FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Fat Tax on Clothing

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

So they are talking about this on the BBC news this morning as apparently new look are charging more for a size 18 dress then a size 10... is this fair? Or should the slimmer people subsidise the larger people?

Your Thoughts?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's not fair but it's not surprising

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *isaB45Woman
over a year ago

Fabville

Anything for businesses to stiff us for a few more quid...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ikeC81Man
over a year ago

harrow

I am fucked then

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Makes sense to me. Some kids clothes are more expensive for larger sizes. Tesco school uniform springs to mind

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *VineMan
over a year ago

The right place

It is fair, more material is used.

McDonalds/Starbucks etc. have charrged extra for larger sizes for years.

While it may be fair, i don't think it's kind, and may not be good business.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Lots of places do it (mail order shops for larger women etc).

It’s a big difference in price too in some of them. I tend to shop elsewhere if i notice that.

And in my opinion, New Look has gone shite since they changed their plus size section to Curves in place of Inspire. Far less on trend.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

They use more material on a size 18 than a size 10 and it will take longer to cut out and sew, if it's done by a human.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 15/05/18 07:33:45]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's hardly a tax and I don't think is ever been different, stores that have a larger size range are generally more expensive than smaller size range clothes.

More material = a higher cost.

If I find a dress for £30 I consider it a bargain as I spend a lot on my clothes but friends who can walk into places like primark and pick something up cheap consider my bargain dress expensive

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Not a smart business move, plus they’re bigger clothes are always on the small side. X

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham

They've done this for years. My sister was shopping once and they had the same top in their standard range and their fat range.... Fat one was more expensive and even though they were the same size on the label the standard size 16 was smaller than the fat size 16.

I guess you could argue that more material is used so it costs more to produce it then if you price out the fatties we're gonna have to walk round naked and put the general population off their quinoa salads so perhaps spreading the cost would be better.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"They've done this for years. My sister was shopping once and they had the same top in their standard range and their fat range.... Fat one was more expensive and even though they were the same size on the label the standard size 16 was smaller than the fat size 16.

I guess you could argue that more material is used so it costs more to produce it then if you price out the fatties we're gonna have to walk round naked and put the general population off their quinoa salads so perhaps spreading the cost would be better. "

More material does cost more, that’s just a fact.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Obviously you should pay for the amount of extra material and labour. I watched something the other day, they calculated the extra costs to make a size 18. The 18 cost something like £1.35 more to make than the 14. So, should be £1.35 more expensive but, in reality was a lot more. Fat tax is a thing already it seems. A bit immoral in my opinion!

I agree with Spike Milligan though... they should definitely tax people that bang bricks together!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

Their profits are generally so enormous that the retailer should absorb extra costs imo, rather than get larger people to pay.

If more widespread (sorry for pun), expect to find that sizing will shrink and more people will suddenly find that size 16, or whatever the biggest regular priced size, no longer fits them.

Shrinkflation will gouge you of your money

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham


"They've done this for years. My sister was shopping once and they had the same top in their standard range and their fat range.... Fat one was more expensive and even though they were the same size on the label the standard size 16 was smaller than the fat size 16.

I guess you could argue that more material is used so it costs more to produce it then if you price out the fatties we're gonna have to walk round naked and put the general population off their quinoa salads so perhaps spreading the cost would be better.

More material does cost more, that’s just a fact."

I know, I didn't say it wasn't a fact

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham


"Their profits are generally so enormous that the retailer should absorb extra costs imo, rather than get larger people to pay.

If more widespread (sorry for pun), expect to find that sizing will shrink and more people will suddenly find that size 16, or whatever the biggest regular priced size, no longer fits them.

Shrinkflation will gouge you of your money "

This annoys me as well..... There should be standardised sizing for womens clothes. If a man is a 36"waist he knows he can go anywhere and buy a pair of 36" trousers and they will fit. Yet I have to go up or down in sizes depending on where I shop.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

How about reducing the price for smaller size... . Apart from shoe... I got size 12

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Their profits are generally so enormous that the retailer should absorb extra costs imo, rather than get larger people to pay.

If more widespread (sorry for pun), expect to find that sizing will shrink and more people will suddenly find that size 16, or whatever the biggest regular priced size, no longer fits them.

Shrinkflation will gouge you of your money

This annoys me as well..... There should be standardised sizing for womens clothes. If a man is a 36"waist he knows he can go anywhere and buy a pair of 36" trousers and they will fit. Yet I have to go up or down in sizes depending on where I shop. "

Or depending on how much we eat last night

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Their profits are generally so enormous that the retailer should absorb extra costs imo, rather than get larger people to pay.

If more widespread (sorry for pun), expect to find that sizing will shrink and more people will suddenly find that size 16, or whatever the biggest regular priced size, no longer fits them.

