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.
I consider "government is so wasteful and inefficient" as dogma, at times government programs can be such, but they are not always that way. When free markets are not able to correctly handle a service, then government programs tend to be the better alternative. A number of studies argue that medicare is more efficient than private insurers.
The constitution is not a static document. The founders rightly made it amendable.
Can you cite any examples of an area where private companies and government compete and the government is more efficient? The government is set up to be inefficient by design. That works in our favor (generally) when it comes to laws and regulations. We want some stability and consistency in those areas.
I have seen at least one study that estimates that Medicare's underpayment to doctors and hospitals adds an estimated $150 per month to the average family's health insurance premium.
As for the Constitution, I have no problem if you want to start a movement to amend it to allow lifestyle taxes. I think the basic principle runs contrary to the notion of liberty that this country was founded on but if we are going to have a tax then let's do it the right way and not try an end-run around our founding document.
I also believe there is no Constitutional prohibition for states to enact a fat tax. Once again, it's a bad idea but if a state wants to do it then at least the other 49 can see what a bad idea it is over time. Actually, come to think of it, about 2/3 of the states will see what a bad idea it is and the other 1/3 will think it just wasn't done correctly.
Last edited by Niners fan; 07-29-2009 at 01:03 PM..
The constitution is not a static document. The founders rightly made it amendable.
However, amendments must be in line with the original document. The more of the Constitution we follow, and the fewer new laws we have the higher everyone's standard of living. The writers of the Constitution were just as intelligent as people today, and we do well to follow their advice "Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution" . Every new law, every new tax is an insult to the writers.
wheelsup wrote: A Chic-fil-a sandwich meal costs around $5.50.
It's thinking like this ( considering a sandwhich from Chic-fil-a meal) that is part of the reason for spiralling health care costs. When citizens repeatedly exercise poor judgement in the food they put into theri bodies, I consider it the duty of the government to nudge them into a healthier lifestyle. I resent paying higher insurance premiums to pay for the health care of those who don't take care of themself. Nothing personal wheelsup...just using your post as an example.
If we are going to tax fast food why not tax steak houses? Better yet let’s tax bakeries and pastry shops. Their products are just as bad for ones health.
wheelsup wrote: A Chic-fil-a sandwich meal costs around $5.50.
It's thinking like this ( considering a sandwhich from Chic-fil-a meal) that is part of the reason for spiralling health care costs. When citizens repeatedly exercise poor judgement in the food they put into theri bodies, I consider it the duty of the government to nudge them into a healthier lifestyle. I resent paying higher insurance premiums to pay for the health care of those who don't take care of themself. Nothing personal wheelsup...just using your post as an example.
meal = meal deal, not meal.
It is not the Governments duty to "nudge", push, legislate, or enforce health care on ANY CITIZEN of the United States. As long as what we do does not harm others we should be free to do to ourselves what we want. "Land of the free"? I think not.
My company is self insured and we get monetary incentives to lower our weight/cholesterol levels/etc. That is the private industry at work. Keep Government out of our private lives!
If we are going to tax fast food why not tax steak houses? Better yet let’s tax bakeries and pastry shops. Their products are just as bad for ones health.
Don't stop there. Don't forget about dairy which clogs the arteries and contributes to the #1 cause in death in America (heart disease). Anyone see Thank you for Smoking? We need to have poison labels on cheese!
But wait, there's more. Let's tax everything that isn't a fruit or vegetable or pure protein like turkey or chicken.
Pretty soon everything will be taxed. This is just like cigarettes. It was just a money grab on the Government's part. No I don't smoke. But I think it's ridiculous that the Government would tax them so heavily outside of regular sales taxes. That was the camel getting his nose under the tent. There will be more to follow.
Just had another thought. Remember way back in the early 1900's the income tax was sold as a "rich man's tax" to the masses? It was sold under the pretense that the rich would pay for the services that the poor and middle class use. Therefore the poor and middle class were fine with it - they weren't effected.
Today, all but the poorest of poor (really high school students) are taxed.
If you feed an active young person with a high metabolism a high-fat diet, they'll soak it up without a cent of additional cost to the taxpayer.
This is not accurate. Firstly, people that cannot gain weight due to metabolic problems have diseases, that is not normal. Secondly, weight is just one issue. You can be thin and still unhealthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano
I eat beef, bacon, potato chips, french fries, cookies, brownies, drink wine, real (not lite) beer - at least occasionally. I am 50, a competitive swimmer, and have a resting heart rate of 50.
You eat bacon, potato chips and french fries every day? Beef need not be high fat and wine/beer have no fat. Not to mention most states have an alcohol tax already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stac2007
Since when does any one have the right to force some one to live they way they want them to?.
When they force me to pay for their bad choices. If people had to actually pay the true costs of their poor eating habits a tax would not be needed.
You don't need to amend it, lifestyle taxes are not unconstitutional. There are already a number of life-style taxes.
What are the other lifestyle taxes on a federal level? Where in the Constitution are they allowed?
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.
