| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, easy, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member, please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Let's talk food | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Mar 9 2010, 03:32 AM (142 Views) | |
| Post #1 Mar 9 2010, 03:32 AM | Bonzolee |
|
Taxes on stuff like pizza and pop? Yay or nay? I'm totally against this, believe it or not. So what... you're just going to jack up the price of junk food and high calorie food? Fucking brilliant idea. More expensive food = less food to eat, in other words. That idea... totally sucks! Here's the deal: the US government subsidize things like corn, which lowers the price. This corn is then used to make High Fructose Corn Syrup, which is in candy bars, soda, pretty much every tasty treat you can imagine. That's why the price is cheap. Essentially, the government is taxing the people to solve a problem they've created. And all the low income, working class, and middle class who eat that food? They'll face higher prices. So yeah– they will be eating less junk food, because they'll probably be eating less food, period! I highly doubt the average person is going to start making soup from scratch or something (pretty cheap, actually; demands little time, too). How about this: you get rid of all the bullshit subsidies on things like corn and you instead subsidize whole grain foods and fruits and vegetables? Then, I'd also have health classes in schools focus more on healthy food options. Make people aware of all of their options. Bam! Done. This is pretty damn simple. That way you actually lower the price of the healthier food you're trying to get shoppers to purchase in the first place! See? Hell, you may not even have to use the tax! These taxes are bollocks. From where I'm sitting, it would basically fuck over the consumers who are hurting the most, as most "sin" taxes do. Screech! Like the idea of a "sin" tax, you say? But this situation is a bit more complex because of the food subsidies involved. And, if you factor in healthcare costs, it would be a very wise idea to stop subsidizing all the wrong foods and focus more on the right ones. You know what else is a terrible idea? Making the school year longer, in any form– longer days, more days, etc. You want to know what I did through most of high school? Absolutely nothing. I've ran into a few others like me over the years– who couldn't wait for the school day to end so we could actually go learn something! It was sooooooooooooooo boooooooorrrrriiiiinnnnngggggg! The best was playing basketball at gym. I actually accomplished something, there. Really, the problem is the actual classes are shit, and they represent the education system as a whole. And, getting many people like me (highly knowledgeable) involved in the education system just isn't going to happen, because the salary is too low and the level of bullshit is too high. Plus I'm quite stupid in the mornings. It would never work. Not to offend any of the highly intelligent teachers out there or anything (I had like, 2) but you all aren't exactly the norm. So... I'm kind of in the process of falling asleep... the TV's on and every so often I'll look up and catch a news segment... And this thread is the product of that. I see something, I ramble, bam. And now I'm going to catch some Zs. ... Oh, and a big "NAY!" from me on the tax issue. |
 
|
|
"Brain disorders, like madness, are themselves contagious. The frequency of madness among doctors who are specialists for the mad is notorious." – Gustave Le Bon "The fact that audiences would rather go to Wonderland than face Iraq speaks volumes." – Random Youtube Poster | |
 
|
 |
| Post #2 Mar 10 2010, 10:25 AM | Joe E. Holman |
|
I don't know...I thought the taxing non-essentials like junk was a good idea. cigarettes for sure, beer, porn, and all junk food would limit who buys it, because of addiction to it, they'd buy it anyway and pay. It wouldn't have to be huge, just a 20 or 30 cent hike. The unhealthy are usually poor and drain our nation's funds in medical treatment they can't pay for. This would offset those costs. Remember, I'm a trash eater and even I second the idea. Also, I'd impose a tariff on all foreign made cars. This would help the economy, as I see it. My principle with good government? Tax non-essentials, not essentials. Edited by Joe E. Holman, Mar 10 2010, 10:26 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
| Post #3 Mar 11 2010, 01:16 AM | Bonzolee |
But what about all the subsidies? Does adding taxes on top of that mess seem to make a lick of sense to you?