Shrinkflation will gouge you of your money

This annoys me as well..... There should be standardised sizing for womens clothes. If a man is a 36"waist he knows he can go anywhere and buy a pair of 36" trousers and they will fit. Yet I have to go up or down in sizes depending on where I shop. "

Admin to that long legged blokes...should they be paying more for the extra length in Thier trousers?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham


"Their profits are generally so enormous that the retailer should absorb extra costs imo, rather than get larger people to pay.

If more widespread (sorry for pun), expect to find that sizing will shrink and more people will suddenly find that size 16, or whatever the biggest regular priced size, no longer fits them.

Shrinkflation will gouge you of your money

This annoys me as well..... There should be standardised sizing for womens clothes. If a man is a 36"waist he knows he can go anywhere and buy a pair of 36" trousers and they will fit. Yet I have to go up or down in sizes depending on where I shop.

Or depending on how much we eat last night "

Nah I don't suffer too bad with bloating

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Ad. ..I'm not saying admin have long legs

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eesideMan
over a year ago

margate sumwear by the sea


"So they are talking about this on the BBC news this morning as apparently new look are charging more for a size 18 dress then a size 10... is this fair? Or should the slimmer people subsidise the larger people?

Your Thoughts?"

I can see y thay are doing it.

With all the government stuff on over wate this is just a nother way to try and make people eat healthy....

It may incurrige sum to drop a fue pounds.

But in the long run people will just shop else wear.

So i don't think it will work and shops will in the end be the 1s loosing.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Their profits are generally so enormous that the retailer should absorb extra costs imo, rather than get larger people to pay.

If more widespread (sorry for pun), expect to find that sizing will shrink and more people will suddenly find that size 16, or whatever the biggest regular priced size, no longer fits them.

Shrinkflation will gouge you of your money

This annoys me as well..... There should be standardised sizing for womens clothes. If a man is a 36"waist he knows he can go anywhere and buy a pair of 36" trousers and they will fit. Yet I have to go up or down in sizes depending on where I shop.

Admin to that long legged blokes...should they be paying more for the extra length in Thier trousers? "

No, because nobody can help how tall they are where as the majority of larger people can help how wide they are

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"So they are talking about this on the BBC news this morning as apparently new look are charging more for a size 18 dress then a size 10... is this fair? Or should the slimmer people subsidise the larger people?

Your Thoughts?"

Unfair!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Their profits are generally so enormous that the retailer should absorb extra costs imo, rather than get larger people to pay.

If more widespread (sorry for pun), expect to find that sizing will shrink and more people will suddenly find that size 16, or whatever the biggest regular priced size, no longer fits them.

Shrinkflation will gouge you of your money

This annoys me as well..... There should be standardised sizing for womens clothes. If a man is a 36"waist he knows he can go anywhere and buy a pair of 36" trousers and they will fit. Yet I have to go up or down in sizes depending on where I shop.

Admin to that long legged blokes...should they be paying more for the extra length in Thier trousers?

No, because nobody can help how tall they are where as the majority of larger people can help how wide they are "

Ah but the fact is there is more material and more sewing so should the shorties subsidise the big feckers?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

Shrinkflation is happening.

Haagen Daz ice cream has just had a size cut, whilst the price is static.

A crafty way to get you to fit into smaller clothes?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Incentive for people to lose weight if they don’t like the cost of the bigger sizes.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Their profits are generally so enormous that the retailer should absorb extra costs imo, rather than get larger people to pay.

If more widespread (sorry for pun), expect to find that sizing will shrink and more people will suddenly find that size 16, or whatever the biggest regular priced size, no longer fits them.

Shrinkflation will gouge you of your money

This annoys me as well..... There should be standardised sizing for womens clothes. If a man is a 36"waist he knows he can go anywhere and buy a pair of 36" trousers and they will fit. Yet I have to go up or down in sizes depending on where I shop.

Admin to that long legged blokes...should they be paying more for the extra length in Thier trousers?

No, because nobody can help how tall they are where as the majority of larger people can help how wide they are

Ah but the fact is there is more material and more sewing so should the shorties subsidise the big feckers? "

Depends how short you mean. I’m a short leg and it doesn’t bother me a pair of longer leg trousers cost the same

If you’re going into dwarf sizes then yes they should be cheaper

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Their profits are generally so enormous that the retailer should absorb extra costs imo, rather than get larger people to pay.

If more widespread (sorry for pun), expect to find that sizing will shrink and more people will suddenly find that size 16, or whatever the biggest regular priced size, no longer fits them.

Shrinkflation will gouge you of your money

This annoys me as well..... There should be standardised sizing for womens clothes. If a man is a 36"waist he knows he can go anywhere and buy a pair of 36" trousers and they will fit. Yet I have to go up or down in sizes depending on where I shop.

Admin to that long legged blokes...should they be paying more for the extra length in Thier trousers?

No, because nobody can help how tall they are where as the majority of larger people can help how wide they are

Ah but the fact is there is more material and more sewing so should the shorties subsidise the big feckers? "

I'm voting for reducing the price of the petite range rather than increasing costs for plus sizes

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Their profits are generally so enormous that the retailer should absorb extra costs imo, rather than get larger people to pay.

If more widespread (sorry for pun), expect to find that sizing will shrink and more people will suddenly find that size 16, or whatever the biggest regular priced size, no longer fits them.

Shrinkflation will gouge you of your money

This annoys me as well..... There should be standardised sizing for womens clothes. If a man is a 36"waist he knows he can go anywhere and buy a pair of 36" trousers and they will fit. Yet I have to go up or down in sizes depending on where I shop.

Admin to that long legged blokes...should they be paying more for the extra length in Thier trousers?

No, because nobody can help how tall they are where as the majority of larger people can help how wide they are

Ah but the fact is there is more material and more sewing so should the shorties subsidise the big feckers?

I'm voting for reducing the price of the petite range rather than increasing costs for plus sizes "

I get ya....but won't it still seems the same to the larger people at the end of day?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I brought this up when I was on about kids clothes. The price goes up as the age goes up.

If they do the same with women's clothes it might be another incentive to lose a bit of timber and drop down some dress sizes to get the cheaper clothes.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham


"Incentive for people to lose weight if they don’t like the cost of the bigger sizes. "

Why don't people understand that increasing prices, adding sugar taxes etc does not incentivise weight loss if people don't want to lose weight?! It's just a bull shit justification.

The only thing that will make someone lose weight is of they want to do it, for them - not for some fashion brand or MP

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ldguyMan
over a year ago

ongar

Think they should do it for airline seats too....reels back in horror in anticipation of incoming comments

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham


"Think they should do it for airline seats too....reels back in horror in anticipation of incoming comments "

But they are all the same size

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Another way to try and make some people feel bad.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Think they should do it for airline seats too....reels back in horror in anticipation of incoming comments

But they are all the same size "

The people sitting in them arent

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *htcMan
over a year ago

MK

Technically yes smaller production line costs more per item. And more materials aswell as time used.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham


"Think they should do it for airline seats too....reels back in horror in anticipation of incoming comments

But they are all the same size

The people sitting in them arent"

So just make fat people pay more because they are fat and not because they are using bigger seats? Right OK

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hips n FursMan
over a year ago

Huddersfield

Some of this is a load of rubbish,the cost to produce the extra fabric is next to nothing. Plus you can only get so much out of a meter of fabric. Smaller sizes you can have more waste than the larger sizes.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *isaB45Woman
over a year ago

Fabville


"I brought this up when I was on about kids clothes. The price goes up as the age goes up.

If they do the same with women's clothes it might be another incentive to lose a bit of timber and drop down some dress sizes to get the cheaper clothes. "

Why only women? Yet another example of women being body-shamed by society, along with diet clubs, Special Cereals, diet foods etc...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Some of this is a load of rubbish,the cost to produce the extra fabric is next to nothing. Plus you can only get so much out of a meter of fabric. Smaller sizes you can have more waste than the larger sizes."

Mass produced clothing is cut from the bolt and bought by the bolt, not metre.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ystical_InkedBBWWoman
over a year ago

somewhere in the Shire of Derby

They already do, and lingerie is a prime example especially if you want quality.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

What I find more annoying is seeing a nice top then finding out it's only in the petite range.

Even when I was thin I couldn't wear petite.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Think they should do it for airline seats too....reels back in horror in anticipation of incoming comments

But they are all the same size

The people sitting in them arent

So just make fat people pay more because they are fat and not because they are using bigger seats? Right OK "

You have to pay extra when your suitcase is overweight no matter what size it is. Im not saying I agree with it before you start a witch hunter. Just saying that’s what I think he meant

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otSoNewWalesCoupleCouple
over a year ago

South Wales

If larger sizes are more expensive because 'they use more material' why aren't kids' and baby clothes piss cheap?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Why is it larger people’s go to mechinism is to play the victim ?!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"If larger sizes are more expensive because 'they use more material' why aren't kids' and baby clothes piss cheap?"

They usually are, depending on which shop you buy from.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Incentive for people to lose weight if they don’t like the cost of the bigger sizes. "

I may not like the prices, but I love my body. I’m not going to be made to feel shitty about it by retailers. If I have to pay an extra few quid, then so be it, though I’ll be doing it begrudgingly.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Why is it larger people’s go to mechinism is to play the victim ?!"

I dunno, maybe because they feel targeted?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

One of the reasons I lose weight is to feel comfy in clothing that I like, not to save myself a couple of quid.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Why not just ban the sale of clothing over a certain size, if you want clothes you will have to make your own, that would concentrate a few minds!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Why not just ban the sale of clothing over a certain size, if you want clothes you will have to make your own, that would concentrate a few minds! "

Full of great ideas aren't you

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Why not just ban the sale of clothing over a certain size, if you want clothes you will have to make your own, that would concentrate a few minds! "

Ok, how would you decide which size would be the absolute limit? If you choose too small, you’re going to lose yourself a huge amount of profit!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *luebell888Woman
over a year ago

Glasgowish

I have agreed with this for years. When you buy a duvet cover you pay more for a double than a single due to more material. Same should be with clothes.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hips n FursMan
over a year ago

Huddersfield


"Some of this is a load of rubbish,the cost to produce the extra fabric is next to nothing. Plus you can only get so much out of a meter of fabric. Smaller sizes you can have more waste than the larger sizes.

