Fat tax?? What next, Big Brother?

[Hog1]

Listening to an early morning talk show this morning, the topic being the Federal debate regarding putting some........tax's on foods (both at the grocery and fast food, etc) that contribute to weight management issues in this country. Argument being the alleged burden that these practices put on the Fed in the form of increased healthcare costs.
I'm like, what ELSE is the F.....n Fed going to decide for me?
I support smokers rights (or at least some of them) even though I do not smoke. I view their plight as another American freedom going away. I am greatly concerned that the Fed is going to completely control all of what used to be freedoms in this country.
Whats next to be regulated and taxed out of existence?
Motorcycles? to dangerous and to much health care involved.
etc?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Listening to an early morning talk show this morning, the topic being the Federal debate regarding putting some........tax's on foods (both at the grocery and fast food, etc) that contribute to weight management issues in this country. Argument being the alleged burden that these practices put on the Fed in the form of increased healthcare costs.
I'm like, what ELSE is the F.....n Fed going to decide for me?
I support smokers rights (or at least some of them) even though I do not smoke. I view their plight as another American freedom going away. I am greatly concerned that the Fed is going to completely control all of what used to be freedoms in this country.
Whats next to be regulated and taxed out of existence?
Motorcycles? to dangerous and to much health care involved.
etc?

I'm in complete disagreement with you.

When you're fat, you're more likely to go to the hospital for heart attacks and stuff like that. Now, insurers have to foot the bill for anyone under 65. But the majority of health problems hit after you're 65, which is covered by Medicare, which is funded by our tax dollars. So if you're fat, you're going to hit the hospital a lot more often after the age of 65, and you're going to drain Medicare's pocketbook a lot faster than a skinny 65-year-old would.

Since a fat guy pays the same Medicare tax rate as a skinny guy, how is it fair for the skinny guy? He's paying the same amount into Medicare, but after he's 65, he's not getting nearly as much out of it.

Not that he wants to get more out of it. He wants to stay healthy. Instead, the fat guy should be footing more of the bill. Taxing fatty foods is the easiest way.

Some people would say well I manage my weight, but I still want to eat at McDonald's once in a while. Why should I be taxed? The answer is you won't pay much tax if you're only eating there once in a while.

It's the fairest way to do it. The same thing should be done for smokers and drinkers.

[Schneed10]

PS Just because something is taxed doesn't mean you are losing any freedoms. You're still free to smoke, eat fatty foods, and whatever. You're just asked to pay an increased share of medical expenses (which are not being paid now) in exchange for your freedoms.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

PS Just because something is taxed doesn't mean you are losing any freedoms. You're still free to smoke, eat fatty foods, and whatever. You're just asked to pay an increased share of medical expenses (which are not being paid now) in exchange for your freedoms.

That's way to much Kool aid consumption for me Schneed.
The larger issue is, do you want the Federal Government controlling more and more of your life?
Do you want the Federal Government to determine for YOU, what you should and should not do?
Do you accept politicians legislating your freedoms away?
What if it seriously begins to impair things you like? Your ok with that?
As I don't smoke, fast foods don't mean much to me either, BUT, the same as smokers rights. It's another American going away (ior at least impaired).
IMO, our govt is WAY to fat and full of do nothing bloodsuckers as it is. I do not wish to further feed that problem. I would prefer to find ways to pay for new or enhanced programs, and needs through reductions of same.
Less is better

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by Hog1

That's way to much Kool aid consumption for me Schneed.
The larger issue is, do you want the Federal Government controlling more and more of your life?
Do you want the Federal Government to determine for YOU, what you should and should not do?
Do you accept politicians legislating your freedoms away?
What if it seriously begins to impair things you like? Your ok with that?
As I don't smoke, fast foods don't mean much to me either, BUT, the same as smokers rights. It's another American going away (ior at least impaired).
IMO, our govt is WAY to fat and full of do nothing bloodsuckers as it is. I do not wish to further feed that problem. I would prefer to find ways to pay for new or enhanced programs, and needs through reductions of same.
Less is better

?

Taxing fast food doesn't let the Fed. Gov. determine you. It determines whether or not you want to pay 1.05$ for a dbl cheeseburger instead of 1.00$.

