So how muh longer until we can say Obama sucks?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Obesity rates doubled from 1990-2000. They are expected to double again from 2000-2010.

Which means that we have yet to see the effect the generation now will have on the health care system.

Is it at the same level as smoking? Obviously not. Doesn't mean that its not a drain on society. And if you want to tax things that are a 'drain' on society, tax junk food.

Find a junk food that's easy to tax, that is always bad for you and never good for you regardless of your own health status, your weight, your exercise level and the amount that you eat. Then we can talk about taxing it. I'd even be receptive to it. I just don't think it's practical, that's all.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Are you saying you'd like to see a "Big Mac Tax" instead? I actually think taxes on unhealthy foods are a decent idea in principle, but probably unworkable in the real world--because most foods are okay in moderation. Cigarettes aren't okay in moderation; even a light smoker has an increased risk of getting sick, dying and costing the system money.

Obviously you think more taxes are a decent idea. You're big government, and would probably tax everything you possibly could.

For the record, no I wouldn't tax fast food. You said it yourself, most foods in moderation are okay. So why punish the people who only eat it in moderation? Why tax it?

There are 46 million smokers in the US, and almost a 100 million people who are obese. Which do you think will be a bigger drain on the health care system in the next 50 years?

Considering of course, the fact that obesity rates will continue to rise, and smoking rates will continue to fall. We went from 50 million obese/overweight people, to 100 million in 10 years.

While on the other hand, the amount of people who smoke in the United States was reduced by 50% in the past 3 decades.

Assuming those trends continue, from 2010-2020, the amount of smokers in the US will decrease by another 17%, while obesity rates will climb, another 50%.

So, in 2020, there will be 38 million smokers in the US, but 200 million obese people.

Better start taxing junk food before all those people start draining health care resources. That'll stop them from getting fat.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Find a junk food that's easy to tax, that is always bad for you and never good for you regardless of your own health status, your weight, your exercise level and the amount that you eat. Then we can talk about taxing it. I'd even be receptive to it. I just don't think it's practical, that's all.

Easy, tax fast food restaurants.

Pretty easy to target.....everyone knows what fast food is. Just increase the taxes 156% like Obama did with tobacco rates.

So, instead of paying $8.99 for a Burger and Fries and Mickey D's.....suddenly everyone will pay $14.04.

Lets just ignore the fact that poorer families tend to eat more fast food, considering its a lot cheaper than paying $20/plate at Swiss Chalet, so you target the middle/lower class once again.

Maybe that'll just force all those people to educate themselves, and start making their own food at home, which IS a lot cheaper.

But, I doubt it.

People quit smoking because they were educated about the effects of cigarettes. Not because the government taxed it.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Obviously you think more taxes are a decent idea. You're big government, and would probably tax everything you possibly could.

For the record, no I wouldn't tax fast food. You said it yourself, most foods in moderation are okay. So why punish the people who only eat it in moderation? Why tax it?

There are 46 million smokers in the US, and almost a 100 million people who are obese. Which do you think will be a bigger drain on the health care system in the next 50 years?

Considering of course, the fact that obesity rates will continue to rise, and smoking rates will continue to fall. We went from 50 million obese/overweight people, to 100 million in 10 years.

While on the other hand, the amount of people who smoke in the United States was reduced by 50% in the past 3 decades.

Assuming those trends continue, from 2010-2020, the amount of smokers in the US will decrease by another 17%, while obesity rates will climb, another 50%.

So, in 2020, there will be 38 million smokers in the US, but 200 million obese people.

Better start taxing junk food before all those people start draining health care resources. That'll stop them from getting fat.

Well, I never said that. But by your own admission, in spite of the fact that there are more obese people than smokers, smoking is still a much bigger problem. 17 times bigger, actually.

In any case, I'm not sure I understand your point. Taxing cigarettes is bad because fat people are unhealthy too?

For one thing, it's a false analogy. People are fat for all kinds of reasons. Smokers who die of lung cancer are pretty much always sick because they smoked.

Secondly, it doesn't address the core issue--that money to offset the drain on social resources presented by smokers has to come from somewhere. Taking it from smokers--who in any case choose to smoke--seems like a logical and fair alternative to raising taxes on everyone.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Not in the slightest. Denying a sick person care, even if you're only doing so by making that care unaffordable, is directly contrary to the purpose of medicine.

You already agree with taxing one of necessities these same people need in order to survive, so why wouldn't you agree with forcing them to pay more for health care?

These people are a drain on society because of choices they make. Why should I pay for their health care?

Why should anyone pay for their health care? Let them foot their own bill, out of their own pocket.

That'll teach them not to smoke.

