Of Tea Party folks and Racial Slurs...

[quote name='SpazX']You're the one complaining about freedom. Taxing something rather than banning it lets people make their own decision while building the costs of that decision (some at least) into the price.[/QUOTE]

So you think the government should decide what is and is not good for us? Would you be for a 20% tax on video games, because the government thinks they decrease the productivity of people which leads to obesity because people arent getting outdoors?
 
[quote name='Knoell']So you think the government should decide what is and is not good for us?[/quote]

If by "the government should decide what is and is not good for us" you mean "perhaps put a tax on soda" then yes.

[quote name='Knoell']Would you be for a 20% tax on video games, because the government thinks they decrease the productivity of people which leads to obesity because people arent getting outdoors?[/QUOTE]

I guess the Wii would be excluded?
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Maybe it would be easier to ask Knoell what he thinks is ok to tax. That list may be the shorter of the two.[/QUOTE]

Can't speak for Knoell, but is it a crazy idea to suggest taxing things equally?

On one hand, we talk about making, say, smokers or fatties, pay their "fair" costs associated with their vices.

On the other hand, we rally against health insurance companies that make individuals with higher chances of HealthFactorX pay more.

What's the difference between the Federal government making Joe Smoker pay $5/Pack more or Joe's Insurance company making him pay $1,825/year more?
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Why are we acting like soda is some sort of dietary staple that families must have?[/QUOTE]

To put it in internet....

Knoell and his ideological fellow travelers are all like "magnets, how do they work?". We try to explain how but they are all like "fucking magic".
 
[quote name='UncleBob']What's the difference between the Federal government making Joe Smoker pay $5/Pack more or Joe's Insurance company making him pay $1,825/year more?[/QUOTE]

I can quit smoking and stop paying the tax. Good luck convincing a insurance company that you quit.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I can quit smoking and stop paying the tax. Good luck convincing a insurance company that you quit.[/QUOTE]

Some (no exact data on hand) insurance companies will give you a discount if you stop smoking. As for the criteria to prove you stopped smoking - I don't know what that is, as I've never been dumb enough to smoke, so I've never had to look into quitting.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Some (no exact data on hand) insurance companies will give you a discount if you stop smoking. As for the criteria to prove you stopped smoking - I don't know what that is, as I've never been dumb enough to smoke, so I've never had to look into quitting.[/QUOTE]

My benefits at my work offer me a $100 dollars a year to apply to my benefits if I commit to a no smoking contract. Of course they will never know if I do, but I dont smoke so I dont have a morality issue.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Maybe it would be easier to ask Knoell what he thinks is ok to tax. That list may be the shorter of the two.[/QUOTE]

maybe we should tax everything to stop people from buying anything unhealthy for them.

Show me a study that says HFCS is the sole cause of obesity and I will relent my stance.

Im not complaining about the god damn 8.75% sales tax in NY, but to put an additional tax burden on particular products is absolutely ridiculous. Not to mention its only the beginning with these taxes.

Heres an example:
http://pittsburgh.about.com/b/2007/08/27/the.htm

It just starts with one little tax, just to solve a problem. Don't worry it wont hurt anyone we just want to help these unfortunate people. More than 70 years later the tax is still taxing at a higher rate and goes into a slush fund for the PA congress instead of funding the initial reason for the tax in the first place.

We are seeing this happen with our social security fund as well, turning our investment for our retirement into some sort of fund that they can extract money from when they really need it.
 
[quote name='SpazX']If by "the government should decide what is and is not good for us" you mean "perhaps put a tax on soda" then yes.



I guess the Wii would be excluded?[/QUOTE]

So you think the government should decide what is and is not good for us? Would you be for a 20% tax on video games, because the government thinks they decrease the productivity of people which leads to obesity because people arent getting outdoors?

Would you support this tax or not? It is putting an additional tax burden on video games which some studies have concluded make people obese because they dont move around as much. The only people who would suffer are the people who buy more games. Not so bad right?
 
[quote name='Msut77']To put it in internet....

Knoell and his ideological fellow travelers are all like "magnets, how do they work?". We try to explain how but they are all like "fucking magic".[/QUOTE]
They must really be freaked out by that angry hill in Iceland.
 
[quote name='Knoell']So you think the government should decide what is and is not good for us? Would you be for a 20% tax on video games, because the government thinks they decrease the productivity of people which leads to obesity because people arent getting outdoors?

