Should America Adopt a Fat Tax?
SodaHead News
2012/05/21 16:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
142 votes
|
|
33% | |||
|
285 votes
|
|
67% | |||
Several months ago, Denmark became the first country in the world to adopt a "fat tax." The tax increased the price of certain fatty foods based on the fat content, kind of like the excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco that are already in place. Don't worry, there's currently no legislation in America threatening to tax fatty foods, but researchers are making a case for it in terms of fighting obesity.
Dr. Eric Wright, head of Indiana University School of Medicine's Department of Public Health, told RTV6, "We've applied tax to alcohol and tobacco and that has definitely shown through very many studies that it actually decreased use. So, the logic has been applied to fatty foods and preliminary evidence in Europe is that it’s very effective." The study suggests a 20 percent tax on cheeseburgers, but doesn't give any other examples. It expects to cut obesity rates by 3.5 and prevent 2,700 deaths. Do you think America should adopt a "fat tax"?
Dr. Eric Wright, head of Indiana University School of Medicine's Department of Public Health, told RTV6, "We've applied tax to alcohol and tobacco and that has definitely shown through very many studies that it actually decreased use. So, the logic has been applied to fatty foods and preliminary evidence in Europe is that it’s very effective." The study suggests a 20 percent tax on cheeseburgers, but doesn't give any other examples. It expects to cut obesity rates by 3.5 and prevent 2,700 deaths. Do you think America should adopt a "fat tax"?
Top Opinion
-
The Libertarian 2012/05/21 17:32:36
we tax (less) moving money off shore or investment profits (no labor value)
we tax being single without dependents
we tax gas for ppl who chose to drive a gas powered vehicle
those are all private concerns and choices that get taxed now... feel a shiver up your spine yet?
With cigarettes its become part of the war toward outlawing tobacco in general. I've actually always maintained that I'd prefer an outright ban on the product to taxes and "area" bans. If its so bad, let the FDA outlaw it entirely.
Alcohol is a substance that impairs function even in small amounts. While fats and sugars in overdose can impair a person over time, alcohol will for sure impair judgment in an evening if not killing you on overdose. Its not a comparable substance.
In reality neither tobacco or alcohol are comparable substances. We're actually supposed to intake a certain level of calories from fats and sugars each day as part of what our bodies need depending on what we're doing in our lives. There isn't a bodily requirement for tobacco or alcohol.
what do you mean by that?
we do that that all the time using the tax code... i just cited you several examples.
you are splitting hairs here about comparability to suite you argument, but its not a legitimate tactic in the context of social engineering...
so you need to decide what argument you want to make.. you cant vacillate back and forth to suit your needs.
And no you didn't. You cited two taxes on decidedly "controversial" substances. Stating the difference between Vodka/cigarettes and cubcakes is hardly splitting hairs.
Eating is a regular activity that all people need to take part in. We have an FDA to decide what is legal and what is illegal, to regulate food safety. I will not accept that the government has a right to punish me through the tax code for the foods I decide to eat. Food should be taxed at an even rate versus whatever is permitted via the FDA. The only "increase" in tax we should face is directly related to the amount of food we purchase.
You're trying to use a strawman apples and oranges comparison between different types of substances. Thats not a legitimate tactic. And even if it did I pointed out that I'm not a fan of increasingly punitive taxes for cigarettes as a means of eliminating usage. but you ignored that.
eating WHAT? you don't need cigs, alcohol, or simple sugar... so how fine do you want to split this hair?
again we are not talking about telling you what to eat... we are talking about telling you that if you get too fat, there may be costs associated with that which the REST of us don't want to pay for... are you starting to see that yet?
your unwarranted focus on the materials involved belies your intent to avoid the topic at hand... its either disingenuousness or ignorance... I can't tell which, but I'm starting to form an opinion.
oh, and banning cigs or drink... never going to happen in America. THAT is social engineering on the scale of Chinese authoritarianism.
There are a lot of things we don't need in life. Beside tobacco and alcohol we also don't need television or internet. My question is how fine do you want to split the hair?
Again, tobacco and alcohol are more restricted and controlled substances. Cupcakes aren't. If you can't see the difference then thats on you.
See, this is one of the chief reasons I'm against any government involvement in the healthcare industry. This exact mindset. As soon as we break out more and more of the cost and force it spread on voters then voters think they have the right to invade my privacy and have some say in what I do. No, you are "telling" me what to eat. Thats plain fascism. this is soft fascism. Telling me that IF I do something it will be more costly for me from a governmental standpoint. Maybe if I go sky diving the risk is greater and the government should tax the parachutes and instructions higher.