You know, like you think this tobacco tax will do. Just magically force an addict not to smoke.

If anything, it'll drive these addicts into a world of crime, where they CAN get their fill.

The only way to offset those costs is to tax the activity that caused the increased risk in the first place.

No, the BEST long-term way to offset those costs is to educate people. Like I said, smoking rates fell because we were educated, very strongly, about what it does to our bodies.

I still remember the 'detailed' pictures we were shown in elementary/high school, and all the smokers who can in to tell us not to even start.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

You already agree with taxing one of necessities these same people need in order to survive, so why wouldn't you agree with forcing them to pay more for health care?

These people are a drain on society because of choices they make. Why should I pay for their health care?

Why should anyone pay for their health care? Let them foot their own bill, out of their own pocket.

That'll teach them not to smoke.

You know, like you think this tobacco tax will do. Just magically force an addict not to smoke.

If anything, it'll drive these addicts into a world of crime, where they CAN get their fill.



No, the BEST long-term way to offset those costs is to educate people. Like I said, smoking rates fell because we were educated, very strongly, about what it does to our bodies.

I still remember the 'detailed' pictures we were shown in elementary/high school, and all the smokers who can in to tell us not to even start.

Oh, please. Smoking is not a "necessity to survive." In fact, not smoking at all is far better for your survival. Yet another reason that the fast-food analogy is false.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, I never said that. But by your own admission, in spite of the fact that there are more obese people than smokers, smoking is still a much bigger problem. 17 times bigger, actually.

Will it be a much bigger problem in 10 years? 20? 50?

Like I said, my generation is the 'obese' generation. And my generation is still 15-30 years of age. The human body does not get sick the instant someone becomes overweight, or obese.

Its a gradual process that takes time. And can be reversed, by educating the people. Not taxing them.

In any case, I'm not sure I understand your point. Taxing cigarettes is bad because fat people are unhealthy too?

No, a 'sin tax' is bad because it won't help reduce the problem.

For one thing, it's a false analogy. People are fat for all kinds of reasons. Smokers who die of lung cancer are pretty much always sick because they smoked.

No, people are fat because they eat too much.

The 2-5% that have genetic problems don't count. Because they're just like the 2-5% of smokers who live to the age of 90 and die from old age.

Secondly, it doesn't address the core issue--that money to offset the drain on social resources presented by smokers has to come from somewhere. Taking it from smokers--who in any case choose to smoke--seems like a logical and fair alternative to raising taxes on everyone.

Yeah.

So take money from obese people to pay for all the treatments they receive.

Setup a screening station, and screen every single person in the US. If they're obese, tax them more.

Or just tax fast food.

Same thing really.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Oh, please. Smoking is not a "necessity to survive." In fact, not smoking at all is far better for your survival. Yet another reason that the fast-food analogy is false.

Huh?

Eating is a necessity to survive, and you agree with taxing unhealthy food.

I actually think taxes on unhealthy foods are a decent idea

In principle....because you don't think it will work in real life. I think it'd be pretty simple.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Will it be a much bigger problem in 10 years? 20? 50?

Like I said, my generation is the 'obese' generation. And my generation is still 15-30 years of age. The human body does not get sick the instant someone becomes overweight, or obese.

Its a gradual process that takes time. And can be reversed, by educating the people. Not taxing them.



No, a 'sin tax' is bad because it won't help reduce the problem.



No, people are fat because they eat too much.

The 2-5% that have genetic problems don't count. Because they're just like the 2-5% of smokers who live to the age of 90 and die from old age.



Yeah.

So take money from obese people to pay for all the treatments they receive.

Setup a screening station, and screen every single person in the US. If they're obese, tax them more.

Or just tax fast food.

Same thing really.

People need food to live. Some people can't afford better food than McDonald's, by your own admission.

No-one needs cigarettes to live. Cigarettes are always unhealthy, regardless of your own level of health, regardless of moderation--not to mention pozing a public health hazard.

Your analogy fails on multiple levels. Cigarettes have been taxed for decades. Obama is just taxing them more. I don't have a problem with that, nor do I understand why you do. You'd fall over if you reached any more on this one.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

People need food to live. Some people can't afford better food than McDonald's, by your own admission.

And you would tax the food at Mickey D's....considering it is unhealthy.

Tax the necessity that people need to survive. Truly only a big government believer would believe in such an idea.

No-one needs cigarettes to live. Cigarettes are always unhealthy, regardless of your own level of health, regardless of moderation--not to mention pozing a public health hazard.

I never said that anyone needs cigarettes to live.

I agree. Unhealthy, and rather sick habit. Doesn't mean people should be taxed more for their unhealthy, and stupid choices.