Mass produced clothing is cut from the bolt and bought by the bolt, not metre.

"

Its woven by the meter and we sell it by the meter.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

While I agree in theory, the extra material cost on most clothes would be minimal.

Are shoes going to change price too depending on size? I bet not. I'm always jealous of women who can squeeze into kids trainers though.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 15/05/18 08:43:08]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Lots of places do it (mail order shops for larger women etc).

It’s a big difference in price too in some of them. I tend to shop elsewhere if i notice that.

And in my opinion, New Look has gone shite since they changed their plus size section to Curves in place of Inspire. Far less on trend.

"

You’re not wrong. River Island’s plus size section on the other hand

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *wisted999Man
over a year ago

North Bucks

More material more cost.

The extra cost should be a fair reflection of that not some number plucked out of thin air though.

Although as a large tall Male with very broad shoulders and size 13 feet I have not noticed that I pay extra for my clothing and shoe sizes. Which does seem a little unfair. Maybe I have not been paying attention.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So the argument has been made about extra material, I agree that’s fair. But what’s the price of the extra material vs the price of the bigger sizes? If it’s a couple of quid, fair enough. If it’s 10 or 15, as it is in some cases, it’s unreasonable.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"More material more cost.

The extra cost should be a fair reflection of that not some number plucked out of thin air though.

Although as a large tall Male with very broad shoulders and size 13 feet I have not noticed that I pay extra for my clothing and shoe sizes. Which does seem a little unfair. Maybe I have not been paying attention. "

I buy long trousers not regular or short. I dont pay more for those but that must be extra material. Lets face it, they will all probably join in soon. In a way its strange that a size 3 shoe costs the same as a size 12.

Jeans dont get charged differently based on waist size and length.

Isn’t charging differently a form of discrimination though?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *gnitemybodyWoman
over a year ago

Onestepoutofthedoor


"So they are talking about this on the BBC news this morning as apparently new look are charging more for a size 18 dress then a size 10... is this fair? Or should the slimmer people subsidise the larger people?

Your Thoughts?"

If it actually costs more to make a size 18 then yes it's fair and no slimmer people shouldn't subsidise the larger person.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Think they should do it for airline seats too....reels back in horror in anticipation of incoming comments

But they are all the same size

The people sitting in them arent

So just make fat people pay more because they are fat and not because they are using bigger seats? Right OK "

In fairness I'll put another point across...just say I weigh 11 st and the person next to me weighs 15 st.

Now if the airlines are charging extra for weight on baggage and they charge me excess baggage for a extra suitcase of 4 st ...which is doubling my cost of the flight. Is that fair?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It should be more expensive but just a little unless it's expensive material. Should really larger people be giving out? No, I don't think they have a leg to stand on. Ireland and Britain and be fat nations now. Its not good. I'm not saying bigger people should feel comfortable in their own skin, they should but weight in these countries is a serious problem. We can't keep bitching at every move to make life a little more inconvenient to be alot overweight. We should all be a bit fitter.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *gnitemybodyWoman
over a year ago

Onestepoutofthedoor


"While I agree in theory, the extra material cost on most clothes would be minimal.

Are shoes going to change price too depending on size? I bet not. I'm always jealous of women who can squeeze into kids trainers though."

My daughter got some from the kid's department which were a 5 1/2 I'm the same size in trainer's so got the same one's,if I had bought exactly the same one's from the adults section they would have been £20 more.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Think they should do it for airline seats too....reels back in horror in anticipation of incoming comments "

What if a larger person takes no luggage with them ? Yet say an 11 and 1/2 stone person takes their 23kg of luggage with them. It can work out the same.

And at check in it would take hours !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *is_Collared_SubWoman
over a year ago

London

Many addictions are socially shamed like alcoholism, gambling addictions, drug etc

Yet fat shaming isn’t ok?

I hope those who subscribe to that view are equally tolerant of the smoking parent or the cheating sex addict.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"While I agree in theory, the extra material cost on most clothes would be minimal.

Are shoes going to change price too depending on size? I bet not. I'm always jealous of women who can squeeze into kids trainers though.

My daughter got some from the kid's department which were a 5 1/2 I'm the same size in trainer's so got the same one's,if I had bought exactly the same one's from the adults section they would have been £20 more."

I'm not sure if it's still the case but there used to be no vat on kids sizes so that would make then automatically 20% cheaper by rights

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Many addictions are socially shamed like alcoholism, gambling addictions, drug etc

Yet fat shaming isn’t ok?

I hope those who subscribe to that view are equally tolerant of the smoking parent or the cheating sex addict."

