fat tax. the time has come

by Stanley   July 22, 2014  

went abroad with bike t,other month. took me bike and suitcase. i weigh 13 stone, suitcase was 1kg over. had to pay fine of 150 quid. woman behind me wieghed about 30 stone, and stunk. her suitcase was under. no charge. now heres my argument..... should at the airport it be a combined weight for you and suitcase lets say 15 stone for man plus 2 stone for suitcase and anything over.... FAT TAX SIR. woman same but put them a 12 stone limit plus a stone for her suitcase carrying light goods. Then we could take our bikes for free under the weight restrictions. Its time to change the world. ps if froome had had a decent meal instead of those stupid salt drinks and bars he would still be in the race. we have ample pie and chip shops up north, one car behind him with a hot oven and a fridge full of pale ale would suffice. we are being sold a lie.

eat well, exercise, sleep well, keep smiling. its all over too soon....

9 user comments

Oldest firstNewest firstBest rated

Well said! Many think it, but you, sir, have the balls to put it out there in the public domain. I think it's worthy of an e-petition to the UK government, if only for shits & giggles!

posted by pwake [313 posts]
23rd July 2014 - 3:39

4 Likes

It's as much for the baggage handlers as anything - picking up heavy bags means more effort and more risk of injury, so they're labelled as being heavy and treated more carefully, I suspect.

posted by bashthebox [647 posts]
23rd July 2014 - 8:54

0 Likes

But mostly, it's just a way to extract more money from you. I wouldn't put it past Ryanair to weigh passengers and charge them excess for being over an arbitrary limit at some point....

posted by bashthebox [647 posts]
23rd July 2014 - 8:55

1 Like

bashthebox wrote:
It's as much for the baggage handlers as anything - picking up heavy bags means more effort and more risk of injury, so they're labelled as being heavy and treated more carefully, I suspect.

True enough, but missing the point. Heavy items should be labelled for safety of the baggage handlers, but do they also have to be taxed when lard arses aren't?

Worst trip of my life was stuck between two 'ample gentlemen' on an internal flight in the States. Mind you, pretty much all my worst flights have involved the US at some point.

posted by truffy [529 posts]
23rd July 2014 - 12:03

0 Likes

truffy wrote:
Worst trip of my life was stuck between two 'ample gentlemen' on an internal flight in the States. Mind you, pretty much all my worst flights have involved the US at some point.

A +1 for flying business then!

glynr36's picture

posted by glynr36 [503 posts]
23rd July 2014 - 12:09

0 Likes

I see where you're coming from, to a degree, but if we start taxing people for being overweight, where does it stop? Should disabled people pay more, because they need a wheelchair as well as their baggage? Should heavy drinkers or smokers be taxed more to pay for their healthcare? You're on a slippery neo-con libertarian slope there.

posted by bashthebox [647 posts]
23rd July 2014 - 12:10

0 Likes

Smokers *are* taxed more, because of the health costs. Cigarettes are heavily taxed.

Further, if an airline did charge people for their weight, that wouldn't be a tax. That'd be a company charging for its costs. At least some airlines *already* do charge morbidly obese people more money, when that person can't fit into a single seat, by making them pay for all the seat space they need.

Smile

posted by Paul J [679 posts]
23rd July 2014 - 12:19

0 Likes

truffy wrote:
Worst trip of my life was stuck between two 'ample gentlemen'

I know quite a few people who would consider that a bloody good holiday...

posted by farrell [1580 posts]
23rd July 2014 - 12:27

1 Like

Oh bollocks, just noticed this was a Stanley thread. I've been trolled Applause

posted by bashthebox [647 posts]
23rd July 2014 - 13:21

1 Like