the outcry at "Let's tax the parents of babies with emophilia/cry du chat/whatever, because they willfuly had a baby who shall cost us tax money?" It would be deafening. [Sarcasm: on] But we are, of course, lazy, gluttonous fat people, so of course it isn't, in our case [Sarcasm: off] "So fat people won't fight for their rights." pani113, I do see your point, and I think it's a valid one. But please let us not forget that in order to fight for your right, you need to be aware of the rights in question in the first place. Most fat people are brought up being made to feel like the lowest form of life on Earth, like someone (or rather something) that has better apologize for his/her very existence. It's a long road to discover that you do have rights and to start fighting for them and standing up for yourself, and a hard one.

Buffpuff, bravo!  

Buffpuff, that's an AMAZING letter. You should send it not just to that rag but also to some mainstream pubs. It's crying out for a wider audience!

Thanks again, everyone. I'm blushing here! One of my friends, who's a professional advertising/PR type, is going to try to get the some other newspapers interested in my letter. I think she's also going to badger More4, who are showing the wretched documentary. I wish I'd chanced to see the following statistics before I sent the letter off in the light of Coren's blathering on about how those 900 supersized people are sapping the tax payer/National Health Service to the tune of four million quid. Apparently, osteoporosis causes 310,00 fractures a year, costing the NHS £1.7 billion. Of course fat people rarely get osteoporosis on account of treating their bones to a load-bearing workout every day. Interestingly I came across these figures in London's free newspaper, the Metro, which I think is published by the same group who publish the Daily Mail. Oh, the irony...

I'll say it too: That letter was fantastic! Thank you. I wrote a comment to feedback, but, big surprise, they didn't post it.

Okay. Get this... There was a knock on my door this morning and when I went to answer it there was only a Daily Mail photographer outside! He told me they wanted to use my letter as the leading one on their letters page either tomorrow, Monday or Tuesday and could he take my picture? (Since I was clad in my scuzziest nightgown, unwashed and generally minging, I said he could come back in an hour to take one, which he did). I can't believe they'll run the whole enchilada. They'll probably edit it to hell – but hey, who cares? For once somebody actually bothered to listen to what one of us is saying. Squeee!

Fantastic letter!

Holy shit, Buffpuff, that is awesome!

Brilliant!! Let us know when it's printed.

BuffPuff, your letter is tremendous, and I am in complete agreement that it needs a wider audience. Congrats on getting it in as a 'rebuttal' in the paper. I look forward to reading of your best-selling book and worldwide speaking tour!

Well they say a week is a long time in (fat) politics. I have just returned from the newsagents and the most positive thing I can say about my 'leading letter', as the Mail have presented it, is that I don't look like a dog in the photograph. They have précised my letter down to the barest minimum, (165 words from 1500), and, of course, removed anything in my original draft which might possibly have succeeded in making people think beyond the obvious. Nary a trace of anger remains; instead I'm presented like this pleasant, rational lady, who's a just little bit cross at being insulted. Frankly I'd rather they'd have left my picture out and printed more of my actual WORDS. I'm tempted to try my luck with (rather more left wing, PC), Guardian, but I fear that the hoo-ha around Coren's craptastic documentary, which went out on Tuesday, will have died down by the time they get it. Still, placatory as the Mail's gesture was, at least the letter had some effect on them, which, when all is said and done, is why I wrote it. Onward and upward, my friends.

I'm glad you made them listen up, Buffpuff. It's quite an achievement. Bravo again!

Buffpuff, that is awesome. Nice job!

(Even though it was edited, of course!)

Here's a brief video video featuring Giles Coren pitching the idea of a fat tax. It's met with, ah, resistance.

(Also, video video is like radio radio.)

Hmmm. Just discovered something else today. In Giles Coren's novel, Winkler, its antihero protagonist...shoves a fat woman in front of an oncoming train just for the heck of it. Do you think he might have issues?

This taxation isssue is something that I have bumped into on several chat forums and similar in Finland. It always makes me extremely mad, but at least I know that if such a tax would ever be taken into use in Finland I would simply move to some other country. Luckily no actual "reporter" like this Coren character has made this their cause here yet but you never know when that may happen. Oh and great job Buffpuff - too bad they edited your piece to death.

Not that this will be such a huge shocker, but I went back to the original piece to see that my comment in response to the article was never posted. To be honest, I just did a quick scan, but of the 26 comments, only 3-5 (depending on your fat-lib stance) went against the piece's theme. Most of the commentators were in agreement with the tone and content of the article, or in praise of themselves for having the self-control to be thin. What horses*&t. In addition, most of the comments were barely a mental/maturity step above some of the rancid thoughts expressed in that Craigslist experiment post a little while back. I just love being called a "chubby tubb[y]" and being directed to watch myself in a mirror while I eat so that I will feel the shame needed to kickstart myself into losing weight. Priceless.

