/dev/null Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 if you have too many it might be sooner than later 586245[/snapback] but my cold dead hand will be well preserved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 but my cold dead hand will be well preserved 586246[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 You know one thing that's really stood out to me the last few years? High school kids all seem to hvae cars now. The parking lot at the local high school here is HUGE, and every day when i come home from work the number of drivers has to outnumber the number of walkers at least 10-1. When I went to school, I had to walk both ways, regardless of weather, and it was a little over a mile each way. Now kids just drive to school and drive home? In addition, since most parents are too scared to let their kids go out and play, how often do you see kids playing street hockey, football, etc? I never see that where I live... But the solution is obviously to charge an extra 10 cents on a Twinkie. CW 585607[/snapback] That's part of the problem, but I still think the article has some merit. Unhealthy foods taste the best, are the cheapest, and are the most marketed. Naturally anybody a little short on change would be more inclined to spend 4$ at McDonalds, then 15-20$ at the grocery store on healthy food like chicken breast, veggies etc. Even if the healthy food at that price has more servings it seems like the more attractive option for a lot of people to continually spend 4 or 5 $ at McDonalds, rather then pony up the extra cash. Even when people actually do go to the grocery store many buy so much pop that it completely defeats any other healthy purchases. Obviously this isn't everybody, but Americans certainly have a trend of overindulgence when it comes to food. It started out with these foods being occasional substitutes for home cooked meals, and pop being a substitute to water. Now water is a substitute to pop, and fast food is almost always a more attractive option then cooking. They have no problem taxing smokers for poor health choices, why not people who refuse to be diet conscience? They both escalate health care costs, it's just that it's socially accepted to single out smoking as a worse decision then drinking a 2Liter of pop a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 That's part of the problem, but I still think the article has some merit. Unhealthy foods taste the best, are the cheapest, and are the most marketed. Naturally anybody a little short on change would be more inclined to spend 4$ at McDonalds, then 15-20$ at the grocery store on healthy food like chicken breast, veggies etc. Even if the healthy food at that price has more servings it seems like the more attractive option for a lot of people to continually spend 4 or 5 $ at McDonalds, rather then pony up the extra cash. Even when people actually do go to the grocery store many buy so much pop that it completely defeats any other healthy purchases. You honestly believe that people go to McDs and the like because it tastes great? I'd disagree with that one. The reason we're eating so much fast food (and at restaurants as well) is due to TIME. With people working 60 hour weeks, there just isn't time to have a home cooked meal anymore, not like in the past. And if you have kids with all of their structured time (band practice at 4, soccer practice at 6, piano lessons at 8), then it's even worse. We're just so fast paced that we don't/can't stop and smell the roses, so to speak. And as was pointed out before, you ARE already taxed on "unhealthy" fast food. All prepared food is automatically taxed, whereas unprepared food is not. A candy bar is taxed, an apple isn't. The list goes on. EDIT: I missed this part the first time through: The bill would also add a one-cent surcharge on video games. What the hell is that about?! What does a video game have to do with obesity? If you're going to tax anything that has the potential for making people lazy, then don't you have to tax televisions, recliners, movies, books, and music? CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 In IL... There is a 1% tax on basic food... NOT tax exempt like NYS. 1) "Qualifying food" applies to food not prepared by the retailer for immediate consumption, such as grocery store food items. “Qualifying food, drugs, and medical appliances” include: food that has not been prepared for immediate consumption, such as most food sold at grocery stores, excluding hot foods, alcoholic beverages, and soft drinks; prescription medicines and nonprescription items claimed to have medicinal value, such as aspirin, cough medicine, and medicated hand lotion, and prescription and nonprescription medical appliances that directly replace a malfunctioning part of the human body, such as corrective eyewear, contact lenses, prostheses, insulin syringes, and dentures. The fundamental rate for qualifying food, drugs, and medical appliances is 1%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 You honestly believe that people go to McDs and the like because it tastes great? 586262[/snapback] Compared to eating healthy all the time McDonalds can be a very tempting alternative. That is of course a matter of opinion, but I tend to believe most people that fast food targets (Young People, African Americans) would also agree with that. In the big picture it's mostly about time, money, and marketing (part of the taste), that draw people into eating unhealthy. As you pointed out a less active lifestyle also plays a role, but I see that as more of a magnifier then a cause. Eating unhealthy cause’s people to gain weight faster then an inactive healthy eater would. Combine an inactive lifestyle with eating unhealthy and that’s when people really start to have problems. As for the tax on unhealthy food when was the last time you bought a 2Liter that was marked up 2000%, only to then be taxed between 3-10$ depending on what state you live in? That's how cigarettes get taxed. Obviously I'm not suggesting that for a 2Liter or McDonalds, but the so called tax they have right now does nothing in terms making these foods less attractive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Yeah, eventually we'll tax ourselves into the promised land of great health, children who behave, etc. I sincerely hope none of you idiots gets what you wish for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Yeah, eventually we'll tax ourselves into the promised land of great health, children who behave, etc. I sincerely hope none of you idiots gets what you wish for. 586279[/snapback] My problem is with the selectiveness of taxing smokers but not the obese