Fat tax?? What next, Big Brother?

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I think you're way off base and a little crazy at the same time.

If you think the tax is about anything other than trying to find a way to fund healthcare for the 40 million people who don't have coverage, then you're crazy. Politicians want votes, and if they pass a tax that helps 40 million people get coverage a bit easier, then they'll do it.

Politicians don't care if you die from eating fatty food. All they care about is getting elected, so they're not going to care about your freedom to eat a big mac. They just want votes.

Secondly, I think you're WAY overblowing this. For some reason, you're equating a tax with the government discouraging you (or even prohibiting you) from doing certain things. It sounds like you smoked some bad dope and you can't shake the paranoia. Trust me Hog, this fat tax is not a gateway to a mandatory nationwide 7:00 pm curfew. Nobody's trying to control you, they just want more money so they can make more people in the country vote for them.

Honestly Schneed, I don't normally find your posts amusing, but I really Laughed out loud on some of this.
I really don't care what political motivations are afoot here. The Fed demonstrates balderdash in their policy making daily. I am concerned only with the end result. Americans do not need any more govt intervention where they have no business.
Again, I have no idea if this is conspiratorial in nature, or just stupid, but, again, the end result is more (and increasingly more) intervention where they have no business. Things like this may at sometime impact something that "does" mean something to you, which may change your view?
We have become a "me" society, rather than a "we" society which helps the fed get away with things like this. Or................maybe..were just to damn lazy you care until things cause us problems personally.
That having been said, I find your view on this way to close the the "party line".....comrade

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

If you don't like insurance don't buy it. After all the odds are in your favor of probably never needing to use it.

Take it easy insurance guy! I'm sure it wasn't personal

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Take it easy insurance guy! I'm sure it wasn't personal

I didn't take it personally... I'm simply stating the truth. Odds are you'll never use the insurance that you have.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

If you don't like insurance don't buy it. After all the odds are in your favor of probably never needing to use it.

This highlights what I think is a divide in people's thinking.

I look at insurance and see it as something I am always using. To me the service it provides is that it sits there and waits. Ithas your back when you need to pay medical bills. The service is not just the paying of the medical bills but rather the ability to do so. In this way I am always using it.

It seems your way of thinking is that it is more like an account that you put money into and at some point you may or may not take money out.

I am not sure there is a right and wrong way of thinking about it but to me I like thinking that money spent on insurance that I never use is still money well spent because I know when I need it I will have it.

A slight distinction but huge in its effect or one's emotional reaction to insurance.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

This highlights what I think is a divide in people's thinking.

I look at insurance and see it as something I am always using. To me the service it provides is that it sits there and waits. Ithas your back when you need to pay medical bills. The service is not just the paying of the medical bills but rather the ability to do so. In this way I am always using it.

It seems your way of thinking is that it is more like an account that you put money into and at some point you may or may not take money out.

I am not sure there is a right and wrong way of thinking about it but to me I like thinking that money spent on insurance that I never use is still money well spent because I know when I need it I will have it.

A slight distinction but huge in its effect or one's emotional reaction to insurance.

Good way to put it.

[JoeRedskin]

As to the fat tax, it is, like so many other taxes an incentive to act in a healthy manner and/or to forward a legitmate public goal - good public health.

Gov't consistently uses taxes and tax breaks to create incentives. The classic is the Mortgage Interest tax break - used as an incentive to home ownership. Why should renters subsidize those who buy homes? There are a multitude of breaks for kids, healthcare and etc. - Again, why should single people subsidize those who choose to have kids?

Since its inception, taxes have been used both as a revenue generator and as a means of discouraging behavior deemed bad for the public in general and encouraging behavior deemed good for the public in general.

Are there inefficiencies? Yes, of course their are. As Schneed said, there are 40 million people. And before you go gripping about 10k toilet seats etc. Can you show me where that is the norm? Compared to the fact that you can safely and reliably (on a daily basis) send a letter cross country for 40 cents, count on the government to ensure certain quality standards in the foods you buy, maintain interstates other avenues of travel, etc. etc. etc. I would suggest that the inefficiencies are greatly outweighed by the innumerable day to day benefits that are insured by the existence of the federal, state and local governments.

(If you want an efficient government, throw fairness out the window. Fairness costs money and we, as a society, have said that we are willing to pay that premium. It's cliched but true - Mussolini made the trains run on time).

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Hog1

THANKYOU

You're welcome.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

That's a super lame excuse.

If you have time to go to these places and order, you have the time to pack a healthy lunch, and it's a heck of a lot cheaper to brown bag it.

Let's not sugar coat things, people are unhealthy eaters because they choose to be.

Well, no, I think you're misunderstanding me. No matter what the case, people are unhealthy because of THEIR CHOICES. That's obvious. All I'm saying is if the Government wants to do something to "help" don't tax people more. It's not going to lessen the burden on ANYONE. All it's going to do is make someone's pockets fatter. So if you are truly interested in helping people make changes (they are not, but go with me) then you need to help where there are big issues. Such as people not having the time for a good home cooked meal, so they settle for whatever they can get. Eating healthy takes a back seat to work.