I dropped a line the editor expressing my disappointment, adding "I would gladly have forgone the mugshot and bold type in favour of your publishing more of my genuine words, opinion and depth of feeling as opposed to the sanitised, neutralised, heavily paraphrased and précised version you actually ran". I'm not holdng out any hope but I'll let you know if there's any comeback.

In Giles Coren's novel, Winkler, its antihero protagonist...shoves a fat woman in front of an oncoming train just for the heck of it.This guy actually had a novel published?  That's crazy!  The whole time I was reading his piece, I was thinking to myself what a terrible writer this guy is.  No imagination, no passion, no means to engage the reader aside from inflammatory epithets like "porker" and "tubby."  I seriously can't believe people this talentless actually get paid for their words while the immense talent of so many in the blogging community goes unrewarded.  

Oh, saucebox, it was lame, lazy-arsed writing for sure but the fact is that, in the UK, journalists succeed in getting novels published all the time just for having made it into print elsewhere. (Plus it probably doesn't hurt that Giles's dad is the genuinely great Alan Coren - hysterically funny writer an ex-editor of Punch magazine). Here's some additional food for thought. Giles won the Literary Review's Bad Sex Awards last year. Put this in your browser to see why: http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1652789,00.html (Believe me, if you thought his article was crap just wait till you see what constitutes his idea of purple prose). Now...interestingly enough Coren shares this honour with another UK journalist, A.A.Gill, who is every bit as much of a fat-basher as Coren is. Indeed, here's what he had to say about Coren's Tax The Fat documentary in the context of an article bemoaning the loss of quality TV:- Tax the Fat (Tues, More 4) is the sort of food programme we want second helpings of. GC made a chubby fist out of rationalising the need to ostracise, stigmatise, vilify, humiliate and tax fat gutbuckets for health reasons and for their own good - oh, hell, forget the health bit, let's just do it beciause it's fun and they can't run as fast as we can. I'll tell you what, let's make fat people famous. The we can humiliate them all we want. So, here we have two fat-bashing British hacks who've possibly got issues with women in general and who also just happen to be...food critics. This simply has to be some fearful, negative projection thingy, right?

Sorry, that should have read "hysterically funny writer AND ex-editor of Punch magazine"

