Obesity Tax? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-19-2008, 11:48 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 08:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn2441 View Post

its about them coming up with new bullshit ways to tax us and then making it seem like it will be good for us.
No, it really isn't.

If you wanted a "bullshit" new way to tax, there are about a hundred provisions that you could change in the code which would fly over most people's heads. Likewise, state taxes and property taxes could be amended. Nobody makes up a "bullshit" tax that is so obvious to every single consumer and citizen and causes such a stir. It is contrary to just about every normal principle of taxation.

There is a point to this. You may disagree with the methods, but to just say it's a new method of raising revenue would by necessity imply a new level of lawmaker stupidity.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 11:58 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
sue4u2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
Posts: 6,628
Local Time: 08:15 PM
Oh, just heard Congress gave themselves a pay raise. Good going guys
Be sure you suck the taxpayers even more with the stellar job you've done.
Can we do anything else for you? Give you a jet or something?
Just let us know."bends over"
I got a Christmas bonus at work, now I can afford beans WITH weenies, for the next month. Then it's back to just beans. Maybe some Spam if it's not too expensive with the fat tax added on.

Ok over.
(This wasn't directed at you, bigjohn2441. you brought up a good point. )
__________________

__________________
sue4u2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 12:00 AM   #18
Refugee
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,593
Local Time: 09:15 PM
you mean lawmakers arent stupid?
__________________
bigjohn2441 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 12:01 AM   #19
Refugee
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,593
Local Time: 09:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sue4u2 View Post
Ok over.
(This wasn't directed just you, bigjohn2441. but you did bring up a good point. )

uh, i think you and i are on the same side, unless you're just being silly with these rants
__________________
bigjohn2441 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 12:31 AM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
sue4u2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
Posts: 6,628
Local Time: 08:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn2441 View Post
uh, i think you and i are on the same side, unless you're just being silly with these rants
Yes, we are on the same side. and yes I was being silly, too.

It's just some post are so "elitist" sounding.

Edited my original post to bigjohn2441.
(not showing in quotes however)
__________________
sue4u2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 01:18 AM   #21
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 08:15 PM
The proponents of this tax are well intentioned, but they misunderstand the nature of vice taxes or what economists call Pigovian taxes. These are taxes on negative externalities, bad things that have negative effects on those around them, like consumption of gas(the environment) and cigarettes(second hand smoke). Economists love these taxes, even Bush economic adviser Gregory Mankiw strongly advocates a $4 a gallon gas tax to push us on to alternative fuel like they do in Europe. Mankiw was promptly booted when Bush began to hit Kerry on voting for a couple cents increase in the gas tax, when Reagan had signed an increase that was substantially greater, but I digress. The reason economists love these taxes is because they are the closest we can come to a free lunch- taxing an economic activity that is ultimately harmful produces very little deadweight(efficiency) loss when compared with taxing productive income, wages, consumption, etc. We can get revenue with minimal effects on private economic output.

This, however, is not an externality. Taxing soda and other 'fat' food is not this becuase there are no negative consequences for society when these goods are consumed. The problem is with HOW they are consumed and that is a matter of individual choice and lifestyle. I drink more Coke than you would ever imagine, eat more candy, etc- granted, I am young, but so are the people they talk about; but, I go to the gym, stay in excellent shape and have been between 150 and 160 lbs since my freshman yr of high school. If the problem is individual responsibility or lack there of, than this is the level that obesity must be addressed at. Like Obama says about school, get the kids off the streets, parents, get them away from the video games, same goes for eating better and being active. The government has enough to deal w. right now w/o trying to force skinny on lardass. Lardass needs to get on the treadmill and lift some weights to speed up his metabolism. He will then find that, w/ a faster metabolism, he will burn more calories, even when he is sitting watching the football game on Sunday!
__________________
U2387 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 10:36 AM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 08:15 PM
He's also proposing an iPod tax on legal downloads, I read that this week

Desperate times call for desperate measures, I guess
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 12:19 PM   #23
Refugee
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,593
Local Time: 09:15 PM
^ yeah, listening to too much music might be bad for your hearing, lets tax ipods now.
__________________
bigjohn2441 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 12:28 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 08:15 PM
The tax would also apply to eBooks, videos and photographs bought and downloaded online
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 12:37 PM   #25
Refugee
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,593
Local Time: 09:15 PM
OH i get it now! it will coincide with the soft drink tax cause they want people to spend less time on computers and go out and exercise all while not drinking soda!

BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!!
__________________
bigjohn2441 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 02:29 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 08:15 PM
Seems counter productive. The only time I use my mp3 player is when I'm running on the elliptical or walking my dogs. The former I really can't even do unless I have an mp3 player to distract me!
__________________
Liesje is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 02:50 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 06:15 PM
We'rent the Progressive Liberals the movement that created Prohibition in the 1930s, then a movement against tobacco-now a movement against ceratin types of food?

<>
__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 04:02 PM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
redkat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: racing to the waterside
Posts: 19,620
Local Time: 06:15 PM
I understand tobacco and superbad foods because of the healthcare costs, I'd even understand alcohol but how do you justify downloads? is it to make up for the gas tax they would collect had we otherwise used our cars to go to the mall?

Though I think the majority of people choose bad foods no matter what is around. There was just a story in the paper about how difficult it can be to find fresh food in inner cities. Correcting that might be a good place to start. It would be hard to give struggling families a more appealing option than the $1 menu at the fast food restaurant.
__________________
redkat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 04:41 PM   #29
Breakdancing Soul Pilgrim
 
UberBeaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: the most serious...douch hammer ever
Posts: 20,318
Local Time: 08:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
We'rent the Progressive Liberals the movement that created Prohibition in the 1930s, then a movement against tobacco-now a movement against ceratin types of food?

<>
Prohibition in America goes back to the 1600s. I don't think I've ever heard of the Puritans referred to as Progressive liberals.
__________________
UberBeaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 06:43 PM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 06:15 PM
Yes, but liquor was "outlawed" until Prohibition.
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com