 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / March 2004Fat Tax?
I read and then hear on the news that a new "fat tax" is trying to be pushed in States. To gain more revenue and try and get people to slim down. The "fat tax" would be on candy, soda drinks, junk food. Whats others thoughts on this? Its similair in ways to the taxes on cigarettes and booze. > I read and then hear on the news that a new "fat tax" is trying to be > pushed in States. To gain more revenue and try and get people to slim > down. The "fat tax" would be on candy, soda drinks, junk food. Whats > others thoughts on this? Its similair in ways to the taxes on > cigarettes and booze. And we've all seen how well that works. >> I read and then hear on the news that a new "fat tax" is trying to be >> pushed in States. To gain more revenue and try and get people to slim [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And we've all seen how well that works. In Canada, these things are already taxed with a HST sales tax. Hasn't stopped people from buying it. According to most people it's "just how much it costs". CM > I read and then hear on the news that a new "fat tax" is trying to be > pushed in States. To gain more revenue and try and get people to slim > down. The "fat tax" would be on candy, soda drinks, junk food. Whats > others thoughts on this? Its similair in ways to the taxes on > cigarettes and booze. I have a hard time supporting regressive taxes. A junk food tax would be regressive for two reasons: (1) In the U.S., wealthy people are generally trimmer, more healthy eaters than poor people - a larger proportion of these food items are purchased by the poor. (2) Even if poorer and wealthier people consumed a precisely proportionate amount of these items, they would comprise a larger portion of a poor household's income. In my view, it probably makes more sense to address the cultural factors that lead people to overuse these items than to try to discourage their use by artificially inflating their prices. carla > > I read and then hear on the news that a new "fat tax" is trying to be > > pushed in States. To gain more revenue and try and get people to slim [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > to overuse these items than to try to discourage their use by artificially > inflating their prices. True - and the other problem that I can see would be, whose definition of 'junk food' are they going to go by? If it's the food pyramid's definition, then anything high in fat could end up being fair game as well. I certainly don't want to have to pay an added tax on things like real butter, real cream, ground beef, etc - just because the government has decided that they're high in fat and can't possibly be good for me because of it. Although - <conspiracy theory mode> - taxing the heck out of high-fat food would certainly be one way to discourage LC plans and preserve their precious food pyramid, without having to acknowledge all the data that is showing the flaws in it and without being forced to acknowledge that LC works...</conspiracy theory mode> (LOL) Stargazer Atkins since Apr '03 192/148/140 . In my view, it > probably makes more sense to address the cultural factors that lead people > to overuse these items than to try to discourage their use by artificially > inflating their prices. > > carla I think they are just looking for more things to tax due to the out of control spending our government has on the military. We are sure in debt up to our you know what, now that we have Bush in there. He is running us into the ground just like he has with every company he has owned. Oh well. Curt  SignatureStarted low carb May '03 211/183/180 . . 6'2" 15.78% BF Age 38 Highest weight 250 5+ years ago >> I read and then hear on the news that a new "fat tax" is trying to be >> pushed in States. To gain more revenue and try and get people to slim [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > to overuse these items than to try to discourage their use by artificially > inflating their prices. An excellent point Carla. You think like an economist (and probably have economic background of some sort). i > An excellent point Carla. You think like an economist (and probably > have economic background of some sort). Thanks. I don't have any formal training or experience in economics. Is that your field? carla >A junk food tax would be >regressive for two reasons: (1) In the U.S., wealthy people are generally >trimmer, more healthy eaters than poor people - a larger proportion of these >food items are purchased by the poor. (2) Even if poorer and wealthier >people consumed a precisely proportionate amount of these items, they would >comprise a larger portion of a poor household's income. It's this factor (which also applies here in the UK) which causes me to really worry about a 'fat tax'. It would hit poor people harder than rich ones, and probably not bring about very many changes in the way that poor people eat. -- Lexin (300/224/182) (5'7) LC since 9 June 2003 It would hit poor people harder | than rich ones, and probably not bring about very many changes in the | way that poor people eat. Then it would be their own fault. This is called "personal responsibility," which there is far too little of today IMHO. SignaturePeter website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo > It would hit poor people harder > | than rich ones, and probably not bring about very many changes in the > | way that