Obesity Tax?

[bigjohn2441]

Commentary: Why we need an obesity tax - CNN.com

you've got to be kidding me?


lemme get this straight, the government thinks people are too fat, so therefore they will do the obvious and make a new tax to take more money from the people, under the justification of protecting the children?

what a crock of horseshit! yeah sodas and juice drinks are the ONLY things that make people fat.

 

[anitram]

Finally my love of aspartame pays off.

 

[bigjohn2441]

"The $404 million this tax would raise next year will go toward funding public health programs, including obesity prevention programs, across New York state."

404 million for obesity prevention programs?! what, are they gonna pay for lipo for all the obese people?

i guess the the government knows whats best for you.

 

[anitram]

I am not a proponent of "government knows best" (at least not universally) but clearly individuals don't know best either since they're doing nothing but getting fatter and getting their children fatter by feeding them disgusting things and sticking them indoors 24/7.

Most people (yes, more than half) need to hit the gym or find some form of exercise immediately. And refine their eating habits.

I don't know how you can enforce that, though. Personally, I eat properly and work out a lot because I can't stand the idea of not looking toned and athletic. But unless you want to do that for yourself, nothing anybody forces you will really work.

 

[bigjohn2441]

yes, it is sad how out of shape and "obese" this country has become. however, that doesnt give the government the right to impose taxes on sugar drinks to force people to cut back (even though the real reason is to increase revenue). im pretty sure nowhere in the constitution it says "the government shall have the right to tax pepsi because the children might get fat."

and besides, if people wanna pig out on shitty food and get fat and out of shape and die in their 30s-40s, then thats their choice. natural selection baby.


i guess im too libertarian and this type of bullshit these politicians try to pull pisses me off.

 

[anitram]

and besides, if people wanna pig out on shitty food and get fat and out of shape and die in their 30s-40s, then thats their choice. natural selection baby.

Except that these people cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in medical care over the span of their lives.

 

[Liesje]

Well they tax other vices so why not. Not that I'm all for it, I guess I don't really care. And I can drink Coca-Cola for days before I have a glass of water. But if charging me more for it is prohibitive for me and the money is put to good use, why not. It would depend on what happens to the tax money....

If we're going to be stuck with this same health care system, I wouldn't mind seeing higher premiums for those that choose such unhealthy lifestyles and finally some BREAKS for those who make an effort to be healthy. At work we do this thing called Healthy Habits where our health insurance provider gives us quarterly cash incentives if we fulfill requirements. The problem is that you can get a credit for going to a 50 minute talk on high blood pressure or get a credit for recording your workouts. So I get one credit for working out 5-7 days a week for an hour, meanwhile an overweight co-worker who needs a smoke every few hours gets the same credit for daydreaming through the blood pressure meeting. Not fair.

 

[UberBeaver]

I support the soda tax. I think it's similar to the cigarette tax in many ways insofar as it's a deterrent and I'm ok with that. Speaking from personal experience, knowing something is bad for me isn't enough, but start charging me for stuff and the ancient cheap Scottish blood starts going and I think twice. The taxes certainly helped me quit smoking. I'm not a big soda drinker, but it can't hurt.

 

[Pearl]

Hmmm, I'm not sure where I stand on the obesity tax. On one hand, I agree that the government has no role in people's personal lives, and people should do as they please even if they do give themselves diabetes and heart disease. It really is their problem.

But on the other hand, I also agree that obesity is a serious issue in the US. If we have the government trying to crack down on smoking, for example, since its a serious health risk, than why not obesity as well? Instead of having more generations growing up with diabetes and heart diseases, why not make the nation stronger by enforcing anti-obesity tactics like the tax?

 

[anitram]

So I get one credit for working out 5-7 days a week for an hour, meanwhile an overweight co-worker who needs a smoke every few hours gets the same credit for daydreaming through the blood pressure meeting. Not fair.

Reminds me of a friend of mine who was working at another firm and they used to get reimbursed for I think $400 or $500/year for gym memberships. Then some people complained about how there are other ways of getting fit (like yoga, or joining intramural leagues, etc) so the firm stopped reimbursing people and instead just cut a "health cheque" at the beginning of the year. My friend said that more than half the people then used the $ to buy iPods, flat screen TVs, clothes, etc.

 

[bigjohn2441]

the main issue is the government just going "oh we'll just tax our way out of this." they have a budget problem so instead of cutting spending, they raise taxes or come up with new bullshit sin taxes like this one.

they're supposidly focusing on cutting down on obesity, so:

ok, soda and fruit juices can make you fat lets add 18% tax on it and hopefully the people will cut back on them.

well what about fast food, candy, pastries and baked goods, pizza etc etc etc?

i guess we should tax all that stuff too, i mean, they tax other things so why not, and it might stop people from getting fat and the money will go to a good cause?

 

[LemonMelon]

I'm skinny as a rail, don't drink soda, and am not a citizen of New York, so this does not affect me in the slightest.

However, I am interested in this because of the intriguing precedent it sets. I can't help but think that a nationwide 20% tax on pizza would cause mass riots and social revolution.

 

[deep]

I'm skinny as a rail,

did you read the part where skinny people would receive Government refund checks.

 

[sue4u2]

the main issue is the government just going "oh we'll just tax our way out of this." they have a budget problem so instead of cutting spending, they raise taxes or come up with new bullshit sin taxes like this one.

they're supposidly focusing on cutting down on obesity, so:

ok, soda and fruit juices can make you fat lets add 18% tax on it and hopefully the people will cut back on them.

well what about fast food, candy, pastries and baked goods, pizza etc etc etc?

i guess we should tax all that stuff too, i mean, they tax other things so why not, and it might stop people from getting fat and the money will go to a good cause?

Butt, and a big butt at that, you will be paying the tax also. How will they just tax the overweight.
Get a grip, they can't tax the "people" any longer because we are almost taxed out. So they will pick on fat kids/people in the name of "helping them".
They will have to take every processed food item off the market and what about growth hormones in beef and chicken to fatten them up for market?
Who is monitoring this? What about seafood from deplorable conditions in China. But wait we can only afford seafood, now that the government is taxing us for being overweight.
If you can afford all organic beef and or fowl and produce, good on you.
The majority of the country can't unless the government steps in and subsidizes you grocery bill.
I promise you, fast foods and cola's are not the only problem with obesity in this nation.
Be careful what you wish/fall for.

 

[bigjohn2441]

it shouldnt matter if it affects you directly or not. it's about the government becoming more and more intrusive on our lives. if this tax goes into effect in NY it could in the future. look how the smoking bans started in california and then spread like wildfire.

its about them coming up with new bullshit ways to tax us and then making it seem like it will be good for us. the founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they could see how their government has turned into the nanny state we have today.

 

[anitram]

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.

 

[sue4u2]

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. )

 

[bigjohn2441]

you mean lawmakers arent stupid?

 

[bigjohn2441]

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

 

[sue4u2]

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)

 

[U2387]

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!

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

He's also proposing an iPod tax on legal downloads, I read that this week

Desperate times call for desperate measures, I guess

 

[bigjohn2441]

^ yeah, listening to too much music might be bad for your hearing, lets tax ipods now.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

The tax would also apply to eBooks, videos and photographs bought and downloaded online

 

[bigjohn2441]

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!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Liesje]

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!

 

[diamond]

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?

<>

 

[redkat]

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.

 

[UberBeaver]

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.

 

[diamond]

Yes, but liquor was "outlawed" until Prohibition.