Would you be in favor of a tax deduction for people with a healthy BMI?

[calmblueocean]

Obesity is a major problem in America today, and it promises to be an even larger problem in our future, as our country is overrun with expensive obesity-related health problems. Would you be open to the idea of being granted a tax credit or deduction for every family member on your tax return with a Body Mass Index in a given healthy range?

I'd like to hear what DU thinks on the subject.

[Cobalt Violet]

1. No. This would penalize weightlifters.

BMI doesn't tell the whole story.

[shraby]

2. More discrimination is not needed in this country.

There are many causes of obesity, my brother has always been heavy despite the fact that as a teenager he carried an orange or apple to school for lunch, played sports and in general was an active teener and still gained weight. I refuse to discriminate in any manner, shape or form.

[Ready4Change]

3. No.

A break on my health insurance rates, yes. But not on taxes.

[mitchtv]

4. No no more tax breaks for nothing

until the debt is paid , then we all get a break.Good health is its own reward

[LeftyMom]

5. BMI is a bad tool

it counts many healthy people as overweight because it makes no allowances for muscle mass or bone structure, meanwhile small built people like myself can have healthy BMIs while toting extra poundage (mine is okay though I'm about 10 lbs overweight.)

Many people are geneticly predisposed to overweight- my kid's Dad was still obese on the BMI charts even when he was riding his bike roughly 30 miles round trip to work and eating healthy vegan meals at home. No matter how it's calculated he shouldn't have to pay extra just because his genetics dictate that he's fat any more than I should get special credits for being small.

[Skittles]

6. no

I know too many people who struggle with their weight in a way I never had to to be in favor of such discrimination.

[Digit]

7. That is just ridiculous. eom

[Critters2]

8. I know this makes me a bad person

but my BMI is 22.1, and I wouldn't mind a tax break. So sue me :hide:

[OzarkDem]

12. Except that doesn't make you less likely

to get sick and become a burden on the health care system. So why should you be rewarded with a tax incentive when you're risk is no different than someone with a higher BMI.

As a Democrat, I'd expect a little less of a "me first" attitude.

[Critters2]

21. I learned my "me first' attitude here at DU

"I should be able to eat all the meat I want regardless of the consequences to the environment, animals or my health".

"I should be able to live as far out in the suburbs as I want, regardless of the cost in terms of arable land being paved over, flooding due to over building, waste of gasoline, etc."

"I'd never give up my SUV"

All attitudes I've found here at what I'm coming to think of as Libertarian Underground. So, I make the effort to keep myself healthy and eat in ways that are responsible toward my community and the environment. I'm vegetarian. I eat locally grown foods. A tax break seems fair.

I'm off to walk to a meeting now.

[annabanana]

9. Better them than ones with a healthy pile of moneybags!... . . .eom

[OzarkDem]

10. Scientific evidence isn't there

to show a direct link and causation between BMI and higher risk of dying from cancer, heart disease, etc.

Give me some well designed 20 yr prospective studies that back you up and I'll consider it.

[Zhade]

11. No, some people have hormone problems...

...or any number of other conditions that make it very hard to stay at an ideal BMI.

Of course, a lot of us are just fat and lazy. Still, this is not a wise idea.

[DUHandle]

13. No. Hell no.

The entire tax cuts for special interests group is bad.

[etherealtruth]

14. Since people on the lower end of the economic spectrum...

... tend to be more likely to be obese (as defined by a BMI measurement), we would be, once again, punishing those that are poor.
http://www.uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=4798

edit: link r/t obesity and poverty

[calmblueocean]

15. The opposite side of that argument...

is that poor people could have the greatest opportunity to achieve this credit. You could even target the credit in that way -- taxpayers in the lowest 10% of income could receive a much larger credit for being healthy than taxpayers in the highest 75% of income. Taxpayers in the highest 10% could receive no credit at all.

The one thing that appeals to me about this idea is that it could specifically address how poverty and obesity are linked in a very direct way.

[etherealtruth]

16. The problem I find with this ...

Looking at the reasons for increased obesity in this economic group any financial gain would be minimal (at the lowest earning levels no income tax is paid) and would not offset the issues leading to obesity ... namely the high cost of nutrient rich foods (I just spent ~ $100 at our local produce "palace" for 1 adult and two children), low education levels and environments that do not lend themselves to being physically active.

The goal is admirable, I just don't know that this is really the best approach.

[cindyw]

17. Hell no. Much of weight has to do with genetics. This would be unfair.

Punish people with illnesses too.

[sofa king]

18. Soon obesity will return to being a luxury of the wealthy.

Maybe five years, maybe ten, not more than fifteen. We're getting our calories at a massive discount right now thanks to oil, but that's all going to change real soon.

After that happens, taxing obesity would effectively become a progressive tax. By then I'll be all for it, if I haven't starved to death, died in riots, committed suicide, or been executed by the state.

[politicat]

19. No, because how am I supposed to prove it?

Do I have to get a 1099-WT from my doctor every year? What if I don't have a regular doctor? Will there be mall kiosks where I can be measured and issued a 1099-WT for a small fee? And if I don't need documentation, what's to prevent me from making up my number? What do I do during the years I'm pregnant and/or breastfeeding, and my BMI goes completely out of range? Do I get a penalty if it falls under 17, making me anorexic by definition, since anorexia is more damaging and more life-threatening than mild to moderate obesity? (a 20 year old who is 25 or more pounds underweight is 10 times more likely to die within 10 years than a 20 year old who is 25 pounds overweight) What about the elderly? They often have BMIs that are in their target range, but are in fact underweight due to muscle atrophy rather than fat loss. And how do we accommodate a person who has had a double amputation? They often have incredible upper body strength, but due to their truncated height, would automatically be out of range. Or do we let them use the numbers they would have had if they still had their legs? And if so, can I use the height I "should" have been, rather than the height I am?

I really don't want the IRS that interested in my health, thanks. They already get to comment on my knee surgeries and my medications.

And what do we do with my partner, who is 6' 3" and 270 pounds and has the relative density of a small boulder? He's all bone and muscle (with a teeny bit of programmer's belly starting to come on, but he is nearly 36, so his doc says he's doing okay, over all) and if you drop him in water, he sinks (I think he may be part earth elemental, to be honest, but his mother denies that she ever had carnal knowledge of a rock). The man can't float with water wings and a kickboard. When he was in the Army, at the peak of his physical condition, he didn't meet his target BMI because he has utterly obscene bone density. Can he get an exemption if we submit his daily mileage records for walking and biking and our gym membership register records? Can I get an exemption if my joint condition worsens to the point where I cannot exercise?

It's just a bad idea - BMI is too inaccurate, there are far too many variables involved, and it puts yet another unhealthy imperative on an idealized body image that is unrealistic and based on people who were malnourished. (The BMI numbers and insurance numbers were first collected for people who had been children and adolescents during the Depression, and were statistically smaller in both stature and weight than either their children or their parents were. Enough people did not receive enough calories as children during the Depression that their growth was stunted, and thus the numbers were skewed. Research is just now showing that women who have experienced malnutrition before becoming pregnant are more likely to have children who are overweight, because hormonal factors during pregnancy increase the child's production of cortisol and decrease production of leptin.)

Our insurance gives us a discount if we work out, bike, walk and maintain our weights. That's enough for me.

[GreenPoet64]

20. No--some illnesses CAUSE weight gain. . .

We would then have tax cuts for the healthy and the wealthy :crazy: