By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Tax Junk Food/Regulate Contents?

Tagged games:

 

Tax Food with high concentrations of Salt/Fat/Sugar/HFCS?

Yes, tax anything high fat 7 12.28%
 
Yes, tax anything high salt 0 0%
 
Yes, tax anything high sugar 1 1.75%
 
Yes, tax anything with HFCS 0 0%
 
Yes, tax a combination of... 5 8.77%
 
Yes tax all of the above 10 17.54%
 
Maybe, not sure 0 0%
 
No, just lift the Corn Subsidy 12 21.05%
 
No, we can read a nutrition label fine 16 28.07%
 
See Results 4 7.02%
 
Total:55
dsgrue3 on 05 April 2013
famousringo said:

You're deluding yourself if you think other Americans' health doesn't impact your taxes. US government spending on health is 70% higher than spending on defence, that comes out of your income tax, and that's before we account for the increased cost of private health insurance premiums. The collective paying for the bad circumstances of the individual is the very nature of insurance. 

Yes, people who snack occaisionally will also see a tax, but since they aren't subsisting on a diet of Snickers bars, it won't be a susbstantial barrier to their occaisional enjoyment of bad food. That's the great thing about consumption taxes, they scale based on how heavy a consumer you are.

Perhaps another contrast would help you see how you'd be better off paying for fat people's health with a consumption tax rather than on your income tax and insurance premiums.

There are two taxes which largely pay for roads where I live, property taxes to the city, and fuel taxes to the province. I rarely drive, so I don't have much use for roads, so you can see I might have an objection paying taxes for a good I rarely use. With the fuel tax, a consumption tax, this is not a problem. I don't drive, I don't burn gas, I don't pay tax to maintain roads. Even better, if I did drive, the tax scales based on what kind of vehicle I drive. A light, efficient hatchback burns less gas and causes less wear on the road than a huge SUV, so it's fair that the gas-guzzling SUV driver pays more tax to maintain roads.

But my property taxes pay no attention to whether I use the road or not, and has no regard for whether I'm using it lightly in a small sedan, or heavily in a large truck. That leaves me subsidizing the folks in my town who drive large vehicles. Not a very fair tax for me.

Right now, fat, unhealthy people are costing you money in income taxes and insurance premiums. Why should you be subsidizing their poor eating habits when a shift to a consumption tax would have individuals paying for their own unhealthy choices?

Everything single thing you said is false. That's how ignorant you are to the topic. 

1) You're deluding yourself if you think others' health doesn't impact your taxes

No I'm not. They have no impact upon my taxes as I've already explained. Income tax is not affected by health. If you want to say health insurance is affected by others' health, that's equally stupid. Their rates will be higher because of their terrible eating habits, whereas mine will remain low.

2) Yes, people who snack occasionally will also see a tax.

And this is okay, because...?

3) Roads

Couldn't give a damn about how Canadians pay for their roads, in America they are paid for through a gas tax which is only applicable when you fill your tank. This in no way relates to a food tax. Food taxes pay for nothing. Gas taxes pay for roads, which are something no one would dispute who uses them.

4) Health Insurance Premiums.

See 1).



Around the Network
famousringo on 05 April 2013
dsgrue3 said:

Everything single thing you said is false. That's how ignorant you are to the topic. 

1) You're deluding yourself if you think others' health doesn't impact your taxes

No I'm not. They have no impact upon my taxes as I've already explained. Income tax is not affected by health. If you want to say health insurance is affected by others' health, that's equally stupid. Their rates will be higher because of their terrible eating habits, whereas mine will remain low.

2) Yes, people who snack occasionally will also see a tax.

And this is okay, because...?

3) Roads

Couldn't give a damn about how Canadians pay for their roads, in America they are paid for through a gas tax which is only applicable when you fill your tank. This in no way relates to a food tax. Food taxes pay for nothing. Gas taxes pay for roads, which are something no one would dispute who uses them.

4) Health Insurance Premiums.

See 1).


