Political Crossfire Forums

Free Thinkr · Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:39 pm Post subject: Re: Fat taxes?

Nathyn wrote: OK, yeah. Sorry for the ranting reply.
New revenue scheme: we tax you two chuckleheads per word. ;) :lol:

LeopardPM · Joined: 20 Oct 2005 Posts: 1226 Location: Arizona

Free Thinkr wrote: Nathyn wrote: OK, yeah. Sorry for the ranting reply.
New revenue scheme: we tax you two chuckleheads per word. ;) :lol:

damn socialists! I knew they would figure out a way to generate revenue from my verbosity!

Free Thinkr · Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:36 pm Post subject: Re: Fat taxes?

LeopardPM wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Nathyn wrote: OK, yeah. Sorry for the ranting reply.
New revenue scheme: we tax you two chuckleheads per word. ;) :lol:

damn socialists! I knew they would figure out a way to generate revenue from my verbosity!
LOL! Your posts will be taxed per word, your diet per calorie, and your CO2 output from your respiration per mole. It's a brave new world, brother.

ubikk · Joined: 27 Jul 2006 Posts: 2303

Free Thinkr wrote: How about driving safer cars? If my car is less safe, shouldn't I have to pay society for that "burden?"

Yes, you should if society is bearing the cost of your choice. In fact, you are already doing this indirectly through insurance rates. Insurance companies already employ this notion.

I think people should be free to choose your risks, you should also assume the financial responsibility for them.

Free Thinkr wrote: If I play sports, thus risking injury, shouldn't I have to pay society for that "burden?" How far are you willing to take this?

I think we'd need to demonstrate that the cost of any injury is going to be greater than the improved health your getting from the exercise from playing the sport.

Free Thinkr wrote: No, I'm afraid that the so-called "burden" I put on society by not eating in a way so-called "experts" deem "healthy" in no way justifies the sacrifice of my personal liberty. That anyone would suggest it does simply demonstrates just how slippery a slope this sort of thinking is.

I just thing it's a way to distribute costs and gives the individual more power over their tax burden. Like you only pay gas taxes when you drive a car. These kinds of earmarked user fees seem fairer to me than just skimming off my income into a big pot and letting a bunch of lobbied up Congresspersons spend the money however they want.

Free Thinkr wrote: ETA: and your view of "healthy" and "unhealthy" is far too simplistic. Eating Whoppers daily is indeed unhealthy; eating Whoppers occasionally is not at all unhealthy.

The person eating the occasional whopper is going to pay minimal taxes. The person eating the whopper daily will pay much more. That seems fair to me.

Free Thinkr · Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 3:38 am Post subject:

ubikk wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: How about driving safer cars? If my car is less safe, shouldn't I have to pay society for that "burden?"

Yes, you should if society is bearing the cost of your choice. In fact, you are already doing this indirectly through insurance rates. Insurance companies already employ this notion.
If I want insurance. The mandatory insurance is liability; the safeness of your car doesn't affect liability.

Quote: I think people should be free to choose your risks, you should also assume the financial responsibility for them.
What the hell does that have to do with taxing food you deem unhealthy?

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: If I play sports, thus risking injury, shouldn't I have to pay society for that "burden?" How far are you willing to take this?

I think we'd need to demonstrate that the cost of any injury is going to be greater than the improved health your getting from the exercise from playing the sport.
Good luck with that. That'd be about as impossible as, oh, determining the amount of tax on fast food based on claims of risk to health.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: No, I'm afraid that the so-called "burden" I put on society by not eating in a way so-called "experts" deem "healthy" in no way justifies the sacrifice of my personal liberty. That anyone would suggest it does simply demonstrates just how slippery a slope this sort of thinking is.
I just thing it's a way to distribute costs and gives the individual more power over their tax burden. Like you only pay gas taxes when you drive a car. These kinds of earmarked user fees seem fairer to me than just skimming off my income into a big pot and letting a bunch of lobbied up Congresspersons spend the money however they want.
There's a lot more people paying the gas tax than those who drive the car. The only thing empowering about this sort of taxation is that it empower fascists to impose their way of life on others. Fat tax? Give me a break.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: ETA: and your view of "healthy" and "unhealthy" is far too simplistic. Eating Whoppers daily is indeed unhealthy; eating Whoppers occasionally is not at all unhealthy.
The person eating the occasional whopper is going to pay minimal taxes. The person eating the whopper daily will pay much more. That seems fair to me.
Maybe only minimal taxes, but for no risk. Someone who only eats fast food once in a while gets taxed for no good reason.

free thinking american · Joined: 31 Jul 2005 Posts: 1247 Location: wisconsin

This whole argument is based on the notion that people who eat unhealthy foods are going to have higher healthcare costs. That isn't neccesarily true.

If someone eats whoppers everyday and dies instantly from a massive heart attack at 62 they are going to have much lower costs than someone who lives to be 98 and suffers all of the inevitable effects of old age.

ubikk · Joined: 27 Jul 2006 Posts: 2303

free thinking american wrote: This whole argument is based on the notion that people who eat unhealthy foods are going to have higher healthcare costs. That isn't neccesarily true.

I think the data might bear out that it is true. Health costs from bad diets including diabetes, joint problems, heart disease, stroke, etc. That 62 year old might have quadruple bypass surgery before he dies, or he might have an early stroke and be in a nursing facility for 10 years before he dies. Or me might just have a long deterioration due to congestive heart failure and be on expensive prescription meds and breathing machines for the last 10 years of his life.

ubikk · Joined: 27 Jul 2006 Posts: 2303

Free Thinkr wrote: ubikk wrote: The person eating the occasional whopper is going to pay minimal taxes. The person eating the whopper daily will pay much more. That seems fair to me.
Maybe only minimal taxes, but for no risk. Someone who only eats fast food once in a while gets taxed for no good reason.

The amount of "burger tax" that person who eats one whopper per month, lets say, is paying is almost surely going to be MORE than offset because Congress won't have to raise his payroll tax as much to cover medicare.

Because now they have additional funds from someplace else, from the guy who's eating 5 whoppers per week.

yojimbo22 · Joined: 15 Jul 2006 Posts: 511 Location: London, UK

seems like a reasonable attempt at a pigouvian tax (woot! the guy went to my prep (high) school... had to put it in there :lol: ).. or in simpler terms a tax to reduce the unwanted effect on third parties that is not taken into account in the cost function of fast food chains (obesity)

ubikk · Joined: 27 Jul 2006 Posts: 2303

yojimbo22 wrote: seems like a reasonable attempt at a pigouvian tax (woot! the guy went to my prep (high) school... had to put it in there :lol: ).. or in simpler terms a tax to reduce the unwanted effect on third parties that is not taken into account in the cost function of fast food chains (obesity)

I just prefer taxes where I have some control over them by my choices. I have no control over the medicare payroll tax, it just comes out and there are no deductions for me for choosing a healthy lifestyle.

At least with user-oriented taxes, I can make choices on what I "use" that affect my tax burdern and the choices usually are designed to benefit society at large.