The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

governments should implement a 'fat tax'

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/19/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 545 times Debate No: 59190
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




the idea, that heart disease and other bad health effects from being fat causes an increase in health care costs, in a country that is heavily subsidized by the government. so, whatever it costs should be made up for in fat taxes.

my understanding is right now the costs of being fat to the government are not sufficiently made up for in sales taxes. if it were, it would be more prohibitive for over eaters, so they would't eat and be lazy as much, and it'd be ensure the government is getting reimbursed for what it spends.

could make an exception for medically known reasons for being over weight.

i might agree with making the tax contingent on taking any government benefits, i'm not sure. probably along the idea of the 'obama care penalty' logic, i'd tax all who are fat, cause everyone needs health care at some point, especially notably those who are fat.


It is hard to know where to start with this debate as your suggestion has so many implications in regard to human rights and personal freedom.

It is what it is, this will be fun, and in the end you will hopefully realize that sin taxation causes improvement in the elites living standards, by decreasing the living standards of the perceived sinner, as an example to the possible future sinner. Taxation based on personal choices, in order to further feed the elitists, while starving the poor of their simple pleasures, cigarettes, alcohol, sex, and FAT in this case, is a cyclical idea that all regimes ascribe to, and result in revolution every time. Think Boston Tea Party!

What will be the standards of judgement for taxation on fatness?
It is your idea, please describe your vision a little more.
Weekly weigh ins at the doctors? Monthly, yearly?
Maybe if we just fed the populace a determined ration that would guarantee no weight gain that would suffice?
An egg an a bowl of rice per day+ 2 liters water and a chocolate chip?
Milk and cookies on Sundays?
Only lettuce and water on Monday?
Debate Round No. 1


'taxing fat could lead to revolution'

i don't think the boston tea party as you cite was about taxing vice. but regardless, i supposeit could lead to revolt. hopefully given the majority would be needed to pass the tax, it's not like the fat folks would win. plus they are on the fatter side, so in a war they might get worn out sooner....

im sure all those who are fat would like health care in their last days or for fat related issues. the tax is merely recouping the expenses involved.

how to do it? a copule weigh ins a year, and if you want to go more often to save money, so be it. i'm not tryin to argue about rationing food to the populatce, i want them to have freedom to eat what they want. they just have to pay a tax if they get fat.

it seems con's only real point is that it might be 'revolution worthy' to have a fat tax.


In my mind, the Boston Tea Party was more about taxing a simple luxury, that many enjoyed.

Tobacco is very similar, and attempts to eradicate the users through taxation will fail, unless the taxers convince the populace that the plant itself needs to be eradicated. Good luck eradicating a plant, that so many love. Here is an opportunity for the high chins, to make examples of the low brows, the proles. Ever read 1984?

Fatness is about "The pursuit of happiness." Ever heard that phrase? It is becoming alarmingly extinct here in the land of capitalism.

I would say if you earned enough to afford the food you like, then so be it, enjoy! Do not expect to have a cushion that will catch you when you fall, AKA health insurance. Your choice is your fate, do not gamble if you can't stand eating the turd that you chose to create, which may be you, or me, but the fact that a person claims they deserve to be cared for only comes from greedy souls.

You assume that fatter people will consume more of the health care dollars.
"im sure all those who are fat would like health care in their last days or for fat related issues. the tax is merely recouping the expenses involved." Your words.

What about the fat folks that did not, consume all the possible healthcare dollars that is? They died early, yet you would impose a tax on them based on weight, height, and what other judgements?

I have known a few fat men, merry and happy, very good fathers and mothers too. Their lives were not easy, and more taxes would not have fixed them, it would have made their lives less free, and only better for the taxers. They died young, but were willing to do so because they were allowed, as American citizens to "pursue happiness".

I may be "fat", 6'0" 200lbs, but I am very strong, and I carry it well, and willingly, with no hope of eternal life which is that what the healthcare industry promises to it's recipients, upon the signature so many willingly give, in order to stave off their fear of death.

I care not to be a contributor to the elite, because they say I should be more like they. Have you looked at many of the UN folk? There are a fat many there, behind the scenes, pursuing their version of happiness, and encouraging you to follow, with the promise of never ending life.

The end result of life is death, except in a matrix world, which I will hold no quarter to prevent. Stick me up aginst a wall and shoot me please.
Debate Round No. 2


con argues that if you can afford to eat fatty, you earned it. this ignores that fatty food is the cheapest food out there. that's why poor people can struggle with weight, ause their cheapest options is fatty food.

con agues that you shouldn't expect health insurance if you are fat. well, that's one approach we coud take. but my debate assumes we are going to cover their expenses to some degree. this isn't going to change any time soon, so given that practical consideration, what should we do?
and that's where i say the fat tax. con should be arguing with the premise that we will cover the expesnes, since that's the practicla reality. the debate has the wrong focus on this point.

the fat tax on people who die early is just fate. same way medicare and social security for a lot of people will never come to fruitition cause they die before they are able to reap the benefits.

con argues taxes would just make their lives more miserable. well, that's just life. it will cause some to eat less and be more active, which is a good thing. and it will cause the taxes on everyone else to be lower, and for the fat people to be more self suffiicent as a tax load, which is also a good thing.


After eating a burger from Mcdonladshit today and feeling very unwell after consuming such delicious garbage, I would suggest that you continue your war on the fat profiteers, those that sell fat cheap, but you cannot tax people because they ate it. How about a $50 minimum wage at McDonaldshits? That would close them up pretty quick.

Thanks for the debate farm girl, it was fun!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
Remainder of the RFD:

Conduct goes Pro because of the foul language used by Con in the final round. S&G goes Con because Pro's language was often distant from English.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, you're both making this exceptionally difficult. Pro establishes a case that remains confusing to the very end, and those aspects that are described are never explored by either debater. Con pretty much only cites a harm of reduced happiness and says that "they earned it." I don't get much out of either debater when it comes to impact. The best I can see for Pro is a benefit in reducing health care costs, but I have no clue what that means for the broader economy. The best I can see for Con is that people feel that they have more freedom, can generally engage in more activities that bring happiness, and have fewer dollars taken away from them. I have no idea what the impact to any of those pieces is. Neither side weighs even a single argument, so that's left up to me. I have to do far less to show that increased dollars going to health care are beneficial than I would have to do to show that happiness = better outcomes. Generally, Pro's argument gets closer to impacts.