Food Police Want to Tax You into Eating Healthy
You may have noticed a flurry of news items based on a study by the Urban Institute, “Reducing Obesity: Policy Strategies from the Tobacco Wars.”
In it, the costs of obesity on the nation’s medical system are given (a cost of $147 billion cited by the CDC), or about 9% of the total health expenditure. The study cites with alarm the growth of obesity in the general American population, climbing to 40% by 2015. The solution proposed is massive federal intervention regarding our diets and portion sizes. Key among the interventions is a tobacco-sized tax on fattening foods. “Sinful-food” taxes to change the way people eat. Doing so with a broad-based tax, they surmise, will reduce and reverse obesity because, “with a more narrowly targeted tax, consumers could simply substitute one fattening food or beverage for another.” Do unto food as was done unto tobacco.
The “tobacco wars” were an attack on an entire industry as well as a slam on smoking. Taking a hint, we can assume this would be a new assault on everything displeasing to the vegetarian crowd. Man the castle, Burger King.
This would call for the United States to adopt extensive menu and food labeling changes. The report says this would not be a problem as a number of European countries have led the way. State laws on the books would be overridden by new federal laws. The new buzzword “disincentivize” has entered our language; it means to discourage us from eating and drinking what they don’t want us to have and make us consume what we would rather not.
The payoff if a 10% tax were levied on foods deemed “less healthy” might be as much as $522 billion over ten years. One can’t imagine the tax would stop at 10%, as one remembers the child-friendly SCHIP jacked up taxes on tobacco products 2,000%. At the same time, the government would commit to tax subsidies to stimulate consumption of fruits and vegetables. A curious notion since the price of veggies has never placed them out of reach.
This all sounds so nice and innocent. So many “facts” will be marshaled on demand to support the conclusion.
Using the tobacco taxes as a model, we don’t have to smoke. We do have to eat and drink. Food is more than fuel and the aggregate of vitamins, minerals, and fiber. It is a cultural statement. It’s part of enjoying life. It’s an expression of taste.
Yes, a lot of choices are less healthy than others. Why do we have our choices? Because of the free market and response to the demand of consumers.
“Why do we have our choices? Because of the free market and response to the demand of consumers.”
Because we are still a free people. That’s what freedom is all about. You man up, make your choices, live with the results.
Serfs go whining to their overlords to save them when they have fubar-ed their choices.
Where is this written in the Constitution? THIS is the very reason government needs to stay out of healthcare. It is not the governments job to decide what is good for me and what is not. It’s not there responsibility, not there job according to the Constitution and not wanted.
There is no shortage of people who want to control your every action and decision.
Pause and reflect on the insanity of that notion for a minute.
Damnit! Now I’m craving a bacon cheddar burger, Jalapeño Poppers, curly-fries and a big, thick chocolate shake! j/k
So when did having a long miserable life become the goal? None of these nanny-staters are happy. That’s why they have to muck with other people. They seem to be particularly against pork. Could they be a fifth column for the Islamists? In any case, Unfortunately for them, I think many might give up ding dongs but try to take the bacon and it’s war.
On the upside, in 10 or 15 years, when the hungry hordes turn to violence, we simply point out that vegetarian animals have always been the preferred meat source. Then sit back with a BLT and wager on whether that arugula will hold in a battle to the death.
Why can’t I eat human flesh? I mean, after the human is dead, of course. Where is it written in the Constitution that the government has any say over what I eat?
In my line of work, about 85% of my patients are diabetic. Most of them are missing toes or feet, or if they’re lucky they still have all their toes (for now), but the neuropathy has taken all sense of feeling from their feet or hands. In some cases, it even results in impotence and, sadly, loss of vision.
Still, I abhor the idea of taxing junkfood. Why? Because it may only start with the 6,000 calorie Mc-Jack-in-the-Hardee’s-King. Then what? No regulation ever recedes. Eventually anything with any ingredient whose industry does not have a large enough politcal lobby behind it will be in the crosshairs, and we’ll all be left eating soylent green.
Actions and consequences, people.
In Vancouver B.C. everyone likes to ski; there’s a ski rack on top of most every car. While I lived there some years ago the government run health care system was running out of money. They looked at how much money was spent covering skiing accident care, and seriously debated stopping coverage for such accidents.
