taxi Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Actually not just pop, all processed products containing sugar actually. Bu yeah that's how that works...just like gas taxes. The guy driving a Prius pays a lot less tax than the guy driving a Hemi powered Ram. It encourages more efficient vehicle choices or in this case, healthier food choices. Not sure what's confusing you about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Bad analogy. Burning gas universally polutes. What's healthy to eat is individual to each person. It's healthy to eat the recommended amount of calories and consume reasonable amounts of sugars. It's unhealthy to over eat. In these circumstances you're taxing everyone, despite only some people over eating. 1) There are no inherent medical costs. Everyone dies of something. It costs society less if you die of a heart attack at 70, than it does if you linger to be 90. So some of the healthiest people are going to cost the most, simply because they live the farthest beyond retirement. 2) Just because you can't think of a better solution, doesn't mean we should do it. That's not a good argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Bad analogy. Burning gas universally polutes. What's healthy to eat is individual to each person. It's healthy to eat the recommended amount of calories and consume reasonable amounts of sugars. It's unhealthy to over eat. In these circumstances you're taxing everyone, despite only some people over eating. 1) There are no inherent medical costs. Everyone dies of something. It costs society less if you die of a heart attack at 70, than it does if you linger to be 90. So some of the healthiest people are going to cost the most, simply because they live the farthest beyond retirement. 2) Just because you can't think of a better solution, doesn't mean we should do it. That's not a good argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 What's wrong with just letting the free market to decide? If you're way overweight and you can't get medical coverage and then you suffer from all those health problems.... then it's all your fault. And hopefully it will be a warning sign for others that they should get off their fat-rear, go exercise and have a healthier diet. No need to create a nanny state to tell people what they can/can't do. Everyone are individuals with the other rights, they have to learn to make the right choices in life or pay the consequences of wrong choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 What's wrong with just letting the free market to decide? If you're way overweight and you can't get medical coverage and then you suffer from all those health problems.... then it's all your fault. And hopefully it will be a warning sign for others that they should get off their fat-rear, go exercise and have a healthier diet. No need to create a nanny state to tell people what they can/can't do. Everyone are individuals with the other rights, they have to learn to make the right choices in life or pay the consequences of wrong choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 I will not be following you down your tangent rabbit hole Alice. It's a perfectly apt analogy. There are inherent medical costs. Not all healthy people live to 90. And you have no data to support that healthier people cost the medical system. There's TONS of data to support that unhealthy people DO. I think we should do it because it's a good idea. Show me a better one or we go with this good one IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 That's not necessarily true at all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Do you actually have any proof that obesity costs more than living to be older and dieing of something else? Because, that's basically the crux of your argument. It's you who has to prove their own argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 No one's telling you you can't eat garbage...feel free. You're just going to pay more taxes due to your risky and costly behavior. No different than smoking or drinking. As for your free market nonsense...2008 global financial crisis... brought to you buy de-regulated free market! That's why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Yes it is. All people cost the government money just living. When you retire and stop generating taxes, you cost more than you produce for every moment you alive. From an entirely economic standpoint, the best you could do was work until 65 and then drop dead the moment you retire. Also, have you ever met someone who is 90? They aren't in great condition. They're in and out of the hospital constantly. Look at Nelson Mandela. He's 94, thin, and in great shape. He's also been in and out of the hospital for several major stays. Is that free? cheap? If he got fat and died of a heart attack at 70, would that have been more or less expensive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Yes it is. All people cost the government money just living. When you retire and stop generating taxes, you cost more than you produce for every moment you alive. From an entirely economic standpoint, the best you could do was work until 65 and then drop dead the moment you retire. Also, have you ever met someone who is 90? They aren't in great condition. They're in and out of the hospital constantly. Look at Nelson Mandela. He's 94, thin, and in great shape. He's also been in and out of the hospital for several major stays. Is that free? cheap? If he got fat and died of a heart attack at 70, would that have been more or less expensive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Why do you need a tax then? Why not just simply let people suffer? A blanket tax would just affect people who do lead healthier live. Why do I have to pay more just because some moron out there is stuffing his face with twinkies and drinking pop non-stop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 You act like that 70 year old never saw a doctor a day in his life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Don't think I ever said anything like that. I just stated that living to 90 is expensive, which is true. And all people die of something, which is also true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 That doesn't change the fact that eating an unhealthy diet costs tax payers money. You continue to divert without actually arguing anything relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Because health care costs are spiraling out of control and getting worse? Because that would be cruel and is why we live in a socialized society. Who said anything about a "blanket tax". We tax sugar. If you're healthy and don't eat crap tons of sugar, you don't pay much tax. If you're unhealthy and do eat tons of sugar, you pay more. If you don't stuff your face with twinkies you won't be paying any perceptible amount more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 You're arguing that it costs money to treat obesity. I'm pointing out that healthy people who live a long life end up with health issues too. How is that not relevant. The very issue here is net cost to the taxpayer. It's been shown that time and time again, obesity shortens life span: http://www.mrc.ac.uk.../News/MRC005722 A shorter life is a less expensive one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Hence health insurance should be priced according to market conditions. If you're a guy who goes to the gym 3 times per week, eat a balanced diet and is all-round healthy, you pay minimal for medical. If you're 400 pounds, only drink pop and eat crap all day, then your health insurance should be extremely high, basically unaffordable. The responsible people won't be affected and only the unhealthy people will be. It's not too different from drivers with good records and those who are reckless. A tax is a tax and just because it affects normal people less than unhealthy people, you're still hurting the responsible ones. Whether it's 1 dollar or 1000 dollars, the government shouldn't get my money without any legitimate reason. A truly civilized and mature society is when everyone has the freedom to make choices and not have them be taken away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 No it's not. A healthy, shorter life is a less expensive one. An unhealthy one is not less expensive. From a goverment/tax standpoint... Ideally, everyone would eat well, exercise and get hit by a bus on their 65th birthday. As that's not a reasonable solution... And again, this tangent is a diversion. There's mountains of data that support the fact that living and eating unhealthy costs vast amounts of tax dollars. You can not possibly dispute that. If you don't think that taxing that behaviour to help compensate for those costs than you're having an issue with logic. If you want to start another thread or a political campaign about somehow taxing "costly" 65+ year old healthy people... be my guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 No my point is being unhealthy is being unhealthy and costly. You're age tangent is tangent. Do YOU know what the word means? Everyone pays extra. Those who are more unhealthy and hence more costly will pay more. Not just or only "fat people". And why shouldn't unhealthy people pay more? We force people who are unhealthy smokers to pay more for the exact same reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.