Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/12/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5009316.shtml

Good idea? It sounds like a very reasonable solution to raise revenue imo.

Could just stop using aspertame in everything. That way they will save money from having to produce aspertame and the people won't have to pay for ill effects it has on health.

And have the tax be less on sodas that use sugar instead of corn syrup and no tax on sodas that use natural or unprocessed sugars. In terms of artificial sweetners, I agree on taxing Aspartame and Saccharine (where it's legal) but I'm not sure if sucralose should be taxed since all research that I know of indicates that it's fairly harmless. Also, taxes on sweetners made from imported products should be greater than those grown domestically to encourage domestic farm production.

lol

yay pet issues.

We don't want the government to be able to tax based on how harmful it thinks something is.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
And have the tax be less on sodas that use sugar instead of corn syrup and no tax on sodas that use natural or unprocessed sugars. In terms of artificial sweetners, I agree on taxing Aspartame and Saccharine (where it's legal) but I'm not sure if sucralose should be taxed since all research that I know of indicates that it's fairly harmless. Also, taxes on sweetners made from imported products should be greater than those grown domestically to encourage domestic farm production.

Yeah, maybe we can base all taxation on your personal preferences. That would be great.

Well one of the purposes of taxation, specifically sales tax is to regulate and discourage bad behavior. So if you're going to tax sweetners, why not do it in a way that encourages better health, better flavor and product quality, and more advantages to domestic product?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Well one of the purposes of taxation, specifically sales tax is to regulate and discourage bad behavior. So if you're going to tax sweetners, why not do it in a way that encourages better health, better flavor and product quality, and more advantages to domestic product?

Because flavour is subjective for one.

Then because science regarding nuztizion is very unclear at times, Fr one unprocessed, natural sugard aren't inherently good.

do taxes on cigarettes make people smoke less?

does the prohibition of something reduce its use?

such "morality" taxes are useless

can I get specific tax exemptions/rules? I'm a diabetic, so all sugar is very harmful to me. Therefore I should pay more taxes than others, or companies should have to pay more when I buy their products.

also, such taxes are anti-competition, with the government biasing what products will be successful in the market.

Then I insist that the government lower my personal taxes, as I exercise regularly and rarely eat fastfood, while the guy who doesn't exercise and eats Burger King 4 days a week should increase.

What about basing taxes on bodyfat, cholesterol levels, blood-sugar etc?

lol, the market for fake HbA1C results would skyrocket.

by the way, can I buy some of your blood Rob? Just to cover my bases

Reminds me a bit of Gattaca.

Sure, buy two pints and I'll throw in a semen sample for free.

I bet you say that to everyone who buys your vital fluids

Originally posted by inimalist
I bet you say that to everyone who buys your vital fluids

Just you, just you.

BTW. I recommend you buy this book, as to not waste me.

The government should be bias towards domestic products, especially right now. Protectionism works. As for the subjective nature of my argument, ignoring the health research, I challenge you to find someone who prefers the flavor of High Fructose Corn Syrup to cane or beet sugar. I challenge you to find someone who prefers the flavor of any other sweetener to sucralose.

how about the fact that there are people to whom the taste of sweetener isn't the primary motivation behind their usage of it?

I can't drink sugar, natural or processed, so why should I be taxed for a genetic condition?

Originally posted by inimalist

I can't drink sugar, natural or processed, so why should I be taxed for a genetic condition?

From this thread's POV, you wouldn't be taxed here, as you're likely not going to buy fountain drinks.

But I understand what you mean in the bigger scheme.

jello was promoting the taxing of sweeteners. I jumped to assuming that meant sweeteners in diet soft drinks. my bad if thats not what he was saying

someone mentioned aspartame so if it were to expand to diet sweetners, what i meant was not taxing sucralose but taxing the other products since they taste worse and have more proven negative health effects.

Originally posted by inimalist
jello was promoting the taxing of sweeteners. I jumped to assuming that meant sweeteners in diet soft drinks. my bad if thats not what he was saying

Seems he's down for taxing sweeteners, on the health issue.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
someone mentioned aspartame so if it were to expand to diet sweetners, what i meant was not taxing sucralose but taxing the other products since they taste worse and have more proven negative health effects.