Fact of the matter is I can live just fine dealing with the private costs of my choices. My weight, my BMI, my cholesterol aren't for the government to worry about. My insurance costs and deductibles are my responsibility alone. There is no collective question ...
There are a lot of things we don't need in life. Beside tobacco and alcohol we also don't need television or internet. My question is how fine do you want to split the hair?
Again, tobacco and alcohol are more restricted and controlled substances. Cupcakes aren't. If you can't see the difference then thats on you.
See, this is one of the chief reasons I'm against any government involvement in the healthcare industry. This exact mindset. As soon as we break out more and more of the cost and force it spread on voters then voters think they have the right to invade my privacy and have some say in what I do. No, you are "telling" me what to eat. Thats plain fascism. this is soft fascism. Telling me that IF I do something it will be more costly for me from a governmental standpoint. Maybe if I go sky diving the risk is greater and the government should tax the parachutes and instructions higher.
Fact of the matter is I can live just fine dealing with the private costs of my choices. My weight, my BMI, my cholesterol aren't for the government to worry about. My insurance costs and deductibles are my responsibility alone. There is no collective question here.
Bottom line, if its legal to consume then tax it the same as anything else thats legal to consume. Don't try to control my behavior by raising the cost of my choices. Again, soft fascism.
tax code can be either a carrot or a stick depending on how you look at it...
take republicans for example... the claimed over and over again that allowing the bush tax breaks to expire was the same as a tax increase.
the fact is that it tax law and it is designed to socially engineer an outcome in society at large.
there is nothing wrong with that you do it, so there is nothing wrong with it when I do it.
goose/gander baby.
http://www.usconstitution.net...
Why can't you pay attention?
if i'm wrong on that, i'm sorry.
please explain what you meant by that statement.
how can I TAX someone without getting into their "business"?
I'm against gay marriage bans just as much as I'm against selective taxation.
Paying taxes is part of everyones responsibility. But I believe in paying taxes at grocery stores as a whole so much a percentage of my final tab, the same percentage as any other patron. What I don't like is the idea of some customers paying regular and some paying more for what they choose to buy.
I'm the type, though, that would support a flat tax (which would never happen).
When you start differentiating taxes you're getting into their business.
are you familiar with the critique of these flat tax approaches (VAT, Sales Tax, Flat Income Tax, 999 plan)?
there is a fatal flaw in these plans in that they disproportionally impact the poor.
are you aware of that? or are you rich?
The thing is that I believe in the concept of paying a percentage of your income. That way everyone is affected and everyone cares about what the government is doing with the money we give them.
I've always thought that people paying little to nothing in taxes complaining about the government not spending enough or that other people need to pay even more in taxes is absurd.
If we're all paying the same percentage of our income then we're all fully invested.
I would be willing to bet that you don't have a lot of money at the end of the year for vacatoins, or boats, or a 2nd home.
well rich ppl do. they have lots of descresionary income so onece the bills are paid (including taxes) then the rest is pure gravy
so for those ppl, their percentage goes up because they will still be able to pay the bills... where someone like you (or me) when our tax % goes up thats when we have to start looking at what we can live without (cable, eating out, weekend trips)...
see my point?
The only thing I do care about is if they came about the money legally. If not, then penalize them for that.
What you're describing to me is pure jealousy. You couch it in terms of material items and things they have that you and I don't as if its a reason to take away from them what they've earned. I have nothing but contempt for that mindset.
Create a flat tax rate across the board for everyone that earns income. Hell, I'll be nice. Make a minimum level of income before you even start taxing people. And then let government budget based on those projected returns.
The problem here is that other half of the equation . . . that government needs rich peoples money so they can spend it on particular pet causes.
a flat tax does not take this into account.
you can rail against it all you want, but we have had a graduated income tax structure in this country for decades and the during the decades where the graduated tax was the steepest, we had the the strongest middle class and the least wealth disparity.
the system works... whether you like it or not.
Again, its more jealous language. Its more language that gives no credit for success. A flat tax doesn't take into account the will of people that want to punish people that have achieved more than them, no. And thats a good thing.
Sure, we've had the structure we've had for a long time. I have no illusions about the flat tax. I have no illusions about class warfare language like 99% versus 1% as a means of maintaining this status quo. If you read what I originally said I pointed out that it would never happen.
