News The philosophy behind the Fat Tax

[Pengwuino]

The point of this thread if you had read any of it was whether or not this can lead to taxes on other things simply because it has a negative effect on society. In the united states, YES, there IS an excess of violent people who put a tremendous strain on the US healthcare system. Read the thread.

 

[selfAdjoint]

!

But then what is the point of this thread? The point is despite this fact, the situation has become worst enough for the government to suggest fat tax! The existence of the thread itself points that your examples are out of context! There is no excess of violent people due to video games and violent movies, and we are not discussing about putting a tax on them, are we?

Just what IS the problem? That some people become fat, and that exposes them to diseases like type 2 diabetes and that raises the cost of blood sugar control meds and the amount expended on madicare and medicaid?

But consider all the other things people do that puts them at risk in later life, women who beleve every scare story they read in the tabloids, and thus overestimate the cancer-causing properties of small amounts of estrogen supplement, and so don't take it, and as a result develop soft bones, for example. I have personal experience with that one, and it probably generates more cost to the public purse than fat does.

 

[Pengwuino]

This feels like a larry david routine

 

[Bladibla]

The point of this thread if you had read any of it was whether or not this can lead to taxes on other things simply because it has a negative effect on society. In the united states, YES, there IS an excess of violent people who put a tremendous strain on the US healthcare system. Read the thread.

Where did it mention those violent people becoming violent as a result of games/ movies?

And I am arguing for the obscurity of your examples you have chosen to compare.

 

[Pengwuino]

What exactly is going to convince you? Do you want a study that says "Upon watching terminator 3, 25% of the subjects murdered a staff member"?

 

[Bladibla]

What exactly is going to convince you? Do you want a study that says "Upon watching terminator 3, 25% of the subjects murdered a staff member"?

Excuse me? convince me? You make it sound as if it obvious that what you have stated is true on violent crime.

Despite its irrelevance to the subject, consider:

YES, there IS an excess of violent people who put a tremendous strain on the US healthcare system. Read the thread.

Based on WHAT evidence are those figures directly as a result of violent games/ movies?

 

[Pengwuino]

I think you need to read the thread before you continue with this "you're not on subject!" crap.

I already showed you a few studies showing how violent behavior can be increased by violent media. Do you think all violence created by media is directed towards pillows? Do you really think, in your mind, that people might not possibly think exactly like you do in another country?

 

[Bladibla]

I think you need to read the thread before you continue with this "you're not on subject!" crap.

I already showed you a few studies showing how violent behavior can be increased by violent media. Do you think all violence created by media is directed towards pillows? Do you really think, in your mind, that people might not possibly think exactly like you do in another country?

Yes. Although my definition of 'pillows' would be different then.

Your definition of crap somehow reminds me of you. Funny no?

 

[Pengwuino]

Yes. Although my definition of 'pillows' would be different then.

Your definition of crap somehow reminds me of you. Funny no?

Very mature. Its about as funny as your argument has been consistent.

 

[Bladibla]

Very mature. Its about as funny as your argument has been consistent.

My argument has been consistent? damn right it has

Well, more consistent than your persistence in violence due to video games point where, I quote:

In the united states, YES, there IS an excess of violent people who put a tremendous strain on the US healthcare system. Read the thread.

Strain because of violent video game players? Where did it say that? Its just a figure, and not a good one at that. Nothing indicates that such was by violent video game players/ movie watchers.

Oh, and I wouldn't go on talking about maturity, Where you're mature enough to call someone's opinions 'crap'. Gosh, I would really learn something from you wouldn't I? (!)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm curious if you think that's a good thing for a bad thing.

Drinking is bad, smoking is bad, seatbelts and helmets are good. I think we all agree on these points. If there was a practical way to tax or penalize everyone for all choices made that affects others, then I could see how this might be fair, but obviously we would be creating a monster to try to do so. Though with technology today this becomes more and more practical, which is what most concerns me. In fact I'll even go out on a limb and predict that one day our toilets will all be monitored. Already we have appliances on the internet that call for repair or service, order groceries, call the fire or police, or in the case of Porsche, call Germany for fine tuning. Toilets on the internet are only a chip away. And what better way to catch people doing whatever we are concerned about today.