Why can’t everyone see that when the government controls your health care, they control all aspects of your behavior? It is done by deciding what to cover and what not to cover, and moving certain people to the front or back of the line. Engage in risky behavior? Sorry, not covered. Sorry, someone thinner than you gets preference.
I guess I’ll take the devil’s advocate position this time, and support the fat-tax!
Why? Because the only thing I hate more than paying taxes is paying taxes to subsidize someone else’s reckless behavior. If you look at the US incidence of obesity, type II diabetes, and all their complications, and how it has skyrocketed over the past 30 years, you’d realize it’s nothing short of an epidemic. I could care less if people wanted to overeat, become diabetic, and die of a heart attack. The problem is they’re usually only partially successful. They end up with an incapacitating stroke, or with leg amputations, or on hemodyalisis, all of which require major medical interventions. I don’t have the figures, but I’m guessing that obesity is more common among the underclass, the very ones that will end up having their medical complications paid for by some form of government program, i.e. with MY tax dollars. If I have taken care of my body, and have not engaged in smoking or overeating, why do I have to subsidize the medical costs of those who willingly participated in these self-destructive behaviors?
The article asserts all our obesity problems derive from our sedentary lifestyle. If that were true, how come other nations just as urbanized as ourselves aren’t as fat? In the vast majority of cases obesity is not a product of faulty genes, or merely living a sedentary lifestyle, but the result of years of consuming high-fat, high-refined sugar products in excess, coupled with a lack of exercise. We’ve become used to larger portions, and eat more. Here’s a smattering of calories indulged per portion, 20 years ago vs. today: (from http://edition.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/01/08/quiz.portion.size/index.html )
Cheeseburger: 330 vs. 590
Spaghetti portion: 500 vs. 1,025
French fries portion: 210 vs. 610
Soda portion: 85 vs. 250
Muffin: 1.5 oz, 210 calories vs. 4oz, 500 calories
And though people love to blame McDonald’s for their obesity, nobody forced them to overeat.
Last year the US government spent nearly $600 billion in Medicare/ Medicaid, and that’s not going to change any time soon (if anything, it’ll get worse). Like it or not, your tax dollars are going to be spent on someone else’s healthcare. Wouldn’t you rather the government penalize the overeaters, and so recoup some of its losses from those who knowingly put themselves at risk, instead of you?
It’s not that I want to pay more taxes, and it’s not a question of imposing a fat-free moral agenda. It’s a question of being responsible for the outcome of freely participating in an inherently self-destructive, behavior. It wouldn’t mean banning the bacon cheeseburger (I do enjoy it myself from time to time). You can choose to overeat to your heart’s content, so long as you’re willing to pay for the fruits of your own excesses.
A tax on all fast food would raise the cost on what unfortunately is a staple for many in the underclass. But what about a national snack tax? Yale researchers estimated even a 1 cent snack tax could raise 1.8 billion nationwide (http://opa.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=4590), which could be used for health promotion programs. Most states have a sales tax that penalizes excess consumer goods consumption, why not a tax that penalizes excess food consumption? Do you REALLY need those Doritos? What about that SuperBig Gulp?
I think the gov’t is barking up the wrong tree. Why not stop subsidizing corn farmers, who produce high fructose corn syrup by the tons, which ends up in absolutely everything we eat? HFCS is cheap to produce but it is empty calories, makes consumers crave more, and is proven to aid obesity by screwing with your metabolism.
Part of the problem is already the gov’t and its subsidizing of certain foods, the items it pushes off on consumers, its ridiculous pyramids, etc.
I have succeeded in ducking the smoke tax by buyibng pipe tobacco, cig tubes and a cig machine. I make packs for about 2 bucks. shhhhhhh dont tell em.
In America there is still the ‘right’ to self destruct by high risk behavior, relatively safe addictions, inactivity, and other unhealthy food stuffs. Where that right ends is when it infringes on my life and taxes. I am not in favor of ducking drunk drivers or paying for someone else’s heart transplant or liposuction. Is this redistributing the health as well as the wealth to make us more equal?
Seriously – a homeless person dies on the street, has no family, why can’t I eat him?
Why won’t the nanny state let me?
