Gov. Patterson Proposes Obesity Tax

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='jkaands' post='1744383' date='Jan 6 2009, 10:29 AM']Follow the food coupons. FLOUR, SUGAR and CARROTS are eligible for coupons. CANDY, SNACKS, ICE CREAM are not.[/quote]

I'm not talking about food coupons, I'm talking about taxes. I'm also talking about how one determines which food is taxed heavily and which is not.


[quote]There's no law against buying hard candy. So, if you're a diabetic--an obese type II diabetic that can be cured by weight loss?-- BUY the hard candy and pay the tax!![/quote]

What if you're a skinny, otherwise healthy, Type I diabetic that CANNOT be cured by ANYTHING?

[jkaands]

[quote name='T-Bone _' post='1744459' date='Jan 6 2009, 01:22 PM']I'm not talking about food coupons, I'm talking about taxes. I'm also talking about how one determines which food is taxed heavily and which is not.




What if you're a skinny, otherwise healthy, Type I diabetic that CANNOT be cured by ANYTHING?[/quote]

Buy the hard candy (or boxed juice) and pay the tax--on the candy.

Nobody is planning to make hc illegal.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='jkaands' post='1744627' date='Jan 6 2009, 07:17 PM']Buy the hard candy (or boxed juice) and pay the tax--on the candy.

Nobody is planning to make hc illegal.[/quote]

Of course the Bully state doesn't want to make it illegal, how could it then steal little kids juice money?

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='jkaands' post='1744627' date='Jan 6 2009, 04:17 PM']Buy the hard candy (or boxed juice) and pay the tax--on the candy.

Nobody is planning to make hc illegal.[/quote]

You have yet to explain why there should be a tax.

BTW: Stop using strawmen. (You're embarrassing yourself.)

Edited January 6, 2009 by T-Bone _

[Socrates]

[quote name='jkaands' post='1744090' date='Jan 6 2009, 12:03 AM']Why are you complaining? Obama is proposing a multi-billion tax cut.

People who complain about taxes are usually first in line for the benefits that taxes support.

It's pretty clear that candy, snacks and sodas are non-essential and could easily be taxed.

Some states already include only essential foods in food coupons. No coupons for Twinkies. Sorry.[/quote]
I wasn't complaining; I was asking a question - which you have failed to answer.
And if you actually read my post, you'd notice that I never mentioned Obama.

You sidestepped the question, and tried to change the topic.

Would you in principle support the government taxing sodomy, or things related to it? (maybe an extra tax on gay bars, bathhouses, or other places where homosexuals hook up)

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1730686' date='Dec 17 2008, 05:39 PM']+J.M.J.+

[url="http://hotair.com/archives/2008/12/16/the-new-york-nanny-state-continues-apace/"]Via HotAir[/url]
Gov. Paterson, as part of a $121 billion budget to be unveiled Tuesday, will propose an “obesity tax” of about 15% on nondiet drinks.[/quote]

Even though I love the taste of aspartame (diet pepsi!), it's one of the most dangerous drugs out there. The FDA rejected it in the 80s as a drug to treat hyperactivity in children-but somehow it made its way into the category of "safe for consumption." That's health food all right, gov. -Katie

Edited January 7, 2009 by Tinkerlina

[Socrates]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1744839' date='Jan 6 2009, 11:31 PM']Even though I love the taste of aspartame (diet pepsi!), it's one of the most dangerous drugs out there. The FDA rejected it in the 80s as a drug to treat hyperactivity in children-but somehow it made its way into the category of "safe for consumption." That's health food all right, gov. -Katie[/quote]
I absolutely abhor the taste of aspartame, and all other artificial sweeteners. I can't stand any "diet" drinks - unfortunately, I am something of a sugar/caffeine junkie.

(btw, aspartame's been used in diet drinks since at least the early 80s - I was around then.)

[jckinsman]

[quote name='Mercy me' post='1736340' date='Dec 27 2008, 12:52 PM']Right, just like they did with the tobacco settlement and taxes. Thats right all that tobacco settlement money has ended up in the general funds and is not being used for anti-tobacco education or medical care.[/quote]
Lotto $ for education missed our schools and missed our state,Has anyone out there seen washingtons lotto money so we can improve our education????? Anyone??? I know it's either California or Oregan!

[jckinsman]

Lets just place a tax on "sin"! All of you who sin owe big taxes to the Government All to whom make it to the confessionals before the Saturday evening mass get a tax break! I'm afraid over time the government would be really rich.

Edited January 15, 2009 by jckinsman

[mcts]

[quote name='jkaands' post='1744383' date='Jan 6 2009, 01:29 PM']Follow the food coupons. FLOUR, SUGAR and CARROTS are eligible for coupons. CANDY, SNACKS, ICE CREAM are not.[/quote]


um...i went looking and i just found a coupon for twizzlers, a coupon for wheat thins, and one for edy's ice cream.

[track2004]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1734601' date='Dec 23 2008, 11:15 PM']It is an interesting fact, though, how many liberals have no problem with government stepping in regulating, taxing or banning things deemed unhealthy or unsafe - tobacco products, fatty foods, sugary soft drinks, etc., or enforcing helmet, seatbelt, or gun safety lock laws - yet if anyone dare suggests that the government say anything concerning unhealthy practices like sodomy or promiscuous sex, they howl.
As witnessed by the spread of AIDS and other vds, these practices are not safe or healthy on a purely physical level, yet it is politically taboo to so much as utter a word against them.

And I really don't think there's any coherent argument to be made that engaging in sodomistic practices is any more of a sacrosanct right than enjoying a cigar or a big greasy cheeseburger.[/quote]

Sorry I haven't replied, there was going home for Christmas and then sleeping until school started again.

I'm generally for gov't taxing of tobacco, liquor, and some food stuffs, and I'm generally for helmet, seat belt and gun laws. The thing about sex laws is that actually enfocing them would be [i]awkward[/i]. The conservatives have brought abstinence only sex-ed to the schools and I have to say I disagree with the message they are sending the kids, but sex-ed is good and it should be regulated by the gov't, maybe not national but probably not by district either (I'm voting statewide regulations).

Proper sex-ed would present a non-biased, scientifically-backed education on sexual practices. It would say that being promiscuous sex is unhealthy. It would say that sex with random or lots of partners puts you at high risk for STIs and HIV. It would say that some sex is more likely to cause injury (like anal sex). It would say that condoms help but aren't perfect. It would say that, while it would be better to wait for a long term committed monogamous relationship to have sex, that people have sex before that happens and that there are risks and consequences. It would [i]actually[i/] teach kids about sex and everything that goes with it.

Taxing sex is crazy. Heavily taxing condoms or birth control may do something, but I'm not sure which way it would fall. Maybe we heavily tax Marvin Gaye albums, roses, silk sheets and candles???