New York Obesity Tax

[Layziebones]

ALBANY, New York (CNN) -- Like many New Yorkers, I remember a time when nearly everyone smoked. In 1950, Collier's reported that more than three-quarters of adult men smoked. This epidemic had a devastating and long-lasting impact on public health.
Today, we find ourselves in the midst of a new public health epidemic: childhood obesity.
What smoking was to my parents' generation, obesity is to my children's generation. Nearly one out of every four New Yorkers under the age of 18 is obese. In many high-poverty areas, the rate is closer to one out of three.
That is why, in the state budget I presented last Tuesday, I proposed a tax on sugared beverages like soda. Research has demonstrated that soft-drink consumption is one of the main drivers of childhood obesity.
For example, a study by Harvard researchers found that each additional 12-ounce soft drink consumed per day increases the risk of a child becoming obese by 60 percent. For adults, the association is similar.
If we are to succeed in reducing childhood obesity, we must reduce consumption of sugared beverages. That is the purpose of our proposed tax. We estimate that an 18 percent tax will reduce consumption by five percent.
Our tax would apply only to sugared drinks -- including fruit drinks that are less than 70 percent juice -- that are nondiet. The $404 million this tax would raise next year will go toward funding public health programs, including obesity prevention programs, across New York state.
The surgeon general estimates that obesity was associated with 112,000 deaths in the United States every year. Here in New York state, we spend almost $6.1 billion on health care related to adult obesity -- the second-highest level of spending in the nation.
Last year, legitimate concerns about links between consumption of fast food and the prevalence of heart disease prompted New York City to ban the use of trans fats in restaurant food.
No one can deny the urgency of reducing the rate of obesity (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Obesity), including childhood obesity. Obesity causes serious health problems like type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol. It puts children at much greater risk for life-threatening conditions such as cardiovascular disease and cancer.
We must never stigmatize children who are overweight or obese. Yet, for the sake of our children's health, we have an obligation to address this crisis. I believe we can ultimately curb the obesity epidemic the same way we curbed smoking: through smart public policy.
In recent decades, anti-smoking campaigns have raised awareness. Smoking (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Smoking) bans have been enacted and enforced. And, perhaps most importantly, we have raised the price of cigarettes.
In June, New York state raised the state cigarette tax an additional $1.25. According to the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, this increase alone will prevent more than 243,000 kids from smoking, save more than 37,000 lives and produce more than $5 billion in health care savings.
These taxes (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Taxes) may be unpopular, but their benefits are undeniable. Last month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that, for the first time in generations, fewer than 20 percent of Americans smoked. Lung cancer rates have finally begun to decline. As a result, we are all healthier.
Just as the cigarette tax has helped reduce the number of smokers and smoking-related deaths, a tax on highly caloric, non-nutritional beverages can help reduce the prevalence of obesity.
To address the obesity crisis, we need more than just a surcharge on soda. We need to take junk food out of our schools. We need to encourage our children to exercise more. And we need to increase the availability of healthy food in underserved communities.
But to make serious progress in this effort, we need to reduce the consumption of high-calorie drinks like nondiet soda among children and adults.
I understand that New Yorkers may not like paying a surcharge for their favorite drinks. But surely it's a small price to pay for our children's health.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/18/paterson.obesity/index.html

[YoshiFan1]

I really hope they don't do this in my state. Where I work, people freak out over the $0.06 sales tax on a soda (they think because it is a drink there is no tax), if we had to add another $0.18, I'm sure there would be a riot.

[Liquid 2]

I love when politicians force their ideals onto the people and restrict the people's freedom "for the people's own good!"

What a stupid fucking asshole.

[integralsmatic]

this guys fridge is probably full of the "non healthy" drinks anyway. I wish these guys would stop living in the 1950's.

[fart_bubble]

After they go after overweight people, who do they go after next?

[Rusty Ghia]

I don't drink soda (only water for me,) so I don't object. :booty:

[Dead of Knight]

Way to circumvent the law: high fructose corn syrup. If they don't specify that shit in the law, it's not really a "sugary" drink. ;)

[Autumn Star]

I love when politicians force their ideals onto the people and restrict the people's freedom "for the people's own good!"

What a stupid fucking asshole.

My thoughts exactly.
New York and their crazy laws.

And seriously, when the hell did politicians become our doctors?

[crystalklear64]

Boston Tea Party 2.0

Tax mah damn ice tea in a can... rabblerabble

[Cracka]

i predict a gay tax next

[Kaijufan]

I don't drink soda (only water for me,) so I don't object. :booty:
Same here. They can tax soda as much as they want, I don't care.

[carpwrist]

Way to circumvent the law: high fructose corn syrup. If they don't specify that shit in the law, it's not really a "sugary" drink. ;)
If I'm following your post right... then I agree. There are some sugary drinks like Blue Sky soda that don't have corn syrup but are arguably 'sugary drinks'.

Mixed on this. I hate fatties, but I don't want the guvment steppin' in when I wanna sit back and enjoy a nice bottle of root beer.

I'm gonna start my own distillery/brewery. If you guys find my Sugar Speakeasy, knock three times. The secret word to get in is "prohibition".

[camoor]

I love how Americans only put up a real fight against socialist policies when they have a progressive flavor. Socialist policies of a plutocratic or theocratic nature sail right through legislatures

Take for example the recent financial fatcat bailouts, the inept detroit auto industry bailouts, the new legislation empowering pharmacists to dole out medication according to their religious beliefs rather then real science.

I say we've already ceded power to the gov't, might as well get the good with the bad.

[Snake2715]

Obesity is a huge issue. It really is. I don't know that this will change that issue though.

[Ender]

Somehow I don't think this is the use that our forefathers envisioned for the government and Constitution when they created them.

This doesn't bother me personally, as I don't drink soft drinks or sugary juices more than 2-3 times a month. Still though, I think this is ridiculous.

[TC]

Obesity is a huge issue.

:applause:

[HowStern]

I really hope they don't do this in my state. Where I work, people freak out over the $0.06 sales tax on a soda (they think because it is a drink there is no tax), if we had to add another $0.18, I'm sure there would be a riot.

At least then, if they rioted, they'd get some exercise XD

[100xp]

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/12/16/2008-12-16_gov_david_paterson_unveils_dire_new_york.html

you saw that right?

[100xp]

if I get taxed on DLC from XBL I'm moving.

[DarkSageRK]

I'm fine with laws targeting fat people. I only wish we could tax them into oblivion.

[vherub]

But here's the flip side, if you want government subsidized healthcare, and are taking poor care of your body, why should other people be paying for your benefits if you decide to put garbage drinks and food in your body?

Consumers don't see the longterm costs of drinking cokes and eating burgers, but they are there.

[nativetongue88]

i dont know if this is 100% the right way to approach the subject, but something does have to be done. as a whole the percentage of obese people in the US raises daily....so even though not everyone will agree, i dont think anyone can really be too upset by this because it is about our health.

[Temporaryscars]

I love when politicians force their ideals onto the people and restrict the people's freedom "for the people's own good!"

What a stupid fucking asshole.

Wrong. It has nothing to do with "for people's own good." NY is deep in debt and this is just a way to climb out. It has nothing to do with people's health.

[TehMuff1nM4n]

I have grown up in NY and am about to go to college. Every year, there are less reasons that I want to stay in this state after I graduate. :cry:

[Temporaryscars]

Yeah, I live in Syracuse, and if it weren't for a girlfriend who refuses to move, I'd be out of here.

[100xp]

true, perhaps...but if you look at what some of the higher end ppl that work for the city make and what they approve for the MTA alone it's borderline ridiculous.

So what's next? driving down to VA to buy cola and truck it up tp NYC to make a profit like cigarettes? Damn it, now they know where I get all my videogame money.:-#

If you live and work in this city and see first hand what the city workers do on a daily basis your take on the matter might be different.

There's something wrong when they cut millions of dollars in education to approve the funding of a luxury class trailer with 3 - 50 + inch plasma TVs, AC, and the works...it's like the REAL WORLD MTV style for...MTA workers to view events like parades from and monitor activity like that. Was that really necessary? C'mon chris...c'mon...c'mon chris. C'mon. (chris rock show)

Two words.

Animal Farm.

[senorwoohoo]

Good.

[VioletArrows]

I'm going to laugh because it's not going to work.

[HowStern]

But here's the flip side, if you want government subsidized healthcare, and are taking poor care of your body, why should other people be paying for your benefits if you decide to put garbage drinks and food in your body?

Consumers don't see the longterm costs of drinking cokes and eating burgers, but they are there.

+1 for this.

What would you rather: A soda gets taxed X cents more. Or your tax dollars get thrown away on healthcare for people who took crap care of their bodies.

[Temporaryscars]

But the thing is, not everyone who drinks soda is obese. They should just tax fat people if that's really what they're going after.