There’s a certain delicious irony in allowing the general population to experience the joy of sin taxes that tobacco users have been subjected to for years.
Not to mention pot. Why can’t I grow a marijuana plant in my backyard and smoke it? Hell, the government wouldn’t just tax it – they’d put me in the gulag.
What is with this nanny state we live in?
I have to say, I find Chileno’s posting to be quite convincing.
I live in one of those “fat” states. I watch people in my office, who are around 300 pounds, eat an entire pizza for lunch. They bring in huge trays of brownies and every assortment of donuts, junk food, etc. The eat McDonalds every single morning for breakfast, without fail. These are the same people who are out for six weeks at a time having knee surgery–and then repeat knee surgery because the first time didn’t work.
I realize that, once the government starts taxing something like obesity, we are going down a slippery slope to other things. But–people have GOT to take responsibility. It is not an education or knowledge issue. You would not believe the amount of money that my organization spends on “Wellness” programs for its employees. It is a sheer decision-making/will issue. People choose NOT to be healthy, and other people are punished for it through higher health insurance premiums, lower work productivity, etc.
Isn’t this how laws are made or legislation passed? It is decided that one group is not acting responsibly and is endangering the happiness/welfare of other citizens. Therefore, something needs to be done to ensure the welfare of the overall community?
I makes no sense to tax the food. Unfair really. Food doesnt kill people – people kill themselves with food. The food is entirely innocent. Besides we all know that there are those people (I am one) with the unfair advantage of living on junk food who never gain a pound, why should they pay extra?
If you are going to tax obesity than just do that. After all obesity is the problem and we can fix that with the healing power of healthy taxation.
I propose a national weigh-in yearly. Conducted at random intervals so that people cant just starve themselves right before. Eventually we could develop technology similar to speed traps where you can be scanned by some sort of adipose sensing laser gun without even knowing it. Just hook it up to the IRS database and charge by the pound.
You could transfer the money back to the thin people to ease the burdon of them supporting all of that extra financial weight. All sorts of rebates and incentives could be offered for people who lose weight or participate in a government sanctioned exercise program.
Also we should include the children. If the neglectful parents of overweight kids were properly taxed they would their lazy butts off the couch and make them a proper lunch instead of stuffing them with Twinkies and Ho-Hos.
Think of the future America. We should do this, not just for ourselves, but for our future as a nation. We can roll back the lipid tide we are drowning in and there has never been a better time for this sort of neccessary legislation.
Spindok
“They eat McDonalds every single morning for breakfast, without fail.”
And I have people in the office that have the same behaviour and are skinny as rails… hmmm… guess it isn’t same for everyone… but everyone get penalized? Or your just penalized for being more prone to be heavy? No one can dispute that 2 people can eat the exact same thing and have entirely different results…. yet people stand up and say it’s not about genetics…
I say BS… so if it does come down to genetic assistance toward obesity, then you are punishing those for genes?… So now lets take gene samples from everyone and base thier healthcare costs on the results.
They should come up with a cap-and-trade for fast food…..NOT.
The most stupid argument I ever heard, in the 1990s, was that smokers were causing an undo strain on our medical system and were driving all of our health costs up. The truth was that smokers die much younge and consequently spend LESS time in the medical system in their lifetimes than non-smokers do. They also collect LESS Social Security payments so that their net affect is to save the public sector lots of money. But, the legal litigation industry sold that argument and won in court to the tune of billions.
Now lefty is using the same flawed logic to sell a new tax, something they never get tired of creating. EXACTLY HOW DOES A FAT PERSON PUT ANY MORE STRAIN ON THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, WHEN FAT PEOPLE DON’T LIVE AS LONG AS THE REST OF US EITHER. It is just another tax scheme, period.
“Why not stop subsidizing corn farmers, who produce high fructose corn syrup by the tons”
Well since the corn producing states are ALL RED/REPUBLICAN STATES that’s a bit of a debacle for the DEMS that are now in power. Farm subsidies are the political THIRD RAIL in the Midwest and responsible for untold wealth.
If Dems stop farm subsidies to Republican states/farmers well, there’s no chance of converting the heathens.
10. marciecurie:
“Why not stop subsidizing corn farmers, who produce high fructose corn syrup by the tons”
Good question.
