Fat Tax??

[Abstract]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/927301.asp?0sl&cp1=1&cp1=1

So who supports the "Fat Tax"? I think it may be a good idea if a 1% tax was added to purchases at fast food restaurants, but on the other hand, don't your high taxes already account for the money needed for the healthcare system to help fat-related diseases? In Canada it does, or it should. The strain of fat people on our healthcare system has already been accounted for, I would think. Fast food didn't just sneak up from behind us like Michael Jackson at a daycare. We've known about the effects for so long that I'm sure your taxes already account for the negative effect of fatty foods on healthcare. But on the other hand, it would make fast food eaters responsible for their eating habits.

And isn't this just a band-aid solution? If you really want to solve the problem, its better to educate people about fatty foods and health, rather than patch things up with another patch.

[jefhatfield]

it's all patches these days

that's why law school takes 3 or 4 years;)

[Kwyjibo]

defiantely not a solution; people who enjoy fast food will continue to enjoy fast food even at higher prices

Example; excessive cigarette taxes have not reducded the amount of smokers or their awarness towards the issue. Also resturants in downtown chicaog have to charge a to-go tax, revenues are contributed to clenaing up litter produced by these resturarnts so extra money will not be a deterrent to the average cosnumer based on past trends. Plus I think once these things get into motion there will be quite an uproar from restaurant owners across the country...

[wdlove]

It tends to be the poor that eat more fast food and food with a fat content. I had heard that after they hit the tobacco industry, that fat was next on the agenda. It's that insatiable appetite for higher taxes to support a larger government. The only answer to this problem is to never vote for another Democrat ever again. For now the Republicans are the lesser ot 2 evils. Then go after the Republicans that are against us!

[Ugg]

It's a great idea! Let's do it.

[wdlove]

Originally posted by Ugg
It's a great idea! Let's do it.

My prayer is that 2004 will begin the second American Revolution. If we don't take America back soon it will be lost forever!

[MacFan25]

As long as some of the money is used to fight child obesity then, I think that its a good idea. Child obesity is becoming a problem in the U.S., and we need to establish programs to cut it down.

[idea_hamster]

This is what they always said about the taxes on cigarettes -- that they were necessary to pay for healthcare costs borne by the government due to smoking.

Now, however, it's not clear where that tax money went or that it ever really paid for any of the costs that the government had used to justify the tax -- rather, we wound up with states suing the tobacco companies based on those same costs. It's not clear to me that this was the way to go about things.


If only we had some sort of...hmmm...what would you call it...like a "lock-box" or something. :D

[deryk]

Originally posted by Kwyjibo
defiantely not a solution; people who enjoy fast food will continue to enjoy fast food even at higher prices

Example; excessive cigarette taxes have not reducded the amount of smokers or their awarness towards the issue. Also resturants in downtown chicaog have to charge a to-go tax, revenues are contributed to clenaing up litter produced by these resturarnts so extra money will not be a deterrent to the average cosnumer based on past trends. Plus I think once these things get into motion there will be quite an uproar from restaurant owners across the country...

I agree. Cigarette taxes are used to pay for many things and only a tiny fraction actually goes towards off-setting the health care costs caused by lifetime smoking or towards prevention and ceasation programs. (Your lucky that the to-go tax actually goes to cleaning up the litter.)

If the fat tax were used to help people develop healthy eating lifestyles and excecise, I would support it. However, it would probably go towards other things.

[kylos]

i wouldn't support such a tax whether or not it was used to fight weight problems. It would be a ridiculous socialistic tax to support the government's increasingly socialistic tendencies.

[Kwyjibo]

Originally posted by deryk
(Your lucky that the to-go tax actually goes to cleaning up the litter.)


thats what were told....but any political organization that is followed by machine like The Daley Machine can't be 100% straightforward....thats how they justify the tax I can't be sure there are extra workes because of it.

[herr_neumann]

Who cares if they raise fast food prices, taxes, whatever....

It isnt like the FF companies wont just lower prices to make up for it.


The first thing they need to work on is making companies include tax into their prices.... none of this 99 cents is realy a dollar eight crap.....

And considering the amount of old people that are retiring, they need to do something to help with the health care costs. Or, they could just tell the old people, "well the people you voted for screwed you, so no doctors for you." Like it or not that is not going to happen.

