-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Soft Drink Tax to pay for Healthcare?
- Thread starter Possessed Freak
- Start date
RyanPaulShaffer
Diamond Member
This is only the beginning. If government-run universal health care comes to pass, they will be able to manage/tax everything you do, eat, drink, etc., all in the name of "controlling costs" and "reducing expenses through prevention".
It is truly frightening.
It is truly frightening.
Smoking tax, transfat tax, sweet tax, obesity tax. All in the name of healthcare, "it's for your own good!". And those who didn't believe the slippery slope see it coming to fruition as congress and obama tax the ever living daylights out of people when they can least afford it.
Andrew1990
Banned
Why punish skinny people who drink pop. Why not go directly to the problem and tax obese people?
rudder
Lifer
My Merrells I got for christmas 2 years ago are getting worn out. Do you suppose the government will buy me a new pair? I could be encouraged to walk more if I got a new pair of shoes. The government could add a 10 cent tax to the ding dongs in the vending machine here at work to pay for this program.
Possessed Freak
Diamond Member
It is your opinion that a progressive income tax is better. I actually prefer a straight flat tax (not fair, not flat starting at 10k income, but a flat tax across the board from dollar 1).
Regardless, a progressive tax would not be the answer here. The government would use the progressive tax for other revenue and say that healthcare should be paid in part to taxes of unhealthy stuff.
My answer to this: if you are obese then you are not covered for obese related sicknesses. No different then the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. If you have screwed up your body through intake of bad food, smoke, drugs, alcohol then you are not covered when those affected organs go bad.
This.
I would like to see a new tax bracket created at the 1 million dollar mark. Set the tax rate at 50%. Eliminate the "long term" capital gains tax rate. Then maybe the rich guys will actually pay a reasonable percentage of their income as tax.... as in equal to or greater than their secretary's chunk.
Why are you scared? The British are fat as fuck... fatter than Americans. They smoke more. They drink more. The French love their wines and cheeses. Germans put our drinkers to shame.
Your problem is your religious belief in capitalism. I just want things that work reasonably well for most people.
soulcougher73
Lifer
So if Americans were to cut comsumption or soda and alcohol how would they be making any tax money to pay for this health care? I see they thought this one through as usual.
Liberals: try to reduce problems where it makes sense.
Right-wing: follow ideology and demand nothing be done, no regard for the fact, for the rational issues, with the pros and cons.
This is a general statement for societal issues, not foreign policy.
Results: liberals tend to reduce problems, reduce poverty, save lives. Right-wing tends to have more problems, more loss of life, and to not care, happy the ideology is followed.
When righties try to discuss the liberal policy, it gets very confused - see above example of 'wanting new shoes' as an example of the flailing about trying to understand the policy.
The nation's supply of straw runs low with the creation of countless straw men as the right tries to 'parody' the liberal policy and does nothing but exhibit their lack of understanding.
The liberal approach has the question where to draw the line. The right thinks it's an argument against the liberal approach to make slippery-slope predictions liberals oppose.
If liberals cut health care costs and save lives with a soda tax, the right's argument against it is simply hot air words "nanny state!!!" and slippery slope "I want the government to pay for taking my dog on a walk!!!". Vapid, idiotic, nonsense because their brains are not quite right.
Now, there's a reasonable discussion to be had on this policy, but only liberals are having it.
The liberal magazine The Atlantic, IIRC, recently published some information on a study showing the benefits of a soda tax are limited, and questions should be asked.
There may be a legitimate case if it's passed that it was for misguided political reasons, against the facts.
But the right won't be in any position to make the legitimate criticism; they're off in the hot air zone about buying them shoes and high on ideology.
They can't tell the good from the bad programs. They're just against it all because of ideology.
Right-wing: follow ideology and demand nothing be done, no regard for the fact, for the rational issues, with the pros and cons.
This is a general statement for societal issues, not foreign policy.
Results: liberals tend to reduce problems, reduce poverty, save lives. Right-wing tends to have more problems, more loss of life, and to not care, happy the ideology is followed.
When righties try to discuss the liberal policy, it gets very confused - see above example of 'wanting new shoes' as an example of the flailing about trying to understand the policy.
The nation's supply of straw runs low with the creation of countless straw men as the right tries to 'parody' the liberal policy and does nothing but exhibit their lack of understanding.
The liberal approach has the question where to draw the line. The right thinks it's an argument against the liberal approach to make slippery-slope predictions liberals oppose.
If liberals cut health care costs and save lives with a soda tax, the right's argument against it is simply hot air words "nanny state!!!" and slippery slope "I want the government to pay for taking my dog on a walk!!!". Vapid, idiotic, nonsense because their brains are not quite right.
Now, there's a reasonable discussion to be had on this policy, but only liberals are having it.
The liberal magazine The Atlantic, IIRC, recently published some information on a study showing the benefits of a soda tax are limited, and questions should be asked.
There may be a legitimate case if it's passed that it was for misguided political reasons, against the facts.
But the right won't be in any position to make the legitimate criticism; they're off in the hot air zone about buying them shoes and high on ideology.
They can't tell the good from the bad programs. They're just against it all because of ideology.
Fingolfin269
Lifer
It IS misguided. I am a completely fit and healthy individual. I work out several times a week and yet... I do drink soda/beer from time to time. The problem is not the product it's the person. The reason the slippery slope is brought up is that first you want to tax soda/beer due to certain health issues. People are still fat/unhealthy because they're still eating cookies and then you want to have a cookie tax. Then they're still fat/unhealthy because they switched to ice cream and you will want a tax on ice cream. Etc. etc. etc. Even the healthy people who want to enjoy these products in moderation are punished.
The problem with the liberalism you propose is that it takes the ENTIRE group and assumes that they are all the problem. When in fact the actual problem are the PEOPLE who are unable to control themselves. Tax the people directly instead of dancing around the issue of saying what you really want to say... fat people are a problem. However, we all know it is politically incorrect to hurt someone's feelings.
By the way...
If the idea is that people will move away from products if they are taxed enough then wouldn't it be fair to say that a fat/unhealthy person would then have suitable motivation to no longer be fat/unhealthy if taxed for being fat/unhealthy?
Fear No Evil
Diamond Member
Obama said he wouldn't raise the taxes of 95% of the people. Is he a liar?
Fingolfin269
Lifer
No no no. You got it all wrong man. That was directed at income tax only. Right?
spittledip
Diamond Member
I don't have a problem with this. If you are dumb enough to drink that crap and think it tastes good, you deserve the tax 😀
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