For the record, I am for the Government having as little to do with invasion on my life as possible. If I am going to smoke, so be it, if I am going to over eat, so be it. All I was trying to do was offer up another solution. Taxing doesn't do a thing.
We have a massive issue in this country with teenage pregnancy and unwed pregnancy and the majority will eventually get on WIC, or some sort of government assistance. So what's next? Require all the women to have an IUD put in???
I'd rather the government tell me I need to work less for the same pay. That would send a shock wave of caring to the country. (not gonna happen, but just saying)

[MTK]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Well, no, I think you're misunderstanding me. No matter what the case, people are unhealthy because of THEIR CHOICES. That's obvious. All I'm saying is if the Government wants to do something to "help" don't tax people more. It's not going to lessen the burden on ANYONE. All it's going to do is make someone's pockets fatter. So if you are truly interested in helping people make changes (they are not, but go with me) then you need to help where there are big issues. Such as people not having the time for a good home cooked meal, so they settle for whatever they can get. Eating healthy takes a back seat to work.

For the record, I am for the Government having as little to do with invasion on my life as possible. If I am going to smoke, so be it, if I am going to over eat, so be it. All I was trying to do was offer up another solution. Taxing doesn't do a thing.
We have a massive issue in this country with teenage pregnancy and unwed pregnancy and the majority will eventually get on WIC, or some sort of government assistance. So what's next? Require all the women to have an IUD put in???
I'd rather the government tell me I need to work less for the same pay. That would send a shock wave of caring to the country. (not gonna happen, but just saying)

I guess I am misunderstanding you because I was responding to this:

A lot of unhealthy eaters and people are unhealthy because they have very little time to sit down and eat healthy...they are always working.

I just don't see where that holds any water.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I guess I am misunderstanding you because I was responding to this:

A lot of unhealthy eaters and people are unhealthy because they have very little time to sit down and eat healthy...they are always working.

I just don't see where that holds any water.

That came from other comments. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. But hopefully you understand what I'm saying after that last post.

Again, no matter what, it's ALWAYS the responsibility of the person. But you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. On one hand you say it's the person's responsibility to make a lunch, on the other you're all for taxing to stop the over eating / poor eating habits.

[BigSKINBauer]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I'm not sure either way, but is there any proof to this? A massive heart attack is pretty cheap when the ambulance arrives and the guy is dead.
On the flip side, those that live longer and get other issues such as memory problems (can't spell alz....), do suck off the government. We're paying medicare and social security, as well as supporting nursing homes...not to mention the MASSIVE amount of elderly people that are taking 10 or more meds a DAY.
I am just not sure either way is more expensive than the other...any one have stats on this?

yeah, we would definitely have to see some numbers but i think in general a fat person does eat (no pun) at the economy more than a healthy person. Fatty foods lead to diabetes and many other health related problems before a massive heart attack that finishes it.

However, i don't have too much of a problem with taxing fatty foods. It leads to greater production of healthier foods by companies. Now it is a personal judgment call on what you think about that.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by jsarno

That came from other comments. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. But hopefully you understand what I'm saying after that last post.

Again, no matter what, it's ALWAYS the responsibility of the person. But you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. On one hand you say it's the person's responsibility to make a lunch, on the other you're all for taxing to stop the over eating / poor eating habits.

I think you're getting a little ahead of things here. I was merely saying that being too busy isn't a legit excuse for eating poorly.

Regarding taxing fast food, I really don't think it would curtail poor eating habits either. In a perfect world though we would use that tax money to go to progams to promote healthier eating and exercise, but I'm well aware with our gov't that's unlikely to happen since they never seem to be able to properly distribute funds to where they need to go unless it's war related.

My approval of a fast food tax is not tied into a belief that it would curtail poor eating habits.

I honestly don't care if they tax fast food since I very rarely eat it. I just don't have a problem with it if they do choose to tax it.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I think you're getting a little ahead of things here. I was merely saying that being too busy isn't a legit excuse for eating poorly.

Regarding taxing fast food, I really don't think it would curtail poor eating habits either. In a perfect world though we would use that tax money to go to progams to promote healthier eating and exercise, but I'm well aware with our gov't that's unlikely to happen since they never seem to be able to properly distribute funds to where they need to go unless it's war related.

My approval of a fast food tax is not tied into a belief that it would curtail poor eating habits.

I honestly don't care if they tax fast food since I very rarely eat it. I just don't have a problem with it if they do choose to tax it.

To be honest, I am all for the tax, IF (and that's a massive if) they can actually use the money for a healthier life. I just know they won't. It's just their way of getting more money and using a poor excuse to do it.

I do still think it's a slippery slope. What's next...tax salt? That causes high blood pressure and is in just about everything you eat. Shit, it's the most abundant extracellular substance in your body.

[MTK]

If salt intake was becoming a national epidemic like obesity is, then hell why not, tax that too.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

If salt intake was becoming a national epidemic like obesity is, then hell why not, tax that too.

Agreed.

Jsarno, it's fine that if you want to smoke, you should be able to smoke. If you want to eat big macs and milkshakes for breakfast lunch and dinner, you should be able to.

But while you're doing that, is it fair for me to pay the same amount towards Medicare as you?

While you're doing whatever you want, exercising whatever freedoms you want, I'm paying for Medicare that you'll probably use twice as much as I will. That's the REAL unfair part in all of this. What people fail to realize is that their health choices do actually financially impact the rest of us. That's the very nature of a risk pool. So doing whatever you want and damn the consequences is actually a pretty selfish way to behave.