In short I think we're creating a monster, and the heart of the monster is the logic behind seatbelt and helmet laws, taxes on tobacco, alcohol, gambling, non-critical drug testing, fat consumption, and whatever comes next. And I have no doubt that there will be a next, and a next, and a next... Ultimately I see this as the beginning of the end of liberty.

Welcome to my nightmare.

 

[Skyhunter]

Food Subsidies

This country has a cheap food policy, ie it subsidizes the food industry through agriculture and water subsidies. The meat and dairy industries benefit the most from these subsidies.

Instead of taxing the end product, why not end the agricultural subsidies?

When that happens meat will be so expensive that people will learn to eat more plants. Without the subsidies smaller local farms will become more competitive, since transportation is not subsidized and is increasing in cost.

 

[Hurkyl]

Without the subsidies smaller local farms will become more competitive

I am under the exact opposite impression -- small-time farmers already struggle to keep afloat.

 

[Pengwuino]

Small farmers will absolutely go under if they are forced to deal with even smaller margins. I'm absolutely amazed you could think otherwise living so close to the san joaquin valley.

 

[Hurkyl]

When that happens meat will be so expensive that people will learn to eat more plants.

And subsequently suffer a protein shortage, because they're used to a diet where they don't have to spend considerable effort in ensuring they have all the nutrients they need.

Though, I suppose that's fine, if you're willing to sacrifice a few generations until people become accustomed to it.



And what about the people who simply don't like plants? I have disliked almost every vegetable and fruit I've tried... and when something I don't like goes into my mouth, I am often unable to swallow it before it comes out the way it went in. Presumably I would eventually acclimate to it, but I would be in a terrible state of health until that point.

 

[Skyhunter]

I am under the exact opposite impression -- small-time farmers already struggle to keep afloat.

The majority of the subsidies go to the larger corporate farms, allowing them to squeeze out the smaller independent farms. I get majority of my food from local farmers, who do not have the benefit of government subsidies. I pay a premium, but it is all local and organic. If the corporate farms have to raise their prices, the local farmers market becomes more attractive to the average consumer.

If you have to pay $20.00 lb for hamburger and $15.00 for a package of hot dogs, the garden burgers start looking better and better.

 

[Skyhunter]

And subsequently suffer a protein shortage, because they're used to a diet where they don't have to spend considerable effort in ensuring they have all the nutrients they need.

Though, I suppose that's fine, if you're willing to sacrifice a few generations until people become accustomed to it.

The only people who have ever suffered from a protein shortage are emaciated and have bloated bellies. It is nearly impossible to not get enough protein unless you are starving.

And what about the people who simply don't like plants? I have disliked almost every vegetable and fruit I've tried... and when something I don't like goes into my mouth, I am often unable to swallow it before it comes out the way it went in. Presumably I would eventually acclimate to it, but I would be in a terrible state of health until that point.

They would pay the true cost of producing the meat.

 

[Hurkyl]

The only people who have ever suffered from a protein shortage are emaciated and have bloated bellies. It is nearly impossible to not get enough protein unless you are starving.

Then why am I told that getting enough (of each essential) protein is one of the major challenges of a vegan diet?

If you have to pay $20.00 lb for hamburger and $15.00 for a package of hot dogs, the garden burgers start looking better and better.

No, they don't. Making one alternative worse doesn't make the other better. You sound like you think I'm joking, but I'm not. Some things come back out before I can manage to swallow... and believe me, I do try. It's inconvenient to have to spit something out, not to mention embarassing with a group of people. Other things I can manage to down a few bites before I become incapable of swallowing any more... which is annoying because I would rather be able to eat the thing I don't like than buy another overpriced lunch from the work cafeteria.

 

[Mk]

I pay a premium, but it is all local and organic.