The real solution to all this fat stuff is making FF companies put the nutritional guide (calories and fat, etc) right on the front of the item you order. So instead of a big McDonalds logo on your fries it would tell you you are eating you fat content for the day. Same with burgers etc.

I know some sill say, "but i dont get mine the way they normally make it," well tough. You will need to go look in the book to see how you customizations have changed the values on your fat wrapper.

Finally, why B*tch about a one 1% ( or some other insignificant number) increase if, and only if, it goes to healthcare. Now I mean healthcare not obesity or any other specialized crap. If you buy FF, you subsidize the health system. If you can afford insurance, then quit B*TCHING about pay ten cents more for you extra value meal, cuz it obviously isnt that big a deal to you. Well I guess that is ten less cents to spend on the driving range, meaning like half a ball.

And as far as fighting child obesity, it is simple, make them get off their fat asses and do PE. I remember back when I had PE, all the fat kids did nothing. Yes it is going to be hard for them, but that is what getting in shape is, very hard. Make them workout. if they do not want to then they can fail PE.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by wdlove
It tends to be the poor that eat more fast food and food with a fat content. I had heard that after they hit the tobacco industry, that fat was next on the agenda. It's that insatiable appetite for higher taxes to support a larger government. The only answer to this problem is to never vote for another Democrat ever again. For now the Republicans are the lesser ot 2 evils. Then go after the Republicans that are against us!

first get rid of the democrats

then get rid of the republicans

and let the usa be run "only" by obese smokers

wait, that's the case anyway;)

[johnnowak]

Originally posted by Abstract

And isn't this just a band-aid solution? If you really want to solve the problem, its better to educate people about fatty foods and health, rather than patch things up with another patch.

The whole purpose of this is to use the tax revenue to educate people without raising the taxes as much for everyone who isn't a slobbering fatass. That's the whole point... to educate people... read more closely.

[Giaguara]

my uncle says in finland they have made some laws .. so if an obese or extremely fat person goes to public health care system to get cured for whatever problem she / he has, the nurses and doctors will only answer "take care of yourself. lose that extra fat, and then come back to be cured." if you are too fat, you won't get health care.

if food has always contents, how can you still get fat? if you see a "serving" of potato chips of 1 chip has 1 gram of fat .. well. why don't they use also the nutrition table for 100 g? if you know that a big mac has 36 g of fat, and big fries 27 g and a milkshake over 20 g, how can you still eat them? doesn't the knowledge of it make you not it? :rolleyes:

my suggestions to lose the obesity stuff ..

- contents of the food / calorie content ALSO to restaurant meals (menus). if you see on your macdonald burger package what you are eating ... umh

- warnings. when you enter to a supermarket, any place selling food, restaurant etc: "Warning. Improper use of food (eating too much, or junk food, or not eating) might cause your health problems. The store is not responsible for your weight or health."

[NavyIntel007]

Why does this tax money have to go to programs to curb the spending on it? The smoking tax is a penalty tax, just like the gas tax is. They don't tax gas to fund programs to show you the harms that driving does to the ozone. You smoke you pay the tax. The government should not have to pay for you being a stupid idiot lighting up every 22 minutes. Indirectly, this tax money goes to Medicare and Medicaid which lots of dying smokers latch on to at their 9th hour. So to the criers about the smoking tax it's time to Q.Y.B. or stop blowing smoke in my face and dropping butts on my beaches.

I believe the fat tax is a great idea. It's implementation is a little off however. First off, who's to say the steak you get at a uberfancy restaurant isn't making you fat? Plus what is 1% on a $5 value meal... a whole nickle. People won't feel that penalty at all. If you flipped the script though, and made the business accountable by making the business pay a tax on all food products that fall within a range of unacceptability the business will either raise prices for the consumer or start finding ways to make their products healthier (or both). It's a win win situation. But this money in no way should pay for fatty food awareness. There's about 100 channels that talk about it every day. Fighting child obesity starts in the home. No cokes, cookies or candies... that's where it starts.

Although it would be a bit dramatic if on your reciept it said...


Subtotal $5.48
Sales tax $0.40
FAT tax $0.05
Total $5.93

Have a nice day!!!

