Post: #26

Post: #27

(02-17-2015 02:10 PM)Grange Wrote:  You ignore what government policy has done until now. Agricultural policy has been to subsidize corn syrup over cane sugar leading to a lot of health problems.

This is of course bad, and I did talk about this later on. I would remove all agricultural subsidies to grain producers, it has the same effect as a "tax" but it isn't techincally "a tax" so libertarians etc. are in favor.

Of course, Republicans and Democrats alike have always kept these subsidies in place for obvious reasons.

(02-17-2015 02:23 PM)FrenchCanadian Wrote:  Furthermore - In all of history, when have humans succesfully taxed their way out of a problem?

Rates of smoking cigarettes and the related health problems have dropped with increased taxation.

In all of history, it has always been the case that if you want more of something, you subsidize it, and if you want less of something, you tax it. Ever anti-tax person should know this, it's a basic talking point.

Post: #28

(02-17-2015 03:43 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 02:10 PM)Grange Wrote:  You ignore what government policy has done until now. Agricultural policy has been to subsidize corn syrup over cane sugar leading to a lot of health problems.

This is of course bad, and I did talk about this later on. I would remove all agricultural subsidies to grain producers, it has the same effect as a "tax" but it isn't techincally "a tax" so libertarians etc. are in favor.

Of course, Republicans and Democrats alike have always kept these subsidies in place for obvious reasons.

My apologies, I see you did talk about it. I've seen this argument before so I went on autopilot after the first part.

Point of clarification: removing a subsidy does not have the same effect as a tax. A subsidy distorts the market-as does a tax-so removing it allows the right market signals to be sent. That is why libertarians would be in favor of removing the subsidy, not because removing it is a functional equivalent to a tax that isn't a tax.

What about health care? This is a bigger problem in my mind. People can eat right and exercise but they still have to deal with the same labyrinth of a health care system that the slobs do.

Post: #29

^^^^^^^
Yes and the people who don't eat right and don't exercise drive up health costs for everyone else.

One small example...Normal MRI machines won't accommodate obese patients. So now a new MRI machine has been designed to accommodate a morbidly obese patient. These machines cost well over a million dollars.

But eating junk food is a personal choice right?

Post: #30

I don't know what all the fuss is about. My grandfather was a two-pack of McNuggets a day eater and he lived to be 104 years old.

Post: #31

I'd be interested to see a breakdown of those numbers for declining smoking rates based upon socio-economic class.

My observations from having lived and worked amongst the underclass are that it doesn't matter how much you increase the tax on vices, they're still going to engage in them because they have extremely high time preference. I used to teach at a school here in Taiwan in a poor area where they had to bring dentists and doctors to the school because many parents were too stupid/lazy/self-indulgent to take their kids to the doctor's clinic less than a kilometre from the school, or the hospital or multiple dental clinics ten kilometres away. A visit to a doctor or dentist costs ~5 USD because the entire health system is heavily subsidised by the government (and the poorest people pay very little into it). Yet virtually every single one of those parents was obese, smoke, drank (there were several foetal alcohol kids at our school) and chewed betel nut. Every day, the kids always went and bought tons of junk food also. Yet they supposedly couldn't afford to take their kids to see a dentist ten minutes' drive away and pay $5.

I used to see all of the above when I worked in bad schools in Australia and Britain also.

You could tax the crap out of any of these vices, and all it would do is the following:

1. It would create a bloated public sector administering "solutions" that somehow never got solved, yet required budget increases year over year;
2. The least responsible adults would still consume tobacco, alcohol and unhealthy food by the truckload, and the money they should have spent on other sensible things would be used on those vices instead;
3. A bunch of bleeding heart liberals would come along and see kids being neglected and demand even more social services for them, paid for by the responsible middle class, of course.

Post: #32

Wait! I have a better joke:

If she smokes, she pokes.

If she eats, I retreats.