Ah, so you have succumbed to the organic food scam. http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn122900.htm

If you have to pay $20.00 lb for hamburger and $15.00 for a package of hot dogs, the garden burgers start looking better and better.

Uhm, I don't have to. I'm ready to try a garden burger if I'm offered, but I am not going to buy a box. An acquaintance said he would bring me a hot fresh garden burger, and I was looking forward to it, but he never did.

Drinking is bad, smoking is bad, seatbelts and helmets are good.

Also, if I may add, something the "health conscious" often say is how toxic or poisonous some foods or activities (or lack of) are. Something to be noted is the dose, always. Natural radiation doses from space and everything around you are so little, it doesn't matter. Getting an xray—negligible amounts of ionizing radiation. Drinking a single sip of beer or inhaling a single (or a whole pack, why not?) puff of smoke from a cigarette is not bad. Some say that each puff is killing cells, or destroying your lungs. It is, but it doesn't matter, because it is not enough that your body cannot fix it. If you fall and bruise your arm, it is ok! Your body will fix itself! The problem is when you go overboard and bang your arm over and over again.

 

[Mk]

Every day on Planet Earth, 25,000 people die of starvation. Given this startling reality, one might be forgiven for wondering why the most controversial issue on the agenda of last week's World Health Organization meeting was the size of our love handles. Yet the venerable global health body practically begged for this fight. WHO's anti-obesity strategy includes a call for "fat taxes" on hot dogs, candy, and the like. The Bush Administration won the right to amend WHO's plan after charging that it neglects "the notion of personal responsibility." Predictably, defenders of the fat tax cried foul.

This is one of those heinously stupid things I try my best to stay out of. It is like the whole "remove 'under god' from the pledged of allegiance" thing all over again. It is BARELY worth talking about, but you can understand both sides well... and is just stupid.

If I ate Mcdonalds for non-stop a month, there isn't a 'chance' I will go fat; I will most definately become fat.

No, there is a chance. Your lifestyle is integral to the equation, as well as how much you ate.

Calories are Calories, it does not matter where they come from. Fats and oils have a higher Caloric density than carbohydrates or proteins, but if you ate oranges, celery, and spinach, in place of all your food and drink, in the day, that would make you gain weight.

One of my friends is the island 5K champion, he gets first place at almost every 5K or 10K. He eats McDonald's all the time, but he runs for hours everyday. Look at almost any male movie star (or female), for instance Nick Lache, that guy on the show with Jessica Simpson called "Newlyweds" they eat McDonald's almost everyday! The guy is ripped, and Jessica is 110 pounds! He exercises so much, and burns so many Calories, that the Calories from fat, carbs, and protein alike, go to building muscle.

Shaquile O'Neil also exercise a lot. However he almost exclusively eats salads. Man that guy is a monster. Maybe I need to eat salad.

 

[StarkRavingMad]

In short I think we're creating a monster, and the heart of the monster is the logic behind seatbelt and helmet laws, taxes on tobacco, alcohol, gambling, non-critical drug testing, fat consumption, and whatever comes next. And I have no doubt that there will be a next, and a next, and a next... Ultimately I see this as the beginning of the end of liberty.

Well said. It always scares me when people go along with this kind of thinking. It's ironic that the first people to freak out when polititians use their power are the very people who consistently vote to give the government more power in the first place.

 

[Pengwuino]

bye bye thread...

 

[loseyourname]

When that happens meat will be so expensive that people will learn to eat more plants. Without the subsidies smaller local farms will become more competitive, since transportation is not subsidized and is increasing in cost.

Are you suggesting that what has changed in the last twenty years to increase the obesity levels in this country is the consumption of meat? I eat meat with virtually every meal I have and am nowhere near being obese.

 

[Smurf]

Wow this thread is really long, you people talk a lot about fat people.

 

[Mk]

Are you suggesting that what has changed in the last twenty years to increase the obesity levels in this country is the consumption of meat? I eat meat with virtually every meal I have and am nowhere near being obese.

NO, he is not. He is saying meat is more fattening than plants.

 

[russ_watters]

Again, I'm behind, but...

