News The philosophy behind the Fat Tax

[Pengwuino]

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.

So that non-smoker who probably won't put any extra strain on the healthcare system still has to pay for other people's uncontrolled behavior? And what if we expand this? What happens when the good, healthy, nice guy with complete self-discipline is paying hundreds of dollars in taxes on every little thing he does because everything is getting taxes? Should he really be paying because other people don't have any discipline? This can all get out of control very quickly...

 

[Pengwuino]

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.

Where do you work if i may ask?

 

[Bladibla]

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.


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.

Yes, And that's just one person who *happens* to actually do exercise! There wouldn't be a point for the existence of this thread if everyone was like that is there?

And what about this ''chance that you will get fat?'' I have already mentioned whether a person eats Mcdonalds (or any fatty resteraunt) for a month, year etc without consideration to outside factors, as is the case for the actual obese people we are so concerned about my point still stands! Nevermind if there is a 'chance' you will become fat and not 'will' become fat, if there is physical proof that so many people are eating without consideration to exercise etc as, is, oh, the existence of this thread, then the original point mentioned isn't relevant.

 

[Bladibla]

So that non-smoker who probably won't put any extra strain on the healthcare system still has to pay for other people's uncontrolled behavior? And what if we expand this? What happens when the good, healthy, nice guy with complete self-discipline is paying hundreds of dollars in taxes on every little thing he does because everything is getting taxes? Should he really be paying because other people don't have any discipline? This can all get out of control very quickly...

This 'out of hand' problem can be easily solved by allowing to have a license to smoke. Then the only people elligible to such tax would be people who are actually recorded to be smokers.

 

[Pengwuino]

This 'out of hand' problem can be easily solved by allowing to have a license to smoke. Then the only people elligible to such tax would be people who are actually recorded to be smokers.

Then there goes the whole purpose of this tax. You create another system of government employees to keep up with peoples smoking habbits? And where is that money probably going to come from? The same tax its made to enforce... thus, no money for health care. As I see it, the meaning of this tax isn't to discourage people from smoking, its to make up for all the expense put on our health care system with the added incentive that it might decrease smoking rates. Of course, as far as the license goes, obviously it will be a recurring license because people will hvae to be taken off the taxing process when they stop smoking so there's no way of keeping the process cheap.

Then of course in the spirit of the thread, where does it end? A license to eat fast food? A license to ski? A licenes to see R-rated movies?

 

[Skyhunter]

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

Because that is the myth perpetuated by the meat and dairy industry.

If one consumes processed food I suppose that getting all essential amino acids might be a problem. If one eats whole plant foods, protein is not an issue.

Calorie for calorie there is more protein in romaine lettuce than in prime rib.

Here is a good resource for information. Scroll down the page and there is a protein chart.

http://www.soystache.com/plant.htm

 

[Evo]

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.

Can't that be considered animal abuse? Those places need to be shut down.

I wonder if they also refuse medication to their children? Or are they so intent on profit that they just don't care about the animals?

 

[Skyhunter]

Modern liberalism is the cause of this.

You have it backwards Russ. Modern capitalism is the cause of this.

The driving force behind our food supply is profit motive. If the motive were to provide a healthy nutritious diet Americans would be much healthier.

When the primary goal is profit, all other considerations, by definition are of a lesser priority.

 

[Averagesupernova]

You have it backwards Russ. Modern capitalism is the cause of this.

The driving force behind our food supply is profit motive. If the motive were to provide a healthy nutritious diet Americans would be much healthier.

When the primary goal is profit, all other considerations, by definition are of a lesser priority.

I would have to agree with this.
-
How I REALLY feel about the whole healthcare costs issue would open up a whole new can of worms so I'm going to refrain from saying very much. BUT, I will say that this fat tax is typical of any tax plan to come out of a republican administration. The tax will hit those hardest who can afford it least. Those who NEED a lot of calories are typically laborers. They typically aren't paid as much as some desk jockey.
-
A note on farm subsidies: If they were eliminated large farms would simply get out of the business. They are there for profit and profit only. Small farmers are more adaptable than large corporate farms. Penguino, you may not know it, but I'm afraid you don't know the ag industry well enough to make claims like that.