[dmaul1114]

I have no problem with it. A better way to do it is have no sales tax on most food, and but a tax on soda, candy bars, chips etc.

But we need something to help encourage people to eat better, and money is one way to do it. For instance, I don't drink much soda and when I do it's diet, but when the vending machine at work went from $1.00 for a 20oz bottle to $1.25 last year I drank a lot less.

I get the government is forcing ideals on people complaints, but I really don't care. Having such a high obesity rate hurts all our wallets at the end of the day through higher insurance premiums, health care costs etc. And you have the annoyances of things like getting stuck next to an obese person on the plane who didn't pay for two seats etc.

So in my view a tax like this is a good thing, and needs to be couples with renewed focus on exercise and eating right in schools, media campaigns etc. Also do things like give tax breaks for gym memberships etc.

But the thing is, not everyone who drinks soda is obese. They should just tax fat people if that's really what they're going after.

Which is true, but everyone could stand to drink less of it since it has no redeeming nutritional qualities whatsoever.

And not everyone that drinks is an alcoholic, but we all pay alcohol tax etc. Just a necessary evil to try to change habits (which really doesn't work) and help raise money to pay for the problems causes--enforcing DUI laws, funding emergency rooms etc. which also applies to obesity and the products that cause it.

[100xp]

But the thing is, not everyone who drinks soda is obese. They should just tax fat people if that's really what they're going after.

...don't you think the NYPD is going to be up in arms when they get taxed?

[HeadRusch]

I'm personally hoping for a BLIND PERSONS tax. Your fidelco guide dog shits in the street? $50 bucks.
If you're too blind to pick it up, or get him to eat it, your'e out the fine.

Blind Folks could avoid paying the tax by agreeing to wear nothing but DareDevil costumes while they are out of their homes.


But you know, I also think a huge tax on "Sugary Sodas" is a brilliant idea too. And dont forget to tax those hookers.


See its times like this when politicians start to think "You know if we LEGALIZED weed.....do you know how much we'd make in taxes?"

Go rent SERPICO, Three Days Of The Condor, The Taking Of Phelam 123, or The French Connection to get an idea of what NY is going to look like in a few more years now that its broke :P

[Magehart]

If someone says it's not good for you it will be taxed or banned in New York. Such is the price of living in a "cultured" society. Wasn't it New York that banned the cooking oil a few years back for being unhealthy?

California will follow suit soon; on the plus side once i'm done with college i'm out of this damn state.

[cindersphere]

My two cents is this is useless except to raise a lot of money really fast. As to dmaul1114, your insurance rates are high because insurance companies are businesses who like to make money, not because of fat people. Insurance companies do not offer prevention or services to help obese people lose weight they only pay for the effects of obesity like diabetes and heart disease, and for a country where most people do not know proper nutrition or exercise, that is a big deal.

In the end people should lose weight, but I don't want someone knocking on my door in 10 years telling me my hair is too long and know I have to pay taxes.

[dmaul1114]

My two cents is this is useless except to raise a lot of money really fast. As to dmaul1114, your insurance rates are high because insurance companies are businesses who like to make money, not because of fat people. Insurance companies do not offer prevention or services to help obese people lose weight they only pay for the effects of obesity like diabetes and heart disease, and for a country where most people do not know proper nutrition or exercise, that is a big deal.


All true. But in the current system fat people raise premiums as they have poor health and thus submit more claims than healthy people. Same with people who smoke, or drink a ton or do other unhealthy stuff. They have more problems, see the doctor more and raise premiums for everyone.

But you're right we need much more education, prevention etc. when it comes to eating right and exercising.

But at the end of the day, this stuff isn't rocket science. Aside from the tiny majority of people with medical issues that lead to obesity, people are just fucking lazy and have no self control or discipline. So they don't exericise (everyone knows how) and don't cook healthy meals when they can much more quickly pick up dinner at Mc Donalds or throw a Hungryman meal in the microwave.

[Temporaryscars]

Which is true, but everyone could stand to drink less of it since it has no redeeming nutritional qualities whatsoever.



But isn't that for you to decide, and not the government?

[dmaul1114]

But isn't that for you to decide, and not the government?

You still have the choice, just have to pay a bit more for it with the tax. Just like people have to pay more for cigarettes, and I have to pay more for beer, because of taxes.

But honestly, I'm torn on such issues. I don't like government interference. But I don't like having a country full of lazy fat slobs in much greater numbers than the rest of the world either. I don't like looking at them. Being stuck beside them on airplanes, buses, trains etc. And I don't like having higher insurance premiums due to people with lots of health problems who don't take care of themselves.

But maybe rather than taxes a better system would just be to have people who poison themselves with poor eating, lack of excercise, smoking, alcoholism etc. not be eligible for insurance for health problems directly related to their poor health choices. Heart problems from being obese without medical cause of obesity? Tough shit, pay your own way or die. Lung cancer from smoking? Pay up or die. Liver problem from drinking? Too bad, so said.

[Temporaryscars]

Well if that's the case, then they should tax fried foods, which contribute much more to obesity than sodas do.


Look, you're all missing the larger issue. This isn't about health, it's about greed. They aren't taxing soda hoping you'll drink less, they would love it if you drank more because then they would collect more in tax.

[dmaul1114]

Well if that's the case, then they should tax fried foods, which contribute much more to obesity than sodas do.

I'd support that as well. Non-diet soda is a huge contributor to obesity though. Liquid calories get stored as fat more readily than most food calories.


Look, you're all missing the larger issue. This isn't about health, it's about greed. They aren't taxing soda hoping you'll drink less, they would love it if you drank more because then they would collect more in tax.

Unfortunately, you're right and that's the flaw with the system. If they really want to make a difference with this, they should use all the tax revenue on funding programs to educate people about eating right, help people pay gym memberships, put more phys ed and health programming in schools etc. etc.

[HowStern]

Well if that's the case, then they should tax fried foods, which contribute much more to obesity than sodas do.


Look, you're all missing the larger issue. This isn't about health, it's about greed. They aren't taxing soda hoping you'll drink less, they would love it if you drank more because then they would collect more in tax.

Yeah, it's about making more money. But what would you rather they do? Tax a necessity? They always tax things like cigarettes and liquor higher. Why not add soda and fried foods to it.

They aren't proposing to tax diet soda BTW. Not sure if that was mentioned?

[crystalklear64]

Just raise income tax more.
Someone's going to have to eat that dick, why not us!?

[dmaul1114]

Yeah, it's about making more money. But what would you rather they do? Tax a necessity? They always tax things like cigarettes and liquor higher. Why not add soda and fried foods to it.

They aren't proposing to tax diet soda BTW. Not sure if that was mentioned?

That is a good point. More tax revenue is needed, and I'd personally rather it be put on specific, not essential items rather than added into income taxes etc.

That way people can choose whether to pay it or not--and maybe there's some added benefit that at least some people will consume less unhealthy drinks and foods to avoid the tax.

Honestly, I've always thought having no income tax and just having a much higher sales tax, with higher taxes on luxury items, unhealthy items and less on essential food, clothing etc. would be a more fair system.

But I'm not sure it could ever be implemented as it would probably through the economy into an uproar. Despite taking home a lot more each pay check, I think a lot of people would balk at paying a lot more for items than they did before and hurt sales. But maybe it would balance out after awhile. But that's a topic for another thread....

[Layziebones]

But the thing is, not everyone who drinks soda is obese. They should just tax fat people if that's really what they're going after.

Haha. They should have a scale ready when you buy your soda.

"Ok, approximately 5'5, 356 LBS. That Dr Pepper will be $7.86. Thanks!"

[Kaijufan]

if I get taxed on DLC from XBL I'm moving.
You wont get taxed on DLC since you pay tax on the point cards.

[mykevermin]

This is a tax on sodie pop.

A tax on obesity would involve a politician measuring your fat-ass brats with a caliper once a year and levying a tax based on their body fat %.

[elprincipe]

The ignorance and hatred displayed in this thread is amazing.

[hhhdx4]

Do you realize how in debt New York is? Would you rather they taxed necessities?


there is nothing wrong with taxing conveniences when the state is in this much trouble, get off your high horse on the other side of the country and realize this.

[Paco]

I remember in California when they wanted to stop making new fast food Restaurants in economically depressed areas where there was high obesity. The ony thing I can picture is Dennys and Ihop going "Oh yes pass this bill. Come into our restaraunt and get a healthy grand slam slugger with six pieces of sausage and eight pancakes."

But one thing I would do to help obesity besides awareness is lower the damn price on healthy foods. They cost so damn much that it's cheaper to eat shit. 33 cents for ramen or four dollars a pound for lean meat when the 30% fat meat is like 1.60 a pound. Yes obesity is usually the persons fault for making bad decisions, but the cost of healthy food isn't helping either.