I don’t think any type of shaming is acceptable. It doesn’t provide anything positive to those being shamed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Many addictions are socially shamed like alcoholism, gambling addictions, drug etc

Yet fat shaming isn’t ok?

I hope those who subscribe to that view are equally tolerant of the smoking parent or the cheating sex addict."

Why turn a topical debate into a shaming debate can we not discuss what is happening currently without saying it is a shaming thread?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *is_Collared_SubWoman
over a year ago

London


"Many addictions are socially shamed like alcoholism, gambling addictions, drug etc

Yet fat shaming isn’t ok?

I hope those who subscribe to that view are equally tolerant of the smoking parent or the cheating sex addict.

I don’t think any type of shaming is acceptable. It doesn’t provide anything positive to those being shamed. "

Glad you don’t have double standards but I think many people do x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm not an expert but I suspect that the bulk of the cost is on the manufacturing process and not the matrials used. So I think it's a bit of a scam personally.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *is_Collared_SubWoman
over a year ago

London


"Many addictions are socially shamed like alcoholism, gambling addictions, drug etc

Yet fat shaming isn’t ok?

I hope those who subscribe to that view are equally tolerant of the smoking parent or the cheating sex addict.

Why turn a topical debate into a shaming debate can we not discuss what is happening currently without saying it is a shaming thread?"

I wasn’t the first person to mention shaming. It’s throughout the thread

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Many addictions are socially shamed like alcoholism, gambling addictions, drug etc

Yet fat shaming isn’t ok?

I hope those who subscribe to that view are equally tolerant of the smoking parent or the cheating sex addict.

Why turn a topical debate into a shaming debate can we not discuss what is happening currently without saying it is a shaming thread?

I wasn’t the first person to mention shaming. It’s throughout the thread"

Aw ok

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *urvymamaWoman
over a year ago

Doncaster

[Removed by poster at 15/05/18 09:33:46]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *urvymamaWoman
over a year ago

Doncaster

As a fatty of course its fair

It's only logical that making the same dress for a fatter person is a more expensive process as you're using extra materials, it's really that simple

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

I suspect the extra cost of, say, a size twenty as opposed to a size ten, is relatively minimal. Add to this that a majority of adults in the UK are overweight and the outrage that would face any retailer instituting a "fat tax", I can't see this idea flying.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London


"Many addictions are socially shamed like alcoholism, gambling addictions, drug etc

Yet fat shaming isn’t ok?

I hope those who subscribe to that view are equally tolerant of the smoking parent or the cheating sex addict.

I don’t think any type of shaming is acceptable. It doesn’t provide anything positive to those being shamed. "

Depends what you mean by "shaming".

Whilst I agree that attacking individuals is rarely helpful, can we not agree, in the abstract, that drinking excessive alcohol, being addicted to drugs and being significantly overweight are all bad things?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nlovedpaulMan
over a year ago

stone

So what about parts of the body people can’t control, like their height or shoe size. Should a size 8 shoe cost less than a size 11?

Only fair way to do it is to either calculate the cost of a specific item and then use a percentage on top. This makes every size and shape a different price.

The other way is how we do it currently, most ‘standard’ sizes are the same price. Larger or smaller sizes that are not as popular do end up costing a little more.

A ‘fat tax’ is already incorporated into a number of brands. Generally in British society we are accepting and inclusive, so we don’t strike people down for being a little different from ourselves.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"So what about parts of the body people can’t control, like their height or shoe size. Should a size 8 shoe cost less than a size 11?

Only fair way to do it is to either calculate the cost of a specific item and then use a percentage on top. This makes every size and shape a different price.

The other way is how we do it currently, most ‘standard’ sizes are the same price. Larger or smaller sizes that are not as popular do end up costing a little more.

A ‘fat tax’ is already incorporated into a number of brands. Generally in British society we are accepting and inclusive, so we don’t strike people down for being a little different from ourselves.

"

Being the "ideal" weight in Britain is basically being different. Being overweight is the norm according to statistics. The average adult brit is two stone heavier than the average French adult.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If the cost was related to the cost of production, fine.

If the cost is to somehow spur people into losing weight, no. Yes, being overweight is a health issue, but are people who are a size 10, nibble biscuits, soak themselves in coffee, smoke 2 fags a day to stay slim, any healthier ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"As a fatty of course its fair

It's only logical that making the same dress for a fatter person is a more expensive process as you're using extra materials, it's really that simple"

I agree with that but, the truth is, they aren't just adding on the extra cost of materials and labor. They are adding extra cost of materials and labor plus an extra ten or twenty quid which is why it starts to look like something more sinister than just recouping what most would deem to be fair.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *londieddWoman
over a year ago

fife


"While I agree in theory, the extra material cost on most clothes would be minimal.

Are shoes going to change price too depending on size? I bet not. I'm always jealous of women who can squeeze into kids trainers though.

My daughter got some from the kid's department which were a 5 1/2 I'm the same size in trainer's so got the same one's,if I had bought exactly the same one's from the adults section they would have been £20 more.