Okay, I give up. I see you're incapable of understanding causation beyond a single order, you view the world in black and white, and you find metaphors difficult to grasp. I will no longer try to explain things to you in the future. Have fun paying for other people's obesity while pretending you aren't.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

Kasz216 on 05 April 2013
dsgrue3 said:
Kasz216 said:
dsgrue3 said:
famousringo said:

 

 

I disagree... if you went with taxpayer based budgeting model... (That is the taxpayer decides what his taxes will pay the next year).   I bet most Welfare would be one of the first things that filled up... espiecally stuff like WIC

Various farm subsidies where we pay farmers, price supports and the like would probably go pretty quickly though, assistance to help poor people get home loans would likely go, stuff like that.  

The "mid level" welfare that's less about taking care of the poor and more about trying to elevate the poor.  That stuff that doesn't actually focus on the poor.


A LOT of government employees salaries would likely take huge hits, and specific unpopular military stuff would be gone. 

Additionally, 64% think too many are dependent upon government aid:

51% think government spends too much on poverty programs:

And you think taxpayers would support these things?


Well yeah.  51% of people thing the government spends too much on poverty programs.   Therefore 49% don't think that.

 

In a taxpayer choose spending scenario... you only need ~20% support depending on what you consider welfare.  It costs way less then that for Foodstamps, WIC, Unemployment and general welfare.

 

The big "Welfare" programs that cost a LOT of money are Social Security and Medicare.  Which are larger percentage of the population support, a lot thinking they aren't even welfare.  



Kasz216 on 05 April 2013
dsgrue3 said:
famousringo said:

You're deluding yourself if you think other Americans' health doesn't impact your taxes. US government spending on health is 70% higher than spending on defence, that comes out of your income tax, and that's before we account for the increased cost of private health insurance premiums. The collective paying for the bad circumstances of the individual is the very nature of insurance. 

Yes, people who snack occaisionally will also see a tax, but since they aren't subsisting on a diet of Snickers bars, it won't be a susbstantial barrier to their occaisional enjoyment of bad food. That's the great thing about consumption taxes, they scale based on how heavy a consumer you are.

Perhaps another contrast would help you see how you'd be better off paying for fat people's health with a consumption tax rather than on your income tax and insurance premiums.

There are two taxes which largely pay for roads where I live, property taxes to the city, and fuel taxes to the province. I rarely drive, so I don't have much use for roads, so you can see I might have an objection paying taxes for a good I rarely use. With the fuel tax, a consumption tax, this is not a problem. I don't drive, I don't burn gas, I don't pay tax to maintain roads. Even better, if I did drive, the tax scales based on what kind of vehicle I drive. A light, efficient hatchback burns less gas and causes less wear on the road than a huge SUV, so it's fair that the gas-guzzling SUV driver pays more tax to maintain roads.

But my property taxes pay no attention to whether I use the road or not, and has no regard for whether I'm using it lightly in a small sedan, or heavily in a large truck. That leaves me subsidizing the folks in my town who drive large vehicles. Not a very fair tax for me.

Right now, fat, unhealthy people are costing you money in income taxes and insurance premiums. Why should you be subsidizing their poor eating habits when a shift to a consumption tax would have individuals paying for their own unhealthy choices?

3) Roads

Couldn't give a damn about how Canadians pay for their roads, in America they are paid for through a gas tax which is only applicable when you fill your tank. This in no way relates to a food tax. Food taxes pay for nothing. Gas taxes pay for roads, which are something no one would dispute who uses them.


Actually roads are also paid locally through various local taxes like property taxes.... and the gas tax is one of the biggest examples of overcentralization that I can think of.

They get built on a federal level but maintained on a local level.  During the GFC a lot of roads went to gravel... and you basically see this all the time.

Senators looking to get their state a "share of the pie" will support completely illogical roads nobody needs.  The government will approve them.

The senator gets a boost for creating jobs in his state... and once the road is built it goes to shit because the local governments refuse to maintain it because it's a shitty road that almost nobody uses.