poor people eat. > > Then it would be their own fault. This is called "personal responsibility," > which there is far too little of today IMHO. I see. Do you believe the fact that poor people eat a disproportionate share of junk food and are disproportionately overweight is because they lack personal responsibility? Honestly, I don't see how taxing the poor is going to change a damn thing. carla >> It would hit poor people harder >> | than rich ones, and probably not bring about very many changes in the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > carla I've been unemployed and lived on very little money. The chief staples were flour, sugar, potatoes, and popcorn. cheapest substances available in the grocery store. I was the fattest malnourished person in town. >I've been unemployed and lived on very little money. The chief >staples were flour, sugar, potatoes, and popcorn. cheapest >substances available in the grocery store. I was the fattest >malnourished person in town. I've been there, too, back in the 1980s. We lived on tea with milk, pasta (I remember once or twice eating pasta with soy sauce, because it was what we had) baked potatoes and margarine, and sweets from the market, plus whatever we could blag from my parents. It was around then I *really* started to pile on the weight. -- Lexin (300/224/182) (5'7) LC since 9 June 2003 Oh yeah. That's a common problem in Africa too. People are so poor that they become obese almost overnight. SignatureMost of us probably aren't in danger of eating too little. :) Becky P. > >I've been unemployed and lived on very little money. The chief > >staples were flour, sugar, potatoes, and popcorn. cheapest [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > (300/224/182) (5'7) > LC since 9 June 2003 CraftingMom said: << I've been unemployed and lived on very little money. The chief staples were flour, sugar, potatoes, and popcorn. cheapest substances available in the grocery store. I was the fattest malnourished person in town. >> There was a good article in the NYT magazine that addressed this issue a few months ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/12/magazine/12HEALTH.html?ex=1079240400&en= 54ce30d877c55469&ei=5070 Piedlourde || It would hit poor people harder ||| than rich ones, and probably not bring about very many changes in the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] | | carla I do understand the cncept of regressive vs. progressive taxes. However , I stand by my statement. No one forces poor peole to smoke, it is personal choice and responsibility. And it is not the wealthy people who are eating at MacDonalds and Burger King. More personal choice. I completely support helping, and giving tax breaks to, those who truly are in need. Absolutely, unqustionably. But they must also be willing to do everything possible to help themselves before they accept charity of others. IMHO of course. And I do live by this creed. When I had a major stroke in 1998 at 46 years old and was hospitalized for 3 months, I lost my entire life savings and reached the point where I was destitute. When the social workers came to my hospital bed and tried to get me to sign up for SOcial Security disability, I refused. I worked until I was in tears every day at my rehab to get back on my feet, literally. When I was released from the hospital I applied for dozens of jobs before someone would hire me with my 4-point "granny" cane. While our of work for threeI collected uneployment benefits rather than disability, meaning that I expected to go back to work. When I did get hired, I had to work twice as hard as a completly able person in order to prove myself. That was 6 years ago, today I'm a productive member of society again and not living off of the state. OTOH, had I not physically been able to return to work despite trying my very best and doing everything I possibly could to help myself, then I would have accepted the charity with no shame or reservations. So I have a hard time empathizing with those who are not willing to do everything they can to help themselves. "Taxing the poor" as you put it, IMO is a B.S. feel-good excuse for the "poor" to not have to make the correct personal choices and accept responsibility for their own actions. Anyone who makes choices, rich or poor, that place an extra burden on society in general, should be willing to pay for the consequences those choices. Even it if means a tax on potato chips and candy! SignaturePeter website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo [snip] > "Taxing the poor" as you put it, IMO is a B.S. feel-good excuse for the > "poor" to not have to make the correct personal choices and accept > responsibility for their own actions. Anyone who makes choices, rich or > poor, that place an extra burden on society in general, should be willing to > pay for the consequences those choices. Even it if means a tax on potato > chips and candy! I thought you said you were a libertarian. You claim to advocate personal responsibility, and yet you would support a government levy aimed at influencing people's choices. Not only that, but a levy that would allow rich people to make as many bad choices as they want, while penalizing poor folks for making the same bad choices. *shrug* I know I'm not going to convince you that this position is both inconsistent and unfair, but I sure think it is. carla That was awesome. In the truest sense of the word. Great post. > || It would hit poor people harder > ||| than rich ones, and probably not bring about very many changes in the [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > pay for the consequences those choices. Even it if means a tax on potato > chips and candy! >It would hit poor people harder >| than rich ones, and probably not bring about very many changes in the >| way that poor people eat. >Then it would be their own fault. This is called "personal responsibility," >which there is far too little of today IMHO. Only partly. I don't know about the US, but over here areas predominantly inhabited by poor people (such as social housing) also have problems keeping any kind of shops which might sell the kinds of things which are good for people to eat. They do, however (just) manage to keep fish and chip vendors (who sell fried fish in batter and thick cut French fries, pickles and sausage) and newsagents, who if they sell food at all, sell mostly sweets and alcoholic drinks. What vegetables are available, if any, will be flabby and stale, the kind of things you really wouldn't want to feed your kids. Unless that can be changed, and I don't know what it would take to change it, taxing unhealthy food will just mean that the kinds of food available to poor people in the places in which they live will carry on being unhealthy, only they will be more expensive *and* unhealthy. If they want to buy healthy food, they have to find someone to mind the kids, and travel (using what (expensive) public transport has survived privatisation, if any) to the nearest supermarket, and then carry the stuff home again using the expensive public transport. I don't see that it is an answer to say 'this is a problem of personal responsibility until it can be shown that it really is people not taking advantage of a resource which is readily available to them. At the moment it appears to me that it is at least partially that the healthy food resource simply isn't there. -- Lexin (300/224/182) (5'7) LC since 9 June 2003 What an Idiot. It's no wonder the country is in the shape it in with brainwashed morons like you. > It would hit poor people harder > | than rich ones, and probably not bring about very many changes in the > | way that poor people eat. > > Then it would be their own fault. This is called "personal responsibility," > which there is far too little of today IMHO. | What an Idiot. It's no wonder the country is in the shape it in with | brainwashed morons like you. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] || Then it would be their own fault. This is called "personal || responsibility," which there is far too little of today IMHO. It actually seems as if I'm the only one in this thread who is not brainwashed into the welfare mentality. It's no wonder the country is in the shape it's in with people wanting others to foot the bill for them before they've done everything they can to help thmselves. Its called indolence, and not accepting personal responsibility. I would say the moron is the rule-breaking top-poster. It speaks volumes. SignaturePeter > It actually seems as if I'm the only one in this thread who is not > brainwashed into the welfare mentality. You know, you have a hell of a nerve accusing anyone who doesn't agree with you of being "brainwashed." The poster you are responding to didn't demonstrate a lot of respect for your views, but some of us did and attempted to engage with reasoning rather than namecalling. You, on the other hand, let one jerk get to you and decided that he spoke for *everyone* whose viewpoint differed from yours. Guess what, Peter, I am not brainwashed. My views are reasoned, considered, and happen to be different from yours. Do you really believe that the world is so simple that you have all the right answers? Are you of such strong stuff that you have somehow managed to avoid this "brainwashing" (whatever its mysterious origin) that the rest of us have all fallen victim to? Well, good for you! Perhaps my tin-foil hat needs repair. [snip] > I would say the moron is the rule-breaking top-poster. It speaks volumes. I would say that your reaction to him speaks even more loudly. Rather than addressing opposing views; you stoop to his name-calling level and attack his form. carla > From: carla (Fri, 12 Mar 2004 07:48:17 -0500) > MsgId: <c2sbih$21b72k$1@ID-219996.news.uni-berlin.de> > > Do you really believe that the world > is so simple that you have all the right answers? Lots of members in that club. >> From: carla (Fri, 12 Mar 2004 07:48:17 -0500) >>MsgId: <c2sbih$21b72k$1@ID-219996.news.uni-berlin.de> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Lots of members in that club. ...and so little time... Pastorio > >> From: carla (Fri, 12 Mar 2004 07:48:17 -0500) > >>MsgId: <c2sbih$21b72k$1@ID-219996.news.uni-berlin.de> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ...and so little time... haha! I was a little harsh to Peter in the post partially quoted above, so I want to apologize to him. I think he went overboard in reacting to the poster who attacked him - reacting as if all of us who disagreed with him were spoken for by one poster who attacked him. I also think Peter needs to understand that people may have good faith, considered reasons for viewing things differently from him, and that it is quite insulting to be told that we are merely "brainwashed," as if he is the only person capable of thinking an issue through. Having said that, though, my rhetorical question reproduced above was nastier than was called for, and I'm sorry about that. carla |||| From: carla (Fri, 12 Mar 2004 07:48:17 -0500) |||| MsgId: <c2sbih$21b72k$1@ID-219996.news.uni-berlin.de> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] | | carla Yep. Me too. Anything I post is, of course, IMHO. I expect that everyone has different opinions and views; that's what makes life interesting. :) Sorry I over-reacted to the attack; I took it a little too personally. I apologize to you also, Carla. Can we join hands now and sing a couple choruses of "We Are The World?" :-D SignaturePeter website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo > |||| From: carla (Fri, 12 Mar 2004 07:48:17 -0500) > |||| MsgId: <c2sbih$21b72k$1@ID-219996.news.uni-berlin.de> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Can we join hands now and sing a couple choruses of "We Are The World?" > :-D GROUP HUG || I read and then hear on the news that a new "fat tax" is trying to be || pushed in States. To gain more revenue and try and get people to slim [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] | | carla If the U.S. had a socialist economic system rather than capitalistic free enterprise, I woudl agree 100% with everything you said. Regressive or not, I'm in favor of taxing the people/products who ultimately will cost society the most. e.g., property taxes to help pay for parks and neighborhood improvement projects, gasoline tax to help pay for roads, and tobacco and junk food taxes to help pay for increased health care and disability associated with these products. Those who don't reap benefits from, or contribute to increased costs in a particular area shouldn't pay the taxes in that. Then again, I'm a libertarian-ish kook in the minority who thinks that the government is totally whacked out for giving tax credit to families with kids. This is completely backwards IMO. It would be much fairer to add a surtax to families for each child to help pay for the enormous cost of their education and extra healthcare expense. Give the tax break to us single, childless citizens who are not burdening society with these extra expenses. Talk about a regressive tax! I pay more taxes for other's kids while the parents get the break. Go figure! If this reasoning were carried through to its conclusion, they would give a tax credit to fat people and smokers, and raise the taxes on the skinny and healthy ones. :-) SignaturePeter website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo > If the U.S. had a socialist economic system rather than capitalistic free > enterprise, I woudl agree 100% with everything you said. That makes no sense. Either you think the U.S. should socialize more, as I do, or you do not. You have a normative concept in your mind of the ideal economic system, and socialism isn't it. If the U.S. had a more socialized system, you would think the system was more broken than you think it is now. That's just something we disagree on. I don't think taxation should be regressive (which, by the way, is not in itself a socialist position). I also believe that attacking the root causes of poverty and public health issues is a more effective means of controlling them than slapping ineffective taxes on poor people in a misguided effort to change their behavior. Unfortunately, solving such problems is much harder than creating new tariffs, and few people/states/nations are willing to commit the resources necessary to even figure out how to do it. I'm pretty sure that regressive taxation is not the way to do it, however. > Regressive or not, I'm in favor of taxing the people/products who ultimately > will cost society the most. e.g., property taxes to help pay for parks and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Then again, I'm a libertarian-ish kook Are you aware that there is nothing the slightest bit libertarian about the sentiment you expressed above regarding taxation? That's not a criticism, by the way - I don't agree with libertarian positions either. :-) > in the minority who thinks that the > government is totally whacked out for giving tax credit to families with > kids. This is completely backwards IMO. I don't particularly like this tax credit either. But that's a totally separate topic. carla >Talk about a regressive tax! I pay more taxes for other's kids while the >parents get the break. Go figure! Oh I dunno... Parents spend a whole lot more, which ends up bring in more sales tax revenue. Fair? Probably not, but they DO pay. LCing since 12/01/03- Me- 265/222/140 & hubby- 310/243/180 > I have a hard time supporting regressive taxes. A junk food tax would be > regressive for two reasons: (1) In the U.S., wealthy people are generally [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to overuse these items than to try to discourage their use by artificially > inflating their prices. However, the money can be well spent to research and treat the health problems it inflicts, and to fund the addressing of the cultural factors that lead people to overuse these items. The first thing Americans need to do is see which Senators and congressmen vote for these unfair laws and make sure they vote the ignorant bastards out of office. > I read and then hear on the news that a new "fat tax" is trying to be > pushed in States. To gain more revenue and try and get people to slim > down. The "fat tax" would be on candy, soda drinks, junk food. Whats > others thoughts on this? Its similair in ways to the taxes on > cigarettes and booze. > I read and then hear on the news that a new "fat tax" is trying to be > pushed in States. To gain more revenue and try and get people to slim > down. The "fat tax" would be on candy, soda drinks, junk food. Whats > others thoughts on this? Its similair in ways to the taxes on > cigarettes and booze. Taxes ought to have one purpose, generating sufficient revenue for the gov't in a way that maximizes economic growth for the country... Not for social engineering purposes, or for redistribution of wealth. Taxes shouldn't be used as a punishment. I don't know if they'll replay it, but on CSPAN yesterday, Utah Senator Bob Bennett gave a great presentation on how taxes work and how they affect business and the economy. jlk >I read and then hear on the news that a new "fat tax" is trying to be >pushed in States. To gain more revenue and try and get people to slim >down. The "fat tax" would be on candy, soda drinks, junk food. Whats >others thoughts on this? Its similair in ways to the taxes on >cigarettes and booze. There was a "snack tax" once before. (In CA anyway) They taxed "food" like Twinkies, etc. It didn't last. Since I don't smoke, eat junk, or drink soda, I couldn't care less, LOL! LCing since 12/01/03- Me- 265/223/140 & hubby- 310/244/180 How about a Fathead Tax? SignatureBear Grrrrrrrrrrrr :o) 353/297/267/210 http://home.earthlink.net/~polarbear50/ > I read and then hear on the news that a new "fat tax" is trying to be > pushed in States. To gain more revenue and try and get people to slim > down. The "fat tax" would be on candy, soda drinks, junk food. Whats > others thoughts on this? Its similair in ways to the taxes on > cigarettes and booze. "Bear" <polarbear50@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:B6F3c.12918$% > How about a Fathead Tax? Interesting concept. If properly applied it would probably wipe out the US national debt almost overnight... SignatureBob Kanyak's Doghouse http://kanyak.com | I read and then hear on the news that a new "fat tax" is trying to be | pushed in States. To gain more revenue and try and get people to slim | down. The "fat tax" would be on candy, soda drinks, junk food. Whats | others thoughts on this? Its similair in ways to the taxes on | cigarettes and booze. I think it's very fair. Many states already have what they call a "luxury" tax or "sin" tax. Why not tax the things that ultimately raise the costs of all the state citizens in terms of health care and disability payments? SignaturePeter website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo > | I read and then hear on the news that a new "fat tax" is trying to be > | pushed in States. To gain more revenue and try and get people to slim [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > tax or "sin" tax. Why not tax the things that ultimately raise the costs of > all the state citizens in terms of health care and disability payments? Once again, you show that while you claim to be a libertarian, you in fact are something quite different. A libertarian position on this issue would be that it's people's own business what they choose to eat and how they live, not the govts. The libertarian would further argue that the govt shouldn't be providing health care in the first place, in which case, there would be no issue of the govt trying to institute sin taxes to pay for it. And they have a valid point. The more of our lives we hand over to the government, the more they control what we do, and the less freedom we have. As time goes on, Americans wind up working longer and longer to pay taxes to the government. This is one constitutional protection that the founders neglected to think of and put in the constitution. If the govt continues to take your money, eventually you wind up a serf of the state. There should be an amendment to limit total govt spending at all levels to a maximum percentage of GDP. We just had a local referendum here to build new schools soundly defeated. I voted against it, for this very reason. I don't care how worthy something is anymore. The simple fact is govt at all levels has too much of our money already. As far as the fast food industry goes, the House just passed a bill that would give them immunity from lawsuits claiming they are responsible for making people fat. ||| I read and then hear on the news that a new "fat tax" is trying to be ||| pushed in States. To gain more revenue and try and get people to slim [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] | our lives we hand over to the government, the more they control what | we do, and the less freedom we have. You conveniently cut the rest of my post. I stated very plainly that people who do not benefit from, or contribute to the cost of a particular service should not be taxed for that service. Conversely, if someone has to pay, let it be the people who benefit from, or contribute to the cost of the service. Like the gas tax coming from the drivers, paying for the cost of highways that they use. Or the cigarette smokers paying for healthcare with a cigarette tax. Or the overeaters paying for healthcare with a potato chip and candy tax. This certainly is libertarian philosophy; that individuals should be free from unfair governmental taxes. The ones I mentioned are not unfair; they would prevent society from being burdened by the consequenses of other individual's poor personal choices. BTW, as I've said in other posts, I am certainly not a pure libertarian; I'm