Forums | MacLife

matt wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

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 ?

How many people eat unhealthy food at some point in their lives or even somewhat-frequently and still don't affect society negatively by doing so?

A triathlete who eats a triple cheeseburger isn't going to cost society anything.

JakeTheTall wrote:

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

Motorcycle helmet laws shouldn't be requirements.

Seat belt laws protect other people by preventing car occupants from becoming projectiles and thus prevent their windshields from becoming glass projectiles.

Please link to some information about people being hurt by human "projectiles" in a car accident. I could use the laugh,

I'd prefer that food not be taxed according to perceived nutritional value-- grocery shopping is complicated enough as it is.

JakeTheTall wrote:

I dunno, I was kinda just being the devil's advocate, but when half the American population has Type II Diabetes in 20 years, maybe sin taxes will seem like a better idea.

Diabetes is genetic, not a result of your lifestyle. Eating less healthy only makes it show up earlier; it doesn't cause it.

You gonna tax our genes?

JakeTheTall wrote:

user wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

I dunno, I was kinda just being the devil's advocate, but when half the American population has Type II Diabetes in 20 years, maybe sin taxes will seem like a better idea.

Diabetes is genetic, not a result of your lifestyle. Eating less healthy only makes it show up earlier; it doesn't cause it.

You gonna tax our genes?

Type II diabetes ?  My understanding is that being overweight and/or obese is a huge factor.

'Type II diabetes can largely be prevented through proper nutrition and regular exercise. A 2006 report by Harvard Medical School noted that "90% of cases of diabetes could be prevented with a healthy diet and lifestyle, including exercise." '

Like I said, obesity doesn't cause it, it makes it show up earlier. The prevention that they are talking about is the earlier onset.

Farmerkev wrote:

zoees wrote:

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.

I seriously doubt that.
Pot would go to nothing because of the supply.

Right at the moment and in the near foreseeable future they could.

user wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

user wrote:

Diabetes is genetic, not a result of your lifestyle. Eating less healthy only makes it show up earlier; it doesn't cause it.

You gonna tax our genes?

Type II diabetes ?  My understanding is that being overweight and/or obese is a huge factor.

'Type II diabetes can largely be prevented through proper nutrition and regular exercise. A 2006 report by Harvard Medical School noted that "90% of cases of diabetes could be prevented with a healthy diet and lifestyle, including exercise." '

Like I said, obesity doesn't cause it, it makes it show up earlier. The prevention that they are talking about is the earlier onset.

Regardless, dramatically accelerating the onset of Type II diabetes because of diet will have a significant impact on health care costs.  And overeating is the agent for that dramatic acceleration.

That's in addition to the many other disorders, where being obese is a weighty risk factor of.

user wrote:

What's the street value of an oz of tobacco? It'll be a little more than that because of the effects. Branding and other developments to differentiate the various blends will add more to the price.

Like anything else, depends on quality.
I pay $22 a pound.

StaticAge wrote:

Regardless, his point was that its genetic, therefore, unless half of the American population has a specific gene set, its not going to be that way. And that is besides the point he made asking whether it is ethical to tax based on genes.

I'm not familiar with the details of Type II diabetes occurrences.  I still have a foggy idea that I read that ANYONE who is obese runs a risk of Type II diabetes.

But I've always understood that Type II diabetes is mostly a result of unhealthy personal behavior.  Genes or not, for most, it isn't an issue until they're unhealthily overweight.

Again, my point isn't Type II diabetes, its that being overweight dramatically increases the chances of many medical conditions.

matt wrote:

Such a tax would be passed on to consumers. Regardless of the intent of the tax, that is the end result.

Making eaters more knowledgeable about what they might be eating is more likely to influence them to choose healthier food than charging food corporations taxes is to make eaters choose healthier food.

The idea is that that healthier food would become more profitable for food corporations to distribute.  As it is now, junk food is far more affordable and accessible than healthy food.

Now, I'm all in favor of what you're suggesting, but truth is, I've been seeing this all my life and it hasn't made any difference.  It operates on the principle that given the opportunity to make good choices, most people will spend the extra effort to do so.  I find no anthropological evidence for this.  Then again, I live in California where people are relatively healthy...maybe its because we do promote health here and it works.  It could be I just can't conceive people not having this information.

Rice is still very affordable.
There are entire countries where rice is the biggest staple, yet the people are not fat.
Beans are still very affordable.
Etc.

You can eat healthy and on a low budget.

Obesity IMHO is largely caused by corn syrup, particularly in soda pop and other things.
Drink water.

resedit wrote:

Rice is still very affordable.
There are entire countries where rice is the biggest staple, yet the people are not fat.
Beans are still very affordable.
Etc.

You can eat healthy and on a low budget.

Obesity IMHO is largely caused by corn syrup, particularly in soda pop and other things.
Drink water.

with the high price of corn maybe some of the soda companies will switch to plain sugar.

Steyr AUG wrote:

... like this family right here:

A generation ago, the livelihood of Gloria Nunez's family was built on cars.

Her father worked at General Motors for 45 years before retiring. Her mother taught driver's education. Nunez and her six siblings grew up middle class.

Things have changed considerably for this Ohio family.

....
The rising cost of food means their money gets them about a third fewer bags of groceries — $100 used to buy about 12 bags of groceries, but now it's more like seven or eight. So they cut back on expensive items like meat, and they don't buy extras like ice cream anymore. Instead, they eat a lot of starches like potatoes and noodles.

Its really hard to sit around from a decent economical position and speculate on the hardships others struggling to survive are going through. Some times you just have to see it to believe it. From the article it seems like every day is a conflict to stay afloat in todays world. 

The article states some of what this family has done to improve their position in life, but clearly it simply isnt enough. What should be done to help this family return to a lifestyle that they were formerly accustomed to? What government programs should be created to assist them with their troubles?

None. There are plenty of programs and re-education programs out there.


::: Insert qoute from Scrooge "Aren't there poor houses?" :::

Ask Bush and company. They have done their damnedest to make certain that they eviscerated the social welfare programs. More important things to do with that money.