People would be like... fat tax... oh man, I am fat.

[Sun Baked]

Go to McDonald's and get a

Senior Discount if you look old enough

and slapped with the

Fat Tax if you're too fat.

:eek:

It's hard to tax food for fattening food (blimp making foods), when changing the portion size could be a way of altering a persons FAT Quotient/serving.

Though the package size may never change.

Somewhere along the line there needs to be a calculation of meal size compared US daily requirements.

Yes, if a meal is 100% of the daily average calories it deserves to be taxed (it's a meal 2-3 times too big).

The sole focus of FAT content has moved people away from calorie counting, which means they eat 2k calorie meals 2 or 3 times a day. But may be eating low-FAT meals.

[wdlove]

Originally posted by Kyle?
i wouldn't support such a tax whether or not it was used to fight weight problems. It would be a ridiculous socialistic tax to support the government's increasingly socialistic tendencies.

You have hit the nail on the head Kyle? This is the very problem that we need to stop ASAP!

[Giaguara]

Originally posted by Sun Baked The sole focus of FAT content has moved people away from calorie counting, which means they eat 2k calorie meals 2 or 3 times a day. But may be eating low-FAT meals.

I think it is quite hard to eat a low-fat meal that has 2000 kcal. Well, I can try .. 2000 kcal =

- 1 pint of pure, white sugar - or similar content of sugar in the meal - or

- 500 g of pure proteine. That'd be several pounds of fish or meat. Sure, that'd make you sick. - or

- No reasonable amount of vegetables or fruit can provide you 2000 kcal in a meal. Or .. 40 apples / 80 kg (200 lb) of cabbage / ... 2/3 lb of chocolate .. wait, that's not low-fat. 30 cups of low-fat cheese ... - or ...

- Boost what ever you eat with high-sugary drinks (coke etc) or beer or other alcohol = more cals.

[jbomber]

doesn't sound like the best idea to me.

the money's mostly going to go straight toward defense spending, not towards healthcare. :(

besides, i doubt that the tax will actually slow the sales of fast food. people aren't going to see the 1% increase as an actual deterrent. it's just more cash for the government.

[Stelliform]

Originally posted by MacFan25
As long as some of the money is used to fight child obesity then, I think that its a good idea. Child obesity is becoming a problem in the U.S., and we need to establish programs to cut it down.

I think child obesity has its roots more in the break down of the family structure. Most obese children come from families where responsibility isn't taught. My kids are not allowed to eat junk all of the time. All you have to do is say no. Some kids have a messed up metabolism, sure, but the majority of kids that are currently obese do not have the self discipline or the parents controlling their behavior. (i.e. turning off the T.V., saying no when they want junk food. Not buying the kids candy or soda... It isn't rocket science.)

[alia]

Originally posted by Giaguara
my uncle says in finland they have made some laws .. so if an obese or extremely fat person goes to public health care system to get cured for whatever problem she / he has, the nurses and doctors will only answer "take care of yourself. lose that extra fat, and then come back to be cured." if you are too fat, you won't get health care.



Wow, I guess they don't have the Hippocratic Oath in Finland! I find that disturbing and upsetting. As a daughter of two doctors, I can tell you that they would be horrified to have to refuse treatment to anyone who needed it.

Alia

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by Giaguara
I think it is quite hard to eat a low-fat meal that has 2000 kcal. Well, I can try .. 2000 kcalI was exagerating, but not by much.

See your thinking general, why not look at the food isles in stores and all the "low fat/reduced fat/diet" food lining it.

Not everything "low fat" is low calorie.

Using these "so-called" diet foods you probably can put together a nice 1k+ meal and still have room for a large herbal drink/juice and a low-fat desert to add another 600-1000 calories.

Remember people hardly ever eat the portion size listed on the package, they may may normally eat several times the serving size of a "low-fat" item, heck they may even be taking a "low-fat" family entre and eating the whole thing.

Especially if they consider the McDondald's Supersize Double Quarter Pounder Value Meal a "normal" meal as long as it comes with desert.

Most people are definitely not going to consider a half-cup low fat ice cream a "normal" serving size.

And will laugh at the 8 oz serving size for sugar laden drinks, even though each of these servings may add 75-150 calories each.