 

[Pengwuino]

Penguino, you may not know it, but I'm afraid you don't know the ag industry well enough to make claims like that.

Considering half my family has worked on/owns farms... uhhh...

But let me guess, you're an analyst for the UFW?

Oh and by the way, taxes like these are a staple to the other side of the fence.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Ok. Start talking.

What is an LDP?
What is PCP?
What is sealing price?
When is the deadline to collect an LDP?
What products can you collect an LDP on?
What is the defintion of basis?
How are yields proven?
What is the average cost of fertilizer and how is it priced?
Can you give me an example of how much cash rent is in your specific examples and what is the typical break-even yield on a corn crop?
Other than owning the land, what are the typical arrangements for renting it?
Shall I go on?

 

[Pengwuino]

I don't actually live on a farm. What website did you grab those questions off of?

 

[Averagesupernova]

I rest my case. No web site. I'm quite familiar with them. You never know who is on the internet. And what does 'living on a farm' have to do with it? It's not a requirement to understand the ag industry.

 

[Pengwuino]

I rest my case. No web site. I'm quite familiar with them. You never know who is on the internet. And what does 'living on a farm' have to do with it? It's not a requirement to understand the ag industry.

Yes but you made the assumption that just because my family is in the industry, that i would know the technicals.

 

[Averagesupernova]

You implied that you know quite a bit. You said it yourself.

 

[Moonbear]

Can't that be considered animal abuse?

I'm looking into it, and whether this is an isolated incident or a systematic problem. I don't want to derail the thread on that topic though. I'm willing to discuss it with anyone interested via PM.

 

[Moonbear]

Calorie for calorie there is more protein in romaine lettuce than in prime rib.

But not digestible, complete protein. You can get complete protein by combining appropriate foods with a vegan diet, but you also have to keep in mind that you're not going to digest it as efficiently as animal proteins. The human digestive system is very different from that of cattle, so while they can efficiently digest plants to utilize all the proteins in them, we don't do it very well.

 

[loseyourname]

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

I think there's a little more nuance than that to what he is saying. In a thread about fat taxes, in response to increasing obesity and the strain it puts on the American healthcare system, he suggests we should tax meat until it is so expensive that citizens will be forced to eat nothing but plants.

Either he is saying meat is the reason obesity has gone up and the healthcare system is strained, or he is saying it does not matter the reason, and he is simply pulling meat out as one of hundreds of factors that might contribute to any particular individual's obesity because he does not personally like it and is on a crusade for vegetarianism.

I don't particularly like the idea of being charged an obesity tax when I eat one of the healthier diets of any person I know and have always had a BMI at the lower end of the healthy range and a low body fat percentage. I might place some strain on healthcare with the respiratory problems I have but I'm certainly not costing the public any money because of the food I eat.

 

[Hurkyl]

Calorie for calorie there is more protein in romaine lettuce than in prime rib.

Which is not because lettuce has an especially high protein content, but because it has an extremely low calorie content.

The way you said it, lettuce sounds like a wonder food for getting your protein... but it takes roughly forty servings¹ of romaine lettuce to get your daily requirements of protein... and that's only if I ignore Moonbear's comments!

But this seems to be a common catch-phrase -- if we suddenly made meat too expensive for the average person to buy, I bet many would fall for it. We would have a vast segment of the population who things they can get all of their protein needs with a couple servings of lettuce. (In addition to all the people who didn't even know that they would have to start making an effort to get all of their essential nutrients)



1: Protien content of roughly 5% taken from http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=61 , and a one cup serving size of lettuce taken from multiple sites from a google search.

 

[Bladibla]

Then there goes the whole purpose of this tax. You create another system of government employees to keep up with peoples smoking habbits? And where is that money probably going to come from? The same tax its made to enforce... thus, no money for health care. As I see it, the meaning of this tax isn't to discourage people from smoking, its to make up for all the expense put on our health care system with the added incentive that it might decrease smoking rates. Of course, as far as the license goes, obviously it will be a recurring license because people will hvae to be taken off the taxing process when they stop smoking so there's no way of keeping the process cheap.