I also support the hooker tax. Legalize it then tax the shit out of em. They don't deserve easy money for opening their legs. 40% tax on them. I wish I could open my legs and get 80 dollars for 15 minutes of nothing.

[Temporaryscars]

Do you realize how in debt New York is? Would you rather they taxed necessities?


there is nothing wrong with taxing conveniences when the state is in this much trouble, get off your high horse on the other side of the country and realize this.

Yeah, but whose fault is it that the state is in debt? The already over-taxed NYers, or the corrupt politicians who misspend out money?

Albany is known for being a very corrupt and inefficient political hub.

I think there should be a tax on stupid politicians.

[HeadRusch]

Corrupt Politicians didn't misspend the money, the NYC budget was simply scaled up to a level that was commensurate with the income coming in from all those huge Wall Street investment banks in taxes. Now its got to scale down to deal with that massive loss of income.

And by definition all politicians are stupid because they usually wind up pissing off 50% of the people.
So for every happy mother who finds out they are going to get free after school programs, there is a group of angry AARP people upset that they wont be getting their extra senior bus.

For every new playground, there is a guy whos angry the city wont be getting that extra snowplow...etc, etc, etc.

[misterine]

And how will this help??? The govener should just call it taxing instead of having a name so it sounds better.

IF FAT people drink diet soda you think they will lose weight? NO i see fat people on the train eating a huge farking meal and drinking their soda.

LOOK fat people ruin everything, they walk slow on the stairs, even downstairs
they take up 1 1/2 of a seat on the subway
they walk slow and hog up the sidewalk

[strikeratt]

For all of you just joining the thread let me sum it up for you.

"Get your lynching ropes boys! We got some fatties to put up in the trees! Oh wait, can we even get them up the tree? Just buy some bullets I have the gun"

[flatliner718]

I know Blind Patterson doesn't care what he does its not like he was elected to office, and he doesn't necessarily need any of the publics favor. He's just trying to fill the budget gap by any means possible. I mean even before the economy hit the shitter he decided to go ahead with what Spitzer decided not to do, and that was the "Amazon Tax" which in itself effected other companies like Overstock and Newegg, but Newegg told em back in August to go screw. I mean being a NYer does not have its benefits when it comes to getting taxed to shit. I mean where is all the money going?Oh well /rant

[HeadRusch]

I dont fault the guy for wanting to make revenue, but instead of taxing sugary drinks, he should simply tax all foods higher. Period. Enough so that way the tax spreads out across anyone who wants to have a meal in NYC, but not so much that it hits certain people harder than others. A tiny tax on all food products that wont be felt particularly harshly by anyone in particular.

I agree 100% with the other poster...how can you tax "bad foods" which 9 times out of 10 equates to CHEAP foods, without providing a healthier and equally priced alternative? Otherwise you just get the poor and fixed-income folks up in arms. Of course these poor and fixed-income folks are often times the same folks who aer the unhealthiest. Yes, it does cost money to eat healthy.

This is just the same mentality they had about cigarettes, lets tax the crap out of bad stuff to help deter people from doing it. So how does he solve his budget problem?

He taxes everything, and cuts services until an equilibrium can be met. The question is how much of your soul do you sell to reach that equilibrium...do you close schools, fire cops...thats what life was like in the 70's. The city was a cesspool because there wasn't any money being directed to save it. It took private investors to start pulling NYC out of the muck (like Trump), etc.

[Temporaryscars]

I know Blind Patterson doesn't care what he does its not like he was elected to office, and he doesn't necessarily need any of the publics favor. He's just trying to fill the budget gap by any means possible. I mean even before the economy hit the shitter he decided to go ahead with what Spitzer decided not to do, and that was the "Amazon Tax" which in itself effected other companies like Overstock and Newegg, but Newegg told em back in August to go screw. I mean being a NYer does not have its benefits when it comes to getting taxed to shit. I mean where is all the money going?Oh well /rant

This. I know for a fact that it's not going to Syracuse. The median income here is half what it is in NYC, yet we still pay a shitload in taxes, and where does it go? Who the fuck knows.

[flatliner718]

I dont fault the guy for wanting to make revenue, but instead of taxing sugary drinks, he should simply tax all foods higher. Period. Enough so that way the tax spreads out across anyone who wants to have a meal in NYC, but not so much that it hits certain people harder than others. A tiny tax on all food products that wont be felt particularly harshly by anyone in particular.

I agree 100% with the other poster...how can you tax "bad foods" which 9 times out of 10 equates to CHEAP foods, without providing a healthier and equally priced alternative? Otherwise you just get the poor and fixed-income folks up in arms. Of course these poor and fixed-income folks are often times the same folks who aer the unhealthiest. Yes, it does cost money to eat healthy.

This is just the same mentality they had about cigarettes, lets tax the crap out of bad stuff to help deter people from doing it. So how does he solve his budget problem?

He taxes everything, and cuts services until an equilibrium can be met. The question is how much of your soul do you sell to reach that equilibrium...do you close schools, fire cops...thats what life was like in the 70's. The city was a cesspool because there wasn't any money being directed to save it. It took private investors to start pulling NYC out of the muck (like Trump), etc.


Agreed, and I don't even drink soda; I stick to the teas. I mean closing some of the firehouses because on paper they didn't respond to that many fires in general....Ummm so what about when there is one? You won't have the zone covered and tragedy could strike..Also eliminating the Police Academy classes that start in January was in fact a good idea..(budget saver) and this is coming from someone who was recently laid off from his job. Hell my friend just got in and not by much and finishes at the academy next week. In general spreading this tax out would make total sense....treat it like the bottle and can deposits if you want. I mean not everyone goes and gets that 5 cent deposit back.....so you snooze you lose..and it creates an awareness...Eh I don't know how you could do that with certain other things, but hopefully someone sees where I'm getting at.

[Temporaryscars]

See, I always thought that people should only get taxed for the shit they use. If you go to jail, you pay a jail and police tax. If you have kids and send them to a public school, you should pay a school tax. If you go on welfare, once you start making money on your own, you should pay a welfare tax. Why should I have to pay taxes on shit I don't use?

[SpazX]

See, I always thought that people should only get taxed for the shit they use. If you go to jail, you pay a jail and police tax. If you have kids and send them to a public school, you should pay a school tax. If you go on welfare, once you start making money on your own, you should pay a welfare tax. Why should I have to pay taxes on shit I don't use?

Just make believe that all the money you pay in taxes only goes towards the things you use. It's not like they label it.

[Temporaryscars]

All I use are the roads, they can't cost THAT much.

[Ruined]

I love when politicians force their ideals onto the people and restrict the people's freedom "for the people's own good!"

What a stupid fucking asshole.

QFT +1

[Koggit]

All I use are the roads, they can't cost THAT much.

:bomb:

[HowStern]

I dont fault the guy for wanting to make revenue, but instead of taxing sugary drinks, he should simply tax all foods higher. Period. Enough so that way the tax spreads out across anyone who wants to have a meal in NYC, but not so much that it hits certain people harder than others. A tiny tax on all food products that wont be felt particularly harshly by anyone in particular.

I agree 100% with the other poster...how can you tax "bad foods" which 9 times out of 10 equates to CHEAP foods, without providing a healthier and equally priced alternative? Otherwise you just get the poor and fixed-income folks up in arms. Of course these poor and fixed-income folks are often times the same folks who aer the unhealthiest. Yes, it does cost money to eat healthy.

This is just the same mentality they had about cigarettes, lets tax the crap out of bad stuff to help deter people from doing it. So how does he solve his budget problem?

He taxes everything, and cuts services until an equilibrium can be met. The question is how much of your soul do you sell to reach that equilibrium...do you close schools, fire cops...thats what life was like in the 70's. The city was a cesspool because there wasn't any money being directed to save it. It took private investors to start pulling NYC out of the muck (like Trump), etc.


Dumb. Food is a necessity in case you didn't know. Sugar-loaded, high fructose corn syrup, phosphoric acid filled drinks are NOT. Just like cigarettes are not. Raise taxes on food? Are you kidding? Why not tax air?
You said yourself "good" food is more expensive, already. So, why tax it more??

Last I checked water is cheap. And that's all you really need to drink. People are going to go into shock if we ever, as a country, have to go back to bare necessities for some reason.

[HeadRusch]

Dumb. Food is a necessity in case you didn't know. Sugar-loaded, high fructose corn syrup, phosphoric acid filled drinks are NOT.


Why should those items in particular be signled out...why not donuts, pastries, ice cream.......in several cities across America they banned sugary drinks from sale in schools....they found it helped not 1 bit, not one.


Just like cigarettes are not. Raise taxes on food? Are you kidding? Why not tax air?
You said yourself "good" food is more expensive, already. So, why tax it more??


