[hurley_108]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

Just make it a penny for every 10 calories.

A penny per calorie might work. A Big Mac costing $5.40 all on its own, and a large fries costing $5.60 would wake people up to what they were eating. Add a large chocolate milkshake for $11.60, and you might as well go out for steak instead.

[roger-roger]

heh ya but you have to look at the big picture, if a guy happens to have a 2000 calorie a day diet, he has to pay an extra $20 a day for his food bill.

[hurley_108]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

heh ya but you have to look at the big picture, if a guy happens to have a 2000 calorie a day diet, he has to pay an extra $20 a day for his food bill.

Yes, but he could blow it all on lunch at some places.

[roger-roger]

$2 more a day is resonable, even then it will be an extra $60 bucks a month. You would have to have a calorie cap, that any calories over the limit will be charged. Say a 60g bag of chips, the cap is 100 Calories, so the bag with 260 calories will cost an extra quarter. At the end of the month the money will add up for those who make 'poor' choices.

[SigPig]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

$2 more a day is resonable, even then it will be an extra $60 bucks a month. You would have to have a calorie cap, that any calories over the limit will be charged. Say a 60g bag of chips, the cap is 100 Calories, so the bag with 260 calories will cost an extra quarter. At the end of the month the money will add up for those who make 'poor' choices.

But what about those who have healthy active lifestyles and need the extra calories to make up for it? They are simply trying to maintain a certain level of fitness but this would essentially tax them for it. The theory works for couch potatoes who don't need a lot, but for those that do, they would no longer able to afford it.

[Alta_redneck]

Hey we could get a scam going. You know like everyone is allowed so many calories a day depending on body type. Any calories eaten over, and you’d have to pay extra for them. That money would then be given to a company that promises to buy food for the starving people around the world. Instead of sending good nutritional food they’d send cheap expired best before date Twinkies and put the majority of the money in a Swiss bank account. The big fat Countries would all end up fit as a fiddle and there wouldn’t be any starving kids in Africa.

[hurley_108]

Alta_redneck Alta_redneck:

Hey we could get a scam going. You know like everyone is allowed so many calories a day depending on body type. Any calories eaten over, and you’d have to pay extra for them. That money would then be given to a company that promises to buy food for the starving people around the world. Instead of sending good nutritional food they’d send cheap expired best before date Twinkies and put the majority of the money in a Swiss bank account. The big fat Countries would all end up fit as a fiddle and there wouldn’t be any starving kids in Africa.

Why does this sound familiar?

[roger-roger]

SigPig SigPig:

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

$2 more a day is resonable, even then it will be an extra $60 bucks a month. You would have to have a calorie cap, that any calories over the limit will be charged. Say a 60g bag of chips, the cap is 100 Calories, so the bag with 260 calories will cost an extra quarter. At the end of the month the money will add up for those who make 'poor' choices.

But what about those who have healthy active lifestyles and need the extra calories to make up for it? They are simply trying to maintain a certain level of fitness but this would essentially tax them for it. The theory works for couch potatoes who don't need a lot, but for those that do, they would no longer able to afford it.

Those who have an active life style tend to eat small amounts several times a day, this is ment to hit large calorie items such as big macs and deep fried cheesey items. Some things might still take a hit like protein bars, but for the most part I think healthy people would be fine.

[SigPig]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

Those who have an active life style tend to eat small amounts several times a day, this is ment to hit large calorie items such as big macs and deep fried cheesey items. Some things might still take a hit like protein bars, but for the most part I think healthy people would be fine.

Gotcha so the cap on calories is on a per meal basis. Not a daily basis as I understood it. It almost sounds like something like this might work. Though I am sure companies would find a way around it somehow.

[Lemmy]

yh

[roger-roger]

Oh there are several problems with this idea, one of them would be what to do with the extra money? It shouldnt go back to the people making the food, they would basicly get a bonus for having high calorie food. It would have to go to the government but then people would be crying because its just another tax. In theory it looks good, but in reality it is not practical.

[DrCaleb]

Lemmy Lemmy:

This all sounds like another leftish "Cap and Trade" scheme.

Redneck is going for cap&trade. Eisen is going for intensity based.

[bootlegga]

If you want to tax junk food, why not just create a new sin tax, and tax junk food sold at stores by 1% (or whatever). Chips, chocolate bars, Big Macs, birthday cake, whatever. The extra funds could go into paying for health care for everyone, although most governments would likely just dump it into general revenue.

[roger-roger]

The point isnt to just blindly tax food, but to economicly force consumers and producers to have healthier food.

[bootlegga]

If you tax chips and leave broccoli alone, isn't it the same thing? Forcing people to choose the healthy food over the junk food?