But would you suddenly change the way you eat? Would you stop eating fast food, candy, sugary sweets, and start eating oatmeal, almonds, and mangoes? Or would you pay the extra cents and continue down the same path? That's the problem: care to take a guess at what most people do? And like I've said before, I certainly eat some trashy stuff; it's just not central to my diet. But would these taxes deter me even 1% from indulging in some sweets and treats? Hell no. And the problem with a lot of these taxes is this: they hit the hardest people who need every extra dollar they earn the most. That's bullshit. My view on this is similar to my view on a flat tax. Why the fuck should someone making $20,000 have to pay the same rate as someone making $2,000,000? The first person needs every last dollar they can get their hands on, most likely. The less money you have, the more critical each dollar is, basically. Shit, just take one glance at Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs! I think these "sin" taxes favor, much like the flat tax, the wealthy. I'm not against all "sin" taxes; I think the one on cigarettes makes sense, actually. I don't however, support "sin" taxes on things like wine and beer, as they can be healthy in moderation. Just bought two bottles of Merlot tonight, actually. And I don't support "sin" taxes on porn, either (though, I could possibly be swayed if we were to only apply it to certain genres). But back to the flat tax... And most of the people supporting a flat tax want to exempt "unearned income". You know all those fuckers who were born into fortunes and don't really work, they only invest their money? Yeah– that obviously favors them. Steve Forbes backed that shit, and that man is part of the "idle rich" himself. Forbes can go fuck himself. Asshole... And the thing about easing up on the very rich... that only winds up squeezing the people who work their asses off (because the government reduces taxes and spends more money; it's a natural law at this point). It hurts them much more than someone who fits into the "poor, stupid, and lazy" category. It makes their paychecks worth less, and it leads to higher costs of private borrowing. In addition to all that, they have to pay for increased government costs for interest on public debt. And all the conservatives who want to cut taxes for the rich or keep taxes at a low level need to take a page from Ric Flair's book. Cut the spending and THEN cut the taxes. Because the other way around... it never happens! Reagan and Bush 43 both increased the size of government big time because of that sort of shit. I hear many members of the middle class who are Conservatives who back these tax cuts... There's no nicer way of defining them– they're suckers, through and through. The deficit increases and they will be the ones paying for it. Unless that spending decreases before the fact, then you damn well better not cut taxes on the rich. My point, simplified: if we need money, we should get it from the people who both have it and can afford it the most– the rich. And rather than do all this stupid-ass juggling with the subsidies and "sin" taxes on trash food, why not just make a decision to subsidize different things? And why not focus more on nutrition in schools, to add to that? But what about funding the subsidies? Should we tax the food? No– I say tax the rich (although if we just shift the subsidies, then it technically wouldn't increase spending a dime, so all this talk would be unnecessary. See?). Hell, maybe even raise taxes (graduated, of course) solely on unearned income, as that will do the most damage to those who don't actually work (they sit around and have their accountants invest) while at the same time adding extra layers of protection to the rich people who are doing a lot of work, helping to build things, creating things, hiring worker bees. And I think we need to look at the big picture, which includes education and subsidies. And if you really want to address healthcare, a true public option (first!) and Tort reform (after). So, in my customary long winded way, I think I approached this from every angle possible and then some. And I think I've made myself crystal clear.
I somehow doubt that. You have any official numbers or anything? Or are you just saying whatever comes to mind based on some imaginary theory? I mean, if you do have some numbers or anything then you should definitely post 'em, as I would be most interested in checking them out. Edited by Bonzolee, Mar 11 2010, 01:21 AM.
|
|
|
"Brain disorders, like madness, are themselves contagious. The frequency of madness among doctors who are specialists for the mad is notorious." – Gustave Le Bon "The fact that audiences would rather go to Wonderland than face Iraq speaks volumes." – Random Youtube Poster | |
|
|
|
| Post #4 Mar 12 2010, 01:11 PM | Joe E. Holman |
No, I wouldn't change the way I eat, but the idea is to offset heathcare costs, and that it will do.
But the desire for the "forbidden goods" brings in more money, and people will gladly part with money that brings them satisfaction. "People will wait and spend for a hot meal!" Number 1 rule of the restaurant industry. You can't seem to escape your "look out for the little guy" mentality at any point. They are buying something of their own choosing, a non-essential. Why make an issue of it?
But why not? People PAY for what they are passionate about, as stated. Your position doesn't make sense to me.
But you can't penalize someone for being wealthy.
I agree here.
But now you have the problem of penalizing the rich for being rich. And aren't taxes done according to percentage earned, anyway? As someone who almost went into the restaurant business a long time ago, it's fucking tough because expenses are huge. 90% of businesses fail their first year. Your plan makes it worse. And why? So that Mrs. Newhouse can take her five fatherless sons and care for them on her $429 a month take-home pay. it's up to the individual to achieve, not for the populace to make it all better. There are programs to hep Mrs. Newhouse, anyway.
No one's saying you can't, but "sin taxes" make complete sense.
Why do you hate the rich? Why this liberal animosity towards those who play golf and drive new caddies? I don't get it...except when I take into account...oh, I don't know...jealousy?  It's this "hey, I want a nice car too" mentality that gets to me.