I'm not sure if it's still the case but there used to be no vat on kids sizes so that would make then automatically 20% cheaper by rights "

Yes I think it is the VAT thing I can get sandals in the children's bit and probably trainers if I wore them

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Most of the world aren't fat so there's the difference in volume costs, as well as material and labour.

The fact remains that obesity is becoming epidemic in the UK and worst of all we're normalising it.

It's not really that different to smoking or alcohol and should be taxed accordingly

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Their profits are generally so enormous that the retailer should absorb extra costs imo, rather than get larger people to pay.

If more widespread (sorry for pun), expect to find that sizing will shrink and more people will suddenly find that size 16, or whatever the biggest regular priced size, no longer fits them.

Shrinkflation will gouge you of your money

This annoys me as well..... There should be standardised sizing for womens clothes. If a man is a 36"waist he knows he can go anywhere and buy a pair of 36" trousers and they will fit. Yet I have to go up or down in sizes depending on where I shop.

Admin to that long legged blokes...should they be paying more for the extra length in Thier trousers?

No, because nobody can help how tall they are where as the majority of larger people can help how wide they are

Ah but the fact is there is more material and more sewing so should the shorties subsidise the big feckers?

I'm voting for reducing the price of the petite range rather than increasing costs for plus sizes "

Like a tax rebate for being healthy x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *urvymamaWoman
over a year ago

Doncaster


"As a fatty of course its fair

It's only logical that making the same dress for a fatter person is a more expensive process as you're using extra materials, it's really that simple

I agree with that but, the truth is, they aren't just adding on the extra cost of materials and labor. They are adding extra cost of materials and labor plus an extra ten or twenty quid which is why it starts to look like something more sinister than just recouping what most would deem to be fair."

As An at home seamstress it lterakky costs me double to make something my mum size than it does to make it for my sister who is slimmer.

If anything, based on my experience, they're making minimal profit from Their larger sizes, at the current cost, the profit margin is actually higher on the slimmer persons garment, so they're the ones being ripped off

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"So they are talking about this on the BBC news this morning as apparently new look are charging more for a size 18 dress then a size 10... is this fair? Or should the slimmer people subsidise the larger people?

Your Thoughts?"

It's fair, it's also fair to limit choices for none average sizes. The main part of retail costs is storage and display, so stocking for either end of the average is problematic.

Shops that specialise in larger or smaller sizes exist.

So far most discrimination has been in men's clothing, and as men don't complain it's gone unnoticed. But see what choices there are for long legs or large feet in the mens wèar section compared to the average.

With 36" inside leg, and size 13 feet. I have always paid extra for less choice.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Their profits are generally so enormous that the retailer should absorb extra costs imo, rather than get larger people to pay.

If more widespread (sorry for pun), expect to find that sizing will shrink and more people will suddenly find that size 16, or whatever the biggest regular priced size, no longer fits them.

Shrinkflation will gouge you of your money

This annoys me as well..... There should be standardised sizing for womens clothes. If a man is a 36"waist he knows he can go anywhere and buy a pair of 36" trousers and they will fit. Yet I have to go up or down in sizes depending on where I shop.

Admin to that long legged blokes...should they be paying more for the extra length in Thier trousers?

No, because nobody can help how tall they are where as the majority of larger people can help how wide they are

Ah but the fact is there is more material and more sewing so should the shorties subsidise the big feckers?

I'm voting for reducing the price of the petite range rather than increasing costs for plus sizes

Like a tax rebate for being healthy x"

Or short?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I've said it for years, the fast food industry needs regulating to the fucking hilt, no other industry gets away or could get away with the shit they produce, it's insidious by nature and is frankly killing people on a scale never seen even by asbestos or cigarettes!.

Worse still is this incessant behaviour of normalising being obese, TV programs fat and proud with grossly overweight people naked telling all and sundry how society should accept them, they wouldn't do the smoking and proud, the alcoholic and proud the smack head and proud!.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"So they are talking about this on the BBC news this morning as apparently new look are charging more for a size 18 dress then a size 10... is this fair? Or should the slimmer people subsidise the larger people?

Your Thoughts?

It's fair, it's also fair to limit choices for none average sizes. The main part of retail costs is storage and display, so stocking for either end of the average is problematic.

Shops that specialise in larger or smaller sizes exist.

So far most discrimination has been in men's clothing, and as men don't complain it's gone unnoticed. But see what choices there are for long legs or large feet in the mens wèar section compared to the average.

With 36" inside leg, and size 13 feet. I have always paid extra for less choice."

Thanks feck I'm a 31" inside leg and a size 8 shoe....oh hang on am I subsidising you

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ldguyMan
over a year ago

ongar


"I've said it for years, the fast food industry needs regulating to the fucking hilt, no other industry gets away or could get away with the shit they produce, it's insidious by nature and is frankly killing people on a scale never seen even by asbestos or cigarettes!.

Worse still is this incessant behaviour of normalising being obese, TV programs fat and proud with grossly overweight people naked telling all and sundry how society should accept them, they wouldn't do the smoking and proud, the alcoholic and proud the smack head and proud!.