Would you support this tax or not? It is putting an additional tax burden on video games which some studies have concluded make people obese because they dont move around as much. The only people who would suffer are the people who buy more games. Not so bad right?[/QUOTE]

White we're at it lets throw a 20% tax on DVDs/Blu-ray Discs as well, because sitting on your ass and watching a movie for 2+ hours is a recipe for gaining weight! Not to mention, all that plastic is destroying the environment... I'm sure the gov't will put the money to good use!

Some people are so short-sighted they only wake up when things affect them personally.
 
[quote name='Knoell']maybe we should tax everything to stop people from buying anything unhealthy for them.

Show me a study that says HFCS is the sole cause of obesity and I will relent my stance.

Im not complaining about the god damn 8.75% sales tax in NY, but to put an additional tax burden on particular products is absolutely ridiculous. Not to mention its only the beginning with these taxes.

Heres an example:
http://pittsburgh.about.com/b/2007/08/27/the.htm

It just starts with one little tax, just to solve a problem. Don't worry it wont hurt anyone we just want to help these unfortunate people. More than 70 years later the tax is still taxing at a higher rate and goes into a slush fund for the PA congress instead of funding the initial reason for the tax in the first place.

We are seeing this happen with our social security fund as well, turning our investment for our retirement into some sort of fund that they can extract money from when they really need it.[/QUOTE]
I was seriously asking you what is ok to tax. Because from what i can tell you're just against taxing anything basically.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I was seriously asking you what is ok to tax. Because from what i can tell you're just against taxing anything basically.[/QUOTE]

There is already state sales tax and hefty federal/state income taxes, why do we need more taxes on specific products, be it junk food or plastic bags? Here's an idea, the government should spend less instead. When they are spending millions of dollars on turtle tunnels under highways, it is obvious they are already pissing our tax dollars away.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Slippery slopes, y'all. Really impressive debate style.[/QUOTE]

It is. I'm forfeiting to Knoell simply because he thinks corporate welfare is good.

I get why some people don't want to be taxed extra for bad food and drink, but I don't get why those same people want me to keep their bad food and drink cheap through my tax dollars.

These people are simply one step removed from food stamps.
 
I agree. So we should end the corn subsidies that result in what is a de facto government-subsidized soda industry.

So we don't need to raise taxes, we need to eliminate spending on farm subsidies that will have the same effect in raising the price we pay on soda as Bloomberg's 18% soda tax. Rather, the reality is that it will shift the entire cost of a can of soda onto people who buy soda. I like that idea, and we don't have to "tax" at all - just cut spending.

You should be doing cartwheels over such a suggestion, Ruined.
 
[quote name='Ruined']There is already state sales tax and hefty federal/state income taxes, why do we need more taxes on specific products, be it junk food or plastic bags? Here's an idea, the government should spend less instead. When they are spending millions of dollars on turtle tunnels under highways, it is obvious they are already pissing our tax dollars away.[/QUOTE]

You're right. Let's have the government spend less on food subsidies. Can you agree to that?
 
[quote name='Knoell']So you think the government should decide what is and is not good for us? Would you be for a 20% tax on video games, because the government thinks they decrease the productivity of people which leads to obesity because people arent getting outdoors?

Would you support this tax or not? It is putting an additional tax burden on video games which some studies have concluded make people obese because they dont move around as much. The only people who would suffer are the people who buy more games. Not so bad right?[/QUOTE]

Gaining weight is a factor of calories in minus calories out. If you played video games all day for a week you wouldn't gain weight, you would lose it. If you drank soda all day for a week you could gain weight (a hell of a lot of it). Since soda is always empty calories and everything else I said before (ubiquity, cheapness, etc.), I think it makes more sense to tax soda rather than video games. So I would support taxes on soda and similar items before video games.
 
It's interesting to me that the "slippery slope" is so negated here, but is held up as the honest truth in the immigration thread.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It's interesting to me that the "slippery slope" is so negated here, but is held up as the honest truth in the immigration thread.[/QUOTE]

How so?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It's interesting to me that the "slippery slope" is so negated here, but is held up as the honest truth in the immigration thread.[/QUOTE]

To wager a guess...

In the immigration thread, asking people for papers is fascism. Forcing people to have their papers on them at all times is the end of the slope.

Here, taxing a subsidized product isn't fascism. Don't get me wrong. It is just as retarded to tax a certain food product at a higher rate as it is to subsidize the manufacture of the same food product.
 
The AZ law requires people to have their alien documentation on them at all times. It says that in no uncertain terms. Not even someone so derelict in their literacy, like Bob, could overlook that. It's further evidence that he has not read the Bill, that's all.