--------------------------------------

On the serious note there is a point like tobacco has gotten where there are enough taxes that eventually a high enough percentage will just drop the habit or avoid it, leaving a huge tax hole someone has to pick up.

Post: #33

(02-17-2015 02:32 PM)Tresdus Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 02:23 PM)FrenchCanadian Wrote:  Furthermore - In all of history, when have humans succesfully taxed their way out of a problem?

Raising the price of cigarettes has seen a huge decrease in smoking behaviour and thus healthcare expenditure.

Smokers die earlier and thus recieve less from the pension fund as well. You need to add that into your equation, and when you do suddenly your economic argument crumbles.

In any case, economics is fairly irrelevant. The fundamental question in this debate is what the role of government is.

Post: #34

(02-17-2015 10:21 PM)HenryHill Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 02:32 PM)Tresdus Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 02:23 PM)FrenchCanadian Wrote:  Furthermore - In all of history, when have humans succesfully taxed their way out of a problem?

Raising the price of cigarettes has seen a huge decrease in smoking behaviour and thus healthcare expenditure.

Smokers die earlier and thus recieve less from the pension fund as well. You need to add that into your equation, and when you do suddenly your economic argument crumbles.

In any case, economics is fairly irrelevant. The fundamental question in this debate is what the role of government is.

Doesn't that pension go to the spouse? Granted living with a.smoker shortens that person's lifespan also.

Post: #35

Health care would be cheaper for us all if pigs were prevented from stuffing their face with so much junk. They would be on fewer meds and beed less doctira treatment if they werent 300 pounds of adipose tissue.

Whether we have socialized medicine ir a free market in health care where premiums are pooled together, fewer sick fat people benefits everyone.

Post: #36

I have an ideological problem with taxes intended to modify behavior, but under western healthcare systems you are basically insulated from incurring any significant cost as a result of your behavior, meaning the cost/benefit calculation for the consumer is almost totally eliminated. Obamacare will only make this worse in the United States.

if there was a tax on sugar and tobacco that went directly to pay for bypass surgery, hip replacements, and lung transplants, I'd be all for it.

In reality, it's just another slush fund for politicians to squander on pandering to interest groups.

Post: #37

Tax the shit out of both of them. Addicts will pay regardless of price.

Post: #38

I would guess the decline in smoking in the US has less to do with cost/tax and more to do with education and social stigma. Depending on your city and social circle smoking is viewed in the same class as a meth head or homeless person.

If fat shaming became as acceptable as smoker shaming the problem would be solved without having to tax anybody.

Post: #39

I think people should be allowed to consume anything they want. But then they should be left with the consequences. We need examples what not to do...

Post: #40

(02-17-2015 11:25 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Health care would be cheaper for us all if pigs were prevented from stuffing their face with so much junk. They would be on fewer meds and beed less doctira treatment if they werent 300 pounds of adipose tissue.

Whether we have socialized medicine ir a free market in health care where premiums are pooled together, fewer sick fat people benefits everyone.

Alcohol related problems cost an estimated $175 billion annually(http://www.alcoholpolicymd.com/alcohol_a.../costs.htm) which is supposedly $40 billion more than smoking, while promiscuity resulting in STD's costs an estimated $16 billion. There are people out there lobbying to stop your fun as well, and their arguments are not any weaker.

Where do you draw the line? We can sit down and draw up one persons version of a utopia, but there's a good chance the vast majority of people will be fucking miserable in it. I believe the better solution is to let people pay the price for their decisions.

I have written about this on the forum before. Why is it that a Twinkie costs less than an apple? The amount of energy needed to produce a Twinkie must be more than tenfold that of an apple. It's a ridiculously complicated process to take the base materials of a Twinkie and turn them in to the final product. With an apple you pick it, clean it, wax it and refrigerate it.

The reason is government subsidies. The government dumps billions of dollars into monocrops so we can have our high fructose corn syrup and bleached flour on the cheap. Consumers are naturally more inclined to buy the less expensive product, so the government created artificially low prices will tend to win out. Now take the government out of the equation, and there is now an immediate monetary cost to choosing a Twinkie over an apple instead of just a future cost(health).