Well since the corn producing states are ALL RED/REPUBLICAN STATES that’s a bit of a debacle for the DEMS that are now in power. Farm subsidies are the political THIRD RAIL in the Midwest and responsible for untold wealth.
If Dems stop farm subsidies to Republican states/farmers well, there’s no chance of converting the heathens. So, taxes it shall be…that way every American suffers for the greed of a few.
We are already proposing end of life counceling for the senior citizens that are a drain on our healthcare. Why not obesity counceling every five years where we can convince the fatties that maybe ending it all would be a better option for the collective. The sad this is all these statistics on fat people are based off the government body mass index (BMI) where a cookie cutter height and weight range is applied to your health to determine how horrible your health is. So if your 5’11 work out everyday weight 220 all pure muscle you are considered obese. Figure it out for yourself its in my link, I bet majority of you will be shocked to find out your government considers you a fatty even though you live a outstanding healthy life style. This is the problem with Government healthcare and specifically weight issues. I can’t wait until the government starts ushering workout-a-holics into a higher taxed high risk healthplan. The BMI is a joke because a large majority of healthy american’s are considered on the overweight or obese side due to the fact that muscle weights more than fat. This is just a government tool used to pit american’s against each other and it appears to be working affectively. Health nuts are angry at thier overweight neighbor because of his life style and will even support a taxation on themselves to lead a health crusade. While not knowing that they are one of the fatties that the government is using as a tool to create an ever expanding nanny state.
20.Jim Baker:
“EXACTLY HOW DOES A FAT PERSON PUT ANY MORE STRAIN ON THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, WHEN FAT PEOPLE DON’T LIVE AS LONG AS THE REST OF US EITHER. It is just another tax scheme, period.”
Well Jim it’s obvious you’ve never recovered from that 1981 head injury.
An obese person usually does live fewer years but during those years his care is 10 times more costly than that of a healthy person.
So he’d have to die at age 10 and thin folks would have to live to age 100 for it to even out.
Now if the thin person smoked we could shorten his life too. So let’s not tax fatty snack foods let’s just encourage everyone else to smoke (Big Tobacco’s gonna LOVE me).
Logic has absolutely no place in these discussions… now does it? Like polls and the truth… it can be manipulated.
Sorry I just can’t let it go, here is a list of Gold medal Olympians that are overweight or obese based upon the (BMI index) And this is just from Athens 2004! These people are an irresponsible drain on society!
Overweight Gold Medal Olympian Athletes according to the Body Mass Index (BMI)
Shawn Crawford (USA) Sprinting (200m)
(Overweight: 177cm, 81kg, athlete BMI=26)
Mark Lewis-Francis (GB) Sprinting (100m Relay)
(Overweight: 183cm, 89kg, athlete BMI=26)
Matthew Pinsent (GB) Rowing (Coxless four)
(Overweight: 196cm, 108kg, athlete BMI=28)
James Cracknell (GB) Rowing (Coxless four)
(Overweight: 192cm, 100kg, athlete BMI=27)
Ed Coode (GB) Rowing (Coxless four)
(Overweight: 193cm, 96kg, athlete BMI=26)
Steve Williams (GB) Rowing (Coxless four)
(Overweight: 189cm, 96kg, athlete BMI=27)
David Cal (Spain) Canoeing (C-1 1000m)
(Overweight: 183cm, 91kg, athlete BMI=27)
Khadjimourat Gatsalov (Russia) Wrestling (84-96kg)
(Overweight: 180cm, 96kg, athlete BMI=30)
Artur Taymazov (Uzebekistan) Wrestling (96-120kg)
(Obese: 189cm, 112kg, athlete BMI=31)
Roman Sebrle (Czechoslovakia) Decathlon
(Overweight: 186cm, 88kg, athlete BMI=25)
Ryan Bayley (Austria) Cycling (Sprint)
(Overweight: 181cm, 84kg, athlete BMI=26)
Odlanier Solis Fonte (Cuba) Boxing (81-91kg)
(Overweight: 180cm, 91kg, athlete BMI=28)
Alexander Povetkin (Russia) Boxing (over 91kg)
(Overweight: 188cm, 91kg, athlete BMI=26)
Ihar Makarau (Belarus) Judo (90-100kg)
(Obese: 180cm, 100kg, athlete BMI=31)
Yuriy Bilonog (Ukraine) Shot put
(Obese: 200cm, 135kg, athlete BMI=34
Maybe people using ‘food stamps’ should be prohibited from purchasing ‘junk’ food. I’ve seen obese people in grocery stores with cart loads of pure crap bought with food stamps. Food stamps should be used for healthy staples like fruits/veggies/rice/pasta/dairy/lean-meat etc. and not cookies, ice cream, donuts, sugary sodas, candy, pre-packaged frozen fatty snacks and other non-nutritional food stuffs.