Serving sizes are there on the side of food and some of them have been reduced to make people "feel" good.

But based on some of the ways they calculate low fat food, heck Pepsi would qualify at 200 calories per can. And then there's the so-called "healthier" fruit juice drinks which can easily have 50% more calories. :(

[Gus]

I honestly can't believe there are people who are talking abbout this likeit something that is a good idea.

Two words: Personal responsibility

If you are too fat, then stop eating foods high in fat (or carbs, more accurately). This is just a stupid tax, like most of the stupid taxes today. Tired of paying for everyone else's health care because they smoke or are too fat, then stop allowing programs like medicare, and get a real system. The points made about the tobacco settlement are true. Each state in the settlement received a ludicrous amount of money that was SUPPOSED to be used for anti-smoking campaigns and health care, but all of those states are now running with huge deficits, and have blown all of the money they received on other programs.

Fat Tax. Geez, anybody remember their American History? I mean we were sparked to war with Britain over stupid taxes like a Tea Tax, and now we are going to have a Fat Tax? What, do we pay by the calorie? People pay health insurance, sales tax, gas tax, smoking taxed, liquor taxes, property taxes, soc. security taxes, FICA taxes, road taxes, school taxes, and now a Fat Tax? Give me a break. This country is based on free choice. If you choose to never go outside and eat Big Macs all day long, then you will get obese and have health problems, but it was your choice to do these things. Stop litigating, and take some personal responsibility. The only way this will happen is if we stop catering to people who don't want to take responsibility for their own actions. And don't give me any of this metabolic, genetic disposition stuff, because the number of people with these real problems is a small percentage of the fat people in this country.

Sorry for the tone.

Regards,
Gus

[MacRumorSkeptic]

All you socialists out there should read this: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/02/business.html

[kylos]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
I was exagerating, but not by much. (and it was 2 kilocalories, 2000 kcals are probable nearing a years worth of cals for the average American :p )


Actually, 2000 kcals is the proper daily allowance. A dietary Calorie is the equivalent of 1 kilocalorie. The capitalization is the only way to recognize the difference. I would guess the reason dieticians decided to equate 1k cal with 1 Cal was to make Calorie counting more manageable.

[rainman::|:|]

The only situation I think this is legal in is if the tax supports a universal-healthcare system. Which the US does not have. But for countries that do, this seems appropriate and acceptable. I simply do not believe that the government, without interest vested in managed healthcare, has any business controling or influencing people's personal diets with anything other than information.

pnw

[kylos]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
The only situation I think this is legal in is if the tax supports a universal-healthcare system. Which the US does not have. But for countries that do, this seems appropriate and acceptable. I simply do not believe that the government, without interest vested in managed healthcare, has any business controling or influencing people's personal diets with anything other than information.

pnw

Which is precisely why the government shouldn't have vested interest in health care by way of a federal health care system. It amazes me that so many Americans are willing to give up their freedoms for a little extra ease. When you voluntarily make the government responsible for your health management, you shouldn't expect that to only include paying your expenses. No, you've given them the right to mandate what you eat and how you live. That's why socialistic programs create a never ending, increasing cycle of government dependency. When you ask the government for social benefits, you have given them the right to make demands of you.

[rainman::|:|]

Originally posted by Kyle?
Which is precisely why the government shouldn't have vested interest in health care by way of a federal health care system. It amazes me that so many Americans are willing to give up their freedoms for a little extra ease. When you voluntarily make the government responsible for your health management, you shouldn't expect that to only include paying your expenses. No, you've given them the right to mandate what you eat and how you live. That's why socialistic programs create a never ending, increasing cycle of government dependency. When you ask the government for social benefits, you have given them the right to make demands of you.

True, unfortunately if we want a universal healthcare system as a society, and many of us do (especially if you've been in the situation of needing healthcare that's not available to you), we need either the government to manage it, or a not-for-profit organization with extensive independent oversight to work with the government for funding from taxes... The latter is much more complicated than the former. I will agree that the government having/controlling my healthcare is a terrifying thought, however desperation would drive me to it if I ever needed, say, surgery that I could not afford that was life-or-death, or if my children were not receiving the healthcare that they needed, etc. It's a bad situation all-around...

pnw

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by Kyle?
Actually, 2000 kcals is the proper daily allowance. A dietary Calorie is the equivalent of 1 kilocalorie. The capitalization is the only way to recognize the difference. I would guess the reason dieticians decided to equate 1k cal with 1 Cal was to make Calorie counting more manageable. :eek:

Oh well, keep getting the fat calorie mixed up, with the kcal, joules, etc. If I don't use a set of units regularly, I always have to look them up again.