My god, man! Do you really take this point to task, of all the things I mention? I talk from experience when I say I've sat in the waiting rooms of the Carelink hospitals. Whites, blacks, Mexicans, all of us waiting for a good while to get treated as babies cried and poorly supervised kids ransacked the place. Need I mention the triangular midsections, the "cottage cheese" hulka-legs, the broken-out faces with sores, the diabetics, the unvaccinated kids who are still depending on two-year-old prescriptions they never finished up the first time (not being ugly, they mentioned it). The shortest lifespan is the black male--average 68 years. That's a fact for you. Fuck, man! How could you take me to task here? Been to Alabama or Missisippi or any place in South Texas? The poor eat badly, sweeten their tea to insane levels (sure sign of poverty), consume white bread, pig's feet, and more fried foods than you can imagine. I think there are genetic elements involved for sure, but the poor have much worse-off diets unquestionably. |
|
|
|
|
| Post #5 Mar 12 2010, 03:36 PM | Bonzolee |
So... I take it you do NOT have any real numbers or anything to back up your point. I ask a simple question about stats and you start talking about waiting rooms. Where is the data that shows this will be effective in offsetting healthcare costs? From the Wall Street Journal: "The taxes would pay for only a fraction of the cost to expand health-insurance coverage to all Americans and would face strong opposition from the beverage industry. They also could spark a backlash from consumers who would have to pay several cents more for a soft drink." Only a fraction; see? And do you have any idea what the cost will be of people who still center their diets around this shit?
And why is that? I'll tell you why: they're low resource. They don't have a lot of money, don't have a lot of knowledge, and therefore make dumb choices. And who's fault is it... theirs? No– it's ours. It's the government's fault, because they have failed them, especially with education. You probably want to argue this until the cows come home, but I'm speaking from the same viewpoint as behaviorist psychologist B.F. Skinner, who actually wrote that freedom doesn't exist. Well... at least not our idea of it, anyway. He argued for a more lean, more precise definition. "[the literature of freedom and dignity] has been successful in reducing the aversive stimuli used in intentional control, but it has made the mistake of defining freedom in terms of states of mind or feelings..." "In the traditional view, a person is free. He is autonomous in the sense that his behavior is uncaused. He can therefore be held responsible for what he does and justly punished if he offends. That view, together with its associated practices, must be re-examined when a scientific analysis reveals unsuspected controlling relations between behavior and environment." So basically, it's mostly luck. If you're born into this social level, you'll wind up like this; if you're born into this social level, you'll wind up like this. You might be born roadkill from the start, with close to a 0% chance of change. Is that what you call a grand society? The "sin" taxes only further bend these people over and fuck them. You even agree– the tax will not lead to a change in behavior. And I said the tax, much like a flat tax, unfairly targets the have-nots. It does so in two ways: 1. Their dollars, because they have so few, are more critical. This tax takes needed money out of their pockets. 2. The tax unfairly targets lower resource people, because lower resource people are more likely to buy these products.
Joe, you want the government to force a tax upon beer and wine, a tax called the "sin" tax. But both beer and wine have shown to actually be beneficial to health in responsible amounts! How exactly did you come to the conclusion to punish them? And how are you the Conservative and I'm the Liberal, here? And why in the hell would we even consider taxing something we subsidize in the first place? Seems to me that removing the subsidies would be far more productive. And if we want to truly change behavior, then we're going to need more than that. A nutritional awareness program in schools (along with a quality menu) is, I think, a great start.
I'm only talking about graduated taxes, here; you can frame that however you like. If you don't agree with my concept of taking money the state needs from people who actually have it (the dollars are less critical), then that's that.
Taxes are done according to that, yes– but those rates can be risen or lowered. Bush lowered them. I want them risen. Show how my plan makes it worse (you don't even know what rates I'm proposing and at what income levels!). And your last point, about the individual, daringly flies in the face of the science behind behavior. Refer back to my B.F. Skinner quotes.
