 |
|  |
 |
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001 time: 13:28
|
|
ASSOCIATED PRESS
ALBANY, N.Y. — A proposal to tax junk food, video games and television commercials to pay for an obesity prevention program faces stiff opposition from politicians and business groups.
Chances of the proposal passing before legislators go home for the summer June 19 looked slim after a spokesman for Republican Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno said he would not support the tax.
The one per cent tax hike floated by Assemblyman Felix Ortiz would apply to junk food, video games and television commercials, which Ortiz blames on New York's growing obesity problem. Ortiz, a Brooklyn Democrat, did not rule out proposing tax increases on other things that he believed contribute to obesity.
Some health experts contend people who regularly consume soft drinks and fast food and those who constantly watch TV and play video games instead of exercising are at risk of becoming severely overweight.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ol=968705899037
Givne the cost that obesity creates for society, this might be a good idea.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
holy retarded batman. u know instead of telling ppl u think something is wrong. we really should just tax it. there should be a murder tax. we dont like ppl driving big cars, lets tax gas. we dont like ppl smoking lets tax cigarettes. if u get too carried away the xtians are just gna pass a gay tax. and then yall will have been bit in ur own ass.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kaak
|
|
quote: we dont like ppl driving big cars, lets tax gas. we dont like ppl smoking lets tax cigarettes |
ummm...gas already gets a hefty tax (upwards of 40 cents a gallon), and cigarettes are taxed even more....
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The American gas tax is very, very low compared to most countries, especially in Europe. I am totally in favor of taxing gas much, much more.
If the government wants to tax unhealthy foods more, I don't have an ethical problem with it, but I wonder if it won't make the price of healthy foods go up as well, which would mean the poor would be screwed at both ends. |
Couldn´t it also have the opposite effect in the end,
prices of healthy food going down,
because of higher demand
(which leads to more healthy food being produced)?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
taxing someone on a choice is absurd. if ur so upset that they are draining ur tax money cuz they ate steak then make them pay for their own heart bypass or let them suffer. the socialism in this thread is scary. we need some good ol libertarian cooking.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
The Templar
|
 |
People's Republic of the East Village
Oct 2001 time: 00:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Nah, you shouldnt tax fatty foods. Why tax someone on a choice which doesnt affect anyone else. If you dont want to be fat, dont eat that food. If you dont care, eat it. Dont restrict or make people pay more because you dont like it. |
Cute. Another libertarian that doesn't understand externalities. That is, two people engaging in an activity that imposes costs borne by a third party. Some examples
(1) Smoking in bars: imposes risks on patrons and especially employees. And don't give me that "find another job" bullshit - you can't expose people to carcenogens in the workplace without proper safeguards.
(2) Driving Cars: gives kids in urban areas asthma. Exposes me to particulate matter. Increases global warming. Drivers should have to pay a fee to represent these costs that they impose on everyone else.
(3) Fat People: huffing puffing wheezing bastards who need two seats on an airplane and three on the subway. They get heart attacks and then we get to pay in the form of higher insurance premiums - even in the private sector - so don't give me any nonsense about socialism.
The worst, of course, is some obese bastard sucking down Micky D's or, god forbid, White Castle, smoking a cigar, and while driving through the city with a faulty emissions control system.
By all means, make the burger eaters cover their eternalities!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
because costs for society exist is no reason to tax them templar. that is still a socialist value. which all stems from ur need to provide universal everything then u feel wronged by all these ppl not living the proper communist way so u decide to tax them in order to recoup some of that wrong.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
no. because u r broadly taxing an entire portion of the population in order to recoup costs that only statistically originate from it. if I eat 5 steaks in my life then die of old age in a barn in mississipi I will have paid taxes towards the gov't for something that I recouped no value from. this is extreme only for clarity u could obviously elaborate this into many other examples. but the fact remains u r not targetting the cost specifically u r only broadly slapping ppl in order to recoup some of the damage.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28. Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|