So it either naturally turns to grave or it gets bad enough and the city sends someone out to gravel it.

 



snyps on 05 April 2013
SamuelRSmith said:

Lift corn subsidies.


nailed it!



Around the Network
Michael-5 on 08 April 2013
kain_kusanagi said:
Michael-5 said:
kain_kusanagi said:

Since when does anyone have the right to tell anyone how wealthy they can be? I could not be more against your assurtion that we should limit success. You do know that the rich tend to create a lot of jobs right?

But I would be willing to go with a tiered flat tax. 5% for the low income, 10% for the middle and 20% for the high income bracket. But like I said before, if the governement was smaller and didn't regulate our lives and waste so much money it could be less. Maybe just 1%, 5% and 10% for the three brackets.

You know Wal Mart makes more jobs then it takes away? However it makes meaningless minimum wage jobs.

Most people who are rich, are rich because they aren't generous with their money. They find ways to make products or companies which pay employees minimum wage (or less, a lot of stuff is made in China where minimum wage is less) so that they themselves can keep the money.

Are you talking about income tax? How low is income tax in USA? In Canada it starts at 20% for those who make I believe 20-35k a year and goes up to 41/48% for people who make over 100k (41% for the first 100k, 48% for everything after).

This makes sense, I have a friend who works at a poshe golf course where registration is 50k for the first year and 10k every year after. MOST of these people didn't earn their money, they inherited it. What good is money when it stays in the hands of people who didn't work for it? I understand if you worked hard and made a successful company that you deserve a lot of money, but at the same time the employees you hire to make your stuff deserve more then minimum wage too. Rich people are rich because they sell stuff for a lot more then it costs to make, and make jobs which generate little income. If we didn't heavily tax the rich, the rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer. Simple.


Nobody gets to decide how to spend other peoples money. Your friend has a job at that golf course because rich people want to golf there.

Yes I am talking about income tax. If I had my way it would be the ONLY tax. Income tax is just the tip of the iceberg in the menagerie of taxation in this country. Much like your GST we can't seem to do anything in this country without being effected by tax.

Here's wiki's US Income Tax  Rate Table

Marginal Tax Rate[9][10][11] Single Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er) Married Filing Separately Head of Household
10% $0 – $8,925 $0 – $17,850 $0 – $8,925 $0 – $12,750
15% $8,926 – $36,250 $17,851 – $72,500 $8,926 – $36,250 $12,751 – $48,600
25% $36,251 – $87,850 $72,501 – $146,400 $36,251 – $73,200 $48,601 – $125,450
28% $87,851 – $183,250 $146,401 – $223,050 $73,201 – $111,525 $125,451 – $203,150
33% $183,251 – $398,350 $223,051 – $398,350 $111,526 – $199,175 $203,151 – $398,350
35% $398,351 – $400,000 $398,351 – $450,000 $199,176 – $225,000 $398,351 – $425,000
39.6% $400,001+ $450,001+ $225,001+ $425,001+

This taxation method is designed to squeeze the middle income who can barely afford it, destroy small businesses who employ the most, barely touch the rich, and give to the poor. I'd rather the governemnt spend less, let charities take care of the poor, tax middle income and small business less so they can save and invest while maybe taxing the rich a bit more, but not a lot more. The rich already pay the most.

Democrate or Republican?

Taxation in the USA hurts the middle class, but that's mostly because you have too many loopholes for corporations to go through. Corporate tax is USA varies from 12-35%. Now honestly, do you think the CEO's who ruined GM and Ford should be able to go on with only a 12.1% Corporate tax (record low in 2011)? Most people who make millions of dollars a year, don't do it with a desk job and a personal income.

The simple matter is, you need money to make money. People who have millions can easily generate income, and this isn't true for the middle/lower class. Money that just sits in the pockets of rich people does not help the economy. No one person should have more income then a developed country (Wal-Mart....I'm not shitting you, is richer then Poland, and how much of a share to the Waltons have?).