Oh I'm sorry, were you trying to think?

I'm waiting for your helpful solution to the problem.....


Last I checked water is cheap. And that's all you really need to drink. People are going to go into shock if we ever, as a country, have to go back to bare necessities for some reason.

So you're saying "Fuck you poor people if all you can afford to drink is water", pretty much.
Regardless of your best intentions to tax only things that are "bad for you", thats how your idea will be perceived. And water is sometimes pretty nasty stuff when its coming out of a rusted tap in your tenement building, and not the $1000 filtered tap you probably suckle at. Just something to keep in mind.

[HowStern]

You can get a brita filter jug for $12 at wal-mart.
And, I'm not saying "fuck you poor people" I'm saying "If you're poor maybe you shouldn't waste your money on soda, fatso." Because guess what obesity levels are HIGHER in poverty stricken areas (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5576/obesity_and_poverty_the_poorest_of.html?page=2&cat=51). So, think about that for a minute and then reconsider your "tax all food" plan.

[PhrostByte]

Same here. They can tax soda as much as they want, I don't care.

Right! Why be concerned about your fellow Americans and their well being? As long as your needs are met!

[dmaul1114]

Why should those items in particular be signled out...why not donuts, pastries, ice cream......

That's the way it should be, and I think it is somewhat like that in some states. Most food isn't taxed--definitely not milk, bread, produce, soups--you know real food. But chips, soda, ice cream etc. is taxed and the normal state sales tax rate.

I don't think we should have a big tax on junk food, soda, etc. What they should do everywhere is just not have regular sales tax on essential foods, but have it apply to junk foods, soda etc. Give's people a break on food they need, and puts a small tax on junk food--but not enough to make it unaffordable.

You can get a brita filter jug for $12 at wal-mart.
And, I'm not saying "fuck you poor people" I'm saying "If you're poor maybe you shouldn't waste your money on soda, fatso." Because guess what obesity levels are HIGHER in poverty stricken areas (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5576/obesity_and_poverty_the_poorest_of.html?page=2&cat=51). So, think about that for a minute and then reconsider your "tax all food" plan.

Exactly. I always get frustrated seeing poor people paying with food stamps and cash having soda, candy bars and other fairly pricey non-essential food in the buggy. Along with beer, cigarettes etc. So many people just have no sense of how to budget their money.

[mykevermin]

There's also the fact that cheaper foods are higher in sodium, saturated fat, high fructose corn syrup, and other additives/components that are extremely unhealthy for you.

Take $30 and see how far that gets you in the produce aisle, and see how many $1 microwave pizzas that gets you.

Eatin' right ain't cheap.

EDIT: I'm not down with this because it's a consumption tax. Which is an indirect way to avoid raising taxes on the wealthy - it raises taxes identically for people based on consumption habits, not on earnings. (Patterson's tax on 'yachts' or whatever notwithstanding, I'm referring specifically to this.) Cigarette taxes are taxes on the poor as well.

[Paco]

And how will this help??? The govener should just call it taxing instead of having a name so it sounds better.

IF FAT people drink diet soda you think they will lose weight? NO i see fat people on the train eating a huge farking meal and drinking their soda.

LOOK fat people ruin everything, they walk slow on the stairs, even downstairs
they take up 1 1/2 of a seat on the subway
they walk slow and hog up the sidewalk

The fat people who do that are WOMEN and thanks to feminism they are EMPOWERED and feel entitled to block everyone's way. :lol: and they get a diet soda to wash down their five quarter pounders with cheese and three large fries. That soda is just there to maintain their girlish figure.

[KingBroly]

They're pretty much taxing every luxury you can think, and a few necessities as well. I can't understand why politicians want to hurt industries like fast food and companies like Wal-Mart when they're helping the poor get things they need (well, moreso Wal-Mart than fast food, but you get the idea).

Taxing the hell out of everything isn't going to make the situation any better. It's going to make it much worse than it already is because people will buy less since they can't afford it, meaning less tax revenue. If they want to solve their budget crisis, it's calling cutting the budget, a phrase most politicians have never heard before.

[hhhdx4]

this new tax isnt going to make anyone broke, anyone who wants a soda will still be able to get a soda.

[camoor]

America would be better off if there was a major attitude shift toward sugar.

Most Americans are addicted to refined sugar, and just like any other addictive drug when too much is ingested it ruins your health.

Too much refined sugar artificially tunes up your appetite, it turns you into a walking sack of fat, it saps your ability to think clearly. If refined sugar had a more complex refining process and went by a street name then politicians would be decrying/regulating it from coast to coast.

I really don't think more regulation is the answer (it hardly ever is) but we all need a serious attitude adjustment on refined sugar.

[elprincipe]

For all of you just joining the thread let me sum it up for you.

"Get your lynching ropes boys! We got some fatties to put up in the trees! Oh wait, can we even get them up the tree? Just buy some bullets I have the gun"

Since (thankfully) it is now unacceptable to display open hatred towards people based on their skin color, ethnicity or sexual orientation, only in a thread like this one are the hate-mongers on open display. Obviously it's bigoted to judge someone by how they look...except if they're fat.

[HowStern]

^ I have a lot of fat friends. My mom's a big fatso. I don't give a shit except for the fact it's unhealthy and wish they would take better care of themselves for that reason.
But to compare fat to skin color is ludicrous. You can lose weight. You can't lose your skin color(except Micheal Jackson.) And I don't believe a word of this "thyroid problem" BS people spout. You never see a Somalian kid with a thyroid problem.

[PhrostByte]

Since (thankfully) it is now unacceptable to display open hatred towards people based on their skin color, ethnicity or sexual orientation, only in a thread like this one are the hate-mongers on open display. Obviously it's bigoted to judge someone by how they look...except if they're fat.

He was kidding idiot.

[HeadRusch]

High Fructose Corn Syrup....THE GREAT SATAN

[PenguinoMF]

Legalize prostitution.
Legalize weed.
Legalize gambling (for everyone not just Native Americans and the State).

Win-win situation.

[silent h3ro]

My mom's a big fatso.
:-#

[dmaul1114]

^ I have a lot of fat friends. My mom's a big fatso. I don't give a shit except for the fact it's unhealthy and wish they would take better care of themselves for that reason.
But to compare fat to skin color is ludicrous. You can lose weight. You can't lose your skin color(except Micheal Jackson.) And I don't believe a word of this "thyroid problem" BS people spout. You never see a Somalian kid with a thyroid problem.

Exactly. For the vast majority of fat people, it's a result of being lazy and eating like crap. That's what drives me nuts--the fat part is just the symptom of a shitty personality, lack of self control, lack of self respect etc. Though of course the symptom itself is annoying when you're stuck beside it on the plane, subway etc....

[Kaijufan]

Right! Why be concerned about your fellow Americans and their well being? As long as your needs are met!
It's stupid they are considering extra tax on pop, but honestly I just can't get myself worked up over it.

There are issues that don't affect me that concern me (such as gay marriage, I'm not gay but I support gay marriage) but pop tax isn't one of them.

Legalize prostitution.
Legalize weed.
Legalize gambling (for everyone not just Native Americans and the State).

Win-win situation.
I agree with legalizing prostitution and weed, it's stupid we're wasting so much tax money fighting it instead of regulating the industries and taxing them.

As for gambling, I don't know. It seems like we (at least in Iowa) already have enough Indian casinos, if anything it should be cut back.

[HeadRusch]

Exactly. For the vast majority of fat people, it's a result of being lazy and eating like crap. That's what drives me nuts--the fat part is just the symptom of a shitty personality, lack of self control, lack of self respect etc. Though of course the symptom itself is annoying when you're stuck beside it on the plane, subway etc....

So fat people all have shitty personalities, a lack of self control and no self respect. You're like a walking stereotype machine. Why stop at fatties?

What do you think about Black people? Hate them cuz they're always dripping watermelon juice on you when they try to steal your wallet?

[silent h3ro]

Well he did say the vast majority, he didn't say that all fat people are that way. :)

[dmaul1114]

Yep. If you let yourself become a fat slob, you have a lack of self control, discipline and self respect. Or you're just a glutton and don't care about your appearance at all. The tiny minority of fat people with medical conditions aside.

If you can't take care of your own health, you're generally not worth knowing IMO. At least not to a very active and health conscious person like myself.

Completely different from racial sterotypes etc. as this is related 100% to behavior--and a behavior that should be standard as everyone should take care of themselves.

[HeadRusch]

Yep. If you let yourself become a fat slob, you have a lack of self control, discipline and self respect. Or you're just a glutton and don't care about your appearance at all. The tiny minority of fat people with medical conditions aside.


