Cutting tax — and waistlines | thearticle

The Prime Minister wants us to be leaner and fitter. Two in three of us are overweight, according to the World Health Organisation’s criteria. One in four of us is obese. “We are

significantly fatter than most others — apart from the Maltese for some reason,” complains Boris Johnson. Apparently, among European nations the Turks are also fatter than us on average. We

also perform poorly compared to the rest of the world, though the US has a significantly higher obesity rate than we do. Many libertarians object to the whole concept behind these figures.

Our bodies are not the property of the state. Health is a matter of personal choice. Absorbing the fitness level of all of us into some national aggregate is flawed and offensive. Johnson

himself used to be sympathetic to this line of thinking. “I say let people eat what they like. Why shouldn’t they push pies through the railings?” asked Johnson in 2006, responding to

complaints by Jamie Oliver that parents were sabotaging healthy school dinners. Earlier, in a _Daily Telegraph_ column, Johnson wrote: “The more the state tries to take responsibility for

the problem, the less soluble the problem will become, and the more people will indeed feel that they are the ‘victims’ of an affliction, when it is nothing but their own fat fault. The more

the state prescribes the diet of children, the more it takes away responsibility from parents, and the less chance there is of genuinely persuading a child to cut down on Pringles or play

more football.” He added that: “Rather than introducing more NHS-funded ‘walking strategies’, it would be far better if ministers launched a blistering attack on the compensation culture

that is so inimical to sport in schools.” That point about the decline in school sport does rather show that the inevitably the Government will be involved. The reality is that we do not

live in a libertarian utopia of individual responsibility. Our poor health choices do have implications for others — as the struggling NHS imposes ever greater burdens on the taxpayers. Most

schools are state funded and regulated, so political decision making does have an impact on the amount of competitive sport. Then we have our parks, which are usually owned and run by local

councils. Councillors decide what is available. At my local park, Normand Park in Baron’s Court in west London, metal ping pong tables have been installed next to the playground. You bring

along your own bats and balls and then play. In Hammersmith, outside my daughter’s school, there is a redundant Victorian drinking fountain. Bringing it back into use would offer children an

alternative to buying fizzy drinks from local newsagents. Despite an offer of sponsorship to pay for the cost this has not been done, due to the jobsworth objections from municipal highways

officials. Again these are political decisions that in their own modest way have implications for obesity, especially for children. There are endless petty rules which tell you when you can

climb a tree, or walk a dog, or fly a kite, or kick a ball. There might be strips of publicly-owned land that are fenced off from the public for no terribly good reason. The opening hours

of parks vary. Some council estates are more liberal in what outdoor activity they allow than others. It would be wrong for Boris Johnson to interfere too much in this local decision making.

But central Government also matters. Over £3 billion is spent on public health. I suppose there will be pressure to increase that funding, now that the government wants us to lose weight.

That would be a mistake. That spending is wasteful, going on lots of bureaucracy and ineffective gimmicks. Plenty of glossy strategy papers are churned out that hardly anybody reads. Much

better to cut that spending and instead nudge us in the right direction with some targeted tax cuts. Brexit will allow us to make our decisions on VAT. Let us start with an example that the

Prime Minister will be familiar with. Dog ownership is a great catalyst for human exercise. A quarter of the adult population owns a dog. But the state makes it harder by pushing up the

cost. “When you buy a dog as a pet, the greedy jackals at HMRC get their claws on your money in the form of VAT,” says the Taxpayers Alliance. “You will almost certainly have to pay VAT when

purchasing most pet food, including canned and packaged food and dog biscuits. Buying a new toy for your dog? You’ll be charged VAT. When pets become ill then they often need to be taken to

the vet. Vet fees are expensive, and many people find it unaffordable to get the treatment they need for their pets. One of the reasons why vet bills are so high is because VAT is levied on

them at 20 per cent. Given the high cost of vet bills, many pet owners take out insurance to cover the costs. However, pet insurance is subject to insurance premium tax, with the costs

being passed onto the policy holder.” If you want a pet rabbit there is no VAT (or the grounds that rabbits are usually eaten and so classified as food). But then a pet rabbit provides you

with limited exercise. Boris is even more fond of us getting on our bikes. Yet while he says this is the way to take off the pounds his Government piles on the pounds by charging VAT on

buying a bicycle, whether it’s a pushbike or an electric one. What about taking up dancing? A ruling three years declared that dance classes were recreational rather than educational and so

were liable for VAT. Ballet is deemed educational but if you want to take up tango, ballroom or learn the Cha Cha Cha the taxman will be after you. Yoga and pilates businesses were also hit.

Gym membership, sports equipment, the list goes on where health and fitness is penalised by a VAT price hike. What about giving firms a greater incentive to provide their staff with sports

facilities? A more general solution is economic growth. It might seem perverse that making people richer is the way to make them thinner. But the socioeconomic data is pretty clear —

slumping in front of the TV eating junk food happens more among those on lower incomes than on higher incomes. A middle-class lifestyle — a house with a garden, holidays, lots of family

outings and activities — tends to be healthier. Marriage is also relevant. Single parents will inevitably find it harder to ensure their children have wholesome home cooking and plenty of

physical activity. _Fat Is A Feminist Issue_ was an anti diet book by Susie Orbach. It certainly is a political issue. Boris feels entitled to talk about it without sounding too priggish due

to his own acknowledged challenges. It’s of heightened seriousness now, given that being overweight increases the risk of coronavirus mortality. Yet the real problem with the nannying

approach is not the tone and philosophy. It is that it doesn’t work. So much better for our waistlines would be if the Government got out of the way. Rather than telling us what to do it

should stop punishing us for doing the right things.