Hopefully we're still talking base10 math...

[wdlove]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
True, unfortunately if we want a universal healthcare system as a society, and many of us do (especially if you've been in the situation of needing healthcare that's not available to you), we need either the government to manage it, or a not-for-profit organization with extensive independent oversight to work with the government for funding from taxes... The latter is much more complicated than the former. I will agree that the government having/controlling my healthcare is a terrifying thought, however desperation would drive me to it if I ever needed, say, surgery that I could not afford that was life-or-death, or if my children were not receiving the healthcare that they needed, etc. It's a bad situation all-around...

pnw

I agree on that. The govenments track record is poor. To see government healthcare in action, just visit a Veterans Hospital. I worked at one for 18 years!

[kylos]

True, unfortunately if we want a universal healthcare system as a society, and many of us do (especially if you've been in the situation of needing healthcare that's not available to you), we need either the government to manage it, or a not-for-profit organization with extensive independent oversight to work with the government for funding from taxes... The latter is much more complicated than the former. I will agree that the government having/controlling my healthcare is a terrifying thought, however desperation would drive me to it if I ever needed, say, surgery that I could not afford that was life-or-death, or if my children were not receiving the healthcare that they needed, etc. It's a bad situation all-around...

pnw

It's not easy, but I think there are enough philanthropists out there who could support the needy. So everybody, next time you know of a needy family in need of medical assistance, help 'em out, ok? Heed the advice of Reagan's (or Bush Sr., I can't remember) thousand points of light speech and help your community. The more people care for each other, the less dependent we'll be on the government.

Originally posted by Sun Baked
:eek:

Oh well, keep getting the fat calorie mixed up, with the kcal, joules, etc. If I don't use a set of units regularly, I always have to look them up again.

Hopefully we're still talking base10 math...

Just remember the dietary Calorie is capitalized. And if we're not talking base10, people might start consuming 48 Calories too many every day. (Oh no!)

[Giaguara]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
See your thinking general, why not look at the food isles in stores and all the "low fat/reduced fat/diet" food lining it.

Not everything "low fat" is low calorie.

Using these "so-called" diet foods you probably can put together a nice 1k+ meal and still have room for a large herbal drink/juice and a low-fat desert to add another 600-1000 calories.(

I agree. Sorry, I was thinking of home-made stuff mainly. True, many of the foods marketed "healthy" or "low-fat" or "low calorie" are far from it. And "no sugar" means often a product with a high fat content. My favorite of the "light" products are some potato chips: normal potato chips had 25 g of fat in 100 g of food: these "light" had "only" 6 g of fat - in 25 g of chips! 4 % less fat than in normal potato chips! same price too - 25 g cost the same as those of 100 g... :rolleyes:

[Graydon]

Originally posted by MacFan25
Child obesity is becoming a problem in the U.S., and we need to establish programs to cut it down.

That's funny. I thought parents were there to prevent child obesity. Well, good thing the government is here to step in and establish a program to cut down on what is none of their business, either democrat or republican.

I say establish a parent tax and use the funds to teach parents how to raise children and how to cook a healthy meal to boot!

[cubist]

How about a fat tax on the federal government? Based on how much the government was spending, it would tax ITSELF by reducing our income tax. The bigger it got, the less we'd have to pay.

Ha! Try to find a politician who'd vote for THAT!

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by Kyle?
It would be a ridiculous socialistic tax to support the government's increasingly socialistic tendencies.

i don't get why people throw out the word "socialism" or "socialist" like it's some sort of bad, horrible buzz word... what makes the idea of everyone being equal and having a fair shot so bad?

personally, when i hear people who are so attached to taking the constitution word for word, but fail to remember "all men are created equal"... it makes me laugh. so. haha!

so, wdlove, kyle?, etc... what makes the idea of socialism so very bad? is it because then the richies would have a harder time separating themselves from the poor fools? or is it because you were taught that communism and socialism are the work of satan himself?

thanks

[wdlove]

At the root of socialism is the belief in transfer of wealth. To tax those who work for a living at a rate of 50%, higher if they can get control of 2 branches of government. They want to give the money to those that don't work, and many that don't want to work. They believe that govenment is the answer to all our problems. They see the health of govenment is when there is an increase of its citizens dependent on government.

[kylos]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
i don't get why people throw out the word "socialism" or "socialist" like it's some sort of bad, horrible buzz word... what makes the idea of everyone being equal and having a fair shot so bad?

personally, when i hear people who are so attached to taking the constitution word for word, but fail to remember "all men are created equal"... it makes me laugh. so. haha!

so, wdlove, kyle?, etc... what makes the idea of socialism so very bad? is it because then the richies would have a harder time separating themselves from the poor fools? or is it because you were taught that communism and socialism are the work of satan himself?

thanks

Back in Mcarthy's days... :D :D


Seriously though, it's not socialism per se that I oppose, but state sponsored socialism that I so dislike. The government's proper business should be very limited in scope and allowing it into the social realm would give it almost unlimited control over every aspect of our lives.

Your welcome

[Physiognome]

Actually, "no sugar" often means a product with sugar alcohols, which have 7 calories per gram as opposed to simple sugars' 4. They're fine for diabetics, though, and most also honestly inform you "not for weight control".

I think that nutritional labeling for all foods would be a better idea then a fat tax; calories, carbs, fat and protein prominently displayed on the menu and wrapper. Also, required 'books', if they aren't already- many fast food places I've been in have mysteriously not been able to show me one.

The fact is, though, that finding out these numbers in the first place costs money. For tiny eateries, like Ted's Burger & Shake down the street with one table and one booth, the financial burden may be too much. And anything other then a blanket requirement would open up many, many loopholes.

[idkew]

socialism, plain and simple. if you are for this, you are a socialist.

[idkew]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
what makes the idea of socialism so very bad? is it because then the richies would have a harder time separating themselves from the poor fools? or is it because you were taught that communism and socialism are the work of satan himself?

thanks


because if i have to start providing for you, what makes you work hard? our system is based on yourself, if YOU work hard YOU do well. Some of the richest people the US has produced started from absolutely nothing. nothing. They had the drive to do it. they did it.

If someone else provides from you, what drive do you have to work that much harder to get what you want? When it become government policy to help the "have nots" why would the "have nots" work hard to better themselves, when the government will do an ok job with them doing very little. (welfare in its current incarnation)

and the way that this deals with a fat tax is that the government is telling people how to live. almost forcing them to change their ways. arn't we the land of the FREE? there is little difference between forcing the haves to help the have nots and forcing the masses to change their eating habits.

[rainman::|:|]

Originally posted by idkew
socialism, plain and simple. if you are for this, you are a socialist.

socialist tendencies in one area do not a socialist make. I think that the government's role should be reduced to three primary functions: Healthcare for it's citizens, because the People's health and lives are more valuable than any of the dirty money tossed around the gov't today... Law enforcement, to uphold the few laws that I would keep on the books, and not for harassing the public; and education, because standards in education are an important factor in a country's state as a whole. If the government were restricted to those three functions, it IMHO would be considerably less corrupt and invasive, making it libertarian in every way, except that we had universal health coverage.

so no, it's not so easy to peg someone as socialist. Or anything else.

pnw

[jelloshotsrule]

that's the thing... that's not the root of socialism at all, it's the root of socialism gone wrong.

don't get me wrong, i'm not sure 100% socialism is the way to go, as i do feel that people need the incentive/motivation to work for something more in life (ie, doctors get paid more than janitors, or whatever). that said, it's a very hard issue to get around because someone simply *has* to be a janitor, or a trashman, or whatever... so is it really fair to punish the person with a poor wage just because they do a duty that doesn't directly save as many lives, or earn as much cash for a company, etc?

yes, people take advantage of social programs. some people are lazy, some people don't try to work... but, many people also take advantage of capitalistic programs which make the poor poorer, regardless of any efforst made by said poor...

my point is that socialism at its core is not evil. we have not seen a good utilization of a socialistic economy/government, and i think what we need is somewhere of a happy middle. for reasons i've stated.

but to imply that a majority of poor people are lazy and don't try is simply mistaken. surely, some poor people are able to rise up and make something for themselves. but the fact is, it does require a "break", or some good luck, or just ridiculous amounts of determination and such (combined with being in the right place at the right time at some point)...

i just got a phone call and forget what else i was going to say. oh well :)

edit: when i started i was right after wdlove's post.. hah

so now, kyle? and idkew, you see how i do think that there has to be some incentive, but that there also has to be a system in place to better balance the wealth. it's simply wrong for 1% of the people to have 99% of the money.

also, just curious how you feel about the patriot act (and the bush admin in general) because i think that social programs do less to force their way on people than aforementioned act and admin.... word

[wdlove]

The main problem is that pure socialism has never worked. The country changes governments like Russia. Cuba's economy is a disaster. England and France are in economic problems also!

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by wdlove
England and France are in economic problems also!

but so are we, no?

[MacRumorSkeptic]

personally, when i hear people who are so attached to taking the constitution word for word, but fail to remember "all men are created equal"... it makes me laugh. so. haha!

All men are created with equal rights, not equal finances and opportunity as that would be impossible to insure.

also, just curious how you feel about the patriot act (and the bush admin in general) because i think that social programs do less to force their way on people than aforementioned act and admin.... word

I'd love for you to name 1 U.S. citizen who has been oppressed by the Patriot Act.

but so are we, no? (responding to:England and France are in economic problems also!)

Yes, and you have socialism to thank.

[idkew]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
socialist tendencies in one area do not a socialist make. I think that the government's role should be reduced to three primary functions: Healthcare for it's citizens, because the People's health and lives are more valuable than any of the dirty money tossed around the gov't today... Law enforcement, to uphold the few laws that I would keep on the books, and not for harassing the public; and education, because standards in education are an important factor in a country's state as a whole. If the government were restricted to those three functions, it IMHO would be considerably less corrupt and invasive, making it libertarian in every way, except that we had universal health coverage.

so no, it's not so easy to peg someone as socialist. Or anything else.

pnw

if that were possible, i would agree with it. but there are many problems with your utopia. military? welfare? roads? security?....

[idkew]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
that's the thing...
also, just curious how you feel about the patriot act (and the bush admin in general) because i think that social programs do less to force their way on people than aforementioned act and admin.... word

REPEAL IT! KILL IT!

Make such an example of it, that no act will ever dare to take away our liberities and privacy again!

[Gus]

jello, the problem is that the person who is a janitor is not necessarily making less because their job is deemed less important, it is because they are less skilled. The doctor in your scenario has gone through years of training and study in order to be specialized in the medical arts, whereas the janitor learned his trade in a very small fraction of that time. I'm not trying to belittle janitors, because as a teacher I've known many janitors, and many were extremely intelligent people, BUT, if you put a doctor in a janitors job, they could do it, whereas the opposite situation would be a disaster.

It is the same with anything else; if you try and make everything even by taking something from the top of the heap, and put it at middle ground to be even, you are shorting yourself. The goal SHOULD be to make everyone at the top. Problem is, not everyone wants to be at the top. Some people like being janitors, and are happy with their lives. Is that penalizing them? No.

I agree that a society in which there is no difference in status or need is ideal, it is not realistic. It is called Utopia, not socialism. Or Star Trek, you pick. ;)

Regards,
Gus

[Physiognome]

[i]Originally posted by MacRumorSkeptic I'd love for you to name 1 U.S. citizen who has been oppressed by the Patriot Act.


I'd love you to name one terrorist who has been neutralized under the Patriot Act. Neither of us can, because the government isn't releasing names.

If they changed their tune and I didn't hear, link me and I'll do my best.

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by MacRumorSkeptic
1. All men are created with equal rights, not equal finances and opportunity as that would be impossible to insure.

2. I'd love for you to name 1 U.S. citizen who has been oppressed by the Patriot Act.

3.Yes, and you have socialism to thank.

