Jump to: Board index
July 28th, 2009, 9:18 pm
July 29th, 2009, 9:29 am
Homicidal Pacifist wrote:Tax unhealthy foods???
I'm a skinny bastard and eating a juicy big-mac and a donut should be considered healthy for me because I NEED fatty foods and as many calories as I can find.
The food item is not the problem. It is the willing abuse of the food item that is to blame.
December 16th, 2009, 4:35 pm
Anon007 wrote:I live in Wisconsin and this state is fifth-highest in the county for cigarette taxes. In addition, from a WI state Website, it states, "Cigarettes, with tax collections of $551.3 million, continue to be the largest excise tax generator."
December 20th, 2009, 3:05 pm
Simon says... wrote:To an extent, just to be devils advocate here, this is, I'm guessing, coming from someone who is healthy and doesn't overeat or smoke. As such you have nothing to lose, ergo are you at risk of sounding biased?
May 5th, 2010, 11:11 pm
May 6th, 2010, 11:00 am
Meleagar wrote:When health care is considered a right, then the country cannot become anything other than a completely socialistic country.
May 6th, 2010, 3:12 pm
Scott wrote:There are plenty of non-socialist countries where education is a right. Why is health care different than education in that respect?
Meleagar wrote:That's like asking me why an apple is different from an orange. If government provides everyone with healthcare, then it has the responsibility to regulate anything and everything that impacts the cost of that healthcare; that includes virtually every aspect of the US economy.
Scott wrote:Regardless, I don't see what health care being considered a right has to do with the topic of this thread. Meleagar, if the government even in a non-socialist is going to be spending money on health care, do you want unhealthy behaviors like purchasing cigarettes, alcohol and soda to be taxed to help pay for ensuing health care costs? If not, then where do you suggest we get the revenue to pay for the extra health care costs caused by some people's unhealthy choices?
Meleagar wrote:The short answer is that private healthcare companies get to decide who they will and will not contractually cover via privately-held insurance agreements or through other means that they deem appropriate and according to standard contractual law. IOW, those who cannot afford health care and cannot find a way to obtain it privately (through charitable organizations, family, etc.) do not get health care.
Scott wrote:Meleagar, if the government is going to get the same total amount of revenue either way, would you prefer taxes on unhealthy behaviors like purchasing cigarettes, alcohol or soda to be increased and have taxes on income and property to be decreased or not? In other words, would you rather discourage and punish through taxation unhealthy behaviors like cigarette smoking or discourage and punish people for earning more money at their job?
Meleagar wrote:I don't wish to discourage unhealthy behavior at all.
There's no reason to tax for an expense if you cut out the expense. I'd rather my taxes go to national defense, not correcting the bad health habits of others.
May 6th, 2010, 5:04 pm
Scott wrote:In this thread, I'm not saying I support the government spending money to subsidize health care. If a government is spending money on health care, then I would prefer that that government at least in part tax unhealthy behaviors like smoking cigarettes to pay for that spending than solely tax things income and property; wouldn't you?
Meleagar wrote:No, because it's an erosion of freedom. I'm not in favor of the government establishing a system of fining people for non-criminal behaviors, which is what such taxes are.
Meleagar wrote:The reason I didn't respond to your O.P. and was instead responding to a later post was because I consider the question posed by your O.P. to be of the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" variety; you offer a rigged choice.
Meleagar wrote:Instead of fining or taxing behaviors that might or might not cause health system burdens on down the road, how about we just fine or tax the actual health burdens when they show up by charging them (even if over time) for their health care?
May 7th, 2010, 2:13 am
Algol wrote:But if someone wants a cigarette, a cheeseburger, or a beer, he/she should always have the right to do so without feeling guilt.
Meleagar wrote:Because a complex, punitive tax code invites abuse and corruption and erodes personal liberty, responsibility and authority. The only tax the federal government should be able to levy on citizens is a flat tax.
May 7th, 2010, 10:01 pm
Meleagar wrote:Scott wrote:But I don't see anything inherently simpler about an income tax than a sales tax.
There isn't anything inherently simpler if the sales tax is a flat sales tax applied to all products. However, if one is able to charge different rates of tax for different products, then the potential for manipulative abuse rises.
Meleagar wrote:Any attempt to decree one lifestyle or set of choices as more favorable than another through manipulations of tax code is IMO not only contrary to the principle of liberty from government intrusion and coercion, but is also an invitation to corruption.
Meleagar wrote:If fairness is your target, it's hardly fair to tax people extra for services they might never use. A fair sytem of health-care specific variable taxation would be a flat tax (say, 2% of income) that goes up after one has exceeded a basic amount of health care cost. IOW, the variable amount of increased taxation is directly correlated to actual use over time.
May 8th, 2010, 12:48 am
May 18th, 2010, 6:01 pm
May 21st, 2010, 8:29 pm
May 22nd, 2010, 10:21 pm
Alethia wrote:For the american's entailed to this thread, why are you only picking on fast food outlets?
May 25th, 2010, 4:28 pm
whitetrshsoldier wrote:And what happens, Scott, when the studies are released years from now proving that the items you considered "unhealthy" were actually beneficial for individuals?
whitetrshsoldier wrote: Would that not constitute theft, as an unjust tax on a product you targeted for its adverse effects that didn't actually exist?