Post: #26

Obesity is the only way the baby boomers will die before they exhaust the next 4 generations worth of social security funds. Why shouldn't the government be subsidizing junk food if it is cheaper than actual fiscal responsibility?

Post: #27

Sin tax? How about we remove the sugar subsidy first!

Post: #28

(08-29-2014 01:23 AM)OBJ Snakebite Wrote:  Sin tax? How about we remove the sugar subsidy first!

Wouldn't this be applicable to corn and high fructose corn syrup as well?

Post: #29

I don't think its the governments job nor is it effective to tax behaviors or try to modify behaviors. I like gov out of our lives as much as possible so from that angle no I don't like any taxes, however who gets to decide what activities get taxed, like you said strippers, alcohol, tobacco, and now marijuana in many states. Obesity is just as harmful if not more harmful than many of these activities and obesity effects everybody men and women of all ages not just 21+ like alcohol so for the sake of saying why pick on smokers or drinkers I would say yeah lets tax anything with high fructose corn syrup.

Post: #30

Yes, wholeheartedly.

And every single god damn man on this forum would, in point of fact. If you gave guys here the choice between a pussy paradise where girls are thin and red velvet cupcakes cost $20 a piece thanks to taxes, versus a place where the girls are fat and junk food is cheap, which do you think they will pick? The hard bodies win every time.

The corn subsidy thing is bullshit. We use HFCS because there are big tarriffs on sugar. Remove both as a libertarian would, and people would still be eating tons of sugar. There definitely are ways in which the government engenders obesity, but corn subsidies are the least of it.

Post: #31

(09-06-2014 12:28 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  Yes, wholeheartedly.

And every single god damn man on this forum would, in point of fact. If you gave guys here the choice between a pussy paradise where girls are thin and red velvet cupcakes cost $20 a piece thanks to taxes, versus a place where the girls are fat and junk food is cheap, which do you think they will pick? The hard bodies win every time.

The corn subsidy thing is bullshit. We use HFCS because there are big tarriffs on sugar. Remove both as a libertarian would, and people would still be eating tons of sugar. There definitely are ways in which the government engenders obesity, but corn subsidies are the least of it.

If you were to remove corn and sugar subsidies, the prices of both sugar and HFCS would necessarily rise. The consumer wins--he does not pay tax for the subsidy, and the price on the cupcakes etc. increases.

Post: #32

(09-06-2014 12:28 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  Yes, wholeheartedly.

And every single god damn man on this forum would, in point of fact. If you gave guys here the choice between a pussy paradise where girls are thin and red velvet cupcakes cost $20 a piece thanks to taxes, versus a place where the girls are fat and junk food is cheap, which do you think they will pick? The hard bodies win every time.

I like a good cupcake now and then, not nearly as much as I like some fresh hardbody's pussy, but as far as the effort required:satisfaction gained ratio they're probably not far apart. Why deprive ourselves of that satisfaction after a hard workout so the fatties won't be tempted by their gluttonly? Making responsible men suffer through dinners of tofu salad sandwiches on sprouted bread to pay for the sins of the fatties would be the ultimate victory for fat apologism - "If we can't have it, nobody can."

Post: #33

No, and the government should repeal all other sin taxes. It should then repeal all subsidies.

In Asia they stick to good old fashioned 'fat shaming', and it works pretty well. It is a cultural issue, not something that can be fixed with taxes.

Besides, I'm a skinny cunt who eats loads of sugar and junk. I shouldn't pay since I'm not part of the problem. If we truly wanted to socially engineer this, we'd scale people's tax brackets on their weight

Post: #34

"If you were to remove corn and sugar subsidies, the prices of both sugar and HFCS would necessarily rise. The consumer wins--he does not pay tax for the subsidy, and the price on the cupcakes etc. increases."

Wrong wrong wrong. Sugar is overpriced in America. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...-consumers

This is libertarian magical thinking, whereby if libertarian policies are chosen, paradise on earth will result.

No one's telling you to eat tofu - just sugar.

Post: #35

(09-06-2014 10:56 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  "If you were to remove corn and sugar subsidies, the prices of both sugar and HFCS would necessarily rise. The consumer wins--he does not pay tax for the subsidy, and the price on the cupcakes etc. increases."

Wrong wrong wrong. Sugar is overpriced in America. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...-consumers

This is libertarian magical thinking, whereby if libertarian policies are chosen, paradise on earth will result.

No one's telling you to eat tofu - just sugar.

Let me get this strait--I pay more once for the subsidy, and then again I pay more than the rest of the world at the counter? Fuck the producers, get rid of the subsidy--I would much rather pay too much for the product once. This is may be a libertarian dream, but at least it's an honest one--once the sticker shock hits at the counter I can choose to boycott the producer. With the subsidy this is hidden. And once this happens, the producers will be forced to please the customer, instead of the politicians. This is the main advantage.

Post: #36

Tax "unnatural" shit like high-fructose corn syrup, Crisco and GM stuff. But leave natural foods, such as pure cane sugar, butter and grass-fed beef alone. The more processed or removed from its natural state, the higher the tax.

Post: #37

I eat foods and drink sodas with sugar all the time but don't get fat. I don't support punishment through taxes. Although motorcycles should have a special tax because there is a much greater likelihood of injury or death resulting from an accident than that of an automobile. Let's think of some other asinine taxes to punish people we disapprove of. Carbon taxes?

Post: #38

I would wholeheartedly support a sin tax on sugar and junk food but only if that tax money was relegated to health care for the fat fucks that need it after a lifetime of diabetes inducing sugar intake. Make them pay for their own stupid choices.

It's unfortunate that such a tax would be necessary to put a dent in obesity, but I believe it is.

Using Europe as an example, in pretty much every city I've been to, there's food EVERYWHERE, and very often pastry shops on every block, sometimes two per block in Paris.

And yet...almost no fatties. You see a fatty they're most likely American. People walk everywhere, portion sizes are smaller, and people have this little thing called restraint.

Post: #39

^ How is possible that being fat and obese has become so accepted in America?
Sound like people over there are only thinking abou food.

However here in Bangkok you can see all kinds of people.
Of what I have seen.The fattest ones are Americans and Arabs.

Arabs can be a bunch of really fat fucking fucks also.
I guess they are just living the dream. Eating and fucking.

Post: #40

LOL, is all I can say!

Post: #41

(09-08-2014 09:49 AM)Chaos Wrote:  However here in Bangkok you can see all kinds of people.
Of what I have seen.The fattest ones are Americans and Arabs.

Arabs can be a bunch of really fat fucking fucks also.
I guess they are just living the dream. Eating and fucking.

A lot of western men and women are fat but they can't compete with a minority of Arab people. They are fat as hell.

Post: #42

(09-08-2014 09:13 AM)Veloce Wrote:  I would wholeheartedly support a sin tax on sugar and junk food but only if that tax money was relegated to health care for the fat fucks that need it after a lifetime of diabetes inducing sugar intake. Make them pay for their own stupid choices.

It's unfortunate that such a tax would be necessary to put a dent in obesity, but I believe it is.

In theory its a good idea but you can trust governments with the money. They'll just use it for (much if it wasteful) purposes other then health.

Post: #43

I'd rather just have it be acceptable to fat shame, instead of excuses like "slow metabolisms"