Thats not the argument we were having on the way in. We were having the "tax fat people more" argument. And you wanted to get away from that. You wanted to fight another battle when I mentioned my general opinion in passing. And you've just made an argument against the "fat tax" that even I wouldn't make. But since its your own words, your own rationale I may as well give it right back. We've had the current tax system in place on food products fo...
Again, its more jealous language. Its more language that gives no credit for success. A flat tax doesn't take into account the will of people that want to punish people that have achieved more than them, no. And thats a good thing.
Sure, we've had the structure we've had for a long time. I have no illusions about the flat tax. I have no illusions about class warfare language like 99% versus 1% as a means of maintaining this status quo. If you read what I originally said I pointed out that it would never happen.
Thats not the argument we were having on the way in. We were having the "tax fat people more" argument. And you wanted to get away from that. You wanted to fight another battle when I mentioned my general opinion in passing. And you've just made an argument against the "fat tax" that even I wouldn't make. But since its your own words, your own rationale I may as well give it right back. We've had the current tax system in place on food products for some time. Its the status quo and it will never be changed no matter what you want.
BTW - even though a graduated tax is in place and it won't change doesn't make it fair or moral. Nor does it mean that we can't have a robust middle class as well as a robust upper class if its changed. So the statement "the system works' is somewhat of a fallacy as an argument against change.
And of course your response completely avoids my attempt to get us back on topic. It maintains use in the side thread you're clinging to even after I've said a second time that it will never change. You're tilting at windmills.
the "stealing" would come from your plan to make them only pay the same % as everyone else.
you are pretty defensive of the rich considering that you are not among them. they seem to have you doing just what they want you to do.
There is no stealing. Everyone paying the same amount is fair. That sum of money goes into a budget that Congress works with. You're moving into the abstract with your accusation.
I'm defensive for anyone I think is treated unfairly. I'll defend the rich just like I support the ability of gays to marry. But I can see your new tactic change. Now you're going personal, playing the conspiracy theory, "sheeple" card since you're running out of talking points for essentially a dead topic. You can't detail how a flat tax is "theft' - thats just how you 'feel'.
And I will keep bringing it up, you are now officially avoiding any part of the discussion we were having earlier about singling out fat people to punish with higher taxes. Avoiding it completely.
My suggestion to you would be to just give up and walk away. Each time you respond with jealous rationale I'll point it out. Each time you make an accusation I'll ask for a detailed argument. Each time you post and ignore the original topic at hand - since I've already said that despite my opinion a flat tax will never exist - I'll point out the avoidance. You're officially arguing a dead topic to what end I don't know and you're avoiding the original topic.
None of that is useful.
they don't just use the one street to go to work or to the market...they have TRUCKS running goods, all over the place in order to make that money...
that's a lot more wear and tear that you or I could EVER put onto the infrastructure.
your failure to see that tells me you are either deliberately ignoring the fact, or you are just too steeped in 1% propaganda to know the truth when its as plain as day.
either way you are wasting my time... don't say I didn't try.
Ah, but we purchase those goods. We're part of that process. The goods they've created and put to market are their for us, because we want them. We are putting the wear and tear on the road because if it were not for our consumption then those trucks wouldn't be on the road. Not to mention that its the needs and creative process to fulfill that need thats the most important part of commerce. You seem to want to elevate roads as important as the creative process and thats just not the case.
And here we go with more snipes, more OWS rhetoric backed up by no facts and no arguements. You can't debate so you try and go personal . . .
- You've backed off your stealing accusation because you have no argument for it.
- And you are still avoiding the original topic.
I'm wasting no ones time. I'm stifling you and you are getting irritated. You have no responses, no retorts to what I say so you beg off and move to another silly argument until I shoot that down too. You're wasting your own time.
by your logic I'm supposed to pay for the roads and then pay for the goods that wear out those roads... meanwhile the producer who enabled this whole cycle gets to keep all his profit.
you are living in dream world. it make no sense.
as for your contanstan attmepts to goad me into "irritation" as you put it... you flatter yourself far too much.
Then yes I expect you to spend money on the goods you want. I expect the rich guys business to pay its own even amount of taxes as well for existing.
I want the rich guy to have the ability to earn profit, after taxes, so that he's motivated to continue on producing. And so others are motivated as well. Heaven forbid people earn money.
I don't flatter myself at all. I simply observe. That you keep withdrawing from previous points and from the previous discussion evidences what I pointed out. As is the continued attempt to justify your hatred of the rich.
then we have nowhere else to go from here.
cu
Fine by me.