Which is the one that caused cancer in lab rats? Sweet N' Low?

saccharine is sweet n low, aspartame is nutrasweet, sucraclose is splenda. As a condition of the taxes, I would also revoke those companies' exclusive rights to market and manufacture those sweeteners in order to open up competition.

Saccharine caused the cancer, I think.

fair enough, though, that would increase costs to diabetics for no real reason

I guess that is if sweetener is taxed more than real sugar...

lol, whatever, I was being more of a douche than serious...

EDIT: shit ya Splenda!

There should be a bracket system-

Raw Sugar or Sucralose-no tax
Refined Sugar or Aspartame-2 cents
Corn Syrup or Saccharine-4 cents

Add 3 cent tax to any of the previous products if they weren't harvested, manufactured, and packaged in the US

I'd just make the argument that marijuana is illegal but corn syrup isn't, /shrug

dental bills alone should be enough to prove the harm principal there

not to mention another "100,000,000 Guinea Pigs" scenario with the introduction of GMO corn. Not that I'm opposed to the principal, just the lack of choice/transparency.

I just really don't see taxes as an effective way to curb behaviour. Am I wrong here? the best evidence I've seen is that prohibition may in fact increase usage, though I guess smoking is on the downfall, though that is with more than just tax laws.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
There should be a bracket system-

Raw Sugar or Sucralose-no tax
Refined Sugar or Aspartame-2 cents
Corn Syrup or Saccharine-4 cents

Add 3 cent tax to any of the previous products if they weren't harvested, manufactured, and packaged in the US

I've heard Splenda has it's negatives too, something to do with vision. Could be just a BS rumour.

Originally posted by inimalist
do taxes on cigarettes make people smoke less?

Yes. I looked but I couldn't find it on the internets. (Though, I only looked for less than a minute.) But I read it somewhere that the increase in cost caused some people to quit. It was a marginal number, though.

Originally posted by inimalist
does the prohibition of something reduce its use?

It sure does. But it also causes illegal activity around that "something" to skyrocket.

Originally posted by inimalist
such "morality" taxes are useless

Not entirely useless. In fact, they are useful with negatives....or negative with some uses, depending on whether your glass if half full or half empty.




I'm perfectly okay with fatass taxes. It WILL improve the health of America....but only marginally. Still, I could benefit from the fatass tax. awesome

There goes all my money.

My roommate is a pharm student that's worked with splenda. The thing with sucralose is that they basically take sucrose (sugar) and replace a hydroxide or two with a couple of chlorine atoms. The effect is that the sugar breaks down in your mouth, so it releases the same flavor as sugar but cannot be absorbed by the bodies of most people and is passed the same way as starches. The health effects that have been noticed is that in a few sensitive people that can absorb small amounts, extremely high doses result in weakened immune system and thymus gland. Extremely high doses also have been shown to negatively effect intestinal flora but not in a significant way. Organisms in the environment can digest sucralose but there have been few if any negative effects shown. These results are based on studies done by a number of national and international organizations since Sucralose' invention in 1976.

Basically it's chemically altered sugar that can't be broken down past the mouth and can rarely be absorbed into the blood stream so you eat it, it tastes sweet, then you poop it out. And by extremely high doses I mean in excess of 18,000 packets for a sensitive person per day.
Edit: 18,000 packets comes to somewhere around a quarter of a pound of sugar.

Originally posted by inimalist
I just really don't see taxes as an effective way to curb behaviour. Am I wrong here? the best evidence I've seen is that prohibition may in fact increase usage, though I guess smoking is on the downfall, though that is with more than just tax laws.

You're right. The "improvement" on behavior is marginal at best. It's still an improvement, but like you said, it's not very effective.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There goes all my money.




Everyone point and laugh at the fatass!



(P.S. I eat junk ALL the time, so I'd be affected too. However, I don't soda very often.)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There goes all my money.

Or you could buy less.
Or the companies could be willing to take a tiny hit to the profit margin.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Or you could buy less.
Or the companies could be willing to take a tiny hit to the profit margin. Like that is going to happen.

Originally posted by inimalist
do taxes on cigarettes make people smoke less?

does the prohibition of something reduce its use?

such "morality" taxes are useless
They are useful because they increase federal revenue... oddly enough if they worked the way you're suggesting then they truly would be useless.

