Should Thailand tax junk food to help fight obesity?

[transam]

I've already said it is clearly linked to urbanization.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, it's linked to income and perhaps showing off that ''we'' can afford it...........

[Jingthing]

I've already said it is clearly linked to urbanization.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, it's linked to income and perhaps showing off that ''we'' can afford it...........

There are multiple factors. It isn't a yes or no situation. I don't really understand why some people insist on needing to radically SIMPLIFY things that are obviously not at all simple.

Three broad global forces—free trade, economic growth, and urbanization—are rapidly altering people’s food and built environments and spreading new technologies. These macro-level changes are driving the global obesity epidemic, especially in low- and middle-income countries.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-causes/globalization-and-obesity/

[transam]

Then post a pick of yourself (no face) and let me see if your NON junk food did the trick for you ..........

Be honest now, noooooooooooo Arnie in his younger years.....

[StreetCowboy]

They should tax not riding bicycles. Everyone should be forced to ride a bike 10 km to and from work, and if they live closer to work than that, they can be repatriated out to the countryside, as part of their re-education.

Out in the country they'll be able to get brown rice, as well, as all the rice millers will be in jail for their part in the great rice subsidy counter-revolutionary scam.

SC

Edited January 10, 2014 by StreetCowboy

[krisb]

Transam is right Jingthing.

Not many Thais from the 'real' Thailand can afford any Mc muck. It is a luxury food if even liked at all.

Would be great for a fast food franchisee to add some input to this.

[mogandave]

It's hilarious how the politically right wing can't get their heads out of the dogmatic anti-taxation mantra, when the root of the motivation for any of this is improved public HEALTH outcomes.

More attacks, without any attempt at showing how yet another hideously regressive tax is going to do anything but hurt the poor (the people eating white rice) and benefit the rich (the people marketing the rice)

You guys crack me up. You don’t seem to care at all whether something will work, as long as you can throw other people’s money at it and grow government.

Just do anything to make yourself feel better about yourself and screw everyone else.

Typical.

[krisb]

They should tax not riding bicycles. Everyone should be forced to ride a bike 10 km to and from work, and if they live closer to work than that, they can be repatriated out to the countryside, as part of their re-education.

Out in the country they'll be able to get brown rice, as well, as all the rice millers will be in jail for their part in the great rice subsidy counter-revolutionary scam.

SC

Brown rice with butter is lovely btw.

[Jingthing]

Transam is right Jingthing.

Not many Thais from the 'real' Thailand can afford any Mc muck. It is a luxury food if even liked at all.

Would be great for a fast food franchisee to add some input to this.

It might help to read the thread. The scope of it MUCH WIDER than only fast food restaurants.

[Jingthing]

It's hilarious how the politically right wing can't get their heads out of the dogmatic anti-taxation mantra, when the root of the motivation for any of this is improved public HEALTH outcomes.

More attacks, without any attempt at showing how yet another hideously regressive tax is going to do anything but hurt the poor (the people eating white rice) and benefit the rich (the people marketing the rice)

You guys crack me up. You don’t seem to care at all whether something will work, as long as you can throw other people’s money at it and grow government.

Just do anything to make yourself feel better about yourself and screw everyone else.

Typical.

Actually I do care if it works or not and I agree designing things in a more non-regressive way is always better. You are just demonizing me based on your politics. Nothing about me personally.

[krisb]

Transam is right Jingthing.

Not many Thais from the 'real' Thailand can afford any Mc muck. It is a luxury food if even liked at all.

Would be great for a fast food franchisee to add some input to this.

It might help to read the thread. The scope of it MUCH WIDER than only fast food restaurants.

Of course it's wider, it's about obesity.

[StreetCowboy]

 

They should tax not riding bicycles. Everyone should be forced to ride a bike 10 km to and from work, and if they live closer to work than that, they can be repatriated out to the countryside, as part of their re-education.

Out in the country they'll be able to get brown rice, as well, as all the rice millers will be in jail for their part in the great rice subsidy counter-revolutionary scam.

