Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
FAT TAX
I'm against the idea of a FAT TAX. I really think it's just going to put a bigger crunch on the population that's already having financial difficulties. Parents, low income, single out of work Wow Addicts... I'd rather see healthier foods subsidizes or reduced in price. Soda and bottled water is $1.50. One costs less to produce, so why are they the same price? If given the option between a 1.50$ Pepsi and a .75$ bottle of water, I imagine most people getting the water.
I'm indifferent about Convenience Taxes, extra taxes on sales in convenience stores. I know Maine has one and my cousins hate it. I don't buy anything at one except Stewart's Ice cream. I'm not sure if bodagas would count or not. I think this bill should be expanded to consider drive through windows at fast food restaurants. Seriously, eating while driving increases not only your waist line; but your chances of being in a car accident as well. Ever try to drive an open a packet of ketchup? It's a pain in the ass. Nuggets? Forget about it!
I'm indifferent about Convenience Taxes, extra taxes on sales in convenience stores. I know Maine has one and my cousins hate it. I don't buy anything at one except Stewart's Ice cream. I'm not sure if bodagas would count or not. I think this bill should be expanded to consider drive through windows at fast food restaurants. Seriously, eating while driving increases not only your waist line; but your chances of being in a car accident as well. Ever try to drive an open a packet of ketchup? It's a pain in the ass. Nuggets? Forget about it!
Comments
-Thomas Jefferson
This is the view I ascribe to. If you want to make the argument that overweight people are hurting others because they cost society money, then we also need to start banning rock climbing, roller coasters, and driving; especially driving. You know how much you increase your risk of violent death by getting into a car? I garentee you cost society more money by driving in a car than by being overweight.
The problem with these kinds of laws (based on the idea that your lifestyle costs society money) is that we ALL do something that costs society money. Eventually the Fat police will turn into something else and will take away something you enjoy doing. Just let people live how they want, and you live how you want.
In responce to Scott:
High fructose corn syrup is not that bad compared to regular sugar. Sucrose (table sugar) is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. High Fructose Corn Syrup is 45% glucose and 55% fructose. There is a measly 10% more fructose in HFCS. And while fructose can be bad for you if you have too much of it (it can only be processed by the liver, and the liver can only process so much per day), the 10% is not going to make a huge difference. What will make a huge difference is people not gulping down 6 cans of soda a day.
If you ban high fructose corn syrup, the only real result is that we'd quickly make amends with Brazil so that we could buy cheap sugar, and people would consume the same amount of sugar soda instead of HFCS soda. LIke I said above, live and let live. If someone wants to be fat, let 'em be fat. It doesn't bother me at all.
And again, this is for tax revenue, NY is hard up for cash, they're not gonna go for closed loop, make people healthier bullshit. Be a bit more skeptical of your government's "noble" intentions.
I, for one, do not want to set that precedent. The same thing happened with smoking. I remember an article that was discussing how state X (can't remember which one, might have been California) was in a bind. You see, they started the cigarette tax with the understanding that the money generated from it would only be used to pay for the damage to society caused by smoking (lung cancer patients and such). Yet, they are politicians, and there's a whole bunch of tax revenue just sitting there, we can't just leave it for it's intended purpose! So they redirected the money into the education system to score points with the voters. "I funded education without raising taxes." This was all well and good, until people started smoking less. Now the schools can't buy new books because the government's anti-smoking campaign was successful.
So what precedent exactly was set? What if marijuana was legal? We would probably not allow its use in public places. How about alcohol? Consuming alcohol in public is illegal around here in many circumstances already. Glass containers aren't allowed in the park. Is this an infringement on the rights of glass-users?
One problem, however, is that these taxes tend to hit the poor the hardest. In my area, cigarette taxes have gone through the roof, yet the poorest segment of the local population does not seem to have reduced smoking much at all. This is anecdotal, but it's based on discussions with people I know that serve those in poverty.
