[nebr]

Originally Posted by Isitmeorarethingsnuts?

Sorry mountainman but the flawed argument was that something that is healthy should be free. That won't fly because once the govt outlaws anything they don't deem healthy they will still need funds to pay for all of their ridiculous programs. Who's next in line? We shall see I guess.

Actually, I think the argument goes that from a public policy perspective, it is bad policy to tax healthy activity. You see, governments use the presence or absence of a tax to discourage or encourage certain activities. Discouraging healthy activities will cost the government more in the long term in the form of things like emergency health calls and hospital stays for people who are on government assistance or Medicare. So, it's actually not a "flawed argument," it's actually a reason to tax or not tax certain activities - it also happens to be a reason that you dont like because you obviously are interested in pushing an agenda.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by nebr

So, it's actually not a "flawed argument," it's actually a reason to tax or not tax certain activities - it also happens to be a reason that you dont like because you obviously are interested in pushing an agenda.

and tree-hugging enviro-wackos aren't?

[nebr]

I didnt say that people who are concerned about the health of the natural world do not have an agenda - they clearly do. But by saying that, does that mean that you dispute that a healthy lifestyle is preferable to an unhealthy lifestyle? Do you dispute that it is better to have less pollution rather than more? These are reasons to not tax bicycle riding and pedestrians. I don't think labeling anyone who recognizes simple truths to be "tree-hugging enviro-wackos" is helpful and it certainly doesn't bring any credibility to your argument. (I'm not going to reply in kind to your name calling and silly little right-wing labels for groups of people (except to use the words "silly little"))

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by nebr

I didnt say that people who are concerned about the health of the natural world do not have an agenda - they clearly do. But by saying that, does that mean that you dispute that a healthy lifestyle is preferable to an unhealthy lifestyle? Do you dispute that it is better to have less pollution rather than more? These are reasons to not tax bicycle riding and pedestrians. I don't think labeling anyone who recognizes simple truths to be "tree-hugging enviro-wackos" is helpful and it certainly doesn't bring any credibility to your argument. (I'm not going to reply in kind to your name calling and silly little right-wing labels for groups of people (except to use the words "silly little"))

My point is that all along the argument has been that we "use the streets" so we should have to pay the wheel/commuter tax. By that argument, so do bike-riders. Heck, when a guy on a bicycle takes up a lane and slows traffic he's not doing me any favors. He's certainly not going to ease traffic congestion.

Having said that, I don't know that it's the government's responsibility to promote or discourage what it consider to be a healthy lifestyle. That's just simply not its purpose.