Often times a portion of the funding goes to cure the social ills they cause. So if a surtax on sugar ensures free dental care for all, I'm for it. And I will qualify that in the context of I hate the dentist and would rather go to an unlicensed proctologist than get a root canal.

Originally posted by King Kandy
They are useful because they increase federal revenue... oddly enough if they worked the way you're suggesting then they truly would be useless.

If you want federal revenue? Legalize pot and tax it, and you will get federal revenue.

Sorry for going off topic, but I couldn't resist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you want federal revenue? Legalize pot and tax it, and you will get federal revenue.

Sorry for going off topic, but I couldn't resist.

I second this motion.



And we should add an excise tax to sugar sodas, legalize steriods and add a tax to that, legalize shrooms and tax that, etc. Hooray for liberties?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you want federal revenue? Legalize pot and tax it, and you will get federal revenue.

Sorry for going off topic, but I couldn't resist.
I would be in favor of that plan as well. In fact it's one of the best options available imo.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I second this motion.



And we should add an excise tax to sugar sodas, legalize steriods and add a tax to that, legalize shrooms and tax that, etc. Hooray for liberties?

Well if you look at societies that either legalize (and heavily tax) things like drugs and prostitution, use of those services goes down due to a lack of alluring stigma. Also it tends to rip the balls out of organized crime because even with the tax, a legitimate, regulated company is gonna charge a lot less for cocaine or a prostitute than a pimp or a columbian drug dealer. Plus you get the peace of mind in knowing that you're not shoving something cut with rat poison in your veins or rolling around with a disease-filled pus bag.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I second this motion.



And we should add an excise tax to sugar sodas, legalize steriods and add a tax to that, legalize shrooms and tax that, etc. Hooray for liberties?
Hey there are a ton of things on the controlled substance act that aren't legitimately harmful imo. So I think a lot of them could stand to be legalized, and if they can be taxed, all the better.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Well if you look at societies that either legalize (and heavily tax) things like drugs and prostitution, use of those services goes down due to a lack of alluring stigma. Also it tends to rip the balls out of organized crime because even with the tax, a legitimate, regulated company is gonna charge a lot less for cocaine or a prostitute than a pimp or a columbian drug dealer. Plus you get the peace of mind in knowing that you're not shoving something cut with rat poison in your veins or rolling around with a disease-filled pus bag.


All excellent LOGICAL and factual based points. Shame that dumbass Americans and politicians can't see that.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Hey there are a ton of things on the controlled substance act that aren't legitimately harmful imo. So I think a lot of them could stand to be legalized, and if they can be taxed, all the better.

I wouldn't go as far as to say they aren't harmful, but, yes, you're right. Alcohol is more harmful than many schedule II substances. However, alcoholic beverages are much more legal because of the social acceptance of it. If only the "health" laws were based on fact such as a level of harm caused, instead of the igrnoant ideas of the masses. Such is the fate of democracy type systems. lol

Every time you criminalize something without a better replacement or equivalent alternative, you create a new avenue for organized crime and legitimize price gouging by that criminal organization because you inherently create a scarce commodity.

Hence why they can charge a 19,000,000% price increase on cocaine.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Hence why they can charge a 19,000,000% price increase on cocaine.


You are exaggerating your numbers, but, sometimes, it is over a 1000% increase. Retarded addicts actually buy it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I wouldn't go as far as to say they aren't harmful, but, yes, you're right. Alcohol is more harmful than many schedule II substances. However, alcoholic beverages are much more legal because of the social acceptance of it. If only the "health" laws were based on fact such as a level of harm caused, instead of the igrnoant ideas of the masses. Such is the fate of democracy type systems. lol
Schedule 2? There's loads on schedule one i'm skeptical of. Cannabis, LSD, Mescaline, Psilocybin, MDMA, just on schedule one I see these that probably could stand to be down a level or two if not legalized outright.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you want federal revenue? Legalize pot and tax it, and you will get federal revenue.

Sorry for going off topic, but I couldn't resist.

Yup. Banning things ends up costing a lot more and doing less to help people than limited regulation and some tax.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You are exaggerating your numbers, but, sometimes, it is over a 1000% increase. Retarded addicts actually buy it.