"

Spot on Dave.....follow the money.....that's why they make it taste so nice....full of sugar fat and salt.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hips n FursMan
over a year ago

Huddersfield

So should it be a different price for every size. A size 8 dress to be cheaper than a size 12,or sized 32 jeans cheaper than a pair of 38's. If it's going down this road,surly this would be the right way to go if this is based on costings.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Clothing lines cater to their average size they make.

So if a clothing factory had their average size to be a 22 that brings down their cost.

Mass produced clothes cut from one size. But as most larger and smaller sizes arent mass produced, which increases the cost.

Larger companies the extra cost on more fabric is less than smaller companies due to buying in more bulk of that cloth.

Companies charge a lot more for brand

Example with trainers, say nike - each pair made in india total value of a few quid. Thats including the wages paid and all overheads covered. Slave labour. But they then sell those for 70 to 150 quid a pair and not worry about size difference of the products theyve already rake in massive profit. Clothes at primark are the same. Just not so greedy on per item charge.

On the fat shaming note, id been getting larger over the years same diet even as I have now. Been on hormones since I was 14.

I stopped them just over a year ago and have lost 4st since eating and same as I have always done. Assuming someones fat because of what they consume and lack of exercise when you dont know the reasons as to why they are that way is cruel. if someones eating 10000 calories a day, really should think of cutting it down but thats their choice. If they are happy leave them be if they arent rather than shaming them offer to help. Shaming helps no one. Offer advice if its wanted on good foods and how to cook or offer to be an exercise buddy. Most wont go to the gym because they feel ridiculed.

Getting laughed at on a treadmill when your fat doesnt help either should be cheering them on! Well done to them!

Taking the P out of someone jogging whose overweight and they are sweating hard.... see why people dont want to do it?

This is my experience didnt help I didnt lose any weight or size doing that either.

So stop the fat shaming and offer constructive advice and support instead

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"So they are talking about this on the BBC news this morning as apparently new look are charging more for a size 18 dress then a size 10... is this fair? Or should the slimmer people subsidise the larger people?

Your Thoughts?"

Is more fabric or material being used. If yes from a business stand point it makes sense

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Reporter clarified on BBC that it was a system glitch “an honest mistake” they don’t charge more for bigger sizes although they should

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Uses more materials

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oxy_minxWoman
over a year ago

Scotland - Aberdeen

TBH I'm a size 6 and I have never noticed any of my clothes being cheaper than larger sizes, but I have always thought it was unfair when you compare the difference in material etc

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"So they are talking about this on the BBC news this morning as apparently new look are charging more for a size 18 dress then a size 10... is this fair? Or should the slimmer people subsidise the larger people?

Your Thoughts?

Is more fabric or material being used. If yes from a business stand point it makes sense"

So should smaller and slimmer people expect to pay less?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Think they should do it for airline seats too....reels back in horror in anticipation of incoming comments

But they are all the same size

The people sitting in them arent

So just make fat people pay more because they are fat and not because they are using bigger seats? Right OK

In fairness I'll put another point across...just say I weigh 11 st and the person next to me weighs 15 st.

Now if the airlines are charging extra for weight on baggage and they charge me excess baggage for a extra suitcase of 4 st ...which is doubling my cost of the flight. Is that fair?"

I always presumed it balanced out with having kids or slim people on the same flight as heavier people.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Not a smart business move, plus they’re bigger clothes are always on the small side. X "

Bigger clothes are always on the small size ?? WTF.

Seems that a lot of women intentionally buy a smaller size to either show off what assets they have (boobs bum etc) or they buy a certain size because they don't want to admit to being a bigger.

As for the OP asking should smaller people subsidise larger people not a chance using the same analogy of the burger why should I pay more for a single burger than the next person in line buying a double/triple burger.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ubiousOatcakeMan
over a year ago

Aberdeenshire


" As An at home seamstress it lterakky costs me double to make something my mum size than it does to make it for my sister who is slimmer.

If anything, based on my experience, they're making minimal profit from Their larger sizes, at the current cost, the profit margin is actually higher on the slimmer persons garment, so they're the ones being ripped off "

Your experience is nothing like that of a clothes manufacturer. Even in just the actual production of the clothes, factoring in factory running costs and labour, the cost of the actual material is a small factor. But, there’s more to it than that. There’s packaging and distribution. Advertising. The cost of the final item also has to factor in the cost of the retail outlet; rent, running costs, staff. The difference in the cost of the actual material is negligible.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here

Men’s 42” trousers are the same price as 32” trousers - men’s XXL shirt same price as M - and yet there is considerably more material used in the larger sizes

So it looks like it’s just women’s clothing?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Men’s 42” trousers are the same price as 32” trousers - men’s XXL shirt same price as M - and yet there is considerably more material used in the larger sizes

So it looks like it’s just women’s clothing?