It's an amazing thing to ponder. The government is giving tax dollars to subsidize the foods that make us fat. Then the government wants to tax that very food they are paying for to discourage us from eating it. It's so fucking stupid it's brilliant, and this paragraph alone should make even the most ardent government fellator reconsider proposing government solutions to government created problems.

Post: #41

(02-17-2015 02:24 PM)kosko Wrote:  You don't need to tax junk food, just remove the subsides Big Agriculture gets from the base/source products they use to make the food (corn, soy, etc). The Govt essentially encourages the bad behavior of eating shitting food by letting it be priced so low.

Alternatively, we could put most of it into ethanol fuel. Yes, our cars and buses will give the impression of being owned by a raging alcoholic but we'll have less landwhales and cheaper fuel!

Oh yes, I'm so privileged you literally can't even.
Interested in joining the FFL? I tried (and failed).

Post: #42

(02-17-2015 11:45 PM)Osiris Wrote:  Tax the shit out of both of them. Addicts will pay regardless of price.

Yes they will pay. Now they have less income to buy other shit, which in turn will keep jobs from being created. Now that girl you were going to meet at the club can't afford new clothes to go out because she doesn't have a job. The butterfly effect of a fatty getting gouged for gorging could cost you a bang.

Post: #43

(02-18-2015 05:39 AM)Katatonic Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 11:45 PM)Osiris Wrote:  Tax the shit out of both of them. Addicts will pay regardless of price.

Yes they will pay. Now they have less income to buy other shit, which in turn will keep jobs from being created. Now that girl you were going to meet at the club can't afford new clothes to go out because she doesn't have a job. The butterfly effect of a fatty getting gouged for gorging could cost you a bang.

If that's the worst consequence, I'll take it.

Post: #44

A tax on junk food is basically an additional tax on poor people, it's primary consumers. I can't get down with that.

I would prefer to see them ban purchasing crap food with food stamps, as well as make healthy food more accessible and affordable.

Post: #45

I'm fine with taxing of that kind of shit if the healthcare system predominantly relies on taxes. Why? Working in the hospital, I see pretty high levels of recidivism for the same issues. I don't want part of my taxes going to those who chronicly make the same bad choices. Perticularly in a climate where Dr. Google causes people to undermine the expertise of those who dedicate their lives to understanding the body as it relates to health.

Certainly I don't mind contributing to acute treatments or chronic conditions beyond the individual's control; but that's a bit hard to weed out isn't it? Taxing seems to be a way to mitigate the cost of unhealthy choices that I would be expected to pay for (provided that the gov isn't pocketing most of it).

People have spoken on addicts paying any price. This is a fact that would have to be considered when deciding what to tax and how much. Again, I'm not down to pay for someone elses' addiction. I've seen too much desire not to stop from that camp (patient's themselves disclosing that they have no desire to stop).

Post: #46

(02-18-2015 02:53 PM)godfather dust Wrote:  A tax on junk food is basically an additional tax on poor people, it's primary consumers. I can't get down with that.

I would prefer to see them ban purchasing crap food with food stamps, as well as make healthy food more accessible and affordable.

A tax on junk food is not an additional tax on poor people. See my post above. What happens is that they still consume just as much as before, but middle class people end up picking up the tab for other things (e.g. visits to the doctor, school books for the kids, etc.) via funding social services that pick up the slack in playing parent to kids whose parents are such only in name.

Do you see poor people starving to death? It's not Ethiopia. The poorest people in the developed world are also the fattest people in the developed world. The neglect does not come at the level of daily caloric intake. It comes at the level of their kids not eating a stalk of broccoli. Yet those parents were never going to give their kids a stalk of broccoli, regardless of whether chocolate bars cost a dollar each or one hundred dollars each, and even if they were giving out broccoli by the suitcase for free in the parking lot.