unhealthy eaters. Wouldn't you agree they both take massive amounts out of the health care system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Yeah, eventually we'll tax ourselves into the promised land of great health, children who behave, etc. I sincerely hope none of you idiots gets what you wish for. 586279[/snapback] I agree. I truly don't believe that we can tax ourselves into that promised land. I do believe that we need to tax ourselves the right amount to sustain the quality of living we are accustomed to. Say the word TAX and most people cringe... Nobody likes paying them. Can it be used as an adversion tool? I tend to think not. People are still gonna be fat and make poor choices. Why not turn revenue off people's unwise choices?... Maybe pave some roads, fill some pot holes or mow some commons along the way... Something we all can enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 I would rather we have no regulated taxing but that's not going to happen. My problem is with the selectiveness of taxing smokers but not the obese unhealthy eaters. Wouldn't you agree they both take massive amounts out of the health care system? 586297[/snapback] Isn't everything in our society selective? Look at special interests, what not. There is always somebody that attains special status over the whole group... Isn't that how our society really works? I don't like it as much as the next person either but, the selectiveness happens across the board... Why cry about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Yeah, eventually we'll tax ourselves into the promised land of great health, children who behave, etc. I sincerely hope none of you idiots gets what you wish for. 586279[/snapback] Yeah, between reading that people don't mind being spied on by the government, it's good to give up freedoms for "security," and now this crap... I wonder what our forefathers would say. Maybe we should start taxing tea again... CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 I wonder what our forefathers would say 586310[/snapback] Give me Liberty or give me HotPockets® DING! Gotta go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Isn't everything in our society selective? Look at special interests, what not. There is always somebody that attains special status over the whole group... Isn't that how our society really works? I don't like it as much as the next person either but, the selectiveness happens across the board... Why cry about this? 586302[/snapback] Oh I agree, it's not like I'm fighting this with my last dieing breath, I just think obesity is a serious problem we need to look at. A cavalier attitude that allows this to continue could really be a problem to our health care system 10 to 20 years from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Yeah, between reading that people don't mind being spied on by the government, it's good to give up freedoms for "security," and now this crap... I wonder what our forefathers would say. Maybe we should start taxing tea again... CW 586310[/snapback] Didn't Ben Franklin b*tch about $.03 breakfests and penny tankards of Ale? Happy 300th Ben! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 My problem is with the selectiveness of taxing smokers but not the obese unhealthy eaters. Wouldn't you agree they both take massive amounts out of the health care system? 586297[/snapback] The solution is to tax neither because the government isn't using the money they're getting from smokers to offset health care costs and they never will. The solution to problems is never going to involve giving the government more money, and by proxy, more power. I'm not worried about fatties, smokers, the lazy, or the stupid. I'm worried about people taking my money to give to a faceless bureaucracy in the same of the afformentioned. At the end of the day Darwin will take care of those who need it and we will evolve further. The health care "system" will correct itself the day our government stops pouring money into it in an effort to make it cheaper while taking money from lobbyists to enact rules to make it even more expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 The solution is to tax neither because the government isn't using the money they're getting from smokers to offset health care costs and they never will. The solution to problems is never going to involve giving the government more money, and by proxy, more power. I'm not worried about fatties, smokers, the lazy, or the stupid. I'm worried about people taking my money to give to a faceless bureaucracy in the same of the afformentioned. At the end of the day Darwin will take care of those who need it and we will evolve further. The health care "system" will correct itself the day our government stops pouring money into it in an effort to make it cheaper while taking money from lobbyists to enact rules to make it even more expensive. 586396[/snapback] yes the "laissez faire method". I'm sure darwin's theories will help the fact that 30% of americans are obese and 60% are overweight. What will evolution do, give the future generation stronger livers, steel hearts and higher tolerance for the rest of the bull sh-- we eat. Sometimes government intervention helps and it isn't the worst idea to make these horrible foods more expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 I'm sure darwin's theories will help the fact that 30% of americans are obese and 60% are overweight.586415[/snapback] Speaking of theories, remember the speed of light vs speed of sound? Well, in outer space, these fat people would weigh less Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Speaking of theories, remember the speed of light vs speed of sound? Well, in outer space, these fat people would weigh less 586427[/snapback] so we should use the extra fat tax money to send them to space and then they will have better self esteems and live longer ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 so we should use the extra fat tax money to send them to space and then they will have better self esteems and live longer ! 586431[/snapback] well, no actually they won't live longer because they would suffocate from the lack of atmosphere. Atmosphere, btw, also affects speed of sound Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 well, no actually they won't live longer because they would suffocate from the lack of atmosphere. Atmosphere, btw, also affects speed of sound 586437[/snapback] well obviously there would be some kind of ship, but it would have to be an extra strong one to support all the future offensive linemen that are coming up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts