Yep agree. all taxes the same. Income tax for example should be a flat rate tax on ALL income with no deductions. Would likely run about 10%.
Interesting.... One could argue that ANY consumption of certain foods increases the risk of health related problems. The alcohol question is a good one as well Andria, and alcohol is taxed higher than other things. A so-called "sin tax".
The "junk-food-tax" is a common debate question. Personally, I feel that nothing should be taxed higher than anything else, health related concerns or not.
This is an interesting read though....
http://now.tufts.edu/articles/should-we-tax-unhealthy-foods
Thoughts?
I would have to disagree, particularly on the consumption of sugar and red meat. I love sugar -- I love it so much, in fact, that I never want to have to do without it, so I consciously exercise moderation in its consumption. And at the age of nearly 55, in a family rife with both obesity and diabetes, I am neither obese nor diabetic.
As for red meat... I have gallbladder issues, which means I cannot consume much cholesterol at all, without extremely uncomfortable digestive problems -- my solution to that is that I consume very little egg -- mostly, via baked goods, but no actual eggs, except for egg whites which contain little if any cholesterol; and by choosing to eat only the absolute leanest beef -- filet mignon, or 93% lean ground beef -- and very little even of that. Other meats contain very little cholesterol and thus offer me little problem.
The main problem with those so-called "problem foods" is when people don't exercise good judgment in their consumption -- just like with alcohol. Taxing them excessively falls into the category of trying to protect us from ourselves -- which is impossible, foolhardy, stupid, and a violation of our personal rights. If we choose to consume them unwisely, then we are obligated to pay for that unwise choice: karma. Trying to protect people from their own karma is ridiculous.
Andria
I'm very glad you are watching out for your health Andria. Sugar can be bad for certain people without causing obesity or diabetes. It is essentially an "empty" food.
Think about french fries for a minute. Maybe bacon won't apply to you, but there are plenty of foods that are KNOWN to cause health problems for the vast majority of people.
BTW, I don't think the alcohol tax is anything more than a "sin tax". I am not aware of any funds from that tax going to help people with alcoholism or problems with alcohol. Do they?
Close, they are more of the substance that is extruded from the distal end of the bovine alimentary canal.Let me get this straight, the debate with ECF trouble makers has to do with red meat?
get enough ex-smokers together and youre bound to have argumnets. Restrict what they can and cant say and you have a shitstormLet me get this straight, the debate with ECF trouble makers has to do with red meat?
Which translates to ABANDON FORUM, which further translates to a rise in VU membership and happier members.Restrict what they can and cant say and you have a shitstorm
Which translates to ABANDON FORUM, which further translates to a rise in VU membership and happier members.
Oh nice one!!!
I simply don't see it as being any of gov't business, what we eat, drink, or otherwise consume. The purpose of the FDA and USDA is to PREVENT bad things being present, and to provide proper labelling and identification of contents. At that point, it's up to US. If we eat stupidly, we suffer ill health. If we eat wisely, we'll enjoy better health, but not all ill health conditions -- including and perhaps especially cancer -- are because of what we eat, drink, or otherwise consume. It's a fact that nobody really understands the exact causes of cancer, or it would have been licked by now -- we know some things that contribute to a potential for it, and avoiding or lessening those things can go a long way to preventing it -- but when you consider that probably the baseline cause of ANY cancer is a malfunction in the DNA... there's just no way to prevent EVERYTHING that could cause damage to DNA -- some of those damages are in-born.
Living on a planet bathed in solar radiation means that cancer is a perpetual risk. Without that solar radiation, there is no life at all.
Andria
I'll take your responses as being of the "I do not agree variety". Although there is a proven causal link between colorectal cancer and red/processed meat consumption.
All good. That is my position as well, but for some the same, and some different reasons.
It's a "slippery slope" argument, but one we are already on in the US. In Japan, there is a fine if one's waist size is over a certain limit.