After all, if tax payers are going to pay for people to eat, they should at the very least eat HEALTHY on our dime rather than eating free food that makes them UNHEALTHY to the point where medical problems crop up and we will have to pay for that too.
If the gov. wants people to eat healthier then the gov. should put their rhetoric where their gaping maws are by restricting certain foods consumed by the people sucking off the gov. teat in the first place. What is the percentage of US welfare recipients nowadays? Surely this measure of restriction could make a dent in the poor health of impoverished children and adults in our country?
13 Blarty
I know he’s a troll, but I feel like settinghim straight on this one.
Please show me the Federal law against cannibalism. I believe is it illegal in all 50 states, but they can make such laws by virtue of the 10th Amendment (hint, the 10th is in the Constitution).
Why are we going to start with food? If the idea is to lessen behaviors that may cost the collective, we should probably start with increasing the taxes on gas and car purchases, since driving has far stronger scientific support of being an unnecessary risk that leads to additional strain on the healthcare system, most cities have public transport and bike paths as alternatives.
Support for these kinds of idiotic plans will continue until it is one of the liberal vices that gets dinged, and then we’ll here about how the Bush administration stole our civil liberties. If the idea weren’t so sickening it would be funny.
27 Brutus
Tell your troll that cannibalism leads to prion disease which is a mad-cow disease for humans. Or, perhaps, it is to late. Necrophiles do not do well in prison. Nice effort on your behalf.
Kill the Big Government Monster now; put a stake in his black heart, throw a ray of sunlight on the nocturnal creature, & dehydrate the beast’s filthy blood sucking skin until only a shell remains. I see good signs with the returning congressmen getting blow back from their constituents from their recent past votes such as Porkulus, Crap & Tax, & Obama’s budget. Keep up the pressure. Kill the beast! Government has become too large as it is. Shrink the beast until it can fit into a jar. Many of the current congress critters need to lose their jobs in 2010….
This is one of the reasons why.
Some U.S. prisons feed a concoction called “food loaf” to inmates who are on disciplinary restriction or segregation. “Food loaf” is a bland, tasteless, well, loaf that does in fact contain all of the minimum vitamins, calories and nutrients required for prison inmates as recommended by groups like the American Correctional Association.It is served to inmates on restriction on the theory that “good tasting food” is not an legal right for prisoners and the authorities are only required to provide meals that meet established dietary standards. The use of “food loaf” in prisons has been upheld by the federal courts. I can see the day coming when the health-care bureaucrats will embrace some sort of “food loaf” as the official meal for the rest of us and place prohibitive taxes on foods that are not “nutritious.” If that sounds paranoid just remember, almost anything can be justified under the rubric of “promoting health.”
Obseity is caused by oppressive, socially-injust freedom! Only without freedom can we healthy and happy! Liberate us from terrible freedom! (Who needs to be responsible for their actions? That’s just a drag, man!)
Melissa,
Where did you get your ten times number? Logic has absolutely no place in these discussions… now does it? Like polls and the truth… it can be manipulated. Sheesh.
Tell you what, Blarty? You’re so batty to consume what’s in your backyard, why don’t you harvest some leaves from that yew tree in your backyard, and make some tea?…No one will miss you afterwords, at least not here.
I will eat what I want and when I want and to me this is freedom. I weigh in at 140 pounds and have since I left high school. I am now 56 years old as of Saturday and except when in boot camp when I went to 165 pounds have remained the same as far as weight goes.
I am active until lately since I am layed off but only eat what I need and do something each day for exercise. Many who have been around me wonder how I can eat as I do and not gain weight and I must say I have a high rate of metabolism and am active.