1) Shut the fuck up, Bob.

2) The rest of you: stop quoting Bob, it means I have to see his insipid posts.
 
This is only sorta related, but...

My wife kept her green card on her at all times in her wallet. She did so because we thought that was the law (it is). She lost it 3 weeks ago in Vegas. We now have to pay $320 for the Federal Government to press a print button to get another one.

This AZ law thing all went down right after she lost it. After seeing how many people throw a massive fit about this law being enforced, and how much it has cost me to try and abide the law - I can gurantee that from now on my wife will NOT be carrying her green card with her at all times.

Besides, if anyone asks to see proof she's here legally, it's apparently discrimination, because she has an accent.
 
[quote name='Ruined']There is already state sales tax and hefty federal/state income taxes, why do we need more taxes on specific products, be it junk food or plastic bags? Here's an idea, the government should spend less instead. When they are spending millions of dollars on turtle tunnels under highways, it is obvious they are already pissing our tax dollars away.[/QUOTE]
Please tell us what we should cut.

/sarcasm
 
Why should the government ever cut spending ?? They should just keep on spending as much as they want and worry about the consequences later.

I mean it's worked out brilliantly well for Greece....and Spain and Portugal.

Mind you that's only a problem in Europe isn't it? I mean the same thing could never happen in the US right ?
 
I'm not concerned with the idea of cutting spending, rather what some of you probably believe should be cut. Aside from the two wars we're currently fighting, there doesn't seem to be much agreement on what should be cut.
 
Ben, the entire economy of Greece is (or was) equal to the state of Connecticut.

We also happen to be in control of our own monetary policy.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Ben, the entire economy of Greece is (or was) equal to the state of Connecticut.

We also happen to be in control of our own monetary policy.[/QUOTE]

I'm being facetious of course, I don't really think America is going down the same route as Greece.

It's just that sometimes it seems some people think huge amounts of government spending has no consequence.

I guess there are a few people in Europe seeing their great socialist dream crumble before their eyes.
 
It's just that sometimes it seems some people think huge amounts of government spending has no consequence.
Click to expand...

"You know, Reagan proved deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney

I guess there are a few people in Europe seeing their great socialist dream crumble before their eyes.
Click to expand...

Greece is having problems because they attempted American financial alchemy, Spain had a real estate bubble that popped.

It wasn't exactly a side effect of having excellent, cheaper healthcare.
 
It's easier to use the catch all "that's socialism for you." How many of you even think about the differences between "socialism" between different countries? Or differences between North Korean communism and Chinese communism?

The same is true for capitalism too.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
2) The rest of you: stop quoting Bob, it means I have to see his insipid posts.[/QUOTE]

Amen. And add Knoell to that.

I barely read this forum any more as it's just people arguing with those two over and over lately.
 
[quote name='Msut77']
Greece is having problems because they attempted American financial alchemy[/QUOTE]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, but from what I understand when the switched from their own currency to the Euro it became much easier for the government to borrow money, so they did. They spent huge amounts on things like the Olympics and with little to no growth in their economy they're struggling to pay it back.

So the other European countries who are part of the Euro will now have to bail them out, because they can't afford for the Euro to collapse. Meanwhile back in Greece, the prospect of only getting paid for 12 months work instead of 14 (bonus pay equating to 2 months worth) causes the entire civil service to go on strike and three people to be killed, including a pregnant woman, in the resulting violence.

That's socialism for you, I guess ?
 
[quote name='benjamouth']I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, but from what I understand when the switched from their own currency to the Euro it became much easier for the government to borrow money, so they did. They spent huge amounts on things like the Olympics and with little to no growth in their economy they're struggling to pay it back.[/quote]
Goldman Sachs sold the Greek government swaps as a way to handle its debt load. Obviously caveat emptor, but seeing as how Goldman's own people are testifying to Congress that they have no idea what the fuck they were actually selling, it would stand to reason Greece didn't either and took Goldman at their word that it would be financially beneficial.

I don't mean to let Greece off the hook though. They were shopping for a way to get stuff off balance sheet, which is essentially what Enron, Bear Sterns, etc. did.
That's socialism for you, I guess ?
Click to expand...
Brought to you by i-bankers, the living embodiment of the gods of free markets.
 
fatherofcaitlyn, how is the immigration policy fascism? Illegals were already forced to have their papers on them at all time, the only thing now is that the police can ask them for them ONLY IF THEY ARE BEING INVESTIGATED FOR ANOTHER VIOLATION. And before you say "well the racist cops will have a field day", Wouldn't those racist cops of been hassling hispanics before the law? Do you honestly think they were waiting for this law to pass to be racist?