:O
I'm sure there are reasoned arguments for avoiding "processed" meats, and a lot of other foods... but it's not up to the gov't to impose their views on the citizens; it's up to the citizens to make wise choices. A good example is the recent discovery that eating a very low-fat diet is not necessarily the Manna from Heaven it's been portrayed to be -- the gov't, public health, even doctors, can be WRONG. Just look at all the idiot doctors saying that vaping is just as bad as smoking. It is simply not gov't job to decide what is good for us, and make sure we stick to it -- they are not our parents, and we are not children.
Andria
And the bolded part is what any "sin-tax", or health related tax ignores. And that included cigarettes.
Therefore, unless vaping is proven to have a greater negative impact on health than "junk-food", there is no rationale to tax it above regular sales tax.
BUT, there is a school of thought, that seems to be based on "if it is going to have negative consequences for society (monetarily), then tax it at a higher rate" to reduce the financial burden for the masses.
Here is an example:
Helmet laws for motorcyclists. I wear All The Gear All The Time (ATGATT), but why can the law require that I wear a helmet? Shouldn't I be free to choose?
Hmmmmmmm
View attachment 45303 Anything in excess is bad for you.
Even vaping!
Rip trippers is bad for you even in minimal doses.Like Rip Trippers?
Same reason they can require seatbelts -- it drastically lowers mortality rates. And because nobody wants to see bodies or heads spread all over the pavement like strawberry jam.
Andria
But isn't that the same "personal choice" to which you referred earlier? If not, please explain the difference.
The difference is that with food, it's only a theory, a possibility. With helmets and seatbelts, it's a hard fact.
Andria
The difference is that with food, it's only a theory, a possibility.
Andria
Life is a theory?
Our known universe may be as one cell or a virus to something larger.
Or the snot of a rat! Or maybe something we can't even imagine! AHHHHHHH! Intelligent discourse! This day just started looking up!we are but just a galaxy on the collar of a cat...
With giant cockroaches wearing peoples skinswe are but just a galaxy on the collar of a cat...
Vapers?!However we ARE the only intelligent life in the universe
Of course!Vapers?!
we are but just a galaxy on the collar of a cat...
Didn't Mark Twain say that?if you can't be relevant..at least be entertaining.
Reality...What a Concept.Life is a theory?
Our known universe may be as one cell or a virus to something larger.
Then what a waste of space.However we ARE the only intelligent life in the universe
Yep reality is a personal thing.Reality...What a Concept.
Inconceivable. How would politicians curry favor with their donors and other friends if there were no deductions, credits, or exemptions for them to carve out? Then there's the problem that every tax increase would be fought tooth and nail by the entire base of tax payers instead of just the subgroups, too small to mount meaningful opposition, that carefully targeted taxes increases are currently aimed at. No sir, this is politically unacceptable -- to our rulers.Yep agree. all taxes the same. Income tax for example should be a flat rate tax on ALL income with no deductions. Would likely run about 10%.
Yep that is precisely a BIG reason why there should be total flat rate income taxes with no deductions.Inconceivable. How would politicians curry favor with their donors and other friends if there were no deductions, credits, or exemptions for them to carve out? Then there's the problem that every tax increase would be fought tooth and nail by the entire base of tax payers instead of just the subgroups, too small to mount meaningful opposition, that carefully targeted taxes increases are currently aimed at. No sir, this is politically unacceptable -- to our rulers.
Yep that is precisely a BIG reason why there should be total flat rate income taxes with no deductions.
And also why it will never happen unless I become the supreme ruler of this chaos.
Gawd I love you sometimes...Cheers!Another guy named Robert Cromwell thought he'd be the supreme ruler and fix everything.... and after he died, the invited the king back...
Andria
Ohh you know my history?. Did not actually dieAnother guy named Robert Cromwell thought he'd be the supreme ruler and fix everything.... and after he died, the invited the king back...
Andria
Another guy named Robert Cromwell thought he'd be the supreme ruler and fix everything.... and after he died, the invited the king back...
Andria
That was Oliver Cromwell and his son Richard.
Who the fuck is that guy ROBINO??
that dude be editing so much shit over there.. I felt bad for the peeps over there, good thing they finally realize how fuck up that place is!! Good morning that forum trouble makers
VAPE IT
Those folk over there, they from the USA RIGHT?
VAPE IT