I guess it comes down to how much you're willing to pay to avoid withdrawl.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, maybe we can base all taxation on your personal preferences. That would be great.

I think the gomment should at least tax the chemical that it's killing it's people with. That would just make it perfect. We the people pay our gomment to feed us road kill and cancer.

This is shit. It's more social engineering.

Social Engineering? I think it's called "making money".

I guess people making under 250k a year don't buy soda.

Originally posted by KidRock
I guess people making under 250k a year don't buy soda.

They drink $2000 bottles of Brandy and Champagne. Duh.


And water.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Social Engineering? I think it's called "making money". Stealing money is the correct term. Though the government, incientally, also "makes" money.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Stealing money is the correct term. Though the government, incientally, also "makes" money.

Haven't you heard the news? It's now patriotic to bend over and let the government unconditionally plow your ass as many times and as long as they want.

thats been patriotic for a long time now

Originally posted by KidRock
Haven't you heard the news? It's now patriotic to bend over and let the government unconditionally plow your ass as many times and as long as they want.

Kinda funny coming from a guy who has proven that he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to how economics, taxes, labor and markets actually work (which actually makes you a perfect candidate to be an economic adviser, run for congress, or run the Fed). Are you sure they're drilling your ass and not just fixing a gas main by your house?

lol

I was more surprised to hear him complaining about taxes on poor people.

Finally, they might pull their weight

Originally posted by dadudemon
You are exaggerating your numbers, but, sometimes, it is over a 1000% increase. Retarded addicts actually buy it.

I don't know about those exaggerations...

how much does an ounce of good Corn sell for?

I wouldn't spend more than 250 for primo lettuce

EDIT lol, ok, so not 19 000 000%

EDIT 2: LOL even more

according to: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/93-023.htm

a 56 pound bushel of corn sells for $2.50, wholesale from a farmer...

so, at least a mark up in the range of 100 000 times

What happened to no new taxes on people making under 250k a year?

Anybody?

Anybody?


Originally posted by Darth Jello
Kinda funny coming from a guy who has proven that he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to how economics, taxes, labor and markets actually work (which actually makes you a perfect candidate to be an economic adviser, run for congress, or run the Fed). Are you sure they're drilling your ass and not just fixing a gas main by your house?

Even funnier how you're pretty much calling everyone in congress and the government an idiot when it comes to economics and markets yet you have been prancing around these forums for the past months advertising how you want these people to have MORE power in these departments.

Originally posted by KidRock
What happened to no new taxes on people making under 250k a year?

Anybody?

Anybody?


Tariffs on goods isn't the same as personal taxes, ie Federal, State.

Tariffs on goods isn't the same as personal taxes, ie Federal, State.

Originally posted by Robtard
Tariffs on goods isn't the same as personal taxes, ie Federal, State.

Since when is a sales tax not a tax?

Obama's words: No new taxes on those making under 250k a year.

Taxing soda = a new tax that people making under 250k a year will have to pay.

Obama = liar

All things which are NOT necessary should be taxed. Noone is taxed on bread, meat, milk, flour, eggs, cheeze...etc.

Things like ''soda'' are not necessity and therefore alright to tax.

Originally posted by KidRock
Since when is a sales tax not a tax?

Obama's words: No new taxes on those making under 250k a year.

Taxing soda = a new tax that people making under 250k a year will have to pay.

Obama = liar

Wow, I know Obama-hate has people making illogical conclusions and stretches as to make Obama look bad at any opportunity, but this one is ridiculous.

Repeat: Taxes on goods isn't the same as income tax/Fed. Apples to oranges, sir.

Even if you were right in some bizarro-world short of way (which you're not), people making under $250k can avoid this 'soda-tax' by not buying soda. Taxes on tobacco products is set to increase soon, going to blame that one on Obama too?

In the bigger picture, sure, he is a liar, as are all presidents. But you're wrong here.

Originally posted by Robtard
Wow, I know Obama-hate has people making illogical conclusions and stretches as to make Obama look bad at any opportunity, but this one is ridiculous.

Repeat: Taxes on goods isn't the same as income tax/Fed. Apples to oranges, sir.