Ok so we got one no on the 20% tax on video games. Anyone else care to make up excuses why what you buy shouldnt be taxed?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Ok so we got one no on the 20% tax on video games. Anyone else care to make up excuses why what you buy shouldnt be taxed?[/QUOTE]

I buy soda.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Would you support a 20% tax on video games?[/QUOTE]

I already explained why I thought that soda and video games are, in fact, two different things. Then you responded by saying "Anyone else care to make up excuses why what you buy shouldnt be taxed?" so now I just said that I buy soda, so I'm saying something I buy should be taxed. I've also already explained many posts back how I actually already do pay more taxes on soda than on other food/beverages since in PA there's no sales tax on food (groceries anyway), but there is on soda.

Do you have any specific response to what I said were the differences between taxing something like soda and taxing video games?
 
[quote name='SpazX']Gaining weight is a factor of calories in minus calories out. If you played video games all day for a week you wouldn't gain weight, you would lose it. If you drank soda all day for a week you could gain weight (a hell of a lot of it). Since soda is always empty calories and everything else I said before (ubiquity, cheapness, etc.), I think it makes more sense to tax soda rather than video games. So I would support taxes on soda and similar items before video games.[/QUOTE]

Show me this new scientific diet that sitting on the couch all day every day for a week makes you lose weight healthily. Alot of diet seekers would be very interested. I drank 72oz of mountain dew everyday for 10 years and I didnt gain any weight.

The studies out there saying the HFCS is bad for you and can be related to obesity, are the same studies that say inactivity (sitting in front of the tv) is related to obesity as well.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Show me this new scientific diet that sitting on the couch all day every day for a week makes you lose weight healthily. Alot of diet seekers would be very interested. I drank 72oz of mountain dew everyday for 10 years and I didnt gain any weight.

The studies out there saying the HFCS is bad for you and can be related to obesity, are the same studies that say inactivity (sitting in front of the tv) is related to obesity as well.[/QUOTE]

I already said - weight gain is calories in vs calories out. You can gain weight by being inactive only because you're consuming more calories than you're using. If not then you would sustain your weight or lose it. If you sat on a couch playing video games for a week and didn't eat anything you'd lose weight. And it isn't inherently different from any sitting activity - watching movies, TV, fishing, etc. You could be outdoors fishing and be doing the exact same thing as being indoors playing video games. Both would lead to weight gain if you consumed more calories than you used.

Soda, however, is inherently unhealthy (not just the weight gain from the calories, but the diabetes from the massive amounts of sugar). And like cigarettes, of course, some people will use this unhealthy thing their whole lives and have no real negative consequences to them personally.
 
[quote name='Knoell']fatherofcaitlyn, how is the immigration policy fascism? Illegals were already forced to have their papers on them at all time, the only thing now is that the police can ask them for them ONLY IF THEY ARE BEING INVESTIGATED FOR ANOTHER VIOLATION. And before you say "well the racist cops will have a field day", Wouldn't those racist cops of been hassling hispanics before the law? Do you honestly think they were waiting for this law to pass to be racist?

Ok so we got one no on the 20% tax on video games. Anyone else care to make up excuses why what you buy shouldnt be taxed?[/QUOTE]

There should be a presumption of innocence in this country. It is unknown by outside appearance most of the time if somebody is a citizen, an immigrant or an illegal. (BTW, illegals don't have papers. Otherwise, they wouldn't be illegals.)

Regarding this law, you've had lawful contact explained to you multiple times. So, you know it doesn't require a violation of the law to be visible to the cop to force the showing of papers.

Regarding the tax this or tax that, how about we stop subsidizing these products and sign you up for food stamps so you don't have to pay full price?

As far as tax rates on products, let's stop their subsidization first and gauge that effect. If the effect needs to be increased, we can slowly start raising taxes.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The AZ law requires people to have their alien documentation on them at all times. It says that in no uncertain terms. Not even someone so derelict in their literacy, like Bob, could overlook that. It's further evidence that he has not read the Bill, that's all.

1) Shut the fuck up, Bob.