1. my reference was about the patriot act, not socialism in this case

2. i don't know anyone specifically who has, of course, i try not to associate myself with arabs or other terrrrrrists

3. hah. what a joke of an answer


gus- i agree... and i agree that a utopia is indeed where my thoughts lie. but that doesn't mean i shouldn't strive for it, right?

physiognome- nice. ;)

[Gus]

Absolutely, jello. Utopia isn't something I deride or think is stupid like some I know, but I just don't think we'll see it in our lifetimes. And I defintely don't think a Fat Tax is the path to it. (Like how I worked in the topic again? ;) )
Regards,
gus

Regards,
Gus

[MacRumorSkeptic]

I'd love you to name one terrorist who has been neutralized under the Patriot Act. Neither of us can, because the government isn't releasing names.

I'm not saying I support the Patriot Act, I was saying that there is NO WAY it has been as oppressive as U.S. socialism that millions of tax payers have been FORCED to pay for.

All Americans should read Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution (THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND), it clearly enumerates the scope of powers given to Congress. If any of us still have respect for our laws we should be able to clearly see that little of what the federal government does is constitutional.

[Judo]

Some people sure do have some funny ideas. Me included I guess.

Take this with a fat free grain of salt, but do you remember when there was all that hype that they had caught one of Sadam's step sons taking a course in flying?
Well he lives in New Zealand and works for our national carrier Air New Zealand. The reason he was over in the U.S was to do a refresher course that I'm guessing pilots have to do every now and again. The reason he was a relative of Sadam was because his Mother was forced to marry Sadam.
Opps hang on.. wait he isn't an American citizen, dosn't count, My bad, sorry. He didn't get to do his course either.

Back to fat tax.
There's talk of something like that happening here in NZ too (we aren't as fat as America but we are getting bigger). I'm not to sure about it yet, but if they do bring it in I think it could be a good idea to use the extra money to subsidise healthy food and premote better farming techniques, but I really don't know enough about the topic. Anyway fat foods is only part of the unhealthy lifestyle but it is a start i guess.

One thing I do love about the country I live in is the free health care. It may not be perfect but it sure has saved alot of lives and heart ache, and I'm pretty sure that hasn't made any one lazy, apart from those lazy bums on dialasis, I'm sure thay can drag there machine to work with them.

excuse the spelling and grammer please.

Any Anarchists here?

Is there such a thing as freedom in a moral society?

Your Friendly neighbourhood Commie
Jude

[Giaguara]

Originally posted by Physiognome
I think that nutritional labeling for all foods would be a better idea then a fat tax; calories, carbs, fat and protein prominently displayed on the menu and wrapper. Also, required 'books', if they aren't already- many fast food places I've been in have mysteriously not been able to show me one.

The fact is, though, that finding out these numbers in the first place costs money. For tiny eateries, like Ted's Burger & Shake down the street with one table and one booth, the financial burden may be too much. And anything other then a blanket requirement would open up many, many loopholes.

This is a good idea. I don't like the only "swerving size" contents. Why a potato chip serving size is like 4 chips? Who eats 4 potato chips? Have both = serving size suggestion AND 100g contents.

And for restaurant food too. I hate greasy food, so it'll be easier to avoid the overgrasy stuff. It's not a big problem even for a small place to calculate the caloric etc content of their plates: add the contents of EVERY ingredient, and the sum is the content. 90 % of the salads i've seen in US are swimming oil ... so if you count the 50 g or 100 g of oil that the salad uses for swimming you'll get 40-120 g of fat for a salad meal .. or the restaurants would just figure out that people would maybe prefer to order food that is not THAT greasy.

The fat tax would be most practically applied to ALL FAT. Once. So if McDonalds buys fat, they pay the tax. If you buyu butter in a store, you pay the tax. But i can't figure how it'd be used for the public health. Especially as there is no public health care... :rolleyes:

[Judo]

Sorry about the double post but they are also thinking of bringing in a farting tax here in NZ. Tax farmers on the amount of methane their stock produces in an effort to lower methane emissions. Nasty gas it is, but this tax is a little silly. Kinda funny though.

[kylos]

Is there such a thing as freedom in a moral society?



Superb question. Someone start a thread and start discussing this. (I can't right now; I've got way too much university coursework right now to get seriously involved in any debates right now):(