Forums | MacLife

matt wrote:

Metacell wrote:

I've got the government program: a fat tax on all junk foods products, similar to those on tobacco and alcohol.  All revenues going to fund socialized medicine.  Oh my god, it would pay for itself overnight!

What is considered "junk food"?

I was thinking anything where the calories-to-useful nutrition ratio is considered unhealthy by nutritionists.  I agree that fat itself is not the problem.  I don't think raw commodities should be taxed either...only sold consumer food products (including restaurant dishes).  If people want to make their own bad food, let them, but put the squeeze on the market drug pushers. Anyway, thats in my perfect world where people do things based on reason.

Hmmm...instead of taxing the purchaser, why not save time and tax the distributor?

I don't think adding taxes to food will solve any problems. Adding cost to food prices seems like a bad idea. It seems like it would be a very regressive tax.

Instead I would work to promote good eating habits. Instead of "servings", I would mandate a change in the nutrition facts labels on food. Instead of "serving sizes" which can be misleading(Who has ever eaten five potato chips?), I think nutrition facts should list the nutritional value of the entire contents of the container, and let users do the division themselves. Seeing that a package contains 4000 calories and 700% of one's daily recommended fat intake might be more convincing than seeing that a two cracker "serving" contains 100 calories and 17.5 percent of one's daily recommended fat intake. There should also be a website where people can go to get advice about how any food might fit into their diet(nutrition.gov, maybe?).

Such site could be very specific about each user's own respective requirements, and could explain how many calories would be needed each day to maintain weight, lose weight or gain weight, and should have a calculator to tell how much weight one could expect to gain or lose if they ate certain amounts of calories. A good example of such a site would be this one, which if you put in your weight, height, gender and general activity levels, gives users good estimates of such numbers.

It should also be made clear that having some fat content makes food more filling, causing people to eat less. It should be made clear that some common foods like pasta and juice contain a lot more calories than one might expect. Pasta contains so many calories that it should probably rarely be eaten. Many types of crackers have more fat and calories than chips.

That's exactly the type of thing I was referring to.

And lose out on their subsidized house? Pfft, yeah right.

Steyr AUG wrote:

mm indeed. Like the intellectual dishonesty of asserting that I said anything about the story making those claims

So why choose a story that isn't about people "going hungry" to suggest that "Americans" are going hungry (or that someone is claiming they are)?  Just can't pass up the opportunity to make a 'fat joke?'

How unfortunate for us that you don't start threads more often!

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

Step 1: Absurdly framed, exaggerated story.
Step 2: Read about said story on a conservative / fascist blog

Isn't this story a fine example of NPR reporting?

What's wrong with the story?

I don't think there is anything wrong with the story.
I was just quoting someone who claimed it was absurdly framed and exaggerated.

The story is fine - some fat people have to cut back on their ice cream because of tough times.

resedit wrote:

Sin taxes in general are a totalitarian abuse.
They are an attempt to strong arm a population towards a particular lifestyle.

I agree.

The point of the sin tax on my totalitarian health farm would be not to increase the cost of food, but to make food producers devote their efforts to producing healthier food so they wouldn't have to pay the tax.  A big hurdle for eaters is there's just too much of this junk being pushed on you everywhere you go in this country.

resedit wrote:

Sin taxes in general are a totalitarian abuse.
They are an attempt to strong arm a population towards a particular lifestyle.

Not when people's "sins" affect society negatively.  How many smokers get government-funded health care at some point ?  How many drinkers and gamblers have negative effects on their lives and their families lives ?

Are motorcycle helmet laws and vehicle seat-belt laws also a totalitarian abuse ?

A couple of free buckets, some soil from down at the river and 200$ in lights. Then they could subsidize all of their needs- tax free.

Thank you America for being so smurfing stupid.

bratboy wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

I don't care who published this story, but having a picture of morbidly obese people with quotes from them in a story about how they "can't afford food" is absurd.

It says that they "cut back" on "expensive" items and "extras."  Nowhere is the assertion that they're going hungry.

Its still a slow softball pitch to any smug misanthrope with an inferiority complex.

I was remiss in not posting this sooner:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYyBZE0kBtE