‘Fat Tax’ Imposed On Its Plus-Sized Customers?

[anotheoldgit]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6281219/new-look-fat-tax-plus-size-trousers/

It seems obvious to me, that if more material is used in the making of these larger size garments, one should expect them to cost more.

[jim360]

I demonstrated above that the "more material costs more to buy" argument could explain price differences that are no more than £1 or so, not the £6-£10 being complained about.

So yes, it is a bogus argument, because it's certainly *not* the main reason for that difference. Some other effect is more important.

[naomi24]

'Do not necessarily' ... a spurious argument.

[douglas9401]

This is turning into one of those 'how many fat lasses can dance on the head of a pin' discussions.

[bednobs]

having been a fat girl before, fat clothes are always more expensive (just look at specifically fat shops like evans). Just look at it as an incentive to lose weight!

[naomi24]

Cross-posted. You're making assumptions, Jim.

[Islay]

Bhg please don’t put common sense in a thread designed to knock fat women you will ruin their fun!!

[bhg481]

Why a spurious argument, naomi? If you have ever been into dressmaking you can see on the pattern how much material is required; many different sizes are covered by the same amount of cloth.

[jim360]

What assumptions am I making? I've made use of various sources that provide the typical breakdown for clothing costs.

[naomi24]

bhg481, // Why a spurious argument, naomi? //

Because as Jim says it is not necessarily so.

[naomi24]

Jim, for a start you're assuming you know the cost of the cloth - although you have since agreed with me that yours is a bogus argument so I don't really know what you're arguing about now.

[jim360]

I did not agree with you at all, so perhaps you need to read through the thread again.

It's quite simple, really: fabric costs are not a large enough part of the total cost of clothing to be able to explain these price differences. Therefore, AOG's (and yours, bednob's, wofl's, and even Talbot's) argument is wrong. This price change is *not* about the increased use of fabric.

[237SJ]

I`ve had clothes (albeit leather/suede) made in India for a fraction of what you would pay here. The fabric in most high street shops would come from India and the difference in a regular size and plus size would be pennies as far as material costs are concerned. It's market forces at work.

[Mamyalynne]

When I saw the report first on this it wasn't quite clear cut as it seems.

Some stores sold a Size 18 in their Ladies range for £X and sold the self same Size 18 garment in their Plus range at £X+ a bit more.

That was what started it off.

[ludwig]

New Look is a retailer and won't be making these garments. It'll be some factory in China or India, so it all depends what they are paying for them.

If the wholesale price to New Look is the same irrespective of size, then the whole 'extra material' thing is spurious, and it's just an excuse to hike up prices on some garments. If the cost is different, and New Look's retail price reflects that proportionally, then they're covering their extra costs.

We don't know these facts, but I suspect it's the former, ie just an excuse to hike up some prices.

[jim360]

As to my assumptions, allow me to provide sources:

https://visible.clothing/pages/shirt-cost-breakdown-1 (here the fabric costs amount to about 15% rather than ~10%, but it's close enough)

http://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/what-does-that-14-shirt-really-cost/ (slightly higher but again far from the leading cause in price hike)

https://inhabitat.com/ecouterre/wp-content/blogs.dir/26/files/2014/03/living-wage-clean-clothes-campaign-2.jpg (the original source of my ~10% figure; unsurprisingly, it varies across companies)

[youngmafbog]

Surely an additional cost is due to the smaller numbers. These clothes still have to be designed, ordered, stocked etc but in much smaller numbers, in addition quite possibly a different factory. If you have smaller numbers being made fixed overheads have to be spread.

And I dont buy the same material argument. Might be on one off patterns but you can bet your bottom dollar the Indian/Chinese factories dont waste a scrap and on sheer volume even a small scrap lost wold quickly mount up.

[rowanwitch]

Douglas, we are not all like that, I take time to find clothes that fit properly and I know know the best I can look is Ok for a fat woman. If my best friend told me I look lush I'd laugh my head off, she is more likely to tell me I look like a sack of spuds and suggest a burka.

[youngmafbog]

It's a Viz reference rowan.

[bhg481]

ymb - you have to have waste, no matter how carefully you cut, unless you don't match patterns/stripes/checks. Some pieces have to be laid on a fold, some along the nap and some across the nap or the garment won't hang properly. If you're talking really cheap you are right but if you want clothes that look right, you're not.

[naomi24]

ymb, you’re absolutely right – but the bottom line is retailers don’t have to justify their prices to the consumer. That lady has the option to buy the big size she needs or to shop elsewhere.