If anyone has any doubt about the stupidity of the food fascists, allow me to state the obvious. None of them has ever read any of the food labels they claimed were so necessary to save us from ourselves. Example,
A typical 12 oz. can of soda pop has about 38 grams of sugar. Soda pop bad stuff. Junk, junk!
Well, looking at the label on the can of frozen orange juice concentrate on my table, I see a 12 oz. serving contains 36 grams of sugar. OJ good stuff?
Also, the food fascists love to hate fast food joints for various reasons, one being the “super portion”.
Well, if Mcwendyking is so bad for our waist lines, why have the food fascists not taken up the torch to ban all you can eat lunch and dinner buffets, brunches, etc.?
And finally. What kind of donuts to the food police eat?
I like the idea of a junk food tax. Take soda pop for example. Mostly empty calories and carbondated gas. And not at all good for you. I’d rather have kids drink 100% fruit juice instead of Pepsi.
27. Brutus:
Why does it matter whether the nanny is the state or the feds? The point is, why can’t I eat a manwich? Is this not America? Am I not free?
I see nobody has a problem with the nanny state prohibiting – not just taxing – the consumption of purely organic marijuana. Why the double standard, folks?
Don’t be silly, the food police only care about your tax money, they don’t give a damn whether you are eating healthy.
If you don’t die from over eating, the environmental police will tax you for your carbon emission. On the day you turn 60, the end-of-life police will tax you for burdening the health care system.
38. Blarty Blarckleblart: Indeed, you can. Go ahead. Make sure the ingredient is fresh. You will get into a pickle if the relatives disagree with you, so pay off the relatives first. Jeffrey Dahmer is no longer available for consultation, but you can write to that German guy for recipes.
Mike Shelton
Quote: ” It’s part of enjoying life. It’s an expression of taste.”
So is enjoying a smoke, but it wouldn’t surprise me if you were all in favor of it’s repression. If so, what right have you to complain.
There’s a cartoon circulating somewhere that shows two cavemen squatting on their cave’s floor, and one of them is saying to the other, “Something’s very wrong: we get plenty of exercise, drink pure water, eat only organic and free-range food, and yet none of us live past thirty.”
To be accurate and to preempt any “fact-weenies,” skeletons of 60-year old cavemen have been unearthed. But please note: said cavemen were dead by sixty, and usually much earlier.
A majority of McDonalds-eating, chain-smoking couch potatoes reach age 70 and beyond these days. I prefer eating healthy myself, and exercising, and I believe that good nutrition can make a dramatic difference — on occasion — in one’s health and fitness, but here’s the deal: It is modern life and modern medicine that have prolonged our lives more than anything else, so much so that even couch potatoes are productive citizens for all the purposes that matter in modern society, and they are so for decades beyond the life span of our ancestors. Leave us alone, control freaks!
I believe in your right to smoke in your own home, or in designated areas of a business establishment. You do not have the right to force me to breathe your smoke and trigger my allergies.
1. Stop farm subsidies. Prices of junk food made from corn, sugar, flour, etc would rise. Raising taxes on the end products of subsidized food stuffs is just stupid.
2. Allow health insurance companies to charge the obese more for premiums based on higher risk.
Nanny state not required.
This is why you’re fat: http://thisiswhyyourefat.com/
blarty …eat away. they are dead after all.
but it is a good argument why the government should not be in health care.
guess what ..they don’t really care about your health. the elitist marxists just want the tax money.
do the stupid elitist marxists know that when the total health care system is run by the government. not only will health care be worse (or no care) all those employees that once paid taxes will now be consuming taxes as government employees. and since the health care industry is huge the drop in taxes will be staggering.
we may join blarty eating flesh from the dead (probably died because Obama didn’t think they were productive drones so no health care for them).
@8
I can’t believe Canada’s single-payer health system would even consider not covering skiing accidents. That’s not healthcare, that’s communism! What they could have considered is an added tax on ski equipment, to cover added ski-related injuries. You can still ski, but you have to pay for the burden your behavior could add to the mounting national health bill.
The US Federal Highway Trust Fund is financed by the federal gasoline tax. Hence, the more you drive (and increase highway wear and tear), the more you pay to offset the cost of repairing the nation’s highway system. Some could argue they never drive on the highway system. But as long as you have a car, it’s very likely you will. That probability makes the gas tax reasonable. Why is it so strange to do the same with overeaters? The more you eat, the more likely you will use the nation’s healthcare system. Some overeaters may not, but the laws of probability are against you.