..but you say that like its wrong. Do you hate people who smoke? What about people who stave themeslves to be thin, or are they A-OK in YOUR book cuz you know...thin = right. :D


If you can't take care of your own health, you're generally not worth knowing IMO. At least not to a very active and health conscious person like myself.


You mean "at least not to a douchebag like myself" I think....but you know, whatever bigotry keeps you warm at night I guess..


Completely different from racial sterotypes etc. as this is related 100% to behavior--and a behavior that should be standard as everyone should take care of themselves.

You know what other behavior should be standard? Beating people who propose standards "for the rest of the world" in the street with shovels.

You're gonna be a sight to see when you're 45 and carrying 50lbs around your middle, chum, and all your fitnesss and health goes out the window because you have more important things in your life.

I wont argue that being overweight is a bad thing because of health reasons, and people should have incentives to be healthy.....but you are probably too ignorant to realize that not everyone is born to be active, not everyone is born to be athletic, or for that matter born with the metabolism to burn thousands of calories just doing nothing. And you can be lazy, useless, and have a crappy personality and no self respect...and be thin as cardboard.

Yes, obesity in most cases is a choice, but its not a conscious one for a lot of folks.....your kind of asstalk that Fat people are all "this and that" honestly went the way of the dodo around the time of segregated water fountains.

[dmaul1114]

I'm not saying everyone has to be a picture of health and work out all the time. But no one should be obese. I'm not saying overweight, I'm saying obese.

I'm 30 and skinny as fuck. My dad is 60 and skinny as fuck. Even if I get less active I'm not going to put on a ton of wait both from having a good metabolism and even if I get less active I'm not going to start eating shitty food all the time.

Everyone can at least eat healthy, take the stairs etc. and at least not to be obese. It's almost always a choice/lack of discipline. No one's saying everyone has to be a fitness buff, or even be thin. But no one should let themselves get morbidly obese.

And as such I think the government should do more to encourage health--be it taxing unhealthy food while removing tax from healthy/staple foods, having more education programs, giving tax breaks for gym fees etc. etc. It would help society greatly to improve overall health, lower premiums, etc. etc.

[elprincipe]

He was kidding idiot.

Who the fuck cares, moron.

[elprincipe]

Yes, obesity in most cases is a choice, but its not a conscious one for a lot of folks.....your kind of asstalk that Fat people are all "this and that" honestly went the way of the dodo around the time of segregated water fountains.

Au contraire, just read the posts in this thread. It should have gone the way of the dodo by now, but it's still perfectly acceptable in our society to judge someone by the shape of their body. I'm a bit at a loss to explain how some people feel that is any different at all from judging someone based on their skin color or their name or how they part their hair, but there you have it.

[Paco]

I'm not saying everyone has to be a picture of health and work out all the time. But no one should be obese. I'm not saying overweight, I'm saying obese.

I'm 30 and skinny as fuck. My dad is 60 and skinny as fuck. Even if I get less active I'm not going to put on a ton of wait both from having a good metabolism and even if I get less active I'm not going to start eating shitty food all the time.

Everyone can at least eat healthy, take the stairs etc. and at least not to be obese. It's almost always a choice/lack of discipline. No one's saying everyone has to be a fitness buff, or even be thin. But no one should let themselves get morbidly obese.

And as such I think the government should do more to encourage health--be it taxing unhealthy food while removing tax from healthy/staple foods, having more education programs, giving tax breaks for gym fees etc. etc. It would help society greatly to improve overall health, lower premiums, etc. etc.

Everyone can eat healthy? Lets see. 4.50 for a pound of lean meat or 1.66 for 30% fat meat. Yes it doesn't look like much, but add it up and it costs an assload.

And you think it's a choice? Tell that to lawyers. Anyone in HR, anyone that does tech support or any IT job. They're on a chair 7-16 hours a day with no room to move and very little opportunity for exercise.

If you want to help the fat people, then lower the price on healthy foods, stop making the bad shit cost so cheap. Though I do agree on a tax on sugar as some places sell the shit cheaper then water.

What you're advocating is more of an ideal situation, but the reality of things is that so many jobs are non mobile and more and more Americans are living a seditary lifestyle and turning into lumps and THAT is how the government wants us as it helps them get more votes and control.

[Layziebones]

I'm 30 and skinny as fuck. My dad is 60 and skinny as fuck. Even if I get less active I'm not going to put on a ton of wait both from having a good metabolism and even if I get less active I'm not going to start eating shitty food all the time.
.

Being super skinny isn't healthy either. Just because you aren't obese doesn't mean you are healthier than others.

[PhrostByte]

Who the fuck cares, moron.

Certainly not champions of logic such as yourself. :lol:

[Sarang01]

I remember in California when they wanted to stop making new fast food Restaurants in economically depressed areas where there was high obesity. The ony thing I can picture is Dennys and Ihop going "Oh yes pass this bill. Come into our restaraunt and get a healthy grand slam slugger with six pieces of sausage and eight pancakes."

But one thing I would do to help obesity besides awareness is lower the damn price on healthy foods. They cost so damn much that it's cheaper to eat shit. 33 cents for ramen or four dollars a pound for lean meat when the 30% fat meat is like 1.60 a pound. Yes obesity is usually the persons fault for making bad decisions, but the cost of healthy food isn't helping either.

I also support the hooker tax. Legalize it then tax the shit out of em. They don't deserve easy money for opening their legs. 40% tax on them. I wish I could open my legs and get 80 dollars for 15 minutes of nothing.

I hate to break it to you but meat is subsidized I've heard. If New York really wants to lower taxes and help fight obesity just eliminate the subsidy for Corn growers if there are any there. They're the one's that grow that crop that gets Genetically Modified into High Fructose Corn Syrup or is to begin with.
I would also argue with you that eating Vegan, as long as you do it from scratch, can be healthy, affordable and Organic to boot. You have to realize so much money is spent housing that livestock that you eat, feeding them et al.
The only place where you really get screwed in my opinion are Vegetables and Fruits, especially Organic. The prices on those products are just absurd or get there quick.
On a side note I'd add besides pointing kids at healthier foods encourage them to make em' from scratch too, see NOT from a can or boxed mix. Even if they're technically eating healthy that sodium and those preservatives aren't good.

[thrustbucket]

Fat people can be fat if they want. Just because some people care about how they look doesn't mean everyone has to.

That's all.

[Paco]

I hate to break it to you but meat is subsidized I've heard. If New York really wants to lower taxes and help fight obesity just eliminate the subsidy for Corn growers if there are any there. They're the one's that grow that crop that gets Genetically Modified into High Fructose Corn Syrup or is to begin with.
I would also argue with you that eating Vegan, as long as you do it from scratch, can be healthy, affordable and Organic to boot. You have to realize so much money is spent housing that livestock that you eat, feeding them et al.
The only place where you really get screwed in my opinion are Vegetables and Fruits, especially Organic. The prices on those products are just absurd or get there quick.
On a side note I'd add besides pointing kids at healthier foods encourage them to make em' from scratch too, see NOT from a can or boxed mix. Even if they're technically eating healthy that sodium and those preservatives aren't good.

If 4-5 dollars per pound of lean meat is subsidized while the fatty meat that's 30% fat is 1.60 I'd hate to see what it cost if it wasn't subsidized.

[Sarang01]

If 4-5 dollars per pound of lean meat is subsidized while the fatty meat that's 30% fat is 1.60 I'd hate to see what it cost if it wasn't subsidized.

I suspect it's cheaper because it's crap nowadays so the incentive is much more since the demand is less. Speaking of the subsidy I wish it was completely yanked. I heartily oppose my tax dollars being wasted on something so inefficient costwise.

edit: In that vein I think WIC should be gutted as is and replaced with Brocoli, Quinoa and other things which I'd argue are cheaper. Quinoa is suppose to have three times the calcium of a glass of milk. I don't necessarily know how much of that so I'll have to look it up. Cannellini or Flageolet beans seem to have a lot too. Also we know Brocoli has it, I suspect in the stem. So these beans and veggies along with rice would provide the complete protein these kids need as well as the calcium and other nutrients at a fraction of the price arguably. The only concern here is Vitamin B12 which could be addressed via enriched Soy Milk or just a powder mixed into one's drink. See a decent bit of money would be cut just doing that. WIC is a hand out to the Dairy Industry easily and it's ridiculous.

[dmaul1114]

What you're advocating is more of an ideal situation, but the reality of things is that so many jobs are non mobile and more and more Americans are living a seditary lifestyle and turning into lumps and THAT is how the government wants us as it helps them get more votes and control.

I have a sedentary job, work a minumum of 50-60 hours a week usually and I still make it to the gym 2-4 times a week--usually 4. I just sacrifice a bit of sleep and go in the morning. And I'm not a morning person and fucking hate dragging myself out of bed to do it. Again, it just takes discipline. Of course some people just can't work out--i.e. if you're working 16 hour days etc. it's pretty tough to find time. But you can at least eat healthy--stay away from soda, chips, candy bars, fast food etc. It doesn't take much time to make a turkey sandwhich on whole wheat bread before leaving for work in the morning vs. picking up fast food--saves money too.