If you make it even easier for companies to become super rich, and make an even more capitalistic nation, then you're eventually going to have a huge poverty issue (and I believe USA's poverty is already the lowest of the developed nations). Yes the rich make jobs, but they make jobs to keep people poor, and keep their companies generating money.

Plus who's going to fund those charities to help the poor? The mega rich? The middle class? I doubt it. You realize a lot of people become poor because of the decisions by the wealthy? Take that 700 Trillion Dollar bankrupcy Americans had a few years ago. That was caused by banks giving out morgages to people who couldn't afford it, and when it came time to collect, everyone just filled for bankrupcy. Greed hurt USA's economy, and I see no reason to encourage that deadly sin.

Plus who's going to fund drug addiction and mental health programs? With more people in poverty, you're going to need someone to fund that stuff.



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

Michael-5 on 08 April 2013
snyps said:
Augen said:
snyps said:
Michael-5 said:

This is completly false. A Big Mac Combo is about $7 and that barely feeds 1 person for 1 day. I live off $20 a week for food (I cook a lot), and I can tell you that you can feed a person for about $2 a day no problem. Eating healthy is cheaper then eating crap.


I feed my self AND  my gf for $30 a week and we eat better than a 5 star restaurant.  Everything from scratch.  Pancakes n stuff in the morning,  pizza from scratch, gas grilling, roasting, deep frying, I make my own ice cream!  The stuff I make is not enumurable.  But here's the kicker.  It doesnt take time or hardwork, it takes brains.  I can whip up the most amazing food faster than a trip through the drive through.  Ppl that think they have to read labels need to start reading the recipes on the web. Am I right?

Tone is hard to portray on internet so let me say I am being dead serious here.  I want to emulate this, I cook myself and $30 would be amazing goal for me and my fiancee to eat on.  Right now we vary between $40-60 depending on sales.  So, what are you eating?  How do you cut costs?

I eat all kinds of stuff: (please read 1st before looking at my bragging list).   I have an oven, stove, gas grill, cool daddy deep fryer,  kitchen aid stand mixer with ice cream attachment,  triple beam scale, and a bunch of little things I picked up like garlic press.  I started small with one book The William Sonoma Collection "Roasting".  I first made a meatloaf, then Cornish hens, then roast chicken... Etc.  the Roasting book is enough for someone to eat for an entire year with out getting bored.  It's very easy all you need is an oven.  Each meal will cost roughly $5 in ingredients, depending where you shop, and last a week for two ppl.  I then started the "breakfast" book, and so on.  It takes studying the recipe you want and moving over the hurdle of self doubt.  There's pictures of every meal so I flip to one that looks yummy and it will look difficult at first but the second glance will be like "oh that's actually not bad".  What else can I say, at first you start off with what you have but eventually you get more spices and tools as you go.  Now I use up everything perishable weekly and always keep oils, condiments, rice, pasta noodles, dry beans, sugar and flour fully stocked.  I shop at winco where i find non packaged products so i scoop however much i need in a baggie.  Each week I buy: a $1 fruit, a $1 vegetable,  $3/lb deli meat, $10 butcher meat, $3 milk, $3/lb cheese, $1 bread, and a $6 pack of red bull.  Every other week I buy:  garlic, onions, potatoes, sunflower seeds, and eggs.  So that's pretty much it.  Here is a list of everything I have every made.  I've been cooking for about 4 years now and I have way more recipes I still havent tried!

 

There is where your cost is coming from.

I mostly eat pasta's, rice, or potato dishes. Rice costs $10 for 10kg, so literally if I just ate rice it would cost me $0.50 a day since the average person eats 500g a day. Add in veggies, and make my own sauce, and I realistically pay $1.50-$2 a day on my food. That's <$14 a week. The other $6 comes from cheese and meat, but even then I buy in bulk and then freeze it.

Most of the sauces I make are milk or tomato based, so they aren't that expensive. I don't add too much cheese to the sauce.