Then of course in the spirit of the thread, where does it end? A license to eat fast food? A license to ski? A licenes to see R-rated movies?

Then make the smokers pay for the license (And it is still compulsary if you want to smoke) that way, smokers will be forced to pay continuously if they want to keep the license to smoke, hence providing the money for healthcare.

As for your examples... I'll just ignore them.

 

[Zantra]

edit: I may have been a tad insensitive:p

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If you aren't eating a lot of fat, a tax wouldn't significantly affect you - problem solved.

Buy perhaps Zantra is right. Personal attacks and public humilitation is a much better option. Let's make it even more fashionable to be a jerk. Maybe Jerry Springer could help out.

 

[Zlex]

I must admit, before I clicked on this thread I thought it said flat tax. Now I see its just the opposite.

 

[Pengwuino]

Then make the smokers pay for the license (And it is still compulsary if you want to smoke) that way, smokers will be forced to pay continuously if they want to keep the license to smoke, hence providing the money for healthcare.

As for your examples... I'll just ignore them.

Did you intentionally ignore what i wrote or was it an accident?

 

[Pengwuino]

If you aren't eating a lot of fat, a tax wouldn't significantly affect you - problem solved.

Buy perhaps Zantra is right. Personal attacks and public humilitation is a much better option. Let's make it even more fashionable to be a jerk. Maybe Jerry Springer could help out.

We need a jerk tax. You see, the logic follows like this. Jerks are jerks. People tend to punch jerks a lot, forcing them to go to the hospital. Our health care costs go up. Thus, a jerk tax!

 

[Bladibla]

Did you intentionally ignore what i wrote or was it an accident?

Just what did I 'ignore'? Your definition of 'ignore' utterly confounds me. Does 'ignore' mean the same to you as 'relevant'?

Let me quote:

Then there goes the whole purpose of this tax. You create another system of government employees to keep up with peoples smoking habbits? And where is that money probably going to come from? The same tax its made to enforce... thus, no money for health care. As I see it, the meaning of this tax isn't to discourage people from smoking, its to make up for all the expense put on our health care system with the added incentive that it might decrease smoking rates. Of course, as far as the license goes, obviously it will be a recurring license because people will hvae to be taken off the taxing process when they stop smoking so there's no way of keeping the process cheap.

Then of course in the spirit of the thread, where does it end? A license to eat fast food? A license to ski? A licenes to see R-rated movies?

As I see it, the meaning of this tax isn't to discourage people from smoking, its to make up for all the expense put on our health care system with the added incentive that it might decrease smoking rates

What 'purpose' of this tax? What I have suggested is a alternative to the tax! Of course if there is something alternative the past policy will become obsolete!

And paying for the license doesn't shout 'DON'T SMOKE' Ok I'll admit to that, but isn't such an enforcement set to obviously restrict/ ban smoking? If people can't afford it, tough, they can't smoke. I can't see a more powerful way of exploiting smokers, and I say exploiting, because smoking is not in any way beneficial to the smoker himself and the people around. Its a public hazard, and I don't see why any government should give a leash to it by any means.

theres no way of keeping the process cheap

Make the smokers pay more than what we pay the tax moniter people! That way, there will be more enforcement of smoking and hence, reduction in the number of people smoking!

 

[Pengwuino]

So you are basically talking about banning cigarettes because when you clump up a new government system along with making up for health care costs, you might just be talking about a tax that in effect bans cigarettes (at this point you need to start determing how much an catual tax would be, how much woudl cover health costs and how much would the new agency cost which is pretty much anybodys guess).

And BACK to the original purpose of this thread. Where does it end? Banning violent tv, games, etc etc? They do nothing good for people either and only directly contribute to violence as proven by multiple studies so logically, they're gone too?

 

[Skyhunter]

In a thread about fat taxes, in response to increasing obesity and the strain it puts on the American healthcare system, he suggests we should tax meat until it is so expensive that citizens will be forced to eat nothing but plants.

I suggested nothing of the sort. I suggested we remove the subsidies, not add a tax. There is a big difference.

