PDA

View Full Version : Fat Tax for Lean Times


MACH1
05-13-2009, 06:52 PM
Published: April 3, 2005

When Assemblyman Felix W. Ortiz of Brooklyn introduced his ''couch potato tax'' a few years ago, he was the darling of morning television. Mr. Ortiz, a Democrat, wanted to slap a tax on candy bars, soft drinks, supersize junk food, videos, Game Boys -- anything that is contributing to an alarming epidemic of obesity among the young.

The idea drew a lot of one-liners -- some critics called Mr. Ortiz a member of the ''Twinkie police.'' But Mr. Ortiz, who keeps introducing his bill, is extremely serious. And this year he got a very important supporter: the powerful health workers' union in New York State, Local 1199.

The opposition is intense. It comes from those who believe that the consumer should be free to choose; from subsidized interests, like the sugar industry and the meat producers; and from the fast-food industry, which indignantly rejects the idea that supersalted chips, sugar-laden milkshakes and fat-heavy burgers are ''junk'' food.

In Albany, the mere mention of such a tax at this point does little more than add to the bonuses of some of the soft drink and fast food lobbyists, who argue that these foods are already taxed, and that another penny or two of tax on fast food is really a tax on the poor.

In some ways, the lobbyists are right: if potato chips are taxed, crème brûlée should be too. Anybody who buys Camembert can afford an extra nickel for a childhood obesity prevention program. But Mr. Ortiz argues that the real penalty on the poor is not the extra penny or two his bill would add for a child's $4 meal or bag of chips.It is the risk of serious health complications -- like kidney failure, heart disease and blindness -- that face too many of the young and poor who eat too much of those convenient but unhealthy foods.

What we are seeing here is an idea that is evolving in Albany exactly as it should in state government, which is supposed to be the crucible for new ways of solving problems.

And given the alarming rate of obesity among the young, this idea deserves to evolve quickly into a real solution.

If Marlboros are taxed, why not Oreos? If you pay a little extra to the government for a Budweiser, why not for a Big Mac? Or why not levy an extra penny on each of the 10,000 commercials for sugary-salty-fatty foods seen each year by the average child, whose eating habits are just being formed?

That money could go for more physical education in schools or better lunchroom fare or countercommercials that let children know that too much sugar frosting does not make them superheroes. It only makes them fat.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9506EFD7133FF930A35757C0A9639C8B 63

Next they'll want to tax us for breathing.

SCSTILLER
05-13-2009, 07:28 PM
And is anyone surprised?

steelwall
05-13-2009, 07:30 PM
Actually I just read a report....sorry was browsing and didn't save the link.... But the gist of the article explained that inactivity is NOT the cause of obecity, over eating is........

OTTT OHHH.... Mcdonalds portions just got

Godfather
05-13-2009, 07:51 PM
Better idea than taxing junk food: You get taxed based on your body fat content. Skinny people should be tax exempt while lardasses should be heavily (no pun intended) taxed.

I-Want-Troy's-Hair
05-13-2009, 08:09 PM
In order to finance Osama Obama's Nationwide Medical coverage they are kicking around the idea of taxing the medical benefits your employer pays. Nice 'eh?

the Hospitals being run by the Government ahhhh has anyone walked into a government run establishment lately?

I just make sure I have a very large jar of Vaseline close buy as the State of California insists on sticking their tax dicks in my ass while the Feds come up with more brilliant ideas as to how they are going to poke me with their tax dick.

They want to tax 2 - 3 cents on all drinks with sugar. I'm wondering how much it is going to cost me to take a shit. :noidea:

St33lersguy
05-13-2009, 08:48 PM
where is the tax on tea, stamps, paper money, and other goods.

I-Want-Troy's-Hair
05-13-2009, 08:53 PM
where is the tax on tea, stamps, paper money, and other goods.

They won't disappoint......it's coming.

MACH1
05-13-2009, 08:57 PM
where is the tax on tea, stamps, paper money, and other goods.

Don't worry it's coming.

Actually I just read a report....sorry was browsing and didn't save the link.... But the gist of the article explained that inactivity is NOT the cause of obecity, over eating is........

