U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-02-2009, 09:46 AM
 
Location: Columbus, OH
857 posts, read 1,228,464 times
Reputation: 558

Advertisements

Just re-watched an Old south park and it made me want to post a new question.

Now I can understand banning smoking in public places for 2nd hand smoke reasons, but why is it we are allowed to put ludicrous taxes on tobacco? People say we need to stop people from harming themselves and let them live longer by not smoking, but couldn't that same logic be applied to obesity??? Shouldn't we be adding taxes to foods that have a fat content over x grams of fat so we can stop fat people from harming themselves??? Obesity and smoking are both known to cause numerous health risks, so why is smoking evil while nobody says anything about being obese? And you can argue smoking is addicting and peddles to kids but I would say McDonalds does just about the same thing only its food is not addictive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-02-2009, 09:53 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,761,828 times
Reputation: 4539
Government pays a significant portion of health care costs (to those of you who think it doesn't, actually look at the statistics). People who smoke cigarettes are far more likely to become sick and thus cost the government money. The high taxes do not even begin to cover the costs that government pays to deal with smoking-related illnesses.

As far as obesity, you have an excellent point. Since government is also paying for illnesses caused by obesity, why not impose higher taxes on unhealthy foods? I'm not necessariy an advocate of social engineering through taxation, but I think it makes some sense since govt will pick up a large part of the tab later.

The comment about "food is not addictive" is certainly not true for some people BTW.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2009, 10:52 AM
 
6,940 posts, read 8,872,935 times
Reputation: 7790
Let's not forget that the reason such a large proportion of the female population smokes today is to KEEP THEMSELVES FROM GETTING FAT. They start as ten-year-olds, already hung up on their waistlines.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2009, 11:27 AM
 
Location: UK
298 posts, read 896,063 times
Reputation: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by ulnevrwalkalone View Post
Shouldn't we be adding taxes to foods that have a fat content over x grams of fat so we can stop fat people from harming themselves???
Not just fat people eat things high in fat. It would discriminate against those can can eat everything in moderation (btw i'm not one of them )
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2009, 11:42 AM
 
Location: Columbus, OH
857 posts, read 1,228,464 times
Reputation: 558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopy00 View Post
Not just fat people eat things high in fat. It would discriminate against those can can eat everything in moderation (btw i'm not one of them )
Its not discriminating until it starts only applying to certain people, I am saying it would be a flat tax that everyone pays for like tobacco. Its not like the person who smokes a few cigars every year gets to skip on the tobacco taxes...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2009, 11:48 AM
 
Location: Texas
42,204 posts, read 49,740,662 times
Reputation: 66975
Quote:
Originally Posted by ulnevrwalkalone View Post
Just re-watched an Old south park and it made me want to post a new question.

Now I can understand banning smoking in public places for 2nd hand smoke reasons, but why is it we are allowed to put ludicrous taxes on tobacco? People say we need to stop people from harming themselves and let them live longer by not smoking, but couldn't that same logic be applied to obesity??? Shouldn't we be adding taxes to foods that have a fat content over x grams of fat so we can stop fat people from harming themselves??? Obesity and smoking are both known to cause numerous health risks, so why is smoking evil while nobody says anything about being obese? And you can argue smoking is addicting and peddles to kids but I would say McDonalds does just about the same thing only its food is not addictive.
South Park is great, isn't it?
And obesity-related illnesses have overtaken smoking as a leading cause of death.

The difference in attempting to implement this tax on fatty food is that smoking is always bad. It does nothing good. It does not nourish you in any way. There is only one reason for its existence - pure entertainment.

Food, on the other hand, regardless of its content almost always has some redeeming nutritional value.
AND you miss the very big fact that you can eat TOO MUCH non-fatty foods and get very, very fat. It isn't necessarily true that you got fat eating fast food every day. Eating too much of any kind of food can make you fat.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2009, 01:08 PM
 
Location: Columbus, OH
857 posts, read 1,228,464 times
Reputation: 558
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4 View Post
South Park is great, isn't it?
And obesity-related illnesses have overtaken smoking as a leading cause of death.

The difference in attempting to implement this tax on fatty food is that smoking is always bad. It does nothing good. It does not nourish you in any way. There is only one reason for its existence - pure entertainment.

Food, on the other hand, regardless of its content almost always has some redeeming nutritional value.
AND you miss the very big fact that you can eat TOO MUCH non-fatty foods and get very, very fat. It isn't necessarily true that you got fat eating fast food every day. Eating too much of any kind of food can make you fat.
So you're saying fat people will find a way of still staying fat even if we tax high fat content food... very clever

OK then, new plan! Obesity is measured by Body Mass Index right? So we make it a requirement to submit to a BMI test during tax season (its not going to be expensive or time consuming, its literally weight/height or something like that so all it requires is a scale that has a height measurement) and all those deemed obese get a tax increase. Or maybe those who are not obese get a tax cut, not sure which is the better idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2009, 01:57 PM
 
Location: Texas
42,204 posts, read 49,740,662 times
Reputation: 66975
Sorry. The BMI fails a lot, especially when you are talking about very muscular. Someone like Ricky Williams (UT running back) had a BMI of like 31 or 32, which is considerably 'overweight.' However, he had like no body fat.

You can test every tax season for body fat percentage, but I think that the costs of doing that is going to far outweigh any extra money you can make off of the results.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2009, 02:21 PM
 
Location: Columbus, OH
857 posts, read 1,228,464 times
Reputation: 558
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4 View Post
Sorry. The BMI fails a lot, especially when you are talking about very muscular. Someone like Ricky Williams (UT running back) had a BMI of like 31 or 32, which is considerably 'overweight.' However, he had like no body fat.

You can test every tax season for body fat percentage, but I think that the costs of doing that is going to far outweigh any extra money you can make off of the results.
Ok well there has got to be some reasonably simple test to show who is and who is not obese... other than a photo . Would athletes show up as obese or only over weight?? Because if there are no BMI obese people who are fit then we don't have a problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2009, 02:45 PM
 
Location: Texas
42,204 posts, read 49,740,662 times
Reputation: 66975
32 may be obese...I don't have the scale memorized.

I'm with you, though. Obese/overweight people are a problem. But what to do?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top