Eating healthy is expensive, but it just takes discipline in budgeting. And as someone else noted for the very poor meat is usually subsidized like milk. And a lot of crappy food like soda, candy bars, TV dinners etc. are fairly expensive. It's not that expensive to buy some skinless chicken breasts, or some whole wheat pasta, some fresh brocolli etc. One doesn't have to be eating Salmon and Filet Mignon all the time to be healthy. Just stay away from fatty foods, processed foods, foods full of sugar etc.

Being super skinny isn't healthy either. Just because you aren't obese doesn't mean you are healthier than others.

Poor choice of words. Should have just said I have very low bodyfat rather than super skinny--well within the healthy range for my frame. I'm not overly skinny as I do weight training everytime I go to the gym and have for years. I eat quite healty (could do better--definitely could drink less beer as good beer is my biggest vice) and work out regularly so I'm in pretty good health. Not huge as I have a small frame, but I have on ok amount of muscle on it as I put on 20 pounds or so of muscle since I started lifting regularly 8 or so years ago.

[silent h3ro]

Good luck trying to get a kid to eat all of that healthy food. As long as they are used to eating sugar injected cereal or canned Ravioli it's going to be tough.

[BigT]

The main thing is to cut portion sizes... even with calorie dense sugar rich foods, if you eat small portions you will not gain very much weight. The law of conservation of energy prevails. This is somewhat of an oversimplification because of the different hormonal stimulation and satiety stimulation effects of different foods... but the main idea holds.

Humans require surprisingly low amounts of calories and we almost all tend to over-eat. Unless you are training for extreme sporting events, you simply do not need to eat very much...

[mykevermin]

canned Ravioli

Ooh, there's a cheap food. I thought about buying a can of Spaghetti-o's a good bit back out of a combination of nostalgia/irony. They're $0.70 per can, give or take. Stuff like that and ramen/packaged noodles/mac and cheese are crazy cheap.

BTW, they're not as good as you remember them as a kid. Blech.

dmaul, you're showing the huge difference b/w criminologists and sociologists with your individualism stampede in here. Does it take discipline? Sure. But so does obeying the law. Do you wholly ignore criminogenic elements in the social structure in favor of wholly individual explanations?

;) Just sayin'.

Everyone in America could repair their own automobiles as long as they apply the time and discipline necessary to diagnose and repair any ailments of their automobiles.

Again, just sayin'.

Look, obesity is bad. It's horrible. It drives my health care costs up. But so do lots of things. It's part of what we pay to live in the United States: our freedoms and finances are affected by the poor decisions of those around us as much (or more) than they are related to the good decisions people make. It sucks, but we'll cease being the very idea of the United States the day we insist upon diets for certain people.

On a wholly aside note, I'm totally weirded out by the prevalence of severe peanut allergies, and wonder where in the hell they came from. B/c I don't think it's always been a common phenomena - instead, a recent problem that's grown severely. If that's true, I'm very curious if the origin of its growth can be identified.

[Hex]

I don't think it's always been a common phenomena - instead, a recent problem that's grown severely. If that's true, I'm very curious if the origin of its growth can be identified.

I'm sure Level1Online can find us a google video linking obesity, peanut allergies, 9/11, the Amero and the gov't to globalization.

Then you'll have your proof!

[PhrostByte]

I'm very curious if the origin of its growth can be identified.

That's what SHE said!

:rofl:

:bouncy:

:roll:

:cry:

[Sarang01]

I'm sure Level1Online can find us a google video linking obesity, peanut allergies, 9/11, the Amero and the gov't to globalization.

Then you'll have your proof!

Funny. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if Peanut and Gluten Allergies have either been popping up because of shit in the air or GMO's. Big Pharma is WORSE then you expect imo. They're poisoning most people imo to get them in the hospitals and I think it's dispicable. It's amazing how greed might ultimately destroy our species by destroying our genome. If anyone thinks Gene Therapy will solve anything don't THINK they won't insert a bunch more diseases to keep their money flowing in that pop up in your Grandchildren or later. Seriously they're complete fucking Welfare Queens. It's enough for me to want to spit on them.

[mykevermin]

I'm sure Level1Online can find us a google video linking obesity, peanut allergies, 9/11, the Amero and the gov't to globalization.

Then you'll have your proof!

Heh. That and autism, right?

[Hex]

If Ron Paul says so, of course.

[dmaul1114]

dmaul, you're showing the huge difference b/w criminologists and sociologists with your individualism stampede in here. Does it take discipline? Sure. But so does obeying the law. Do you wholly ignore criminogenic elements in the social structure in favor of wholly individual explanations?


Oh, society needs to change to. As I said earlier we need more education on healthy, more promotion of fitness. No tax on healthy/staple foods, taxes on crappy foods etc.

But at the end of the day, even with that stuff it comes down to discipline as the crappy food will still be there and it still takes time and motivation to exercise.

As for crime, sure they're are societal causes that give some areas high crime rates or help push a person to crime. But at the end of the day it's an individual choice to commit a crime. I wouldn't say it's a pure difference between criminologists and sociologists. Their are plenty of criminologists who take a more societal approach--I'm just not much one of the. I've never been much interested in studying effects of poverty, racial inequality etc. At the end of the day humans have free will and make their own behavioral choices. Societal things may affect them, but a really little more than excuses IMO. A crime's a crime regardless of you're upbringing or environment. Though of course we should do stuff to reduce criminogenic environments as part of crime prevention efforts, so I'm interested in that aspect a bit. But I don't give a criminal slack because they had a tough childhood or live in the ghetto. Just like I'm not going to cut an obese person slack because they live in America. Life is what you make of it. It's harder for some than others (live in a ghetto, have a slower metabolism etc.) but we still have free will to make the right decisions despite any obstacles in our paths.

[dbrev42]

...makes you wonder what this world is coming to...eh?

[seanr1221]

Dmaul, if it's the individuals "choice" (and I hate using that word) to do all these things, then what inside them is making the choice? The "will"? The "conscience"? And how do these things know right from wrong?

See how silly it all sounds when you really lay it out.

People's actions come from the environment (mostly) and their biology. It's really not hard. You eat, act and do certain things because that's what you've learned. Short of completely removing yourself from where you live, it can be difficult to just overhaul your behaviors/personality.

[mykevermin]

Oh, society needs to change to. As I said earlier we need more education on healthy, more promotion of fitness. No tax on healthy/staple foods, taxes on crappy foods etc.

But at the end of the day, even with that stuff it comes down to discipline as the crappy food will still be there and it still takes time and motivation to exercise.

As for crime, sure they're are societal causes that give some areas high crime rates or help push a person to crime. But at the end of the day it's an individual choice to commit a crime. I wouldn't say it's a pure difference between criminologists and sociologists. Their are plenty of criminologists who take a more societal approach--I'm just not much one of the. I've never been much interested in studying effects of poverty, racial inequality etc. At the end of the day humans have free will and make their own behavioral choices. Societal things may affect them, but a really little more than excuses IMO. A crime's a crime regardless of you're upbringing or environment. Though of course we should do stuff to reduce criminogenic environments as part of crime prevention efforts, so I'm interested in that aspect a bit. But I don't give a criminal slack because they had a tough childhood or live in the ghetto. Just like I'm not going to cut an obese person slack because they live in America. Life is what you make of it. It's harder for some than others (live in a ghetto, have a slower metabolism etc.) but we still have free will to make the right decisions despite any obstacles in our paths.

This kind of mentality (that environmental causation = an excuse for individual behavior) is a scary thing for anyone to think, let alone a professionally trained researcher. It's a very lazy waving away at significant causal variables with no reasonable explanation.

Is race not worth looking at as a variable because it doesn't connote individual choice? Is race irrelevant in criminal justice studies?

C'mon. You know better than that.

Then again, you do believe in deterrence, so you may be on the David Farabee side of the fence. I trust you aren't a data-picking hack like him. ;)

[dmaul1114]

Oh I believe environments have causal impacts for sure. I wasn't talking from a research or theoretical standpoint with that comment.

I was just saying that I'm not going to feel sorry for a murder who grew up in a bad neighborhood, faced racial discrimination etc. They're still a murderer and deserve a long prison term.

But that doesn't mean I don't think environments or racial discrimination matter, or that we shouldn't be fhinding ways to alleviate such criminogenic factors. They are key in studies and in inteventions, I just don't think we should cut individuals slack for behaviors for such reasons. Just like I'm not going to feel sorry for a fat person for livning in the US vs. a healthier society. Plenty of people manage not to get obese here, just like plenty of people in the ghetto don't become hardened criminals.

