It can be difficult to catch up with what it is that we’re all supposed to be doing, so contradictory are the claims being made. For example, we’re told that obesity is the very devil of our age and that it will consume the entire NHS unless something is done about it. This is wrong, of course, as fatty lardbuckets pop earlier thereby reducing their costs to the NHS and the taxpayer. But still, that’s the argument made.
The argument made with such force that everyone should pay more tax upon sugar – and soon to come no doubt fat and even calories – in order to make being a lardbucket more expensive. Things that are more expensive we humans do less of, so, tax people into thinness.
OK. Not that I or we agree but OK.
And yet taxing people into being thin is apparently very terrible indeed:
At first glance, these two women appear to be dressed in identical outfits. But look at the prices, and you will see there is one major difference: the cost.
A size 18 outfit can cost up to 23 per cent more than an identical one in a size 8, illustrating that larger women pay more to dress as stylishly as slimmer counterparts. This has been dubbed the ‘fat tax’.
Aren’t we supposed to be applauding the existence of a fat tax? It is, after all, direct government policy that we should pay more tax upon items containing sugar, isn’t it?
Do note that in economic terms there’s no difference between the two taxes. Taxation of things put into land whales is no different from taxing what land whales put themselves into. Both are a tax upon, a rise in the price of, being a land whale and both will reduce the incidence of land whaleness.
If we are supposed to be reducing obesity then why shouldn’t obese people pay more for their clothes?
And yes, as a small piece of vital public information, size 18 is obese. At least.