"

You don't have to answer....but out of curiosity what size are you?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Men’s 42” trousers are the same price as 32” trousers - men’s XXL shirt same price as M - and yet there is considerably more material used in the larger sizes

So it looks like it’s just women’s clothing?

"

It's more a case that cheap jeans trousers etc. Only go to 33" leg, only limited more expensive brands have the extra 3" i need.

Shoes are the bigger problem really.

Like I said above it's more about stocking for the mode average, keeping a stock in every size us expensive.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittlemisssassypantsCouple
over a year ago

South East Wales

It’s a difficult one, I own a women’s clothes shop and some of the brands I order from charge more (wholesale) for the same dress from a size 18+ and therefore gives the RRP is a few quid more than the ones that are size 16 and below. I put them all as the same RRP so when someone buys an 18 or above I don’t make as much profit but I know that if I did do separate pricing I would definitely lose customers so I would rather lose out on a fiver of profits on 18+ items than my customer base.

Sassy

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here

[Removed by poster at 15/05/18 16:45:50]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here


"Men’s 42” trousers are the same price as 32” trousers - men’s XXL shirt same price as M - and yet there is considerably more material used in the larger sizes

So it looks like it’s just women’s clothing?

You don't have to answer....but out of curiosity what size are you?"

I was XXL and 42” - now I’m M and 32”

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"So they are talking about this on the BBC news this morning as apparently new look are charging more for a size 18 dress then a size 10... is this fair? Or should the slimmer people subsidise the larger people?

Your Thoughts?

Is more fabric or material being used. If yes from a business stand point it makes sense

So should smaller and slimmer people expect to pay less?"

Business dont agree with less they agree with more

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Not a smart business move, plus they’re bigger clothes are always on the small side. X

Bigger clothes are always on the small size ?? WTF.

Seems that a lot of women intentionally buy a smaller size to either show off what assets they have (boobs bum etc) or they buy a certain size because they don't want to admit to being a bigger.

As for the OP asking should smaller people subsidise larger people not a chance using the same analogy of the burger why should I pay more for a single burger than the next person in line buying a double/triple burger. "

I was talking about new look and their larger size clothes aren’t as true to siZoe as some other manufacturers. I’ve bought the same size top one from new look and one from somewhere else and their had been a marked difference in the size. It happens in ladies clothing across the board .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Men’s 42” trousers are the same price as 32” trousers - men’s XXL shirt same price as M - and yet there is considerably more material used in the larger sizes

So it looks like it’s just women’s clothing?

You don't have to answer....but out of curiosity what size are you?

I was XXL and 42” - now I’m M and 32”

"

Well done

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Not a smart business move, plus they’re bigger clothes are always on the small side. X

Bigger clothes are always on the small size ?? WTF.

Seems that a lot of women intentionally buy a smaller size to either show off what assets they have (boobs bum etc) or they buy a certain size because they don't want to admit to being a bigger.

As for the OP asking should smaller people subsidise larger people not a chance using the same analogy of the burger why should I pay more for a single burger than the next person in line buying a double/triple burger.

I was talking about new look and their larger size clothes aren’t as true to siZoe as some other manufacturers. I’ve bought the same size top one from new look and one from somewhere else and their had been a marked difference in the size. It happens in ladies clothing across the board . "

And in men's. ..I'm qualified in both

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Not a smart business move, plus they’re bigger clothes are always on the small side. X

Bigger clothes are always on the small size ?? WTF.

Seems that a lot of women intentionally buy a smaller size to either show off what assets they have (boobs bum etc) or they buy a certain size because they don't want to admit to being a bigger.

As for the OP asking should smaller people subsidise larger people not a chance using the same analogy of the burger why should I pay more for a single burger than the next person in line buying a double/triple burger.

I was talking about new look and their larger size clothes aren’t as true to siZoe as some other manufacturers. I’ve bought the same size top one from new look and one from somewhere else and their had been a marked difference in the size. It happens in ladies clothing across the board .

And in men's. ..I'm qualified in both "

Yes mistress. Though not always so much. X

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

More fabric and more work to sew so seems fair enough. They are businesses not charities.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iSTARessWoman
over a year ago

London

How is this news? Always been the case.

Though they're clearly not spending money on designs. I loathe floral tents.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So it’s not a tax but a pricing decision ? And presumably they’re not looking to encourage healthy eating but make a dollar ?

I guess the Starbucks analogy doesn’t quite work as that’s a decision anyone can choose to make. I’m not forced to drink large. (Cue pedants saying size is a choice.)

For those who say the extra cost of material is small I guess there’s a question of whether profit should be per item of clothing of as a % of manufacturing cost. And how should non variable costs be allowed for ?

But all in all I suspect this is a boring case of supply versus demand. They priced it this way because they were selling at this price. Nothing more sinister than capitalism at work ...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I agree that if it costs more then you pay more, don't be surprised if you're twice the size of the person beside you then you pay more for the amount of material it costs to cover you.

That said, this "Fat Tax" is just another way of fleecing people for that little bit extra.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top