We need to change society in many ways, but that doesn't remove individual responsibility. I'm not waving away causal variables, just saying I don't feel sorry for people who make poor decisions regardless of their environments. We need to study and change the environments to be sure, but I'm not cutting people any slack in the meantime as people are responsible for their actions.

And I'm not much a believer in deterrence either. I work on broken windows stuff--but I don't necessarily buy it. And besides, that's not deterrence based but rather social control as the idea of Wilson and Kelling is that cleaning up the community will reduce fear and empower residents to begin reinstituting informal social control. Some of the actual police programs have taken zero tolerance approaches which are more deterrence oriented, but Kelling says vehemently that such approaches are not in line with his broken windows ideas.

[mykevermin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARMgjdbY93o

Ain't much of a public speaker, is he?

Hell, this may not even count as 'public.'

[elprincipe]

^^ Well, I'm sold. Time to embrace Big Brother dictating yet another part of our lives.

[depascal22]

We have to pay for obesity either way. At least this way, the people that get fat will be paying for their own health care indirectly.

Think about it. Those obese bastards don't all have great benefits from work so they go on Medicare. Tax funded Medicare.

The cost of living with that weight goes up astronomically once everything starts to shut down. Diabetes isn't cheap to live with. That heart transplant isn't cheap. How do you suppose we pay for it then?

[thrustbucket]

We have to pay for obesity either way. At least this way, the people that get fat will be paying for their own health care indirectly.

Think about it. Those obese bastards don't all have great benefits from work so they go on Medicare. Tax funded Medicare.

The cost of living with that weight goes up astronomically once everything starts to shut down. Diabetes isn't cheap to live with. That heart transplant isn't cheap. How do you suppose we pay for it then?

The argument is where do we draw the line?

Some people clearly lead more dangerous lives than others, which in turn raises the risk/cost factor up much higher than others. So? Maybe we should tax stunt men too?

There are countless ways to make you a higher risk for health care. Literally - countless. Which of them should we start taxing if we are going to single out one?

[dmaul1114]

I'll agree taxes probably aren't the best way. The governments role should largely be education, getting healthier food in school lunches etc. etc.

I think insurance premiums just need to be more risk based. If you're body fat is higher than the reccomended levels you pay a higher premium than people who are at healthy levels. Will help keep those of us who are healthy from paying more, and give a financial incentive to lose weight. Same with other high risk behaviors like smoking. Just have an annual physical that the insurance company pays for in full that measures these types of things and adjusts the persons premiums accordingly.

[thrustbucket]

I can understand your logic, dmaul.

But it leads to other problems. You are assuming that being overweight is statistically more likely to lead to health problems (maybe it is). But if you want to start discriminating based on statistics you could also start getting race, gender, and even sexual orientation into these premium adjustments, and we both know that will never happen.

Now you can easily argue that being overweight is changeable, while the other things are not, and that is debatable. It's also debatable just how much fat on each person increases health risks to. I've known several fat people live into their 90's just like I've known smokers to live into their 90's.

But fat people, if forced to pay more based on how fat they are, will argue that there are other traits like those mentioned above that affect certain health risks as much or more than weight, statistically, and rightly so.

Now as for the obscenely obese, it's a different story. But the BMI scale is well known to be pretty flawed.

[Koggit]

Premiums need to be less risk based.

Obesity is not always the fault of the fat bitch.

Health care should never become prohibitively expensive due to factors beyond the patient's control.

My sister can't get coverage because she has Chiari -- that's fucked up. She's sick, so she can't afford health care. If she were healthy, she could afford health care. That is extremely fucked up. We deny care to those who need it most.

An insurance company can't police what a person does, and factors like weight shouldn't be used because it isn't always by choice. Many people have glandular problems -- you want to raise their insurance premiums so that a higher percentage of them have no access to healthcare?



Nothing's wrong with taxing goods/services that society deems undesirable. The money doesn't disappear, so long as we don't send it overseas like dumbass war-hungry Bush. Tax fatty foods to subsidize healthy foods, nothing wrong with that, the net price of food remains the same.

[depascal22]

You already mentioned it. People can exercise their way out of obesity. I can't run my way out of blackness.

Also, it's not that insurance premiums are higher. Medicare is free. This is what the government is most worried about. Every extra dollar that gets spent on the obese is a dollar that can't be spent somewhere else. If we want Medicare, then we have to accept that the government will do things to offset the cost.

You can argue that education would be more effective and I agree with that. I think we should have more comprehensive health (as well as financial) education in school. The problem is the parents at this point. We have a generation that was raised on sugar and it'll be hard to stop people from buying soda regularly. Kids drink what's in the fridge. You could get it out of the schools but if you go home and drink a couple glasses, you'll still be a lard ass.

EDIT -- If auto insurance is risk based, why can't health insurance also? Insurance companies are businesses and have the right to set up fees based on your risk. They will end up paying out so shouldn't they try to recoup their cost by getting the most money out of the people that they will end up paying for?

[dmaul1114]

But it leads to other problems. You are assuming that being overweight is statistically more likely to lead to health problems (maybe it is)..

Maybe it is? Heart disease? Diabetes? Sleep apnea? etc etc. I don't have the disdain for you that many here do, but jesus you've got to be one of the least informed people I've ever met. But I guess it makes sense with all your railing against education.....

Anyway, having risked based premiums could be a slippery slope. Any risk based premiums have to only tied to things that are 100% a result of behavior. Even with obesity, there should be exceptions for the minority of people who do have genetic problems, thyroid issues etc. that make it impossible for them to keep their body fat in the recommended ranges.

Things like smoking, liver problems related to heavy drinking, failing drug tests etc. Those types of things should trigger a higher premium.

But not genetic factors out of ones control that are statistically related to higher risks for diseases. Nor should people get penalized for pre-existing illnesses.

But I also don't have a problem with higher taxes on unhealthy foods, as long as that money is used to lower or remove taxes on healthy foods, pay for health education in schools and national campaigns etc. etc.

[depascal22]

The thing is the cost has to be passed on to someone. I'd argue that insurance companies could make a little less profit but that's up to them.

If they can't raise premiums on some people then everyone has to pay slightly higher premiums. Which would you prefer? Paying a little more just so some huge guy doesn't have to get his act together to drop his premium?

[thrustbucket]

Maybe it is? Heart disease? Diabetes? Sleep apnea? etc etc. I don't have the disdain for you that many here do, but jesus you've got to be one of the least informed people I've ever met. But I guess it makes sense with all your railing against education.....


Well not that this is the first time, but my point went a good ten feet over your head. Anyway, intellectual snobery aside....

I pointed out in my post that with the obscenely obese, there is very clear health issues that are very easy to statistically predict. Nobody can be 450 lbs for very long without getting health problems, that's a given.Those people are not part of who I am talking about.

Let me illustrate my point by using you as an example, since you have more than once made it pretty clear that you feel you are a standard of physical fitness and health with your me vs them stance on this.

If you gain 10 pounds, do you honestly believe you are now at a higher risk of diabetes, sleep apnea, and heart disease? Is it enough of statistically measurable risk? Should that affect your insurance premiums?

How about if you gain 20 lbs?
How about 30?

If you had a genetic predisposition to diabetes, found through genealogical research or a genetic test, would that trump your weight where insurance is concerned? Why or why shouldn't it?

See where I'm getting? Who decides where the line is? Do you honestly believe the BMI based prediction charts?

If a 300lb man could prove that his arteries and organs are healthier than, say, yours (which is not impossible) - why should he be considered a higher risk to an insurance company and pay more?

It all goes back to the question of what is 'overweight'. Who decides? Should weight alone be the deciding factor in insurance cost, even if you pass every other health test with flying colors?

Are you going to measure weight alone or body fat?

If a person your height weighs 20lbs more than you but can out-run and out-lift you at the gym, should you or he pay more for insurance?

[dmaul1114]

So I guess on top of being an unemployed conservative loser, you're also a fat? Choke on a dick and die

Your post is pointless. I mentioned body fat percentage. Has nothing to do with height, BMI (which is a poor measure) etc. Above a certain body fat % is unhealthy period. And I also mentioned the need for exceptions for the few who do have genetic reasons for being overweight as well. Now I'm not sure what the cut offs should be. They should be pretty high, no where near as strict as those silly BMI things. The typical recommended ranges is 15-18% for males and 20-25% for females, So I'd say maybe pop a penalty on their for people 10% or more above the high end of those ranges or something. It's not for people just a tad bit over weight.

But we shouldn't have to all pay more for insurance to subsidize those who eat crappy, don't work out, smoke, drink too much etc.

And I apologize for being an asshole in the remarks I deleted.....I was pissed off from having a bad night and took it out on you.

