| kain_kusanagi said: NO NO NO NO NO NO NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! We need less government interference not more. What kind of a country do you want to live in? I prefer the kind with real freedom and liberty. Taxation is just another form of control. If I had my way the only thing taxed would be income and it would be a flat 10% for everyone no matter what. No loopholes and no way out of it. If you make a dollar you pay 10cents. that's it. But if I had my way the government would be a lot smaller and spend less so we probably wouldn't even need a 10% tax. Drop all subsidies, get rid of nanny laws and taxes, and go back to the basics of government. |
If we all only paid 10% tax, then Doctors, and Landlords would just be accumulating wealth at ridiculous rates. If you were born into a rich family, own a large company, or just make a lot of $$$ you also have a higher responsibility to the poor. You already have mega-corporations in USA, Wal-Mart grosses more then Poland in a year, do the Waltons and Bill Gates really need billions of dollars? No.
Weedlab said:
Yes it would have been better if I didn’t have it in the first place, but only in an ideal world. Hardships are necessary to encourage progression, and having acid reflux was no different. It turned me into a conscious consumer with respect to eating, and now I can pass on what I learned to help others. The great majority of people do not alter things unless they hit a critical point. That’s why I believe in incentives and disincentives. I only gave ONE example for how incentives works, and it was a personal experience. I had a health related incentive to change. People are very ignorant and choose to stay ignorant. In this sense I believe the government should step in, but not with bans or anything coercive (back to incentives and disincentives). Give people inventive to eat right and disincentives to eating poorly. Where I live taxes on green vehicles are considerably lower on green vehicles and light bulbs than regular cars and the conventional light bulbs. As a result, people responded and bought more of the former. Telling them it is better for the environment or that it would save them more in the long run did very little, but the tax incentive helped tremendously. Again, just an example, but the concept is much broader. Are you aware of the Big Mac Index and what it does? Okay … it may be relatively expensive where YOU live, but where I live it is VERY cheap. The cost of a meal from McDonalds is relative from place to place, and the combinations people employ are much different from what you think the average person may buy. I've seen people buy apple pies and a dollar burger for instance. This also extends to healthier foods. It may be relatively cheap where you live, but that doesn't suggest it is cheap in other places. And as I stated before calories (junk food in general) is much cheaper than nutrition, so it’s part of the reason why people consume them. By junk I’m not solely referring to fast food, but cheap processed food you find in the supermarket for next to nothing. I’m not suggesting all health food items are expensive since some are cheap, and I think this goes back to ignorance. People need to be conscious of the cheap health foods available. A lot of people are unaware of things like yams, beets and other unconventional foods. Moderate additives in foods? Could you elaborate here? I don’t want to assume, but if it is what I think you are suggesting then I’m not sure I’d support that notion. My first degree is in nutrition, and I know the unintended health consequences that can bring.
|
That's just one example. Most people I know respond to incentives like what I mentioned, but coercion usually brings about the opposite effect.Hardships are necessary to encourage progression, you do realize that obesity rates have doubled in the last 20 years right? Food Quality has been going downhill in North America since the 70's and the main reason is to cut costs so large company's make more $$$.
If you're making a case about incentives, I agree with you. We should reduce taxes on healthy foods (Produce has no tax in Canada), and increase taxes on junky food. That's my arguement.
Potatos and rice are two of the cheapest sources of carbs, they are cheaper then corn products, and much healthier. We could easily make sugar from beats (They use beat sugar in pops in Europe), and it would be a lot cheaper and healthier then corn products. Yes carbs in general are cheap, but we do need to make standards. My arguement isn't to get people to eat more nutritious food, just to push company's to make less junky foods. If we say remove the corn subsidy, HFCS and thus candy/pop will become more expensive. However if a compeditor came in am made a product with beat sugar, he could sell the healthier product for less. Win Win.
Plus, if we take junky foods because they have too much fat in them, we could also give a tax break (an incentive) on healthy foods. Crackers and humus cost about as much as chips, but they don't have their own Aile in grocery stores. If chips became more expensive, people would eat more crackers.
As for moderating addatives in food, salt is a good example. Adding salt to subway sandwiches, McDonalds Fries, or pizza doesn't alter the taste that much. In fact a lot of Europeaners can't stand our food because it's so damn salty, and there rarely is a no salt option. If you taxed foods with high salt, people would stop putting them on pre-cooked foods (or at least give you the no salt option, like at McDonalds), and this would be an immediate health benefit. To give you an example of how much salt there is in food, 2-3 slices of pizza cover 1 adult males entire daily salt intake.
Plus there is no reason to cook our food in so much fat, to the point where paper bags become clear.
What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database 
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results