I'd stand behind tax breaks for establishments that produce/serve primarily healthier foods. We've got plenty of sources to help you quit smoking, but what about free nutrition counseling?
So I only suggest caution in the application of any penalties or benefits to people's lifestyle choices. What's next, a Gay tax? A tax on intrnet usage so people can get outside more? Everybody's view of a "proper, healthy lifestyle" is different. Some people don't care if they are fat. Some people don't care that smoking is killing them. Some people enjoy gay sex. Some people like to play a lot of video games. For each of these views there is another group out there who is absolutely sure that those kinds of people are destroying america!
So my point is: just because you feel that you are in the majority in "helping" these people live a better life "for their own good" in this situation, doesn't mean you will be in the majority all the time. So I would advise caution in any legislation designed to change people's lifestyle choices.
That said, a municipality has every right to legislate smoking out of bars or restaurants or whatever. Let's just make sure that fervor doesn't spill over to banning behavior in your own home (as you stated above Rym).
This "tax" seems perfectly reasonable to me. The government is not telling you you can't drink soda because it's bad for you. You still have the option to drink it. It just costs more. The gas tax might discourage people from driving if they can walk, but it does not prevent driving in general. The encouragement of healthy drinks is a nice perk of this proposed legislation, but not the main goal. The main goal is to raise revenue because we are in a budget crisis. Part of the budget goes toward funding the support of people who have health problems from obesity, so why not bring money into the budget while potentially cutting down the financial need for assistance? Raising the price of soda via a tax is rationally related to closing the budget gap.
The knee-jerk reaction of "Don't tell me I have to change something!" is typical, but is not a very sound argument here. We change things all the time. We integrated schools, we set clean air and water standards, and we changed the legal drinking age. This change is no different from the other changes the government implements. There is no fundamental or Constitutional right to drink soda without being taxed differentially, so come up with a better reason than "I'll do what I want" if you seriously want to counter this law.
EDIT: Oh yeah, almost forgot: as long as the tax applies equally to all soda purchasers, I see no problem with the application. If, however, it is discriminatory as-applied, then there will be problems. You see, skinny people drink soda too. Yeah, I know, the stereotype is that all skinny people are on diets and eat healthy. Well, no. That's not how it works. Besides, weight is not a protected classification as far as I know. If the government has a legitimate interest in legislation that happens to limit the access of obese people to something that contributes to obesity, then in my opinion, so be it. I do NOT see a minority protection issue here. Fat people are not a discrete and insular minority.
Sure it's a pipe dream, unless I want to move to New Hampshire. That doesn't mean I can't argue against new impositions on forums though :P
Make no mistake: HFCS might not be doing "definitive physical harm," but trans fats are a step away from weaponized food.
If you want the government to not impose certain burdens on you, then you should also be willing to give up commensurate benefits. Granted, there are people who are willing to do so, but not in enough of a majority to make it work. If you can find a state's majority worth of people who are willing to give up a certain amount of services in order to not have to pay a certain tax, then you can try to implement it.
(This is the same problem the "government shouldn't be granting marriage licenses to anyone at all" people face. Some say they would gladly give up the privileges conferred on them by their government marriage license to keep the government from giving homosexuals the label of "marriage," which is a religious sacrament. The argument is nice, in theory, but unless it can actually be applied, it is simply theoretical. There is simply no way to get a majority of married couples in the country to agree to give up those privileges.)
I'm all for individual freedom, but some things are literally impossible for an individual to control effectively. Campylobacter from raw milk? It's there, it happens, and you can't stop it except by pasteurization. Thus, we regulate that product.
How about we let people drink raw milk, provided that they waive any and all rights to state-funded medical help or legal remedy if they get sick from it?
Not that any of this is applicable to me; when I'm home I almost exclusively cook with butter and olive oil (other unsaturated oils as well), and once I'm out of this housing I will have entirely eliminated trans fats from my diet.