U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-10-2010, 02:20 PM
 
29,990 posts, read 19,374,065 times
Reputation: 12335
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
Why not? They got away with wringing every spare dollar they could get out of smokers. And a good many here supported that and still do.

Well....it's y'alls turn to pay up now! The Genie is out of the bottle and can't be put back.
So you fall for "sin taxes" too. Pity. No "group" should be singled out by the government for taxes that are politically "safe". The genie can not only be put back in the bottle but the bottle can be smashed.

Do you also agree with the "medical device" tax in Obamacare, thus singling out aging parts of the population and mothers of infants who would breast-feed but require breast pumps?

Point is that "sin taxes" have nothing to do with promoting healthy habits and everything to do with procuring money from classes of people it is too politically risky to publically include in any increase in income tax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-10-2010, 02:42 PM
 
2,671 posts, read 3,723,101 times
Reputation: 2517
The problem with sodas is that 99% of them are sweetened with high fructose corn syrup, HFCS. HFCS became the food industries darling sweetener around the early 70's because it is cheap and easy to integrate into manufacturing. It wasn't too long after that the obesity became an issue. HFCS plays havoc with our body's insulin resulting in storing fat. There is some truth to the fact that being fat is not necessary the fault of the fat person. Do yourself a favor and check it out there is tons of info on HFCS on the web.

The food industry has since found HFCS has more uses that just a sweetener it is also a filler. It is almost impossible to find a processed food on your grocery stores shelves that does not contain HFCS.

The so-called "sugar tax" is really the "fat" tax and it has only just begun. Cheeseburgers, FF, milkshakes the feds will tax them all. The "fat tax" is here. Look out fatties the feds are coming for you just like they went after smokers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2010, 02:45 PM
 
8,424 posts, read 23,359,491 times
Reputation: 5876
And the end result of that group not being able to consume unhealthy things in massive amount is.....healthy.

Two birds, one stone and no duh the government does not love you.

If you become a costly liability and do not change upon being given information that you could use. Then they will force you. You guys had your chance when you ignored the serving size info. Case of you made your bed. Lie in it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2010, 01:50 AM
 
3,441 posts, read 4,820,009 times
Reputation: 2304
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
You're missing the point. It isn't about taxation or even health. It's about liberty and freedom of choice, freedom from governmentally mandated choices for your "own good." To me, that's the issue and it's a critical one for the future of my kids and grandkids. I don't want them growing up in a country where they have to ask some bureaucrat's permission to fart, do you?

As for people losing their homes? I hate to be the one to tell you this, but people have been losing their homes for their inability to pay since mortgages were invented. ANY of us who take out a mortgage run the risk of something happening which would cause us to lose our homes. It's just the cost of buying a house.

You may try and make the case that their "poor" lifestyle choices contribute to that, but such an argument completely ignores the fact if we live long enough, ALL of us, whether we live "healthily" or not, will someday come to the point that our healthcare costs become burdensome and a threat to our financial security. Death is a fact of life. The high cost of dying, from any cause, is a fact of life too unless you're very, very well insured.
I'm with you F the people in government. They FORCE us to comply to standards they don't even uphold themselves. They also get ENOUGH of our money which we can't even audit like "black projects".

Last edited by Morphous01; 03-11-2010 at 02:10 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2010, 02:09 AM
 
3,441 posts, read 4,820,009 times
Reputation: 2304
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitt_transplant View Post
I think taxes will save a lot of kids from that impulse soda buy that is making them all fat.
No it won't, all it will do is make the rich richer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pitt_transplant View Post
You should NOT have your home taken away from you because you got cancer. Sorry but that is just messed up. THAT is what you should be complaining about. Not soda tax.
With all the money people have GIVEN to cancer research people should not be dealing with cancer in the first place!! Secondly, the government could do a better job in making sure people don't eat sick and deceased animals and contaminated foods like fish that were swimming around in medial waste that was dumped illegally. This is the REAL reason people are coming down with cancer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2010, 06:35 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,023 posts, read 9,198,758 times
Reputation: 7383
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
So you fall for "sin taxes" too. Pity. No "group" should be singled out by the government for taxes that are politically "safe". The genie can not only be put back in the bottle but the bottle can be smashed.

Do you also agree with the "medical device" tax in Obamacare, thus singling out aging parts of the population and mothers of infants who would breast-feed but require breast pumps?

Point is that "sin taxes" have nothing to do with promoting healthy habits and everything to do with procuring money from classes of people it is too politically risky to publically include in any increase in income tax.

No, I DON'T like "sin" taxes to start with, and like them even less when they're applied for "health" reasons. I smoke cigarettes and I've watched as my Camels have gone up over $30 a carton during the past few years and it seriously irritates the hell out of me, especially when other, equally dangerous things are not taxed.

However, that does not mean I support taxing other "unhealthy" behaviors or products. I don't. In fact, I'd prefer that such taxes be rolled back and let us live our lives as free men and women. That's a minority position so far, but I see more and more people coming to realize that it's no longer a tax or health issue, but one of liberty and civil rights. Hopefully, one day enough people will object that the genie's bottle WILL be broken.
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 $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:17 PM.

2005-2014, 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 - Top