GibbsFactor Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 And this is why I voted Ron Paul. Our government and citizens are out of control and won't be happy until 90% of our earnings are taxed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 would this include diet soda or just regular soda? if they are going to tax things that are unhealthy, wouldn't that just leave us with water? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Doesn't it make more sense to tax items and activities which lead to rising health care costs? No. It doesn't. Because there will always be something around the corner that will be determined to be "bad" for you. also, as i stated previously, there will be deminised returns. And they will base their budgets on $x from the new tax. but when they don't get $x, they get less, they'll have to make up that difference somewhere. And it won't be in the form of cutting gov't spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 would this include diet soda or just regular soda? if they are going to tax things that are unhealthy, wouldn't that just leave us with water? would Iced Tea be considered bad as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Don't tax, but develop a test for soft drink consumption and deny healthcare to anyone who is overweight and tests positive for sugar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 stupid......stupid......stupid!! Let's not forget that universal health care is stupid idea by itself, but to than pay for it by doing this :doh: Once again, obama is solidifying his one and done status! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armstrong001 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Sorry, I thought it was clear my comments were preceded by 'If/once universal health care happens'. Then, everyone's cost and care is everyone else's. That is why you are "responsible" for his health -- if your neighbor is unhealthy, your taxes are higher. What made me responsible for his health? What did I do to be on the hook for anyone elses costs? How did this man, by virtue of being born, get the right to take money from me to pay for his lifestyle? No one is saying universal health care if a perfect system. Good. But nobody should be saying its a better system than what we have. But for the sake of this discussion, assume it happens and we do have to pay for it. Doesn't it make more sense to tax items and activities which lead to rising health care costs? It makes more sense to discourage certain things (NOT outright ban them, that is even more of an attack on civil liberties), then to raise income taxes. It makes more sense to let those people die that chose to make poor decisions. If my money is going towards other peoples health, I will not subsidize poor choices or outright stupidity. And I wouldn't demand the same from anyone else if I made those choices. The problem is going to be that they won't stop at sugar taxes. They'll increase other taxes as well. When everyone has "free" healthcare, they'll go to the doctor for every little thing. This will drive up costs. Then the government will decide what tests you can have done, what proceedures you can have done, in order to cut out those costs. I don't want the government making decisions for me regarding my health. And I don't want them paying for it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 would this include diet soda or just regular soda? if they are going to tax things that are unhealthy, wouldn't that just leave us with water? No. At least according to the article. Diet sodas would be exempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Since it is apparent we are setting up some sort of universal health care system, it will need funds (deep sigh) I don't drink soda at all. But the person in the cube next to me drinks 10 a day. I don't want to have to pay for her healthcare when she is a 55 year old diabetic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 would this include diet soda or just regular soda? if they are going to tax things that are unhealthy, wouldn't that just leave us with water? from the OP Among the proposals, as Consumer Affairs reports: A three-cent tax on sodas as well as other sugary drinks, including energy and sports drinks like Gatorade. Diet sodas would be exempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 I don't drink soda at all. But the person in the cube next to me drinks 10 a day. I don't want to have to pay for her healthcare when she is a 55 year old diabetic And who's to say she will be a diabetic? Why not just impose an extra tax on those who are already fat and out of shape and have a multitude of health issues instead of punishing everyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 would this include diet soda or just regular soda? if they are going to tax things that are unhealthy, wouldn't that just leave us with water? The OP said diet was exempt Water?...fish **** in that,it can't be too healthy:rubeyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armstrong001 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 No. It doesn't. Because there will always be something around the corner that will be determined to be "bad" for you. And what about things like eggs and coffee, which alternate between "good" and "bad" constantly? Will they take taxes off "bad" things when it is determined that they are now good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Will they take taxes off "bad" things when it is determined that they are now good? hahaha. yeah right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 from the OP wait wait wait. So they are saying drinking diet is better? There is more or equally as bad **** in diet. Does aspartame ring a bell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 No. At least according to the article. Diet sodas would be exempt. Oops missed that part. But where would they draw the line on texing "unhealthy" foods? Becuase according to most, just about everything except water, fish, chicken, fruits, and vegetables is unhealthy for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Oops missed that part. But where would they draw the line on texing "unhealthy" foods? Becuase according to most, just about everything except water, fish, chicken, fruits, and vegetables is unhealthy for you. fish contains mercury. fruits and vegetables, unless organic, probably have pesticide in/on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 fish contains mercury. fruits and vegetables, unless organic, probably have pesticide in/on them. lol my point! the only "healthy" thing is water, so tex everything else too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armstrong001 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Oops missed that part. But where would they draw the line on texing "unhealthy" foods? Becuase according to most, just about everything except water, fish, chicken, fruits, and vegetables is unhealthy for you. Fish has mercury. Chicken has salmonella. Stick with tofu. ETA: Damn, beaten to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Fish has mercury. Chicken has salmonella. Stick with tofu. Tofu has no taste and looks like an eraser lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Oops missed that part. But where would they draw the line on texing "unhealthy" foods? Becuase according to most, just about everything except water, fish, chicken, fruits, and vegetables is unhealthy for you. Exactly. For example. When I was a personal trainer,I had people come to me and ask about their diet. What they needed to change or get rid of. I always did the same thing. I told them to spend a day or two writing down everything they ate and drank. The answers would be provided to them by what they wrote down. Answer their own question kind of thing. They'd come come in and we'd review but usually the changes were obvious. It was never just one thing. It was several things. Many times,a lot of things. And it wasn't just the diet. Lifestyle and genetics played parts as well. And still do. Irony. Back in 93 or 94,this state decided to start charging sales tax on all gym/health club memberships. Forcing owners and/or managers of those places,(such as myself at the time),to raise the prices on something that could or would assist people in getting healthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mspeake Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 lol my point! the only "healthy" thing is water, so tex everything else too! That "healthy water" better not come in a plastic bottle, if so we should tax it as well. Recycling is pretty expensive too, you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 And who's to say she will be a diabetic? Why not just impose an extra tax on those who are already fat and out of shape and have a multitude of health issues instead of punishing everyone? Because enacting a tax on soda is politically expedient, and easily implemented (in law, and in industry). Whereas, a "you're a fat blob" tax would not be politically expedient, and would be a gi-normous pain in the flab to implement. Excise taxes are well-understood, and already have a track history with alcohol, tobacco, and gasoline. Inventing a taxation system which gauges potential health care costs based on the individual would be... challenging, to say the least. My take: no excise tax, and no universal healthcare. But that's the libertarian tendencies in me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 I think we should tax healthy food since the rich people seem to be able to afford it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Irony. Back in 93 or 94,this state decided to start charging sales tax on all gym/health club memberships. Forcing owners and/or managers of those places,(such as myself at the time),to raise the prices on something that could or would assist people in getting healthy. Hahaha go figure. Tax things that are "unhealthy" so people don't buy them anymore. Tax things that are "healthy" so we get money still since people won't buy things that are bad for them anymore...now I get it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.