I say educate them.....and reduce the long-term risk on the health care system. Sure, what smoking does to the human body is hard to reverse, especially if serious damage is done, but its still better than just forcing these people to find other means of money to pay for their addiction.

If you want to tax 'unhealthy' foods, goods, anything really......you start down a serious slippery slope. The government has been wrong for years about their nutritional advice. Why should I trust them to be right about healthy/unhealthy foods, and what should and should not be taxed?

Your analogy fails on multiple levels. Cigarettes have been taxed for decades. Obama is just taxing them more. I don't have a problem with that, nor do I understand why you do. You'd fall over if you reached any more on this one.

I have a problem with any tax increase. Especially in a time of recession, where the government should be more responsible than EVER, to make sure they keep their spending habits in check. There are other ways to fund child-health care services, if that is such a necessity.

Then again, every campaign promise that Obama has broken has just been a 'smoking gun' to you.

The "Sunlight before signing", "capital gains tax elimination", "American jobs tax credit", "Hiatus on the 401K penalties", "promising not to hire lobbyists", "earmark reform", and being a "transparent" administration, which I already pointed out wasn't happening with his economic team.

The 'broken campaign promise' is a ck the media is running with. Type in 'increased taxes on Tobacco' into Google, and read the first 10 pages or so of the results.

What bothers me is the idea to force people to quit a habit by taxing them more.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

And you would tax the food at Mickey D's....considering it is unhealthy.

Tax the necessity that people need to survive. Truly only a big government believer would believe in such an idea.
I never said that anyone needs cigarettes to live.

I agree. Unhealthy, and rather sick habit. Doesn't mean people should be taxed more for their unhealthy, and stupid choices.

I say educate them.....and reduce the long-term risk on the health care system. Sure, what smoking does to the human body is hard to reverse, especially if serious damage is done, but its still better than just forcing these people to find other means of money to pay for their addiction.

If you want to tax 'unhealthy' foods, goods, anything really......you start down a serious slippery slope. The government has been wrong for years about their nutritional advice. Why should I trust them to be right about healthy/unhealthy foods, and what should and should not be taxed?

I have a problem with any tax increase. Especially in a time of recession, where the government should be more responsible than EVER, to make sure they keep their spending habits in check. There are other ways to fund child-health care services, if that is such a necessity.

Then again, every campaign promise that Obama has broken has just been a 'smoking gun' to you.

The "Sunlight before signing", "capital gains tax elimination", "American jobs tax credit", "Hiatus on the 401K penalties", "promising not to hire lobbyists", "earmark reform", and being a "transparent" administration, which I already pointed out wasn't happening with his economic team.

The 'broken campaign promise' is a ck the media is running with. Type in 'increased taxes on Tobacco' into Google, and read the first 10 pages or so of the results.

What bothers me is the idea to force people to quit a habit by taxing them more.

You're putting words in my mouth. What I actually said was this: Taxing fast food isn't practical, nor is it as ethically clear-cut as taxing smoking.

I never commented about any of those other things you listed. I would note that earmark reform was John McCain's daffy obsession, not Obama's. I'm personally relieved that the President is addressing himself to more important matters than that.

Calling this a broken campaign promise is a massive reach. And you can tell by the deafening silence that is the outrage over this issue.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

You're putting words in my mouth. What I actually said was this: Taxing fast food isn't practical, nor is it as ethically clear-cut as taxing smoking.

This is exactly what you said...

I actually think taxes on unhealthy foods are a decent idea in principle, but probably unworkable in the real world--because most foods are okay in moderation.

I argue that they are workable in the real world. I already said how.

Also, don't see anything about ethics in that statement.

I never commented about any of those other things you listed. I would note that earmark reform was John McCain's daffy obsession, not Obama's. I'm personally relieved that the President is addressing himself to more important matters than that.

Well, I could post Obama's direct statement regarding earmarks, but it probably doesn't matter.

Calling this a broken campaign promise is a massive reach. And you can tell by the deafening silence that is the outrage over this issue.

Like I said...broken campaign promise or not, the bigger problem is forcing people to quit a habit by taxing them.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Like I said...broken campaign promise or not, the bigger problem is forcing people to quit a habit by taxing them.

Well, in that case you must already be outraged by cigarette taxes in Canada.

I got the impression that you were really concerned about the "broken promise" from the fact that you quoted Obama's campaign speeches about taxes. Now you seem to be accepting that this really is a different sort of tax than Obama meant in those statements, but saying that you disagree with cigarette taxes in principle. But cigarettes have been taxed for decades--it's merely a question of degree. Obama didn't invent the idea of levying a tax on cigarettes--or indeed the idea of the "sin tax," which is what you're critiquing. He merely raised it to pay for health care services for children.