OTTT OHHH.... Mcdonalds portions just got

Obesity is also hereditary.

tony hipchest
05-13-2009, 09:15 PM
Obesity is also hereditary.

ooh ooh ooh! a tax on jeans....

SteelersinCA
05-13-2009, 10:16 PM
and mumu's!!!!

revefsreleets
05-14-2009, 08:23 AM
The idea being that, just like cigarette's, taxing something to death will drive people away from using it. It's very "Big Brother", definitely intrusive, and worst, it's regressive. It's a regressive tax. This is going to hit the lower socio-economic bracket hardest.

That's one of the things that kill me. The left is supposed to be for the working poor, but they always seem to be heaping bullshit taxes all over them at the same time. I think it goes back to the reality that these people don't take care of themselves by choice, and the liberals feel that they need to do it for them. They tax them left and right then feed the taxes back to them in other forms, like really super inefficient government programs.

Best just to leave well enough alone...

steelreserve
05-14-2009, 12:57 PM
Game boys? They blame GAME BOYS for obesity?

Pardon me for playing Contra 4 instead of exercising during my train ride to work. I didn't want to piss off the guy next to me when I knocked over his coffee doing jumping jacks.

MACH1
05-14-2009, 02:09 PM
I guess Wii's are exempt from this tax?

RunWillieRun
05-14-2009, 03:08 PM
I guess Wii's are exempt from this tax?



:toofunny:


I always play Wii with my ass on the couch.

X-Terminator
05-15-2009, 03:50 AM
The only thing that surprises me about this is that it wasn't the brainchild of someone here in Taxylvania.

Now granted, lardasses piss me off too, especially when I have to sit next to them on the bus or at a hockey/baseball game (they really ought to make them pay for 2 seats, one for their asses and one for their big friggin stomachs that would swallow me whole). But come on, is there really a need for yet another unnecessary tax? Isn't this one of the very things the "tea parties" were centered around?

Here's an idea - if you really want kids to be more active, how about stressing to mom and dad that NO, GET YOUR BUTT OUTSIDE AND PLAY is an acceptable answer whenever little Johnny or Sally cries that they want to play their Gameboys for hours on end. And that if they take them to McDonald's, that they DO have control over what they can eat. That would also apply to candy, chips, pop, etc.

Oh wait...that would be parents taking responsibility for their child's actions, and we all know that personal responsibility has gone the way of the dodo. Nevermind then - forget I said that.

steelreserve
05-15-2009, 11:00 AM
The only thing that surprises me about this is that it wasn't the brainchild of someone here in California.

Fixed to reflect my own personal view.

California practically invented the idea of regulating everything to death.

This stupid state.

Godfather
05-15-2009, 05:53 PM
The only thing that surprises me about this is that it wasn't the brainchild of someone here in Taxylvania.

Taxylvania? I'll trade right now. We have a 7% grocery tax and a 5% income tax :banging:

California practically invented the idea of regulating everything to death.

I know what you mean. You've got a better chance of finding a Made in the USA label than you do of finding a product that isn't "known to the State of California to cause cancer". They need to limit that to products that pose a legitimate risk because otherwise nobody will take the warning seriously.

X-Terminator
05-15-2009, 10:33 PM
Taxylvania? I'll trade right now. We have a 7% grocery tax and a 5% income tax :banging:

OK, but Pennsylvania is regarded as one of the most heavily taxed states in the country: http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2009040105?OpenDocument. Hence the nickname "Taxylvania."

Fixed to reflect my own personal view.

California practically invented the idea of regulating everything to death.

This stupid state.

Amazingly, California did NOT make the top 10, even though you and everyone else I've known who lives there complain constantly about all the taxes they pay.

Godfather
05-15-2009, 11:05 PM
OK, but Pennsylvania is regarded as one of the most heavily taxed states in the country: http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2009040105?OpenDocument. Hence the nickname "Taxylvania."


Well, taxes do suck but I don't like that way of measuring them. States with higher incomes will pay more in income and sales taxes.

I don't think anyone in PA would prefer to have Mississippi's taxes, even though we're a lot lower per capita. But we're lower per capita because our economy sucks.