And you have said nothing to suggest that this isn't a slippery slope.

I gave a clear criterion for deciding what is and isn't allowed and gave an example of one item on each side of the line. I don't know how it can be made any clearer. Are you saying that under the criterion I used, fatty foods could still be taxed?

And what of those who pay their medical bills? Should they be exempt?

Huh? The whole point is that since some people don't have insurance/pay their bills, everyone must pick up the slack.

How much fat may be consumed? At some point it clearly is a problem. Why should I pay [through my insurance] for some guy who sits at Wal Mart eating hot dogs?

If you can think of a different/better litmus test than the one I used, by all means tell me...

The cause of what? With all the rhetoric I can hardly tell what your point is.

There is so little rhetoric (I count three soft uses, but they are all connected to logical points) in that post that the point could not be more clear. What I think modern liberalism is causing should be obvious: the concurrent shirking of personal responsibility and requirement that the government pick up the slack.

 

[russ_watters]

Does it do enough damage so that the effects become noticable on our public health care system? Would 2 groups of equals show any distinct increase in tobacco related illness if one had a cigarette once every week or 2?

Since the cigarette tax is per unit, that's a self-regulating issue, Penguino - people who smoke less have fewer health problems and therefore pay less tax. It works out just fine and is completely fair to both smokers and non-smokers.

 

[russ_watters]

However, IIRC, about 30% of regular smokers will never have any significant problems before something else gets them.

I have a deal with a buddy of mine that takes care of that: as soon as he gets diagnosed with cancer (and he will), he's going to commit suicide.

 

[russ_watters]

In short I think we're creating a monster, and the heart of the monster is the logic behind seatbelt and helmet laws, taxes on tobacco, alcohol, gambling, non-critical drug testing, fat consumption, and whatever comes next. And I have no doubt that there will be a next, and a next, and a next... Ultimately I see this as the beginning of the end of liberty.

Welcome to my nightmare. [emphasis added]

edit: found your logic...

The logic you used in your OP was based on taxing "all poor choices that can lead to costs to society." What constitutes a "poor choice" isn't defined, but may be redundant anyway - do you mean that anything that leads to a cost to society is a poor choice?

In any case, you asked me what Constitutionality has to do with this: the answer is that I don't think the logic you used would be considered a reasonable justification for a law by the USSC. Ie, your fear is of something that won't happen because it isn't Constitutional.

 

[Moonbear]

Ah, so you have succumbed to the organic food scam. http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn122900.htm

Until a few weeks ago, my attitude on organic food is that it's certainly not cheap to produce in any massive way to feed the entire population, but if small pockets of consumers were willing to pay the extra money for it, and a small industry was sustained because of it, no big deal, it's their money and their food. However, after we received a group of organically raised sheep on our farm, my attitude has changed dramatically. I now think it's just plain cruel, and unsafe. We received the sheep because we're not an organic facility (not by a longshot), the sheep had been attacked by coyotes (horribly...I actually had nightmares the first night after seeing them), and needed medical treatment. They were on the organic farm several days before someone finally insisted that if they wanted the sheep to live, they needed to be brought in for veterinary treatment. As long as they were on the organic farm, they could not receive antibiotics, you would not believe the parasite load in these animals because they can't use drugs that are commonly used to prevent parasite infections (I don't know about you, but I want my food to be parasite-free, and consider that an improvement in modern agriculture), and even the pain medications were not permitted. The only way to humanely treat those animals was to remove them from the organic farm and not treat them as organic, or just euthanize them on the spot. I wonder how the reality of organic farming would sit with all those who think it's a more healthy source of food, and better for the animals and environment, etc. I was not even aware of how extreme it gets, and I was absolutely nauseated by the idea.

This has nothing much to do with the topic at hand, but it was a very shocking wake-up call to me. I didn't realize they couldn't even use drugs to de-worm the animals. I guess it does get at the issue of the challenge of determining what is a healthy food or unhealthy food to decide which would get taxed if someone were to start taxing food based on its health-value.