very independent. Unfortunately it's the closest "label" I can see to my personal philosphy. I think we the people should help those who truly need help, but should not dole out money to those who are not willing to help themselves first. None of the old labels fit anyone any more; maybe it's time for some new ones. Conservatism used to represent smaller government and less government control Now that has changed; conservatives want the government to tell people how they can/can't live their lives even when it doesn't affect anyone else. I like the fact that liberals champion individual liberties in general; but I truly don't understand how that translates into gun control for instance, a seeming contradiction. It makes no sense at all to me. Everything's tuned upside down; that's why I say I have libertarian leanings. I simply believe that the government should leave us alone to live our lives the way each wants. Freedom of religion foremost, but along with that has to go freedom of choice when it comes to issues such as abortion, guns, drugs, marriage, etc. Otherwise the system is not equitable. Where I part company with pure libertarians is that I believe that some taxes are necessary because we don't live in an ideal, altruistic society. Without taxes paying for basic services we would have no national defense or roads for instance. And yes, there are those who are truly in need in our society and need to be helped. We can'tAnd even though I know that many will argue it is a "regressive tax," I believe that the income tax should be completely ditched in favor of a sales tax with a graduated structure. With no sales tax on food (except for junk food) and basic clothing. Let people only be taxed on that which what they benefit from. This is what Gov. Jerry Brown proposed when he ran for the democratic nomination for president in 1992(?) and they about laughed him out of the country! But it makes sense to me. As far as healthcare goes that you mention, I have no health insurance; I am uninsurable since a brain stem stroke in 1998. I scrimp and sacrifice to pay my many hefty and ongoing medical bills. I work hard and survive. I have never asked for help, nor have I accepted any welfare or government assistance. That should be reserved for those who are extremely desitute and have exahausted every possible avenue of self-sufficiency. But when someone has reached that point by all means, they should be helped because society should be compassionate IMO. Nothing would please me more than if the government would turn over to me all of the money that I have paid into Social Security for the past 34 working years (with interest); stop the payroll tax from this point on, and let me decide how I want to invest and/or spend my money towards my retirement. Sorry to go into this political diatribe. But you challenged my beliefs; I had to explain thm. You don't have to agree of course this is strictly IMO and YMMV; I don't expect many will. I'm an equal-opportunity pisser-offer; both conservatives and liberals disagree with my views. lol. But they're my personal beliefs nonetheless, I have a practical outlook on government and taxes, and I stand by them. SignaturePeter website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo > | I read and then hear on the news that a new "fat tax" is trying to be > | pushed in States. To gain more revenue and try and get people to slim [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > tax or "sin" tax. Why not tax the things that ultimately raise the costs of > all the state citizens in terms of health care and disability payments? It is very interesting reading everyones opinions. People who are addicted to the junk food will continue to buy the stuff. Regardless if it is taxed or not. No different than cigarettes and booze. > > | I read and then hear on the news that a new "fat tax" is trying to be > > | pushed in States. To gain more revenue and try and get people to slim [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > stuff. Regardless if it is taxed or not. No different than cigarettes > and booze. People may still buy the stuff but that doesn't make a fat tax right. I am a healthy person who likes to enjoy the ocassional candy bar and I don't want to pay extra for it just because someone couldn't bring themself to drink a diet soda once in a while. > I read and then hear on the news that a new "fat tax" is trying to be > pushed in States. To gain more revenue and try and get people to slim > down. The "fat tax" would be on candy, soda drinks, junk food. Whats > others thoughts on this? Its similair in ways to the taxes on > cigarettes and booze. Sure - tax junk food. There was a sales tax on snack foods some time ago, at least in California, but it was repealed. I was never opposed to it. Someone mentioned that these foods are what poor people can afford, but taxing a candy bar is not the same as taxing a bag of pasta or a potato. Nobody is required to eat candy bars. Meanwhile what we need are grassroots campaigns to educate people about proper food choices. For example while still carby, split pea soup or dried beans are still a more nutritious choice than pasta, because they also have protein and complex carbs. Brown rice is a better choice than white rice. We can't necessarily stamp out McDonald's, who are making their money off of peoples' ignorance, but we can work hard to stamp out ignorance. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.