Meathead Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 This is one area where, from my perspective that I do believe additional taxation makes sense. SOCIALIST Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 Mag, I used to think the exact same thing, until on of my Doc's opinioned that its long life that is the real cost driver, not just obesity, sedentary lifestyle or smoking...I thought that can't be truw... I was pretty shocked to see that corroborated.... I will search out some domestic studies, poke around and see if any of the researchers here can shed any knowledge. You might want to sharpen your pencil and get that list of people who are "country over people" ready... lol If you were to take the study at face value, there wouldn't be any savings for Medicare. However, Medicaid and insurance premiums would be areas that you most likely would see savings, considering that the vast majority of private health insurance plans are for those under 65 (excluding Medicare supplements) and Medicaid. The researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 I'd be ok with a "sugar tax". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 I'd be ok with a "sugar tax". You're already paying a sugar tax through the import tariffs. How's that high fructose corn syrup working out for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 11, 2013 Author Share Posted March 11, 2013 Additional taxation has caused tobacco usage to go down, so it's only natural that you could apply the same principle to another product. If only someone could find a way to make cigarettes smell like gardenias. I used to be a heavy smoker, quit a few times, ultimately dropped them for good when my wife got pregnant, but partake on occasion if I'm sitting at a poker table. The main reason I don't go back isn't money. It's the stench. Fine with a cocktail sitting on three-of-a-kind. Disgusting the next morning. Being near smokers is just as gross any more. I can't believe I let myself smell that schitty for that long. I might be exaggerating a little bit but you've never gone into a place where the small pop 12 ounces is $1.50, the medium 24 ounces is like $1.80 and the large 48 ounces is $2.00 That is an incentive to buy the big pop. I get that. But keeping the size and cost of the pop relative to each other doesn't promote anything. The only reason a person would buy a 12 oz pop for 50 cents instead of the 36 oz pop for $1.50 is because they either (a) prefer the smaller drink or (b) only have 50 cents. I think what you were trying to do was make the 12 oz only 50 cents and the 36 oz $3.00. But all that would do is prompt people to buy more of the smaller quantities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 SOCIALIST Lol, that's a good one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 (edited) If only someone could find a way to make cigarettes smell like gardenias. I used to be a heavy smoker, quit a few times, ultimately dropped them for good when my wife got pregnant, but partake on occasion if I'm sitting at a poker table. The main reason I don't go back isn't money. It's the stench. Fine with a cocktail sitting on three-of-a-kind. Disgusting the next morning. Being near smokers is just as gross any more. I can't believe I let myself smell that schitty for that long. I used to smoke too. I can't believe what an inconsiderate !@#$ I was until I finally got them out of my system. I actually carpooled to work for a time with two non-smokers and would light up. Why they didn't just push me out the car door at high speed is beyond me. That is an incentive to buy the big pop. I get that. But keeping the size and cost of the pop relative to each other doesn't promote anything. The only reason a person would buy a 12 oz pop for 50 cents instead of the 36 oz pop for $1.50 is because they either (a) prefer the smaller drink or (b) only have 50 cents. I think what you were trying to do was make the 12 oz only 50 cents and the 36 oz $3.00. But all that would do is prompt people to buy more of the smaller quantities. Edited March 12, 2013 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 (edited) I wouldn't ban a particular size of soft drink but what I might do is make places have a set charge per ounce Are you !@#$ing kidding me?? You're for the government telling business owners how much they have to charge for things? And then I suppose you're for creating a new government agency to regulate and monitor that? You people are !@#$ing nuts. Edited March 12, 2013 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Are you !@#$ing kidding me?? You for the government telling business owners how much they have to charge for things? And then I suppose you're for greating a new government agency to regulate and monitor that? You people are !@#$ing nuts. But Jim, its for the common good. We don't really know whats best for us........................... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 And I think it's actually good for us to have these fat !@#$s croaking at 55 instead of being healthy and living to 130. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts