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.
Yes, I know what type of tax we are talking about, but a tax is a tax. If you pay sales tax on everything, then you are already paying a tax on that item regardless of what it is called. What you are telling me is that you don't like there being an additional tax on something like sugary drinks. So I am not sure how you are able to read that as deflecting.
The thread is about a sin tax. Quit deflecting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperOscar
What exactly is the lie you are referring to? Yes, I do agree with you, some people can in fact find anything to lie about, but I don't know what that has to do with my post.....
Your entire thought process on sin tax.
"]I wouldn't call it a huge tax, " hahahahahahahaha paying double isn't huge? Granted maybe that isn't a lie, maybe you just could have a perverted sense on what constitutes a huge tax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperOscar
Oh I understand the sarcasm,.
No you don't. Your following statement proves that.
"This idea that people should be jailed for anything other than serious crimes is just laughable and shouldn't even be a part of this discussion."
"I also understand that people are using the whole jail point as a way to exaggerate their point. Why tax, why not just jail people?"
So which is it? You understand the sarcasm or it's an exaggeration or it's laughable? Anything else I can help with?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperOscar
I also understand that people are using the whole jail point as a way to exaggerate their point. Why tax, why not just jail people? In case you are wondering, that would be considered a deflection.
In case you are wondering, people get thrown in jail and/or fined for ingesting items that are not government approved even though no ones rights have been violated. Bolded in hopes you finally catch on. I have an idea. Prescription drugs cause more deaths than car accidents. We should put a sin tax on them.
Since you're worried about the cost to others because people cannot control their weight how about we tax people without a high school degree since they have a much higher chance of being on government assistance. Then it might be in your best interest to finish high school because you clearly can't afford the fine.
btw What else is bad for me that government should put a sin tax on that I have to pay because others are not acting responsible? Fried foods?
Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 01-06-2017 at 01:13 PM..
But that's the point - sugar products will not cost more due to taxes, only sugar-filled beverages. This isn't about health - it's about fundraising.
Educate more if you want, I have no problem with that, but I know inner motivation is the only thing that will get people to change.
Our politicians need to learn to live within or reduce their budgets, and stop adding more taxes under the b.s. excuse that they're concerned about health. They're not.
And? Again, I have no issue with a tax on sugary drinks, that alone is a major factor in diabetes and obesity. If people were to cut out just sugary drinks, that alone would have a major improvement on their health. People aren't going to just turn to eating more twinkies to supplement the loss of soda because twinkies aren't giving them the illusion that they are quenching their thirst.
Yes, politicians need to learn to live within their budgets, but that doesn't mean that can't tax things to create that budget. Even better if that tax goes to things like educating people the dangers of too much sugar.
Your entire thought process on sin tax.
"]I wouldn't call it a huge tax, " hahahahahahahaha paying double isn't huge? Granted maybe that isn't a lie, maybe you just could have a perverted sense on what constitutes a huge tax.
No you don't. Your following statement proves that.
"This idea that people should be jailed for anything other than serious crimes is just laughable and shouldn't even be a part of this discussion."
"I also understand that people are using the whole jail point as a way to exaggerate their point. Why tax, why not just jail people?"
So which is it? You understand the sarcasm or it's an exaggeration or it's laughable? Anything else I can help with?
In case you are wondering, people get thrown in jail and/or fined for ingesting items that are not government approved even though no ones rights have been violated. Bolded in hopes you finally catch on. I have an idea. Prescription drugs cause more deaths than car accidents. We should put a sin tax on them.
Since you're worried about the cost to others because people cannot control their weight how about we tax people without a high school degree since they have a much higher chance of being on government assistance. Then it might be in your best interest to finish high school because you clearly can't afford the fine.
btw What else is bad for me that government should put a sin tax on that I have to pay because others are not acting responsible? Fried foods?
Care to explain if a sin tax is in fact a tax, because last time I checked, it was a tax just like sales taxes. Just because you justify one but not the other doesn't make them any different. Both are taxes, and you need to learn the definition of deflection because pointing that out isn't a deflection, it is just stating a fact.
I also question your use of the word perverted....that and taxes don't typically go to there....you are making this conversation into something really weird, really fast. I am guessing you are referring to a comment that I made about cigarettes, and no, that isn't a huge tax when you look at the health costs of those that smoke cigarettes cost the taxpayers. As for this sugary drinks tax that Philly is trying to do, no, I don't think that is a huge tax, and I think more cities and states should add that tax.
So you cannot understand someone making a comment on someone else's use of sarcasm to deflect? That is what is laughable if you don't understand that. Suggesting that we should jail people over this is in fact laughable, even if it is nothing more than a poor attempt at sarcasm to deflect.
Yes, I am well aware that we do not live in a perfect country and there are many things that contradict itself. Yes, we should heavily be regulating prescription drugs because most of them are extremely dangerous and shouldn't be given to people. I also think we should be heavily regulating the entire drug industry to prevent them from trying to push drugs onto people through things like advertising and such. This thread is just about a sugary drinks tax, but if you are interested in having a conversation about the dangers of the drug industry, I am happy to do so in another thread, no point in trying to derail this thread.
Making access to higher education by reducing the cost of it is an important factor when it comes to educating people, that is also a different topic, but something that needs to be taxed, just made easier for people to obtain.
You know exactly what is bad for you, but again a sin tax is no different than a sales tax because both are applied at the sale of an item. In Oregon, we are taxing marijuana, I am completely fine with that as well since it makes more sense to tax it than to have it be illegal.
Have the high taxes on cigarettes dried up the pool, which is the phrase I used? No, people still smoke.
You're blaming the government for people eating sugar? How about we all take responsibility for what we do with our lives. It's not like the information isn't available. Sugar addiction and how sugar suppresses the immune system has been discussed and written about for at least thirty years. The risk of smoking cigarettes has been discussed for far longer and yet people still choose to smoke. Not to mention selectively choosing one sugar-filled product to tax won't make people healthier because they'll simply replace it with another sugar-filled product.
It's naive to advocate this money grabbing scam which will do little to make people healthier.
The information was not available from what most people would consider credible sources (their government and various universities that received funding from the sugar industry).
You think it's about freedom, but what you don't realize is that generations have been DUPED as the sugar lobby infiltrated government to discourage sound research.
The sugar industry has a long history of skewing nutrition science, a new report suggests. By combing through archival documents from the 1950s and 1960s, researchers from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), report that the sugar industry sponsored research that turned attention away from the sweetener’s link to heart disease and toward fat and cholesterol as the bigger culprits.
Is it still a choice if you're being deceived?
I don't care if the tax passes or not, but not enough as been done to shed the light on how harmful consuming large amounts of sugar can be, or how it's prevalent in so many foods.
And? Again, I have no issue with a tax on sugary drinks, that alone is a major factor in diabetes and obesity. If people were to cut out just sugary drinks, that alone would have a major improvement on their health. People aren't going to just turn to eating more twinkies to supplement the loss of soda because twinkies aren't giving them the illusion that they are quenching their thirst.
Yes, politicians need to learn to live within their budgets, but that doesn't mean that can't tax things to create that budget. Even better if that tax goes to things like educating people the dangers of too much sugar.
We'll have to agree to disagree. Sugar is an addiction and cutting it completely out of your diet can cause withdrawal. Unless they're willing to cut out sugar, they WILL replace their sugar-filled beverage with a different beverage and/or something that feeds their sugar addiction.
We'll have to agree to disagree. Sugar is an addiction and cutting it completely out of your diet can cause withdrawal. Unless they're willing to cut out sugar, they WILL replace their sugar-filled beverage with a different beverage and/or something that feeds their sugar addiction.
You're pro-tax, I'm taxed to death where I live.
I guess we will have to. I am aware sugar is an addiction, but there is a difference between getting it through liquid form and solid form, people think drinking sugary drinks quench their thirst when it really is just making them more thirsty. People have no idea how much sugar they consume through many of these sugary drinks, and if people can be educated about this, they might begin to make a better choice when it comes to what they consume.
We as a country have moved into some dangerous territory where we are allowing ourselves to consume so much sugar that is making the country as a whole extremely unhealthy.
As for me being "pro-tax," that is untrue, I treat each tax individually and look to see if it is a benefit or not, not all taxes are justified, but at the same sense, not having any taxes would just be idiotic because we wouldn't be able to have anything that keeps a country functioning.
The information was not available from what most people would consider credible sources (their government and various universities that received funding from the sugar industry).
You think it's about freedom, but what you don't realize is that generations have been DUPED as the sugar lobby infiltrated government to discourage sound research.
I don't care if the tax passes or not, but not enough as been done to shed the light on how harmful consuming large amounts of sugar can be, or how it's prevalent in so many foods.
I'm sorry, but anyone who relies on government information is a fool. There have been articles and books out there for at least twenty years that have educated people about sugar, foods that convert to sugar and foods that have a high glycemic index.
I think most people know they must be their own advocate, educate themselves by reading as much as possible, and not relying on the government. We learned this back in the day when the tobacco industry was exposed and when we saw what a sham the food pyramid was.
But the bottom line is, you cannot mandate healthy lifestyles through high taxation or law. Even information isn't enough without internal motivation.
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.
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.