If a poor person gets an EBT card and suddenly the price of chocolate bars has doubled, so they can only afford half as many, so what? You can't be "taxed" on welfare received because it's axiomatic that the tax has already been paid by someone else (the middle class people funding the welfare system).

Post: #47

(02-18-2015 02:53 PM)godfather dust Wrote:  A tax on junk food is basically an additional tax on poor people, it's primary consumers. I can't get down with that.

I would prefer to see them ban purchasing crap food with food stamps, as well as make healthy food more accessible and affordable.

While I agree with the fact that this tax would harm the poor (seen a couple of documentaries that the poor seek out the most calories per buck) we could work around it to assist the poor and still have this tax.

Post: #48

(02-17-2015 12:00 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  I think junk food should be subject to stifling taxes like this as well, to begin really combating the obesity epidemic.

I kinda agree with your argument, but the devil is in details--I'm on low carb diet, and burger places, widely considered fast food, are perfectly healthy to me. I just don't order fries and the bun.

Really what needs to be done, is to get rid of the food pyramid that is accomplishing the opposite of what is was set out to do. Its advice and sense of what is good is so pervasive that it entered folklore.
It's so bad, that people don't know what low carb means. I was in Tennessee, and when I said I only eat meat, the response was: "No problem, we got biscuits and gravy!"

US needs to follow the example of Sweeden, and adopt a low carb diet.
The trouble is, in typical US fashion where everything is politicized and people are emotionally invested in their opinions, you will get greens, vegans and other militant feminists up in arms about how white man is once again destroying the environment blah blah blah... and the whole thing will never get off the ground.

Should your proposal be adopted, I predict that its original intent will be completely perverted, the heavily subsidized sugar industry will get further tax breaks, and only McDick's will be forced to pay an exorbitant fine a la Philip Morris.

Here's a better proposal: get rid of sugar subsidies!!!

Post: #49

(02-18-2015 05:07 AM)Katatonic Wrote:  Alcohol related problems cost an estimated $175 billion annually(http://www.alcoholpolicymd.com/alcohol_a.../costs.htm) which is supposedly $40 billion more than smoking, while promiscuity resulting in STD's costs an estimated $16 billion. There are people out there lobbying to stop your fun as well, and their arguments are not any weaker.

Where do you draw the line? We can sit down and draw up one persons version of a utopia, but there's a good chance the vast majority of people will be fucking miserable in it. I believe the better solution is to let people pay the price for their decisions.

The price people are paying for their decisions to be fatasses are societal.

You're basically OK with the obesity epidemic, it seems.

I'm not OK with it I want it solved. It's not even the financial cost of obesity, it is the ugliness, the society destroying, sexual market distorting effects that are the most severe and repugnant.

Post: #50

(02-19-2015 10:27 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  You're basically OK with the obesity epidemic, it seems.

Sounds like you've completely ignored the second half of his post. Here it is, please familiarize yourself with it:

(02-18-2015 05:07 AM)Katatonic Wrote:  I have written about this on the forum before. Why is it that a Twinkie costs less than an apple? The amount of energy needed to produce a Twinkie must be more than tenfold that of an apple. It's a ridiculously complicated process to take the base materials of a Twinkie and turn them in to the final product. With an apple you pick it, clean it, wax it and refrigerate it.

The reason is government subsidies. The government dumps billions of dollars into monocrops so we can have our high fructose corn syrup and bleached flour on the cheap. Consumers are naturally more inclined to buy the less expensive product, so the government created artificially low prices will tend to win out. Now take the government out of the equation, and there is now an immediate monetary cost to choosing a Twinkie over an apple instead of just a future cost(health).

It's an amazing thing to ponder. The government is giving tax dollars to subsidize the foods that make us fat. Then the government wants to tax that very food they are paying for to discourage us from eating it. It's so fucking stupid it's brilliant, and this paragraph alone should make even the most ardent government fellator reconsider proposing government solutions to government created problems.