SC

Brown rice with butter is lovely btw.

 

Butter? You are joking, aren't you? In the future, offering butter to youngsters will be viewed as pedophilia.

SC

[David48]

It's hilarious how the politically right wing can't get their heads out of the dogmatic anti-taxation mantra, when the root of the motivation for any of this is improved public HEALTH outcomes.

That's making a quantum leap of faith that increasing the tax will increase the health outcomes.

Not proven in any country, though, some countries appear to be experimenting or contemplating it.

JT ... are you a man of Faith?

[Jingthing]

It's hilarious how the politically right wing can't get their heads out of the dogmatic anti-taxation mantra, when the root of the motivation for any of this is improved public HEALTH outcomes.

That's making a quantum leap of faith that increasing the tax will increase the health outcomes.

Not proven in any country, though, some countries appear to be experimenting or contemplating it.

...

Depends on the tax. Depends on the country. I think a high tax country like Sweden that uses a lot of that tax for health care is indeed getting great health outcomes from taxation. Your assertion that there never can be a direct positive correlation is already proven wrong in the world.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Jingthing

[David48]

They should tax not riding bicycles. Everyone should be forced to ride a bike 10 km to and from work, and if they live closer to work than that, they can be repatriated out to the countryside, as part of their re-education.

SC

May I request a Songkran exemption?

Riding the bike then may have reduced health benefits?

Is my point reasonable?

[transam]

Transam is right Jingthing.

Not many Thais from the 'real' Thailand can afford any Mc muck. It is a luxury food if even liked at all.

Would be great for a fast food franchisee to add some input to this.

McD's realised that in the sticks Thai folk don't like it, sooooooooooooooo, they introduced spiced chicken with rice.....

Thats what they buy...............

[David48]

It's hilarious how the politically right wing can't get their heads out of the dogmatic anti-taxation mantra, when the root of the motivation for any of this is improved public HEALTH outcomes.

That's making a quantum leap of faith that increasing the tax will increase the health outcomes.

Not proven in any country, though, some countries appear to be experimenting or contemplating it.

JT ... are you a man of Faith?

Depends on the tax. Depends on the country. I think a high tax country like Sweden that uses a lot of that tax for health care is indeed getting great health outcomes from taxation. Your assertion that there never can be a direct positive correlation is already proven wrong in the world.

There seems to be a disconnect between your reply and my question.

You talk about general taxation in Sweden.

Does Sweden have a specific tax on junk food to fight obesity?

.

[Jingthing]

I've already said the jury is out on taxing harmful foods.

But if it does work for tobacco AND IT DOES, why wouldn't it work for food subtances?

A strong argument was made here for taxing entire substances, particularly SUGAR as being potentially much more effective than taxing the products containing the substances. That makes sense to me; otherwise people will just substitute.

I do know in countries like the USA that heavily tax CIGARETTES and have for decades, that the rates of smoking and lung cancer have gone DOWN dramatically. Duh!

http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/tobacco-control-advocacy/states-communities/tobacco-tax.html

Tobacco Tax

Increasing Cigarette and Tobacco Product Taxes

The American Lung Association strongly supports efforts in states and local communities to increase taxes on cigarettes and tobacco products. Increased cigarette taxes are a proven way to reduce smoking especially among youth. Every 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes reduces consumption by about 4 percent among adults and about 7 percent among youth.1

You see, these right wing anti-taxation true believers don't really care about the public health. They only care in promoting propaganda about their radical small government agenda. The public health, for the rich and especially the poor, doesn't rate.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Jingthing

[David48]

Chocolate ... what's your stance on Chocolate?

[Jingthing]

Chocolate ... what's your stance on Chocolate?

It's not the chocolate, it's the sugar and butterfat.

[transam]

Chocolate ... what's your stance on Chocolate?

It's not the chocolate, it's the sugar and butterfat.

Again you are avoiding a question.............

[David48]

I do know in countries like the USA that heavily tax CIGARETTES ...

Huh ... a tax on cigarettes ...

I thought that we were discussing Should Thailand tax junk food to help fight obesity?

Please stay on topic ...

[David48]

Chocolate ... what's your stance on Chocolate?

It's not the chocolate, it's the sugar and butterfat.

But what is chocolate? Take out the sugar and butterfat and you are left with a bar Coco.

I wouldn't have a Bar of that ...

.

[Thai at Heart]

It's hilarious how the politically right wing can't get their heads out of the dogmatic anti-taxation mantra, when the root of the motivation for any of this is improved public HEALTH outcomes.

It will come. They did it with tobacco and look at the price elasticity of that stuff. It will start as a few percent to raise money as much as solve a health problem.

They do it with beer and spirits. One day they will do.coffee if the explosion of coffee shops in the uk and the decline of pubs is anything to go by.

[Jingthing]

I do know in countries like the USA that heavily tax CIGARETTES ...

Huh ... a tax on cigarettes ...

I thought that we were discussing Should Thailand tax junk food to help fight obesity?

Please stay on topic ...

You're joking right? Again, it is still too early to know in history about the effectiveness of taxing FOOD substances for public health outcomes. But as tobacco history is much longer, we DO KNOW for a fact that there are good results possible with taxing another harmful substance. I don't accept your game that my point wasn't on topic. You act like there is proof that taxing food substances is proven to never work. NOPE. It is not proven yet to work or to not work. Time will tell. The tobacco thing gives a good clue as there are similarities.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Chocolate ... what's your stance on Chocolate?

It's not the chocolate, it's the sugar and butterfat.

But what is chocolate? Take out the sugar and butterfat and you are left with a bar Coco.

I wouldn't have a Bar of that ...

.

There is an answer to this. Try very high cocao content chocolate that is low in fat and sugar and have a VERY SMALL portion daily. That is known to be healthful AND delicious. Cheers.

[transam]

I do know in countries like the USA that heavily tax CIGARETTES ...

Huh ... a tax on cigarettes ...

I thought that we were discussing Should Thailand tax junk food to help fight obesity?

Please stay on topic ...

You're joking right? Again, it is still too early to know in history about the effectiveness of taxing FOOD substances for public health outcomes. But as tobacco history is much longer, we DO KNOW for a fact that there are good results possible with taxing another harmful substance. I don't accept your game that my point wasn't on topic. You act like there is proof that taxing food substances is proven to never work. NOPE. It is not proven yet to work or to not work. Time will tell. The tobacco thing gives a good clue as there are similarities.

And guess what, the poor cannot but the well off can.................

Your theory should be aimed at the providers to create the same stuff but with ''good'' ingredient's, NOT, tax the poor out and leave the well off in, eh..

TAX is to deprive the poor of the community, and not the well off. GET IT...

[Jingthing]

I am also for finding ways of nudging producers to offer and promote healthier products! And not only for elites. Duh. It isn't easy. Private companies do whatever they like, with profit being the only motive. How to make them better? Ask politely? I think not.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Jingthing

[ToddWeston]

Since we are off topic with ciggies, I bet not many knew Canada taxes air conditioners in cars - the place that was -41 last week how's that for a tax.

Back on topic, how much tax would it be ? 5% 10% 100% how much would it take to persuade people to change their lifestyle ?

[transam]

I am also for finding ways of nudging producers to offer and promote healthier products! And not only for elites. Duh. It isn't easy. Private companies do whatever they like, with profit being the only motive. How to make them better? Ask politely? I think not.

Are you saying other food providers, Thai or other, are not working for profit ?

[Jingthing]

I am also for finding ways of nudging producers to offer and promote healthier products! And not only for elites. Duh. It isn't easy. Private companies do whatever they like, with profit being the only motive. How to make them better? Ask politely? I think not.

Are you saying other food providers, Thai or other, are not working for profit ?

That's a weird question.

I am saying private firms need government REGULATION to be FORCED to act more in public's interest. Otherwise, they just won't. With some exceptions. In cases where acting in the best public interest is exactly the same action that maximizes profits, THEN they will behave that way. How common is that?

Edited January 10, 2014 by Jingthing