Hey Buffpuff! I love you're style!!! And while we're talking about taxing us fat people because of the "medical costs of obesity", maybe they should tax sports equipment because people can get injuried, or even killed water skiing, bungi jumping, or contact sports. I've been in a couple of motorcycle accidents and came out with only minor injuries like cuts and bruses. My own fat protected me from getting any broken bones. My muscles were sore for a week, but no broken bones. If I had been thin, I probably would not have survived, or if I had survived, I would have spent time in a hospital getting treated for all kinds of injuries, and adding to the medical costs. I'm sure we all have read on line about "The Obesity Myth" and how the claim of obesity causing over 400,000 deaths every year has been a gross exaggeration, that it is more like only 26,000 deaths per year. One is far more likely to die in a car accident or from a gun shot than to die from obesity. And speaking of gun shots, let's talk about crime. In all the police videos I have seen on TV about people committing crimes, most of the criminals were either skinny, average, or muscular athletic types. I have seen very few fat people involved in violent crimes on the videos, and when fat people were involved in crimes, it was mostly of a nonviolent nature, like shop lifting, or a traffic violation. Most fat people I have known were nonagressive and very gentle. But then I tend to gravitate toward people like myself, and avoid people who are agressive. I'm a rather docile and gentle person myself, and I'm very obese. Even when we fat people are naughty little boys and girls, we're still gentle. So, maybe we should assess peoples risk of committing violent crimes based on the BMI scale, and the lower one's BMI, the higher taxes they should pay based on their risk of inflicting property damage or injuries to other people. I'm just kidding of course. :) I have also read somewhere that the obese are at a much lower risk of suicide, the higher the BMI, the less likely the risk of suicide. You know, we fat people are truely amazing creatures! We have to take a lot of bull crap from society, putting up with discrimination, cruel jokes, harassment in public, You name it! We all have the right to be very angry, and go out and kick some butts! Yet, we fat people have the lowest crime rates, and lower rates of suicide. So, maybe we fat people actually a deserve tax break based on our much lower risk of crime, or spreading infectious diseases. The extra fat we carry on our bellies actually absorbs toxins from the blood, and produces anti-bodies against infectious diseases. Being fat does have its benefits. Also, I prefer living in today's modern society despite the so called "obesity epidemic" because we are living much longer then most people did a couple centuries ago when many people were thin and were lucky if they lived beyond the age of 40. Not only that, but it's a known fact that people who are moderatly overweight actually live longer than thin people or even "normal" size people. The only reason why people who are obese have a lower life expectancy is because of the prejudice we have to face from our doctors, so when we develope health problems we are more likely to hesitate to seek medical help because of the prejudice we have to face. Foe example, I have arthitus in my ankles and knees, and I have to walk with a cane, and when I have gone to doctors they would refuse treatment and have simply told me to lose weight. But when a thin person goes to the doctor with the same condition, they are able to get the treatment that is often refused to us fat people. So, it's the poor quality of medical treatment that obese people recieve that is putting us at greater risk than the obesity itself. But if the obese were to receive the same high quality medical care the is available to thin people we would also be living much longer. Yeah, I'm obese all right. I'm 5 ft. 6 in. and I weigh 310 pounds, but my blood pressure is normal, usually around 110/70 my cholesterol is only 116 which is actually lower than normal, and my triglycerides are only 84, and I'm 54 years old, but I've been told that I look younger. I have known thin people who had high blood pressure and high cholesterol, so if we are going to impose a tax on people, then it should be based on how high one's blood pressure, cholesterol, and triglycerids are, and that would mean that thin people would also have to pay the tax. Again, I'm just kiddin! :) We fat people are actually very lucky! A modest weight loss of only 5% percent of total body weight is often enough to improve those conditions, and a 5% percent weight loss is easier to maintain then trying to lose all the extra weight. Thin people don't have that option. A thin person may be like a fast little sports car, but we fat people are like great big multi-stage rocket ships! Of course, some of us even have difficulty trying to maintain that 5% percent reduction in total body weight, so instead, I try to be careful what I eat, by eating losts of vegetables, and fresh fruit with my meals, along with chicken or fish. I don't even count calores. I eat enough to satisfy my hunger and the nutritional needs of my large plump body so I can have enough energy to go into warp drive! So, I'm a starship!!! Now, perhaps people who are prejudice should be made to pay a stupidity tax!

There's something I don't understand in the article. The writer said fat people are getting medical treatment from taxes paid by thin people. In the US, nearly all income except some government benefits is federally taxed, and there are local sales, property, and other taxes. Everybody has to pay these taxes, and there's certainly no exception for physical traits like height, gender, or fat. Is he saying that fat people are wasting thin people"s tax money because in the UK, fat people don't pay taxes?Another point: it seems to be increasing popular to argue that, as someone put it on a disability board I visit, that a human life has value only if it economically self-supporting.And why is that only being said about fat people and disabled people who make others uncomfortable, and not sick thin people or people with disabilities that cost a fortune but aroouse pity?

Good evening fatfairy. Oh yes in deed! Excellent point! The taxes people pay to cover the so called "medical cost" of obesity, does not come out of the pockest of thin people only. We fat people also pay the very same taxes as everyone else, so covering the medical cost of obesity also comes out of the pockets of fat people, as well. Also, we all, fat and thin, have to cover the medical costs of people who have lung cancer from smoking, damage due to excess drinking, and people who have sexually transmissible diseases. We also have to cover the cost of treating sports related injuries, so maybe athletes should be taxed! Many of their injuries are self inflicted, and we all have to pay for it. If they want to impose a fat tax, then they should also impose a muscle tax! Strong muscular athletic types are more likely to be involved in violent crimes than obese people like myself who are soft, flabby, and weak. We all pay taxes, not just the thin, and our taxes cover the medical costs for people who are disabled (both fat and thin) who are unable to work, and we all have to pay taxes for things we don't like, and nobody, fat or thin, has any choice where his/her tax dollar goes. Taxes are simply the price we all must pay to live in a civilized society. And so, to those who bitch and gripe about paying taxes, then leave civilization and go find a desert island or some remote jungle to live in! As for me, I'll just happily pay my taxes so I can enjoy paved streets, public libraries, a police force to protect me, and Army to protect the country, and good medical care, and if my tax dollar has to go to pay for the medical care of those who's injuries and/or diseases are self inflicted, then that just comes with the territory. I don't wish to return to the jungle, no thank you!