False– I do not hate the rich. A large portion of the mega rich do everything within their power to take more wealth and power, more control, from everyone else. It's class warfare. It's expected; there is a lot of unleashed selfish greed and aggression in our society, and many people who are below them would, if they got into their position, do the same. Everybody wants more. You seem to want to sit back and applaud those who succeed in this warfare instead of participating yourself. Anyone with a lot of power whether it be the government, businesses, or individuals need to be watched closely. In the past few decades the rich have succeeded in taking wealth away from everyone else, aided by the government. When the middle class loses wealth... where do you think it goes? Mars? And does it make sense for the middle class and lower class to fight over slices of an ever shrinking pie? As for the initial question, there are rich people I like and rich people I hate, just like every other group. And I still can't get over the fact that these taxes are even being considered when we subsidize them in the first place! |
|
|
"Brain disorders, like madness, are themselves contagious. The frequency of madness among doctors who are specialists for the mad is notorious." – Gustave Le Bon "The fact that audiences would rather go to Wonderland than face Iraq speaks volumes." – Random Youtube Poster | |
|
|
|
| Post #6 Mar 12 2010, 11:02 PM | Perry |
|
Any taxation on any commodity on the basis of a value judgement by the Washington woodenheads is the thin end of the wedge of socio-fascism, so watch what you wish for! |
Con fused jus
|
|
|
|
| Post #7 Mar 13 2010, 03:02 AM | Bonzolee |
|
In the end, the only reason to do such a thing, from my perspective, is to change behavior in a positive way. But it won't. The behavior is not the main problem; the environment is, because it's the environment that causes the behavior. And this fails to address the main causes in the environment. It also opens up a lot of bad doors, most of which have been mentioned. And lastly, it doesn't seem the least bit logical to add a tax on top of a subsidy! Edited by Bonzolee, Mar 13 2010, 03:06 AM.
|
|
|
"Brain disorders, like madness, are themselves contagious. The frequency of madness among doctors who are specialists for the mad is notorious." – Gustave Le Bon "The fact that audiences would rather go to Wonderland than face Iraq speaks volumes." – Random Youtube Poster | |
|
|
|
| Post #8 Mar 19 2010, 12:43 PM | Joe E. Holman |
I know there is a statistic on that. Have I sited it? Do I care enough to find it? No. I started talking about something that requires only common sense except for the age issue, which I thought you'd realize is not a disputed point. The African-American male has the shortest lifespan of any class in this country. Check it out. You seem to agree, but then you act like you're taking me to task on it.
No data I know of, but I know that by taxing high-sale items, there will be an off-setting affect. That is only bound to help.
So fucking what. They won't protest. They'll still buy the shit and they'll bitch in line to the clerk. That's it. People aren't going to stop buying them. That means there must be something to off-set the healthcare cost then. Counter-model: Kids aren't going to listen to the "abstinence" programs, so what do you do? You pass out condoms at schools and take the guff that the rightwingers put out and put your oldest daughter - the one that looks hot - on the pill because she's already fucking. People are going to do it. Educate yes, but still deal with it.
What you are missing is that they CHOOSE to buy the shit, and not as a maincourse, but because they like the taste. Same as me. That's simple as hell to figure out. You are just so, so phenomenally liberal that you even see people's actions as being the result of their being down on their luck, and then you blame a corrupt, poorly structured governmental healthcare outlook. Do you fucking think that some red-faced white fucker who lives in a trailer park named Mitch who drinks a 12 pack of Pepsi a day is poor and doesn't know it's bad for him? Give me a fucking break. People know it. They choose otherwise. But you can't resist the tendency to jump into the role of the educated white man who is mindful of the little guy. Poor consumers. They need to be told not to drink Dr. Pepper and eat Reese's? Yeah, fucking right! And then you feel for their rising costs as they choose to stay close to their "sin" obsession. Too damn funny.
No, but it's the society that works. It's not even bad, in this case, like it is with not being able to afford insurance. They choose to eat a certain way. Adjust accordingly.
But they FUCKING CHOOSE to consume it, and they know better as far as junk is concerned. But I'd say no, not just the poor consume junk. All of America does. Ever worked at a convenience store? Know how many sodas my hotel and different gas stations buy wholesale per week? Guess. Conservatively, the number is like well into the thousands. Great Wolf spends at least several thousand a week in Pepsi alone--alone. So, no, this is not "taking advantage." It's smart business and it serves a social need at the same time. And wanna guess how many cigarettes some gas stations go through in a day: $20,000 dollars worth. No fucking exaggeration. That may very well pay off a chunk of national healthcare debt.