Also I don't eat much meat, I get protein from mostly eggs and fish. I eat chicken and turkey ocassionally, and I almost never eat red beef.

Also $6 a week for red bull? just start drinking coffee/tea LOL.



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

Michael-5 on 08 April 2013
Kasz216 said:
Michael-5 said:
Kasz216 said:
In general by the way. Taxing junk food, just like taxing cigarettes and alcohol will accomplish one thing.

It will make the poor... Poorer.

Tons of people still smoke, tons of people still drink. ESPECIALLY the poor.

It will be the same with fast food, but worse. Since people need food.

As an example...

Low-income smokers, defined as individuals in households making less than $30,000 a year, spent an average of 23.6 percent of the annual household income on cigarettes. That number is up from 11.6 percent in 2003-2004 and in spite of increasing cigarette taxes imposed by the state and city governments.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/22/state-funded-study-cigarette-tax-hurts-new-yorks-poor-most/#ixzz2PVeXyUVD


You really can't stop people from doing what they want. You can only hurt the poor by trying to do so.



If you were going to do anything to stop unhealthy eating i'd suggest three things

1) Drop the Corn Subsidy and the sugar import tax. (probably won't make much of a difference... but some.

2) Restrict Food Stamps to raw foods. Cut out soda, candy, ice cream... hell TV dinners and frozen chicken nuggets. Additionally restrict an upper limit on price paid per unit. Since a big problem is people buying things like expensive steak and lobster and selling them for 1/3rd the price for money.

If you can't do that. Offer a bonus. Like you get 30% more money for buying the above foods. So if you spent 100 on fruits and vegetables, foodstamps pays 100 but only charges you 70.


3) Make restaurants post nutritional facts on the menu. Helps for the rare cases where there is something deceiving.

A Lot less people smoke now, you know that right? Not sure about drinking since it's been taxed for so long, and any studies to the 1900's would be largely irrelevant, but smoking has largely been cut back and lung cancer is no longer the leading cause of death in North Americans (it used to be, i believe).

As for poor people smoking, yes they are spending 10% more of their income on cigarettes, but how many of them are there? I bet you less then 25% of people smoke now compared to 2003.


Well first off... a lot less people smoke... not due to any sort of government regulation or taxation but because smoking has just stopped being "cool"... and the people who started before people knew how healthy it was are dieing off.

 

Secondly... no... not even close.  Smoking has decreased but nowhere near a 3 to 1 drop.

Well unless there was a MEGA drop in the last 3 years or so.

http://www.sharecare.com/question/do-less-people-smoke-pastd

I'm reading that it's been a 25% reduction since the 1960's, and only recently it's starting to plateau.

http://www.patient.co.uk/health/Smoking-The-Facts.htm

In UK there was a 32% reduction from 1972 to 1990.

We also agree on the 20% figure now, so do you deny that 45% of people smoked in the 60's/70's?



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

Michael-5 on 08 April 2013
dsgrue3 said:

Producers pass cost onto consumers. If it costs them 15% more to make the product, it will cost 15% more to us.

No reason for me to pay more for ice cream because of the irresponsibility of the morbidly obese.

That makes sense, but what if we cut some other tax to balance it out again? What if sales tax on food cost 5% less, but junk food cost 15% more. If you're skinny, you probably eat a moderatly healthy diet correct? This would probably benefit you more, and at the same time, this would force obese people to eat less, thus making women better looking around you.



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

dsgrue3 on 08 April 2013
Michael-5 said:
dsgrue3 said:

Producers pass cost onto consumers. If it costs them 15% more to make the product, it will cost 15% more to us.

No reason for me to pay more for ice cream because of the irresponsibility of the morbidly obese.

That makes sense, but what if we cut some other tax to balance it out again? What if sales tax on food cost 5% less, but junk food cost 15% more. If you're skinny, you probably eat a moderatly healthy diet correct? This would probably benefit you more, and at the same time, this would force obese people to eat less, thus making women better looking around you.

I could actually get behind that, despite my disinterest in allowing the government to control what is being consumed.