If you take away the bad, ie taxes, then you also take away the good. Things like maintaining infrastructure, disaster relief, social programs, law enforcement, and big business restrictions (environmental things, etc.).

If you don't want politicians to vote your freedom away, than don't re-elect them. That's the beauty of democracy. The problem is most people don't care enough to vote.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Hog1

That's way to much Kool aid consumption for me Schneed.
The larger issue is, do you want the Federal Government controlling more and more of your life?
Do you want the Federal Government to determine for YOU, what you should and should not do?
Do you accept politicians legislating your freedoms away?
What if it seriously begins to impair things you like? Your ok with that?
As I don't smoke, fast foods don't mean much to me either, BUT, the same as smokers rights. It's another American going away (ior at least impaired).
IMO, our govt is WAY to fat and full of do nothing bloodsuckers as it is. I do not wish to further feed that problem. I would prefer to find ways to pay for new or enhanced programs, and needs through reductions of same.
Less is better

Kool Aid consumption? Huh???

It comes down to this: does a cigarrette tax prevent you from being able to choose whether or not to smoke? Last I checked, a pack of smokes isn't priced at a level that prohibits it from being possible. Therefore, the freedom to smoke is still in place.

It's not a matter of slant, or "drinking the kool aid." It's cut and dry. Do you have the choice or not? Yes? OK then, you have the freedom. Pretty simple.

Just because they put a tax in place doesn't mean you can't still exercise your rights. If you can explain that one to me, I'm all ears.

[RobH4413]

There's also a debate going on about an internet tax.

If your for any kind of tax, which I assume your for taxing somethings, I don't see why internet or fat foods would be a huge issue. It's all part of generating revenue for a government. Unless it really takes a huge chunk out of the spending pocket of the consumer (I'm no econ major, so please correct me if I'm wrong) then it shouldn't be a huge deal.

How are fat foods any different than cigarette's, alcohol, or anything else bad for your health that's taxed?

I really don't have a strong feeling either way for this... but I'm interested to here what Schneed and the likes have to say about it.

[RobH4413]

Shit, I guess you beat me to it Schneed.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

There's also a debate going on about an internet tax.

If your for any kind of tax, which I assume your for taxing somethings, I don't see why internet or fat foods would be a huge issue. It's all part of generating revenue for a government. Unless it really takes a huge chunk out of the spending pocket of the consumer (I'm no econ major, so please correct me if I'm wrong) then it shouldn't be a huge deal.

How are fat foods any different than cigarette's, alcohol, or anything else bad for your health that's taxed?

I really don't have a strong feeling either way for this... but I'm interested to here what Schneed and the likes have to say about it.

In terms of economics, an increase in taxes always takes money out of the hands of the consumers. People are always going to buy food, but they'll have less money for other things, luxury items like IPods and TVs and designer jeans and home improvements. So less money in the hands of the consumer means less business for Best Buy, Walmart, Home Depot, etc. So the downside is you may see those companies cut jobs to save costs.

So increasing taxes generally goes hand in hand with unemployment. But if you're not piling on a big tax hike, and it only amounts to like 5 cents for a Big Mac, then the effect is minimal.

Besides, in this case, the government would be talking about shifting funds to help fund the healthcare system. Economically speaking, you have to weigh whether it's worth seeing a minor uptick in unemployment in exchange for better funding for the healthcare system. I think that tradeoff would be well worth it considering the state of our healthcare system.

[MTK]

I have no problem with it. I say tax the shit outta smokers, drinkers, and fat asses. Their weaknesses put a strain on the economy. So if you want to kill yourself fine, but you should pay a premium for it.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I have no problem with it. I say tax the shit outta smokers, drinkers, and fat asses. Their weaknesses put a strain on the economy. So if you want to kill yourself fine, but you should pay a premium for it.

Hard to disagree with that.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Listening to an early morning talk show this morning, the topic being the Federal debate regarding putting some........tax's on foods (both at the grocery and fast food, etc) that contribute to weight management issues in this country. Argument being the alleged burden that these practices put on the Fed in the form of increased healthcare costs.
I'm like, what ELSE is the F.....n Fed going to decide for me?
I support smokers rights (or at least some of them) even though I do not smoke. I view their plight as another American freedom going away. I am greatly concerned that the Fed is going to completely control all of what used to be freedoms in this country.
Whats next to be regulated and taxed out of existence?
Motorcycles? to dangerous and to much health care involved.
etc?