@17
LOL !! Personally I’d call it the “BMI Tax” (as in, Body Mass Index). If you have a BMI over 30, you’d be labeled “legally obese,” and subject to taxation. Your BMI tax would increase depending on how far above 30 you were. To enforce this, you’d need a special division within the IRS, we’ll call them the “fat police.”
Of course, this would never get through the Democratically-controlled Congress, as it would be seen to unfairly target the poor/minorities. Those caught promoting the BMI Tax would be labeled racist bigots for sure. And it wouldn’t jive with Obama’s “Share the Wealth – Share the Health” political agenda.
@18
“No one can dispute that 2 people can eat the exact same thing and have entirely different results….”
That’s a lousy argument. Saying not everyone who overeats gets fat is like saying not everyone who smokes gets cancer. Yet all who smoke have to pay the associated sin tax. Of course there are many factors involved, including exercise level and genetics. But overeating will put you at high risk of obesity/diabetes, just like smoking will put you at high (but not absolute) risk of cancer. Does everyone who walks down a dark alley get mugged? Of course not, but you’d still be unlikely to do it, given the probabilities involved.
Why must we all drive at 65mph on the highway? I’m sure some experienced drivers would do fine at 75 or even 85mph. Yet the higher the speed the greater chances of an accident. Why won’t some life insurance agencies cover pilots or skydivers? It’s all a question of probabilities.
@26
Unfortunately I see using Food Stamps to buy crappy food as well. But if politicians were ever to take away that bag of Cheetos from the fat welfare mom… You’d likely start a riot, complete with bleeding heart libs pounding their chest about the repression the underclass must suffer, how the government sees Cheetos as only to be enjoyed by “the rich,” etc. etc. Bad publicity. Besides, more Cheetos to the masses means more votes come November. Doesn’t our system sometimes just suck?
Personally I think Food Stamps should only be allowed to buy “food loafs” (see #31). That would be a great incentive to get out of welfare!!
Taxation as a mean to control the population is not freedom in my book. Isnt the USA supposed to represent freedom to the world? At least that is what we all stand up an claim.
Government control is not freedom.
“It’s all a question of probabilities.”
I think it highly probable that you are going to die one day. At least I havent heard of a single person that has survived life. I would prefer to live that live free of government control at least as much as possible.
The arguement that it’s only a small tax and you will hardly notice it is simply nuts… Taxation is slavery to the government… if the government said we are going to make you a slave but only from January to April… would that be ok?
“but they can make such laws by virtue of the 10th Amendment (hint, the 10th is in the Constitution).”
Brutus makes an excellent point. The rights of the Federal government is “supposed to be” very limited. They have no authority to be doing the garbage they have gotten into according to the Constitution. The states powers are much more broad.
If a State wanted to create a fat tax.. power to them, according to the constitution they can do this. I would still feel its a bad move but they could make the attempt.
The federal goverment on the other had has a very limited role according to the Constitution! They have stepped over the line!
52 Brian
If a State wanted to create a fat tax.. power to them, according to the constitution they can do this.
So the nanny state is fine and dandy as long as it’s a… state?
@ 51 “I think it highly probable that you are going to die one day…”
That’s not a probability, that’s an absolute. Remember? The only things certain in life are death and taxes! If you want to keep paying taxes to subsidize other people’s irresponsible behavior, more power to ya. Personally, I think if you play, you pay.
On the other hand, maybe I should start enjoying the pleasures of overeating and smoking. I may get diabetes, renal failure, blindness, amputations, emphysema, lung cancer, throat cancer, bladder cancer, or have to live on home oxygen or hemodyalisis.
And though I’ll be too incapacitated to work/maintain myself/pay taxes, I know I can count on your tax dollars to keep me alive. For though it’s true that eventually I will die, I’ll do my best to stay alive, whatever the cost (to you, that is).
Pay on, fool!
“So the nanny state is fine and dandy as long as it’s a… state?”
I didn’t say I would support it, but at least its allowable according to our Constitution. The federal government was purposely limited in powers… at least they used to be, when the Constitution was adherred too.