[Kirin Lemon]

Man, you can really tell who the fatties are in this thread.

[VioletArrows]

*waves her fat ass around to piss folks off just a little bit more*

[dmaul1114]

2009 McDonald's Calendar.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/8540802/McDonald-Kalender-2009

[thrustbucket]

So I guess on top of being an unemployed conservative loser, you're also a fat? Choke on a dick and die
I am unemployed (mostly because in my state, unemployment pays better than positions available to my skillset so far). More conservative than you, but don't consider myself a conservative (libertarian, remember), and not fat. Not in shape, for sure, but not fat.

It is interesting how much you continue to reveal about yourself the more you always subtly or not so subtly judge others.

Your post is pointless. I mentioned body fat percentage. Has nothing to do with height, BMI (which is a poor measure) etc. Above a certain body fat % is unhealthy period.
Most of my remarks are based on the fact that I never saw you mention body fat percentage; I only saw you say "fat people" and "weight" which is extremely relative, and the root of all my remarks.

If you did mention body fat percentage, then I missed it from reading too fast, so sorry.

But we shouldn't have to all pay more for insurance to subsidize those who eat crappy, don't work out, smoke, drink too much etc.
I sort of agree. However, my libertarian leanings make my biggest beef the bolded part by itself, rather than how it's carried out.

And I apologize for being an asshole in the remarks I deleted.....I was pissed off from having a bad night and took it out on you.
Accepted.

[PhrostByte]

I'll admit it, I hate fat people. :rofl:

[Paco]

2009 McDonald's Calendar.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/8540802/McDonald-Kalender-2009

MEIN GOT IN HIMMEL! THY GOGGLES THEY DO NOTHING! AHHHHH GOD. Get Captain Spaulding in here!

[mykevermin]

How do you propose a scalable tax based on health? BMI's a really, really, really shitty metric, you know.

[dmaul1114]

How do you propose a scalable tax based on health? BMI's a really, really, really shitty metric, you know.

BMI sucks.

Body fat percentage doesn't though, that's a good metric. BMI is a useless approximation of body fat percentage as just doing height and weight doesn't factor in bone density, muscle mass etc.

Like I said, if they were going to do risk based premiums the insurance companies would have to pay for annual physicals that included body fat measurement. Would be a good thing anyway since it could improve preventative care by requiring annual physicals that most people don't get even though most plans will pay for an annual physical.

[Paco]

Under the BMI scale wasn't Arnold considered morbidly obese? I found that rather funny since fitness people like Arnold and Tom Cruise were considered Obese by the BMI scale when they very clearly were in shape.

[dmaul1114]

Yep, all body builders would be morbidly obese on the BMI scale as they weigh a ton for their heights due to the huge muscle mass. BMI is useless since it can't account for muscle, bone size etc.

Body fat % is the only way to reliably measure whether someone is carrying an unhealthy amount of fat.

[JolietJake]

That, or if the last rib you saw was on a plate and covered in barbecue sauce.

[depascal22]

If you've had a heart attack before the age of 30 and you've developed Type II Diabetes, you need to pay higher premiums/taxes. It shouldn't be based on what could happen but what has happened. That way there isn't any argument. You've already proven to be a higher risk.

[dmaul1114]

That would be a fine way to do it too IMO. Just like paying higher car insurance premiums when you have accidents and proven to be a higher risk.

[Paco]

Let's tax McDonalds 20% too. Call it a fat tax but in reality it's a suck tax. I'm tired of seeing women order five quarter pounders with three large fries and a DIET SODA to keep their girlish figure.

[smalien1]

Why don't you just tax the obese, not the quality people who want to have the occasional soda?

[lilboo]

Let's tax McDonalds 20% too. Call it a fat tax but in reality it's a suck tax. I'm tired of seeing women order five quarter pounders with three large fries and a DIET SODA to keep their girlish figure.

:rofl: I know, but I personally am guilty of this. But I don't order diet soda for the diet part.. I actually like the taste of diet sodas better. All of that sugar in drinks make me sick :(

[dmaul1114]

I'm the same, when I do eat something crappy I usually still get diet soda as I'm just used to the taste of diet soda and don't like most regular sodas.

Exception is Dr. Pepper, prefer the diet but like the regular and will get it usually if they have it rather than getting diet coke/pepsi. But otherwise I go with diet as I can't stand regular coke/pepsi after only drinking the diet variety for years.

[Paco]

Diet soda makes me feel weird and disoriented. Though what bothers me is how aspertame is 125 times sweeter then actual sugar. I know that technically there is no weight in diet soda, but it just leaves me feeling weird and disoriented after drinking it.

[PhrostByte]

Diet soda makes me feel weird and disoriented. Though what bothers me is how aspertame is 125 times sweeter then actual sugar. I know that technically there is no weight in diet soda, but it just leaves me feeling weird and disoriented after drinking it.

Phenylketonuric much?

[Paco]

Phenylketonuric much?

I'd say it's more of my repulsion towards aspartame then any actual sickness. It just tastes like shit to me so I won't even drink it. Tried it only a few times in all honesty. After that I stopped drinking soda all together.

Though what bothers me is that so much of my family drinks HUGE quantities of diet soda. I always wonder how they can consume soda like it's water. But this is going away from why I find diet soda to taste like shit. It tastes nothing like the original soda that it is replacing and can actually qualify an alternate soft drink.

[PhrostByte]

Agreed. Diet soda does taste like shit. I can't pinpoint why but there's just something about.. makes it taste twice as artificial.. dunno.

[HeadRusch]

Some diet sodas are better than others. If you haven't had a sugary soda in awhile, Diet Mt. Dew tastes almost like regular mountain dew, and Sunkist orange soda (diet) tastes damn near the same as regular orange soda. IF you haven't had "regular" soda in while....thats the key.

By comparison, Diet Coke will never taste like coke, no matter how long you've sugar-starved yourself........

[dmaul1114]

I thought diet soda tasted like crap when I first made the switch, but once you get used to it it's tough to switch back to regular.

Like I said earlier, Diet Dr. Pepper is the best imo.

[HeadRusch]

Drinking a regular coke or, god forbid, pepsi....is like drinking a donut if you haven't had one in awhile. Its no wonder kids are waddling around playgrounds when they drink sodas at every meal and snack. Parents, these days, appear to be next to useless.....

[Koggit]

Diet Coke is a different formula from coke... Coke Zero is the same formula but with artificial sweetener.

I drink a ton of soda so I only drink diet. I literally drink about 60 ounces with a meal -- I'll get no ice and drink three 20-ounce cups. With non-diet soda, that's around 200 grams of sugar... put into perspective, a fifth of a kilo, nearly half a pound, in a single meal. I can't taste the difference, not anymore.

[HeadRusch]

Coke Zero, to me, tastes "about the same" as Diet Coke...which is to say, it tastes like ass..or rather, it tastes like its own animal. I recently picked up some Code Zero Vanilla..and it also tastes pretty bad.

Then again, I've drunk TAB and thought it was good (in a disgusting kind of way).

Coke gets its distinctive taste from sugar and caramel..or at least thats what I taste when I drink it, and so far there is no way to reproduce that in artificial form. But at least they finally seem to have improved the diet sodas from when they were using saccharin, which gave it a unique taste.

Hell I'm waiting for them to bring back NEW COKE....only now it would be RETRO NEW COKE....

[dmaul1114]

Yeah, liquid calories are terrible for you, especially when full of sugar.

I generally have at most one diet soda a day, no calories or sugar but all the artificial sweetener just can't be good for you in large amounts. Plus I get enough liquid calories from my love of good beer. :D

[JolietJake]

The artificial sweeteners in diet drinks still kinda make me wary of drinking them. That stuff has had bad effects in test animals, large amounts can't be good for humans either i would think. Sugar may not be good for you, but i'm not too worried about getting a brain tumor form it either.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I finally caught up to this thread. It was funny to watch it go off the rails.

Depending on where you think this country will be in a year, these kinds of threads could be quaint.

If we get to the point of food riots, will the government continue prop up people who can't take care of themselves by printing money, consolidate its power to crush us all or realize it can't tax 1/2 of the country so that the other 1/2 of the country can live on WIC handouts, Ponzi schemes and no bid contracts?

[Paco]

I finally caught up to this thread. It was funny to watch it go off the rails.

Depending on where you think this country will be in a year, these kinds of threads could be quaint.

If we get to the point of food riots, will the government continue prop up people who can't take care of themselves by printing money, consolidate its power to crush us all or realize it can't tax 1/2 of the country so that the other 1/2 of the country can live on WIC handouts, Ponzi schemes and no bid contracts?

Come on. No need for bullshit here. Be honest. Tell who these people are. TELL THEM. TELL THEM DAMN IT. These people are

SINGLE MOTHERS.

The biggest leech in society.