You are here: Home > Message Board > General Talk > Fat people should be left to die
January 16 2021 6.03pm

Fat people should be left to die

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 7 of 13 < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >

 

deleted user Flag 09 Aug 19 3.19pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle


Rather meet a tubby nice guy than a skinny bigot.

It can be useful in the winter months!

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
deleted user Flag 09 Aug 19 3.23pm

Originally posted by grumpymort


How is it a tax on the poor it's not.

If you are that poor why are you spending money on the likes of alcohol and tobacco.

Edited by grumpymort (09 Aug 2019 12.40am)

It's a tax on the poor in so much that upping the cost of sugary drinks and whatnot has a disproportionate impact on their finances when compared to someone who is financially better off.

So I'd tend to oppose it, but as I said I'd support it if the money was used to subsidise healthier foods because at least that's an exchange of sorts rather than take, take, take.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag 09 Aug 19 4.33pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Where the state can implement health improvements without a deliberate direct cost to the poor I'm in support of it.....for example chlorine in the water supply.

But I'm of the belief that there is a line where the state steps from intelligent policy to the nanny state.

I mean I can see the arguments for making bad foods more expensive just as they do with cigarettes.....however, we don't directly see the hidden social costs of these...for example bad parents letting their children go hungry in preference to having their smokes.

Also I'm personally quite critical of those increases in energy bills to subsidize comparatively inefficient green energy, which impacts everyone but obviously more so the poor......Comparing our energy bills to the similarly sized but almost purely nuclear powered French shows that......Look at the prices for the 'go green' Germans.

2016.JPG Attachment: 2016.JPG (46.65Kb)

 


'I can't stand innuendo. If I see one in a script I whip it out immediately.' (Kenneth Williams)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View grumpymort's Profile grumpymort Flag UK/Thailand 09 Aug 19 6.48pm Send a Private Message to grumpymort Add grumpymort as a friend

Originally posted by dollardays

It's a tax on the poor in so much that upping the cost of sugary drinks and whatnot has a disproportionate impact on their finances when compared to someone who is financially better off.

So I'd tend to oppose it, but as I said I'd support it if the money was used to subsidise healthier foods because at least that's an exchange of sorts rather than take, take, take.


That makes no sense.

the value of money is the same for all parties and if you can't afford something you shouldn't be buying it the sugar drinks are not essential and if it stops the poor buying it good shouldn't be having that rubbish anyway.


Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Where the state can implement health improvements without a deliberate direct cost to the poor I'm in support of it.....for example chlorine in the water supply.

But I'm of the belief that there is a line where the state steps from intelligent policy to the nanny state.

I mean I can see the arguments for making bad foods more expensive just as they do with cigarettes.....however, we don't directly see the hidden social costs of these...for example bad parents letting their children go hungry in preference to having their smokes.

Also I'm personally quite critical of those increases in energy bills to subsidize comparatively inefficient green energy, which impacts everyone but obviously more so the poor......Comparing our energy bills to the similarly sized but almost purely nuclear powered French shows that......Look at the prices for the 'go green' Germans.


The state should have nothing to do with what people eat or drink all they should be doing is trying to educate on the subject in the correct manner.

What the government and NHS class as bad food is not bad this is the problem they keep pushing the foods like fruit and veg high carb as well as grain foods these are awful for your health but they go by the same model US use which is not even based of real science it's about $$$ again.

Green energy is a scam.

Edited by grumpymort (09 Aug 2019 6.55pm)

 


AIR VPN - [Link]
SurfShark VPN - [Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
deleted user Flag 09 Aug 19 8.00pm

Originally posted by grumpymort

That makes no sense.

the value of money is the same for all parties and if you can't afford something you shouldn't be buying it the sugar drinks are not essential and if it stops the poor buying it good shouldn't be having that rubbish anyway.

Edited by grumpymort (09 Aug 2019 6.55pm)

Of course it makes sense. The cost of the item may well be the same for all, but if you have significantly more disposable income an extra quid here and there will make very little difference to your life or decisions. If you're poor, increasing the cost of basics may well have a greater impact. Therefore it's effectively a judgement based 'lifestyle tax' that primarily impacts poor and the decisions they make. I've said nothing about sugary drinks being essential. I'm well aware that people can make different choices, but that has nothing to do with the point raised.

My point was that I'm not in favour of this, but if this tax was instead transferred to reductions in the cost of healthy food instead of disappearing into some kind of government black hole, I can see the sense in that approach. They they could also just do nothing at all in this department, and educate as you say.

Edited by dollardays (09 Aug 2019 8.01pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View grumpymort's Profile grumpymort Flag UK/Thailand 09 Aug 19 9.46pm Send a Private Message to grumpymort Add grumpymort as a friend

Originally posted by dollardays

Of course it makes sense. The cost of the item may well be the same for all, but if you have significantly more disposable income an extra quid here and there will make very little difference to your life or decisions. If you're poor, increasing the cost of basics may well have a greater impact. Therefore it's effectively a judgement based 'lifestyle tax' that primarily impacts poor and the decisions they make. I've said nothing about sugary drinks being essential. I'm well aware that people can make different choices, but that has nothing to do with the point raised.

My point was that I'm not in favour of this, but if this tax was instead transferred to reductions in the cost of healthy food instead of disappearing into some kind of government black hole, I can see the sense in that approach. They they could also just do nothing at all in this department, and educate as you say.

Edited by dollardays (09 Aug 2019 8.01pm)


You don't appear to understand sugar drinks are not basics WE DO NOT NEED ANY SUGAR IN OUR DIETS.

it's a luxury as such.

Now these people with more wealth have that for a reason they are careful with their money people think because some one has money they can go buy all these things they don't, I know fair amount of people with money and they are so tight with it.


The other thing you mentioned is more disposable income that is false each person has a set lifestlye so to a millionaire spending thousands in bills a month is standard to yourself i would say a few hundred is classed as a lot but this is what they are used to and the reason you see the likes of ex footballers struggle they got to used to income of thousands a week.

As said before it has nothing to do with the poor i pointed this out you can on jsa go and buy correct foods easily for around £25 if a person is stupid which it appears a lot are they will go for the silly processed sugar products resulting in paying much more for worst quality which also leads to all these health issues.

If you are referring to the likes of the sugar tax that was just another hidden tax to make out they was helping children just like this blocking of adult material on internet it's nothing to do with going after the poor.

 


AIR VPN - [Link]
SurfShark VPN - [Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag 09 Aug 19 10.45pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by grumpymort

The state should have nothing to do with what people eat or drink all they should be doing is trying to educate on the subject in the correct manner.

What the government and NHS class as bad food is not bad this is the problem they keep pushing the foods like fruit and veg high carb as well as grain foods these are awful for your health but they go by the same model US use which is not even based of real science it's about $$$ again.

Green energy is a scam.

Edited by grumpymort (09 Aug 2019 6.55pm)

100 percent right sir.

 


'I can't stand innuendo. If I see one in a script I whip it out immediately.' (Kenneth Williams)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
deleted user Flag 09 Aug 19 10.55pm

Originally posted by grumpymort


You don't appear to understand sugar drinks are not basics WE DO NOT NEED ANY SUGAR IN OUR DIETS.

it's a luxury as such.

Now these people with more wealth have that for a reason they are careful with their money people think because some one has money they can go buy all these things they don't, I know fair amount of people with money and they are so tight with it.


The other thing you mentioned is more disposable income that is false each person has a set lifestlye so to a millionaire spending thousands in bills a month is standard to yourself i would say a few hundred is classed as a lot but this is what they are used to and the reason you see the likes of ex footballers struggle they got to used to income of thousands a week.

As said before it has nothing to do with the poor i pointed this out you can on jsa go and buy correct foods easily for around £25 if a person is stupid which it appears a lot are they will go for the silly processed sugar products resulting in paying much more for worst quality which also leads to all these health issues.

If you are referring to the likes of the sugar tax that was just another hidden tax to make out they was helping children just like this blocking of adult material on internet it's nothing to do with going after the poor.

It's an argument detached from what I'm saying. Nowhere am I saying anyone rich or poor needs sugar. I'm saying that if you add a 'sugar tax' it disproportionately impacts the poor for making these choices when compared to the better off making the exact same choices. It's a change that primarily impacts the behaviour of the poor, and that is the case for the exact reasons I stated.

Maybe some think that's good, and other think it's bad. I've just commenting in what it is, what its designed to achieve and its impact. And yes, I agree that ideally everyone would understand the merits of a cheap and healthy diet, through both education and common sense.

Edited by dollardays (09 Aug 2019 11.30pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View kennybrowns leftfoot's Profile kennybrowns leftfoot Flag Moved Again.. Banstead now Darling... 10 Aug 19 1.01am Send a Private Message to kennybrowns leftfoot Add kennybrowns leftfoot as a friend

Originally posted by grumpymort


Another excuse.

I have few friends which use that and it's down to poor time management and not planning ahead.

A person could pre make the meals a day they are not working for the whole week or if they like it fresh simple steak, eggs, bacon those three only takes about 5 minutes. (I know you can't cook those at a work place heard that excuse as well but i bet they have a microwave so you could reheat or do eggs and bacon)

I disagree... it depends on the job you do where even planning ahead doesn’t matter... I speak from experience

 


Don't waste your time with jealousy. Sometimes your ahead, sometimes your behind, the race is long. But in the end it's only with yourself!!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View grumpymort's Profile grumpymort Flag UK/Thailand 10 Aug 19 1.14pm Send a Private Message to grumpymort Add grumpymort as a friend

Originally posted by kennybrowns leftfoot

I disagree... it depends on the job you do where even planning ahead doesn’t matter... I speak from experience


examples?

 


AIR VPN - [Link]
SurfShark VPN - [Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View kennybrowns leftfoot's Profile kennybrowns leftfoot Flag Moved Again.. Banstead now Darling... 10 Aug 19 2.23pm Send a Private Message to kennybrowns leftfoot Add kennybrowns leftfoot as a friend

Originally posted by grumpymort


examples?

Working in the old bill or as a paramedic. Perfect examples.

 


Don't waste your time with jealousy. Sometimes your ahead, sometimes your behind, the race is long. But in the end it's only with yourself!!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Lyons550's Profile Lyons550 Flag Shirley 12 Aug 19 11.02am Send a Private Message to Lyons550 Add Lyons550 as a friend

Originally posted by cardiff eagle

So we know that most cancers could be prevented by diet. If you get cancer and have eaten those foods, we should refuse you treatment because of that? Let's not be silly and say that people deserve to die. These are peoples husbands, wives, mums, dads, children etc. Be a bit more empathetic.


Its a fair point as was the one above this reply that mentioned a food tax for unhealthy foods.

The whole lot needs looking at, as there are people actively trying not to be a burden by living and maintaining healthy lifestyles who are likely to be paying far far more into the system then they get out. Perhaps there should be a 'rebate' system where upon a regular check up, and the number of times we use the system we get tax credits?


 


The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 7 of 13 < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > General Talk > Fat people should be left to die