Even if you were right in some bizarro-world short of way (which you're not), people making under $250k can avoid this 'soda-tax' by not buying soda. Taxes on tobacco products is set to increase soon, going to blame that one on Obama too?

In the bigger picture, sure, he is a liar, as are all presidents. But you're wrong here.

Repeat: Obama never said income/federal taxes..he said people would SEE no NEW TAXES.

Which they clearly are going to with this new one. He said people would see no new taxes, period.

Unless you can convince me a sales tax is not a tax then no I am not wrong.

It was obvious to anybody with a brain that he was referring to taxes that actually depend on income...

Originally posted by King Kandy
It was obvious to anybody with a brain that he was referring to taxes that actually depend on income...

It's pretty obvious that "no new taxes" can and would be interpreted as...NO NEW TAXES.

So I guess it's okay for Obama to raise other taxes on the poor as long as it isn't the income tax, right?

Originally posted by KidRock
It's pretty obvious that "no new taxes" can and would be interpreted as...NO NEW TAXES.

So I guess it's okay for Obama to raise other taxes on the poor as long as it isn't the income tax, right?

Sorry, dudes, I agree with KR. Taxes is taxes is taxes. He didn't say income tax and I don't see how what he said doesn't apply to any and all taxes directly against the demographic specified: The under $250k group.

Edit -It in this modern age, if he meant a specific type of taxes, he would specify that. You know, these guys are lawyers and politicians. They leave things ambiguous to get away with things, and are very specific with other items to prevent misinterpretation.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sorry, dudes, I agree with KR. Taxes is taxes is taxes. He didn't say income tax and I don't see how what he said doesn't apply to any and all taxes directly against the demographic specified: The under $250k group.

Edit -It in this modern age, if he meant a specific type of taxes, he would specify that. You know, these guys are lawyers and politicians. They leave things ambiguous to get away with things, and are very specific with other items to prevent misinterpretation.
Obviously, if the exception is made for A SPECIFIC INCOME GROUP, that tax promise RELATES TO INCOME. If taxes have nothing to do with income, then it makes no sense to have the promise be related to income. Sorry but it is clear he was talking about, when raising taxes on income tiers, none of those raised taxes would come from tiers below 250K. If that campaign promise was intended as being against nontiered taxes, then it was complete stupidity and i'd be more upset if he WAS following it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Obviously, if the exception is made for A SPECIFIC INCOME GROUP, that tax promise RELATES TO INCOME. If taxes have nothing to do with income, then it makes no sense to have the promise be related to income. Sorry but it is clear he was talking about, when raising taxes on income tiers, none of those raised taxes would come from tiers below 250K. If that campaign promise was intended as being against nontiered taxes, then it was complete stupidity and i'd be more upset if he WAS following it.

However, the tax does include an income group. It doesn't have to be specific to that income group in order for that tax to be a "new tax" that will be paid, no matter how small or large the portion, from sub $250k income peeps.


On top of that, the vast majority of this tax revenue will come from the $250K group. Where do you think the majority soft drink purchases come from? The rich are certainly not going to drink 10-20 times as much as the $250k soft-drink, drinkers. Obviously, this tax would primarily affect the sub $250K peeps. It is almost the exact opposite of what Obama said.





To sum up:

There's no rebuttal to this. Taxes are taxes are taxes. He said no new taxes to the sub $250K group. This tax will hit that specific group much much much more than the $250K+ group.


Edit - And to say it has to be specific to income taxes, that's rather ...I don't want to insult you as you're cool. So lemme say it this way: For people most of America, the vast majority of us make much less than 100k. A federal excise tax on a commonly consumed good IS income tax. When you live pay-check to pay-check, any form of federal tax IS an income tax, especially if it is one a good that is very commonly purchased. It is merely word semantics to say it specifically doesn't fit under "income taxes". That's word semantics...yes, I'm exaggerating, but you do get the point. Shouldn't we tax something that targets the absurd vast majority of $250k+ people? Wouldn't that be more in keeping with what Obama promised?

Originally posted by dadudemon
the vast majority of us make much less than 100k. A federal excise tax on a commonly consumed good IS income tax. When you live pay-check to pay-check, any form of federal tax IS an income tax, especially if it is one a good that is very commonly purchased.