Either he is saying meat is the reason obesity has gone up and the healthcare system is strained, or he is saying it does not matter the reason, and he is simply pulling meat out as one of hundreds of factors that might contribute to any particular individual's obesity because he does not personally like it and is on a crusade for vegetarianism.

There are thousands of studies that all conclude that more plants and less meat is healthier diet for humans.

In the early 1970s Chou EnLai was dying of cancer. In the grips of this terminal disease, Premeir Chou initiated a nationwide survey to collect information about cancer. This was a survey of the death rates from 12 different kinds of cancer in more than 2,400 counties, and 880 million people, the most ambitious biomedical research project ever undertaken. The result was a color coded map of China showing where cancer rates were high and where the were almost nonexistent.

There was a study conducted in China by T. Colin Campbell of Cornell, Dr. Junshi Chen of the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine, and Sir Richard Peto of the University of Oxford. Using the cancer atlas they gathered data on 367 variables and then compared each variable with every other variable. They took urine samples, directly measured everything families ate over a 3-day period and analyzed food samples from markets around the country. When they were finished they had over 8,000 statistically significant (95% probability) associations between lifestyle, diet and disease variables.

The study involved 65 counties in 24 different provinces of China. Most of the counties were in rural areas where people lived in the same area all their lives and ate food produced locally. Those living in rural communities and consuming mostly plant protein had fewer chronic diseases that those who lived in communities where more animal protein is available.

In rural China 9 to 10% of total calories comes from protein, yet only 10% of that amount is derived from animal foods. In contrast the American diet features 15 to 16% of calories from protein with 80% of that from animal foods. The rural Chinese were less likely to die from the diseases of affluence (cancer, diabetes, and heart disease) than diseases of poverty (pneumonia, parasitic disease, tuberculosis, diseases associated with pregnancy, and others). Campbell says that diseases of affluence might be more appropriately named "diseases of nutritional extravagance" because they are tied into eating habits.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/01/6.28.01/China_Study_II.html

I don't particularly like the idea of being charged an obesity tax when I eat one of the healthier diets of any person I know and have always had a BMI at the lower end of the healthy range and a low body fat percentage. I might place some strain on healthcare with the respiratory problems I have but I'm certainly not costing the public any money because of the food I eat.

I am not in favor of taxing fatty foods. I am advocating removing the subsidies, especially for unhealthy foods, such as meat.

 

[Skyhunter]

But not digestible, complete protein. You can get complete protein by combining appropriate foods with a vegan diet, but you also have to keep in mind that you're not going to digest it as efficiently as animal proteins. The human digestive system is very different from that of cattle, so while they can efficiently digest plants to utilize all the proteins in them, we don't do it very well.

That is why the protein content of cooked spinach is so much higher than raw spinach. However, the point is still valid, it is very easy to get all the protein to fulfil ones protein requirements from a plant based diet. With the added benefit of fiber, vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants that are essential for good nutrition.

 

[SOS2008]

The matter of food production that is most germane to the OP is that it is cheaper for restaurants to provide unhealthy food. But not always. One study showed that it would be cheaper to use real blueberries in blueberry muffins, yet the manufacturer was using an artificial substitute (go figure). But it is often just a matter of "economy of scale" and efficiency, and I believe fast food restaurants could and should do better. And it's not just meats and dairy, but as someone said above (Moonbear?) that a scoop of mashed potatoes is equivalent to a scoop of ice cream, so French fried potatoes are the worst.

I'm a proponent of subsidizing farming simply because food is a basic need and therefore a matter of national security. Nonetheless, the cost of food continues to increase (even when the profit margin at most grocery stores is something like 1%?). And just the same we are importing more and more food products from other countries. I agree it would be preferable to help small farmers in the U.S. to stay in business, but I am more concerned about competition from abroad than I am the larger producers within the U.S.

So did people miss the source I provided indicating that obesity has become second only to smoking for cause of death? Being significantly overweight (not just a little pudgy) is linked to many serious and costly illnesses and it is becoming a problem for younger and younger Americans. With this said, yes, it is causing health care costs to soar for all.

Here is another thought. Some jobs, such as law enforcement require officers to keep their weight reasonable or they could lose their job. Is this wrong?