Well, we already have helmet laws, and motorcycle insurance is quite limited in it's coverage when compared to car insurance.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Well, we already have helmet laws, and motorcycle insurance is quite limited in it's coverage when compared to car insurance.

Depends on who you're talking about...there are still several states with no Helmet laws, such as where I live in NM.

I understand the comments about these people should pay a higher premium to kill themselves, it's a valid argument, but my concern is the slippery slope we're heading down.
Seat belt laws, anti gun laws, cig taxes...they are all in an effort to somehow control the general population. Wearing a seat belt should be my choice. Wearing a helmet should be my choice. Eating a burger at McDonalds should be my choice without having to pay a higher premium. What you guys are failing to see is that if this tax goes through places like McDonalds, Burger king etc will lose business, if they lose business, what is going to happen to the economy? How many employees do those fast food places employ? By taxing the food, the gov is saying we the people are wrong for choosing it. In a lot of cases we are, but who is the Gov to step in and tell everyone so. I personally HATE McDonalds with a passion, but my wife (who is 115 pounds) LOVES it. (the big n tasty) She is not fat, nor out of shape. She exercises every day to every other day...why should she be over charged for that burger?
I wear a selt belt every time I get in a car, but I understand the rights of others to not want to. I grew up in a state where you didn't have to (Mass) until recently. I don't always wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle, and it's quite a different experience for those that haven't done it. I wear it when I plan to ride fast, (highways), but I don't if I'm piddling around town. I should never be told I have to wear a helmet, or a seat belt.
AGain, I understand the counter point to this, but I feel a lot of people are missing the point that this is becoming an evermore slippery slope. What's next? We are allowing the government to tell us what to do in just about everything we do, and that's not why the government is here. The government should not say "well you're not going to take care of yourself, so we will take care of you for you." And who really takes the brunt of this general idea? The people who work hard for a living. Cause they are over taxed and no cig tax, or fast food tax will decrease the amount of tax burden on the working man.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Depends on who you're talking about...there are still several states with no Helmet laws, such as where I live in NM.

I understand the comments about these people should pay a higher premium to kill themselves, it's a valid argument, but my concern is the slippery slope we're heading down.
Seat belt laws, anti gun laws, cig taxes...they are all in an effort to somehow control the general population. Wearing a seat belt should be my choice. Wearing a helmet should be my choice. Eating a burger at McDonalds should be my choice without having to pay a higher premium. What you guys are failing to see is that if this tax goes through places like McDonalds, Burger king etc will lose business, if they lose business, what is going to happen to the economy? How many employees do those fast food places employ? By taxing the food, the gov is saying we the people are wrong for choosing it. In a lot of cases we are, but who is the Gov to step in and tell everyone so. I personally HATE McDonalds with a passion, but my wife (who is 115 pounds) LOVES it. (the big n tasty) She is not fat, nor out of shape. She exercises every day to every other day...why should she be over charged for that burger?
I wear a selt belt every time I get in a car, but I understand the rights of others to not want to. I grew up in a state where you didn't have to (Mass) until recently. I don't always wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle, and it's quite a different experience for those that haven't done it. I wear it when I plan to ride fast, (highways), but I don't if I'm piddling around town. I should never be told I have to wear a helmet, or a seat belt.
AGain, I understand the counter point to this, but I feel a lot of people are missing the point that this is becoming an evermore slippery slope. What's next? We are allowing the government to tell us what to do in just about everything we do, and that's not why the government is here. The government should not say "well you're not going to take care of yourself, so we will take care of you for you." And who really takes the brunt of this general idea? The people who work hard for a living. Cause they are over taxed and no cig tax, or fast food tax will decrease the amount of tax burden on the working man.

See my previous post to Hog1. Seems like the two of you are both smoking the same bag of weed.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

See my previous post to Hog1. Seems like the two of you are both smoking the same bag of weed.

Now I understand when someone says they feel retarded after smoking.