65. vivo:
59. homero:
“…have you ever said anything critical of the democrats ?”
Yes. But I rather say constructive things when possible. I don’t think I criticize, I set things straight.
that is way funny …I have not seen anything constructive from you. and never anything critical of the democrats.
I didn’t say I would support it, but at least its allowable according to our Constitution.
Query: if Congress doesn’t have the constitutional authority to tax unhealthy food, then how does it tax, say, tobacco or alcohol?
“Query: if Congress doesn’t have the constitutional authority to tax unhealthy food, then how does it tax, say, tobacco or alcohol?”
Excellent question. Maybe because people just accept the government has that power. Can you point to me where the authority comes from?
10th amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
You’re not thinking like an environmentalist. Think recycle. As in crap-and-trade. We can all recycle each other’s food. What could be greener and healthier?
Also,
Q: What’s the difference between a sin tax and a papal indulgence?
A: The entity selling the indulgence.
If it’s wrong, outlaw it. If it’s not wrong, it’s not a sin. If the government says out of one side of its mouth that it’s wrong, and then permits it anyway for a fee, what is it, class?
Can you point to me where the authority comes from?
“[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”
Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 3
I somehow knew you were going to pull out the interstate commerce clause, as this is what politicians have been using as their justification for years. However its a subversion of the intent. It’s twisting the Constitution of our nation. Do you REALLY think the intent of that clause was to allow the federal govenment to tax soda in order to control the citizens? That is a huge stretch!
But even if you chose to blindly agree with the politicians on this. What does interstate commerce have to do with a product which is often sold in the same state it’s manufactured in? Many beverage companies INCLUDING beer manufacturers have plants all over the country… and as such the product may never cross state lines.. how can the federal government then say they can regulate AND tax the product by way of the interstate commerce clause?
Many gun manufacturers are fighting this right now, because the federal government has used the interstate clause to regulate guns as well…. it has used it to regulate just about everything the regulate… it was a subversion they have taken advantage of to the fullest in attempting to take control away from the states, which is where the founders of this country intended it to be largely governed from. NOT the federal government. That is why the federal government was defined so carefully… while the states were broadly defined and each has it’s own Constitution.
62. Brian:
You may legitimately disagree with how the CC has been interpreted over the years, but nonetheless it IS the authority under which such laws are passed.
RE: federalism, yes, the founders probably intended the federal government to be less powerful than it is now in relation to the states (although the Supremacy Clause still speaks for itself). Then there was a little “correction” in the 1860s that demonstrated that a strong nation requires a strong central government. A loose confederation of largely independent states simply wouldn’t have survived – as it very nearly didn’t.
42. myth buster
This article & my comment was concerning taxation. What the hell has your comment got to do with taxation. Find an appropriate subject matter for that babble.
… but slim. I know the distinctions could be hard to work out, but wouldn’t it be sensible to tax foods with nutritional value so low that they can hardly be properly called “food?” Yes, big government is a scary thing, but, as many have said here, having to pay money to subsidize other people’s reckless behavior is also not acceptable. And modifying one’s diet by not drinking sugary drinks and munching on potato chips will almost inevitably reduce obesity, at least somewhat. There are “foods” one doesn’t need any more than cigarettes.
10. marciecurie:
“Why not stop subsidizing corn farmers, who produce high fructose corn syrup by the tons”
Mellissa:
“Good question.
Well since the corn producing states are ALL RED/REPUBLICAN STATES that’s a bit of a debacle for the DEMS that are now in power. Farm subsidies are the political THIRD RAIL in the Midwest and responsible for untold wealth.
If Dems stop farm subsidies to Republican states/farmers well, there’s no chance of converting the heathens. So, taxes it shall be…that way every American suffers for the greed of a few.”
The Ethanol farce drove up corn prices. The farmers of course ned profits because lending is diverted by Barney Frank to home buyers with no jobs and no down payment. I am glad farmers make profits because they all will face bad years.
Greed is Resident Obama selling a book and making millions on the Writings of Bill Ayers. It also wasted a lot of trees.
You Can Tax MY Tortilla When You Pry It From My Chile Covered Fingers.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/New-Mexicans-Against-the-Tortilla-Tax/301928385838?ref=nf