He might as well have signed an order decreeing that "apple pie and America are good" for the harm that it will do to his legacy.

[CaptainCrunch]

Hey, I smoke, and I pay more then most in terms of taxation on that product, and a large chunk of that goes to the health care system.

These people that smoke dope which is terrible for your lungs aren't paying their fair share because their products not taxed.

People who shoot up or share needles are not paying their fair share.

People who drink heavily aren't paying as much tax as me and they're certainly using the health care system.

Bottom line, leave us friggen smokers alone and start making these other drags on the health care system pay their share damnit. I'm tired of carrying their asses.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Hey, I smoke, and I pay more then most in terms of taxation on that product, and a large chunk of that goes to the health care system.

These people that smoke dope which is terrible for your lungs aren't paying their fair share because their products not taxed.

People who shoot up or share needles are not paying their fair share.

People who drink heavily aren't paying as much tax as me and their certainly using the health care system.

Bottom line, leave us friggen smokers alone and start making these other drags on the health care system pay their share damnit. I'm tired of carrying their asses.

Let's do it! First we have to legalize all that stuff, but after that?

Cha-CHING!

[CaptainCrunch]

I also think that since I've been paying taxes on my vice that there should be nice rehab centers for smokers where we can quit while eating nice meals in a stress free environment while doing yoga and wearing nice capri pants.

for free.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

People who drink heavily aren't paying as much tax as me and they're certainly using the health care system.

Alcohol is taxed pretty excessively in Canada. There's a reason why a 6 pack of Moosehead (for example) is roughly $6-8 in the US, and between $11-14 in Canada. It ain't the conversion either.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, in that case you must already be outraged by cigarette taxes in Canada.

Like I said....I don't like any tax.

I got the impression that you were really concerned about the "broken promise" from the fact that you quoted Obama's campaign speeches about taxes. Now you seem to be accepting that this really is a different sort of tax than Obama meant in those statements, but saying that you disagree with cigarette taxes in principle. But cigarettes have been taxed for decades--it's merely a question of degree. Obama didn't invent the idea of levying a tax on cigarettes--or indeed the idea of the "sin tax," which is what you're critiquing. He merely raised it to pay for health care services for children.

I still think he went against what he said in his campaign. Then again, that is nothing new.

He might as well have signed an order decreeing that "apple pie and America are good" for the harm that it will do to his legacy.

Really don't know what this should mean.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Like I said....I don't like any tax.



I still think he went against what he said in his campaign. Then again, that is nothing new.



Really don't know what this should mean.

Well, if you think we can live without taxes, presumably you feel a pang of guilt each time you a) drive a car on a road, b) go to school, c) get sick, or d) enjoy not being invaded by other countries. And that's just the beginning. Saying "I don't like any tax" is just one of those head-scratchers... how do you propose we pay for your lifestyle? Surely you aren't laboring under the illusion that you are self-sufficient? I know libertarians like to believe that government is an unnecessary extravagance, but a moment's reflection will reveal that you depend on a well-funded government every day of every month of every year of your life.

As for saying that this is a broken promise--you know as well as I do that he meant "income tax."

The last statement just means that I highly doubt a grassroots movement of anti-Obama libertarians is going to suddenly emerge with "high cigarette taxes" as their rallying cry. This tax makes sense. In fact, we might argue that it makes more sense than the alternative, which is either a) not funding SCHIP (a terrible idea, I think even you would agree) or b) raising income taxes on everyone. Given those alternatives, I like a cigarette tax a whole heck of a lot.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, if you think we can live without taxes, presumably you feel a pang of guilt each time you a) drive a car on a road, b) go to school, c) get sick, or d) enjoy not being invaded by other countries. And that's just the beginning. Saying "I don't like any tax" is just one of those head-scratchers... how do you propose we pay for your lifestyle? Surely you aren't laboring under the illusion that you are self-sufficient?

Of course, there are certain things the government should be paying for, like the military, roads, and other things.

Doesn't mean I should like increases in tax rates.

If possible, tax rates should be cut, and more money should be given to the consumer. Which is why I disagree with taxes on cigarettes. I think the government has found a source of money that nobody will argue with, because everyone thinks smokers are idiots, and should be punished for their burden on society.

In fact, we might argue that it makes more sense than the alternative, which is either a) not funding SCHIP (a terrible idea, I think even you would agree) or b) raising income taxes on everyone. Given those alternatives, I like a cigarette tax a whole heck of a lot.

We're talking about a trillion dollar deficit here, WITHOUT the money spent on the bailout. The money can come from different sources.

I also think funding health care services with the system the way it is.....is a waste of money.