But that's your fault, not the governments. All you have to do is go make more money. Don't whine to the rest of us because you're lazy.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But that's your fault, not the governments. All you have to do is go make more money. Don't whine to the rest of us because you're lazy.

Sarcasm?

Originally posted by KidRock
Repeat: Obama never said income/federal taxes..he said people would SEE no NEW TAXES.

Which they clearly are going to with this new one. He said people would see no new taxes, period.

Unless you can convince me a sales tax is not a tax then no I am not wrong.

Okay. But your wrong with your leap of (il)logic.

Originally posted by dadudemon

To sum up:

There's no rebuttal to this. Taxes are taxes are taxes. He said no new taxes to the sub $250K group. This tax will hit that specific group much much much more than the $250K+ group.


There actually is:

Originally posted by King Kandy
It was obvious to anybody with a brain that he was referring to taxes that actually depend on income...

This is of course besides the point that this proposed 'soda-tax' is shit.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit - And to say it has to be specific to income taxes, that's rather ...I don't want to insult you as you're cool. So lemme say it this way: For people most of America, the vast majority of us make much less than 100k. A federal excise tax on a commonly consumed good IS income tax. When you live pay-check to pay-check, any form of federal tax IS an income tax, especially if it is one a good that is very commonly purchased. It is merely word semantics to say it specifically doesn't fit under "income taxes". That's word semantics...yes, I'm exaggerating, but you do get the point. Shouldn't we tax something that targets the absurd vast majority of $250k+ people? Wouldn't that be more in keeping with what Obama promised?
Okay i'm not going to address the first part of your quote because it was basically "poor people drink lots of soda" and another thing that i'll be addressing shortly.

This second point you are making, I don't even know why you brought it up as it was obviously not what I was referring to. "Income taxes" as I meant it refers to a very specific concept, a key part being that it hits your income regardless of personal choices, whereas this is solely due to your income based on how much soda you consume... and on your "living paycheck to paycheck" thing, if you are buying so much soda that the extra three cents forms anything resembling an income tax, then you have far, far deeper issues than high taxes.

The way I interpreted his statements, personally, was that there would be no tax increases that applied specifically to the -250K tiers. This is a general tax increase (and a negligible one at that), and as opposed to "tiered" income tax systems has nothing to do with the income you make.

"I can make a firm pledge," "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."-Barack Obama in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12, 2008.

Next.

Raising the income tax would be better since sales tax is inherently regressive. He definitely should break that promise because Americans are just ****ing brainwashed and moronic. When they're getting paid $2 an hour, have no infrastructure, no health care, privatized commons and social services, no clean water or air, no homes, and a 2% income tax, they'll still be whining about how taxes are too high rather than making the obvious connection that someone who's actually read an economics book while ignoring his first year professor could see.

Originally posted by Robtard
Then I insist that the government lower my personal taxes, as I exercise regularly and rarely eat fastfood, while the guy who doesn't exercise and eats Burger King 4 days a week should increase.

What about basing taxes on bodyfat, cholesterol levels, blood-sugar etc?

The irony being that in the UK the government propose a so called "fat tax" whereby unhealthy foods are taxed higher at the other end they also plan on refusing fat people treatment on the NHS...Despite the fact that they paid a higher percentage towards the NHS in the 1st place through the fat taxes.

Originally posted by jaden101
The irony being that in the UK the government propose a so called "fat tax" whereby unhealthy foods are taxed higher at the other end they also plan on refusing fat people treatment on the NHS...Despite the fact that they paid a higher percentage towards the NHS in the 1st place through the fat taxes.

You know, I can't bring myself to say that is entirely a shit way of going about it. The "refusal" aspect does seem harsh though, not sure that's right.

This wouldn't work here, as the U.S. is over-loaded with overweight people.

In terms of obesity and heart disease rates by country, hasn't the one common factor among the fattest and most atherioslerotic countries been the English language?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Social Engineering? I think it's called "making money".
Then why doesn't the government tax tofu? Soybeans?

Originally posted by Robtard
You know, I can't bring myself to say that is entirely a shit way of going about it. The "refusal" aspect does seem harsh though, not sure that's right.