Now THIS is where you really fucked up, in my view. I'm just in awe, complete awe. Let's consider for a moment the hours of a liquor store. They are usually closed on Sundays all the way, and only open to 9 pm. It's that way in most parts of Texas. And some cities are completely dry, like Lubbock. Most stores open at 9 and close at 9. Once 9 hits, that's it. You can't buy a thing. For just beer and wine, the shut-down in Texas is 12 am to 6 am. I used to think these were stupid laws (the Sunday thing really is, but nevermind). They aren't stupid because those who commit alcohol-related crimes do so at night hours, and those who binge-drink are more likely to overdose when they make purchases at night. This was such a problem that inflexible laws had to be made to off-set things. My point being, alcohol is a non-essential and is more abused than it is normally consumed, or very close to it. Bear in mind, I've worked security for bars and bus stations, and the affects of alcohol and it's evils are worst seen firsthand. But, the drunks are going to keep consuming it legally, and so there's no stopping it. Family men who can afford it and those who can't will do the same. So, it makes sense to cut into the damage done by selling this mind-altering substance by putting a special tax on it. Hey, I fucking hate being told I can't buy a beer at night because some fucks can't handle it. Too bad, Joe Holman. The society is not about you. It's about everyone, so go fuck yourself. That's what logic tells me. Why doesn't that apply with everything here? But your mind runs instantly to some poor guy who drives trucks for a living and is trying to put 7 kids through college and stresses getting his next six pack to unwind at nights. Too fucking bad, my friend. We want to tax non-essentials. Porn, alcohol, sugar, etc. Those bring in fuckloads of money, money that will help us. You still haven't given me reason to change my mind. |
|
|
|
|
| Post #9 Mar 19 2010, 01:59 PM | Bonzolee |
Joe... you're following the sub-plot in all of these posts rather than the main plot. And taxing soda is nothing like passing out condoms at school. Something that would fit that example more would be (gasp!) teaching kids about sex and providing them with condoms and other safety items and teaching kids about nutrition and providing them with different kinds of food they've probably never had.
False– I do not see these actions as people being down on their luck; I see these actions as creations of the environment around them. Stuff like fat, sugar, and salt are what you'd call naturally reinforcing because it tastes good and is pleasurable. However, there are many aversive qualities surrounding such food, and this comes in the form of long-term health problems and a short-term drop in the quality of life (from a purely health standpoint). That's problem #1 with these foods. Another issue is marketing. The poorer you are, the less resources you have. Even people who live fairly comfortably, with many options available to them, are no match for psychological marketing. Case in point: I was watching the Magic/Heat NBA game last night. They were talking about double-doubles (a stat in basketball) and up popped a stat sheet on the screen. Guess what was on top? A fucking double cheeseburger! You also have things like the "Taco Bell Halftime Show" and those Charles Barkley Taco Bell commercials, which seem to be quite successful. All of this is not just selling the food– it's selling an attitude and lifestyle. And if you don't realize how much a difference this makes then it would probably be wise to research the history of marketing, especially how the ideas of Abraham Maslow were used in VALS. You seem to think this is all about choice, but it's not. Psychologists such as B.F. Skinner contributed a lot to the field, including the idea that people aren't nearly as free as they think they are, and that while genetics determine who we are, environment ultimately determines our personality and our vocabulary (not just words, but actions, thoughts, strategies, everything we use). Your Mitch example... I see a totally different situation than you on that. See, his environment growing up probably led to that habit. It's not as much of a choice as you think it is. People are not as free as you think they are. You seem to be stuck in this mental model where you view genetics as some unshakable ultimate. That model is outdated, Joe. They've already demonstrated that DNA is not stuck to one strict path. Hell, just look at epigenetics. It sounds like your argument is that the poor people and the junkfood eaters are the way they are because that's their ultimate destiny, carved into their DNA. It's a bullshit argument and completely outdated. (Note: I may or may not have worded the preceding two paragraphs recklessly, but I have no time at the moment to doublecheck the exact language used. Maybe later.) This is not a choice issue, but you refuse to accept the science from the field of psychology. I posted short quotes of his in an earlier post, and they apply to this situation. This fits the sufficient pattern described. This is also a sneaky way of establishing a flat tax on citizens by targeting consumer goods. Rather than that, if we really need the money, I suggest the government get control of its budget and you raise tax rates on the extremely wealthy. And on healthcare, establish a new way which will save us money long-term. I've presented some damn good pieces of evidence and theories on my end. As I've said... you seem to be following the sub-plots rather than the main plot. What have you presented, exactly? And you've failed to argue the logistics of this, what is the logic of doing this when we subsidize the very things we want to tax! |
|
|
"Brain disorders, like madness, are themselves contagious. The frequency of madness among doctors who are specialists for the mad is notorious." – Gustave Le Bon "The fact that audiences would rather go to Wonderland than face Iraq speaks volumes." – Random Youtube Poster | |
|
|
|
| Post #10 Mar 19 2010, 06:03 PM | Gemmy63 |
I'm with Perry on this issue... We're forgetting to be careful about what 'rights' we hand over in the name of What's Best For Us... Seems to me that anytime throughout history when WTP (we the people) have done this, it hasn't gone well. |
 
|
| Ignorance or Apathy? I don't know and I don't care ... | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics, News, and other informative stuff · Next Topic » |
4:46 PM Jul 31