Also, we all, fat and thin, have to cover the medical costs of people who have lung cancer from smoking, damage due to excess drinking, and people who have sexually transmissible diseases. In the UK we not only pay income and local taxes, we also pay National Insurance, which funds the National Health Service. I think Coren's point was that, as smokers and boozers pay extra tax on the goods which may (or may not) lead to lung cancer or cirrhosis of the liver, fat people should also be paying an extra surcharge on their fatness, which may (or may not) land us in hospital with fat-related maladies.

The New York Times is jumping on the bandwagon, suggesting that we tax "drive through" purchases. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/19/opinion/19schmidt.html

That's a half-baked idea, and a pretty poor one at that. "Imposing a drive-through tax would be one way of recouping future taxpayer outlays — perhaps revenues could go directly to government health programs. And who knows, it could help the environment, too: with one move, we could fight obesity and reduce emissions from all those cars idling in the line at Burger King." Instead of, you know, making cars more eco-friendly. Nice.

I did not read the New York Times article and I think that a drive-through tax is a pretty dumb idea. However, I do believe that Americans should start using their cars less. I also believe that Germans, my fellow nationals, are using their cars too much and are wasting energy in many different ways. At least for people who do not have a physical disability it is absolutely possible to walk or bike to the grocery store two blocks away which by far not every German does. However, when I went to the US I was amazed how many things were done without even leaving your car: banking, dropping off mail, even dropping off books at the library. It is not good for people and it is not good for the environment. And even if we design more fuel effcient cars, I do not see a zero-emission car in sight, even the hydrogen for a hydrogen fueled car would have to be first produced which would in turn use up energy produced in a different process.

I did not read the New York Times article and I think that a drive-through tax is a pretty dumb idea. However, I do believe that Americans should start using their cars less. I also believe that Germans, my fellow nationals, are using their cars too much and are wasting energy in many different ways. At least for people who do not have a physical disability it is absolutely possible to walk or bike to the grocery store two blocks away which by far not every German does. However, when I went to the US I was amazed how many things were done without even leaving your car: banking, dropping off mail, even dropping off books at the library. It is not good for people and it is not good for the environment. And even if we design more fuel effcient cars, I do not see a zero-emission car in sight, even the hydrogen for a hydrogen fueled car would have to be first produced which would in turn use up energy produced in a different process.

Sorry for posting twice... the first time I got an error message that stated that my request was not completed...

The thing about Americans using their cars less... in some places (like where I live) that's all but impossible. Here in East Tennessee we measure distance in miles or mins by car. As in "the nearest grocery store is 20 mins away by car going a very good clip." For people in my area to cut down on car use would require complete rehaul of... well... everything.

Morrighan, I have lived in the Wichita, Kansas, and I know what you are talking about. A lot of streets there do not even have sidewalks. Yet, I believe that Americans (and as I said Europeans although to a somewhat lesser extend) have to seriously think about how they can cut down their energy consumption. Yes, true, that also means that changes in infrastructure are needed, but as long as people don't ask for those changes they are not going to happen. By the way, I was talking about stores that are two blocks away, not 20 minutes by car. I agree that if you live in a rural area you will have to use your car to go shopping, accept if there is a really good public transportation system.

*nods* I completely agree. Back when gas prices were so high people were actually talking about things like an superfast rail... now that they've come down we're back to the same ol' same ol'. I personally would love to not have worry about car maintenance. And I understood you were talking about nonrural areas. My post was just an unconsious twitch I have anytime people start on how Americans should use cars less. *grins* Too many flame wars with some idiot that has never set a toe outside an area with a bus stop every few blocks trying to say peole that drive cars are just lazy.

I'm glad you got a response Buff Puff! That's pretty awesome! I hear a lot about people wanting to tax fat people and I wonder - with the ever strident and changing definition of "fat" who would be taxed? People over 400lbs? Over 300lbs? Anyone whose collar bones and spine joints aren't sharply defined underneath a paper thin sheath of skin? That would include everyone except victims of famine in underdeveloped countries and high fashion models. And like what BabySeal brought out earlier where does this business stop if people decided to take a fat tax seriously? What about people who are "sexually promiscous"? A lot of those people spread sexually transmitted diseases everywhere. I'm sure that costs everyone lots of money every year. What about people who have too many children? After all, we in the West use up far more resources than the rest of the world - right? And then there's the problem of over population and ever scarcer resources. So why don't we tax people who have, oh, say more than two kids? And while we're at it what about those darn athletic types who land in hospitals and clinics everywhere with their stupid broken bones, strained joints and aches and pains? Costing us billions of dollars a year I tell ya! People just don't think about how stupid it is to pick out on group of people to harrass. It's a slippery slope!