I agree that directly related taxes are a good idea. Taxation on cigarettes and alcohol funding the NHS has wen't on for years. But to then turn around and tell someone who's paid far more than their fair share of taxes throughout their long lives and who may have rarely visited the doctor as they were reasonably fit and healthy all their lives that they're being refused treatment for being too old or too fat is utterly disgraceful. Especially when, in the UK, anyone can get treated on the NHS...So if you're skinny but have never worked a day in your life and never paid a penny income tax you can still get treatment....If you arrived yesterday as an illegal immigrant and never paid a penny tax in your life, you can still get treatment at the UK taxpayer's expense.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Then why doesn't the government tax tofu? Soybeans?

all items are taxed

the proposed additional tax would be to offset the costs to health and the state by the product.

The ideal of the thread being that identifiable harm would increase the taxation of a product. Therefore, tofu and soybeans would need to be demonstrably unhealthy for such a tax to be levied.

You are better going after the subjectivity of "harm" if you really need to make such rhetoric.

How will this affect my life as an average American?

Well, if it were applied my way, it would make many sodas taste better and bad tasting/unhealthy sodas more expensive and less available. If its applied to all sweetened drinks, it'll make soda more expensive and diet will remain the same. If instead of doing this, income taxes are raised, there will be a slight hardship in the short term, but in the long term (as in, within 2-5 years), your wages will go up, your quality of life will go up (better roads, better education, better water and air quality, better access and affordability of care) and the value of your money will go up.

Originally posted by inimalist
all items are taxed

the proposed additional tax would be to offset the costs to health and the state by the product.

The ideal of the thread being that identifiable harm would increase the taxation of a product. Therefore, tofu and soybeans would need to be demonstrably unhealthy for such a tax to be levied.

You are better going after the subjectivity of "harm" if you really need to make such rhetoric.
Yes, but most do not have extra taxes added specifically to them.

It still is social engineering. It's an attempt to make people eat healthier through taxing them for a choice the government disagrees with. It's not right.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Yes, but most do not have extra taxes added specifically to them.

It still is social engineering. It's an attempt to make people eat healthier through taxing them for a choice the government disagrees with. It's not right.

lol

so you are an anarchist then?

Originally posted by Robtard
There actually is:



This is of course besides the point that this proposed 'soda-tax' is shit.

I disagree on fact. The extreme majority of people in the US make less than $250k a year. If we assume carbonated and other sugary beverages are consumed, equally, across all income demographics, then we can conclude, quite readily, that the extreme majority will be paying the extreme majority of the tax revenue on this law.


In other words, this law is considered "fair" in that it doesn't discriminate by income class because everyone pays for it. However, since this tax would collect the extreme majority of taxes from the people that fit into a specific income demographic, we can say, with no problem, that this tax is aimed primarily at the sub $250K group. You don't think they didn't think about where the majority of tax revenue would come from? I am an economic newb, and I deduced this much on my own in mere seconds upon reading. They, being heavily steeped in this bullshit every single day; having specific experts and aids to assist them, giving them advice that will help legislation and statements be the most "constituent friendly" and media friendly; being aware of the political promises: both internal to their campaign and external to Obama's campaign; and being aware of the economic troubles as well as anyone else in America; certainly can be called aware of what they are doing. (That was a long sentence. The very first part and very last part are the real sentence...I should highlight, but you're more than smart enough to deduce that.)

Originally posted by King Kandy
Okay i'm not going to address the first part of your quote because it was basically "poor people drink lots of soda" and another thing that i'll be addressing shortly.

I never said "poor people drinks lots of soda." Nor did I imply that.

Someone who makes $249,999 is hardly poor. I'm not sure how you derived "poor people drinks lots of soda" out of



Originally posted by King Kandy
This second point you are making, I don't even know why you brought it up as it was obviously not what I was referring to. "Income taxes" as I meant it refers to a very specific concept, a key part being that it hits your income regardless of personal choices, whereas this is solely due to your income based on how much soda you consume... and on your "living paycheck to paycheck" thing, if you are buying so much soda that the extra three cents forms anything resembling an income tax, then you have far, far deeper issues than high taxes.

I know you didn't bring it up. I brought it up. I had an epiphany. Saying it isn't legislation primarily aimed at the sub$250k group would be factually incorrect. Do you really think the $250k+ group really drinks more than 20 times the amount of soft-drinks per-person than then $250k+ group does? In fact, isn't the $250K+ group only comprising of 2% of the US population? That means my numbers are off. I've got to recalculate that. Let's see. That's 49 times the amount of soft-drinks, if they are to remain proportional. Is that even remotely logical to conclude that I said that "poor people drink lots of soda."

And, yes, many people could do better if they ate smarter. It's not more expensive to eat healthier. It's just harder to do so in America.

And, I agree: if .03 per item is significant, then it is just that: financially significant.

However, the taxes COULD add up. Find me some numbers on sugary beverages consumed, and we can do the math on the yearly costs per household.

Originally posted by King Kandy
The way I interpreted his statements, personally, was that there would be no tax increases that applied specifically to the -250K tiers. This is a general tax increase (and a negligible one at that), and as opposed to "tiered" income tax systems has nothing to do with the income you make.

As we now know, Obama was specific and meant any and all taxes. There is no wiggle room this time. KR is 100% correct and even my income demographics argument isn't necessary now.

What does this tell us about Obama? Simple: He's a politician.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

so you are an anarchist then?
Free market anarchist, but I don't have to be one to have a problem with government trying to influence society to follow what its wants.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
but I don't have to be one to have a problem with government trying to influence society to follow what its wants.

to have an internally consistent view of politics, I would say you do

That is true, but Libertarianism as a whole has more consistency than other belief systems.

Libertarianism is totally interested in social control though...

You want people to act as rational individuals...

But, we refuse to force people to be rational. We will never try to push people towards anything we want with coercion. As long as they do the same, there isn't a problem.

if you have a police force, you are enforcing social control

even if it is controlling others not to kill others

any form of education, child rearing, etc, is social control. Having a culture, at all, is social control.

This is where the belief of natural property rights comes into play. If a government does exist, it's only job is to protect that natural right. Since it is natural, it is not under society's control and outlawing it is not controlling society, but protecting individuals rights to choose.

Those things are voluntary, and as such are not social control by a government body.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
This is where the belief of natural property rights comes into play. If a government does exist, it's only job is to protect that natural right. Since it is natural, it is not under society's control and outlawing it is not controlling society, but protecting individuals rights to choose.

belief in a "natural law" would be social control

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Those things are voluntary, and as such are not social control by a government body.

granted, though oppression does begin at home

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
But, we refuse to force people to be rational. We will never try to push people towards anything we want with coercion. As long as they do the same, there isn't a problem.

Designing a system so that only one sort of person can succeed (which Libertarianism and anarcho-capialism do) is a form of social control. You're just picking a different sort of person to put on a pedestal.

You are correct. It would be a social control by protecting everyone's right to choose, which in the end makes it a paradox. It controls society by allowing everyone in society to be unrestricted.

Yup. But unlike government, it is not a coercive monopoly.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
You are correct. It would be a social control by protecting everyone's right to choose, which in the end makes it a paradox.

Reducing the level of absolute freedom to ensure a certain level of functional freedom isn't really a paradox.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
It controls society by allowing everyone in society to be unrestricted.

Excluding mind control no society can every exist where everyone is unrestricted.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Yup. But unlike government, it is not a coercive monopoly.

Unless you want it to last more than three days. At some point people will realize they can work together to benefit themselves. At that point anarchy falls apart and gets replaced with something else. To keep anarchy "stable" you need a government to brutally enforce natural law.

At which point the whole thing seems to be rather pointless.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Reducing the level of absolute freedom to ensure a certain level of functional freedom isn't really a paradox.
Not what I was taking about.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Excluding mind control no society can every exist where everyone is unrestricted.
No. Unrestricted would be everyone has the choice to do what they wish. That's what anarcho-capitalism is.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Unless you want it to last more than three days. At some point people will realize they can work together to benefit themselves. At that point anarchy falls apart and gets replaced with something else. To keep anarchy "stable" you need a government to brutally enforce natural law.
And at no point does anarcho-capitalism, which in the end really isn't anarchy, ever stop people from working together. It stops people from coercion being used to force people to work together.