2) The rest of you: stop quoting Bob, it means I have to see his insipid posts.[/QUOTE]

A.) Federal law already requires that same thing.
B.) Take the biggest stick you can find and shove it up your anal cavity sideways.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']A.) Federal law already requires that same thing.
B.) Take the biggest stick you can find and shove it up your anal cavity sideways.[/QUOTE]

That was for you myke.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I already said - weight gain is calories in vs calories out. You can gain weight by being inactive only because you're consuming more calories than you're using. If not then you would sustain your weight or lose it. If you sat on a couch playing video games for a week and didn't eat anything you'd lose weight. And it isn't inherently different from any sitting activity - watching movies, TV, fishing, etc. You could be outdoors fishing and be doing the exact same thing as being indoors playing video games. Both would lead to weight gain if you consumed more calories than you used.

Soda, however, is inherently unhealthy (not just the weight gain from the calories, but the diabetes from the massive amounts of sugar). And like cigarettes, of course, some people will use this unhealthy thing their whole lives and have no real negative consequences to them personally.[/QUOTE]

I don't even know what to say, this may be the definition of hypocrisy.

You do realize getting outdoors and moving around burns calories right? So why couldnt the government put a tax on video games to get people to move around and burn some calories?

This is the same situation as sugary drinks (juice too not just pop). The government would come in and say "hey studies were done, and we think that video games are making people not move around, and they arent burning calories, which is contributing to obesity, so we are going to put a 20% tax on that to help raise money against obesity, and maybe then people will think twice about sitting on the couch all day."

It is the same god damn situation, and it is ridiculous that the government is starting to think that they can socially engineer us into what they consider is the right way to be.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I don't even know what to say, this may be the definition of hypocrisy.

You do realize getting outdoors and moving around burns calories right? So why couldnt the government put a tax on video games to get people to move around and burn some calories?[/quote]

You should probably look up hypocrisy (did you look up arbitrary? That was you right?)

Depends on what you're doing outside, like I said, there are many things you can do that don't burn calories, but the key is that they don't add calories either. And moving around inside and outside burn essentially the same amount of calories (modified by temperature mainly).

[quote name='Knoell']This is the same situation as sugary drinks (juice too not just pop). The government would come in and say "hey studies were done, and we think that video games are making people not move around, and they arent burning calories, which is contributing to obesity, so we are going to put a 20% tax on that to help raise money against obesity, and maybe then people will think twice about sitting on the couch all day."

It is the same god damn situation, and it is ridiculous that the government is starting to think that they can socially engineer us into what they consider is the right way to be.[/QUOTE]

Socially engineer! Drink!

You didn't even read what I said before, did you? I never mentioned any studies, I made the distinction that soda actually adds calories, playing video games (or other sedentary activities) does not. They don't burn calories, but they don't add them, they're essentially neutral. Whereas drinking soda is inherently unhealthy, playing video games, etc. is not. It makes more sense to tax soda.

I don't care if it's only soda either, you could tax everything with X amount or X percent of sugar or whatever, same difference, it would still make more sense than taxing some specific sedentary activity.
 
[quote name='SpazX']You should probably look up hypocrisy (did you look up arbitrary? That was you right?)

Depends on what you're doing outside, like I said, there are many things you can do that don't burn calories, but the key is that they don't add calories either. And moving around inside and outside burn essentially the same amount of calories (modified by temperature mainly).



Socially engineer! Drink!

You didn't even read what I said before, did you? I never mentioned any studies, I made the distinction that soda actually adds calories, playing video games (or other sedentary activities) does not. They don't burn calories, but they don't add them, they're essentially neutral. Whereas drinking soda is inherently unhealthy, playing video games, etc. is not. It makes more sense to tax soda.

I don't care if it's only soda either, you could tax everything with X amount or X percent of sugar or whatever, same difference, it would still make more sense than taxing some specific sedentary activity.[/QUOTE]

sitting around doing nothing is not neutral lol. You can sit around all day long with no exercise, but eat a healthy diet and still gain weight. Just like the opposite is true where you can have too many calories and exercise regularly and still gain weight.
 
[quote name='Knoell']It is the same god damn situation, and it is ridiculous that the government is starting to think that they can socially engineer us into what they consider is the right way to be.[/QUOTE]
Sin taxes ain't new.
 
[quote name='Knoell']sitting around doing nothing is not neutral lol. You can sit around all day long with no exercise, but eat a healthy diet and still gain weight. Just like the opposite is true where you can have too many calories and exercise regularly and still gain weight.[/QUOTE]

Playing a video game is not inherently unhealthy. A soda is. Have you read that part of what I've said yet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top