RE: The Fat Tax

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: The Fat Tax

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The Fat Tax

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The Fat Tax - 7/14/2007 8:38:22 PM

SugarMyChurro

Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline

Pulpsmack:

Just a heads up...

You lost credibility here. No one will answer you or argue with you seriously because you simply aren't scoring any interesting points in this thread.

I agree that people should educate themselves and make their own decisions about healthy lifestyles. But you fail to understand that every piece of information we get about food and other consumables was bought and paid for through someone else's hardship:
http://www.fda.gov/opacom/backgrounders/miles.html

Now, the FDA would seem to be very much in the pocket of the corporations again when it comes to issues like GM foods and all kinds of weirdo drug stuff. We can't totally trust our own government's food and drug safety organization. But still, it's better than nothing. Thank god people can still sue corporations and make them do the right thing even when the bean counters and the FDA told them it would be okay to do something differently.

You live in a time in the world where unions and endless lawsuits have created a standard of living unprecedented at any time in the history of the world. The corporations did not often give in to reasonable demands until they were forced to by laws, regulations, and lawsuits. It seems to me that you take much as given that was anything but at the outset.

And the battles are not over yet.

The UK tax is proposed in the same manner as any food tax - you tax it because that in and of itself prevents high consumption levels. Sure, they might be going too far. At the moment I am not sure this is a good policy decision on their part.

But many of the things you lumped into this conversation seem to me to be distinctly different kinds of issues. If you thought they were in some way analogous - well, I think you were just 100% wrong on those points.

(in reply to Pulpsmack)

Profile

Post #: 81

RE: The Fat Tax - 7/14/2007 11:46:23 PM

CuriousLord

Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline

The tax is a neat idea. It makes a bit of statement about the role of government in the arguments of supporters.

The way I see it, this tax will help the population to be more healthy, for the most part. Still, it also shows a willingness of the government to enact laws to not govern, but influence, the decisions of citizens. Such a precidence, even the act, lays groundwork for a state which holds the well-being of an individual over such an individual's right to determine one's own being.

To deviate from the more practical part of this response, I would like to include a more existential point. This law seems to restore a natural order to something that has been disrupted by a disproportionate term. Or, more specifically, the demands for sugars and fats, given the supply, has been greater than it is to be conductive to continued life. This law explifies an attempt to correct such behavior by the host body of an evolving organism, i.e., the state.

Not that most would care for philosophy to the degree nor extent I do.

(in reply to Level)

Profile

Post #: 82

RE: The Fat Tax - 7/15/2007 12:15:48 AM

SugarMyChurro

Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
Such a precidence, even the act, lays groundwork for a state which holds the well-being of an individual over such an individual's right to determine one's own being.

One point of clarification...

This is hardly precedent setting, there are dozens of such taxes already in effect on tobacco, alcohol, firearms, etc. The idea behind some of those kinds of excise taxes is the notion of protecting the individual from himself.

Another kind of example of perhaps excessive government intrusion into our lives are the myriad "sodomy laws" that exist - as if we couldn't choose for ourselves the sex acts we might prefer on our own private sexual menus.

You know, politics did not begin the moment you started taking notice of the situation. And yet you makes comment like the one above. I don't get it.

In sum, the ground work exists already. We can talk about this "fat tax" in isolation as either good or bad, it won't necessarily have an effect on anything else to come after it.

(in reply to CuriousLord)

Profile

Post #: 83

RE: The Fat Tax - 7/15/2007 12:25:30 AM

Hottiegurl

Posts: 180
Joined: 3/27/2006
Status: offline

Can we please stop making laws. There are too many as it is. We are being regulated and legislated to death.

I don't smoke. I never had smoked except once to get out of watching a movie I did not want to see in the first place. "Cough, cough, oh I have to leave." That was when you could smoke in the theater. How can you tell your girlfriends at 16 your a wuss and hate scarey movies? The idea is now you can't smoke any where. The government is taking care of us.

Then, next is Alcohol (ok, let's say again it is Alcohol.) If you have a party your libal if you let someone leave your house if they have had too much to drink. Again, laws getting in the way. Now I am not saying I condone drunk driving, I am not. I am saying that they have added more and more to the deep pocket law for who is to blame. Me I would rather have a great big sleep over like we did in high school............ shades of swinging.

Now we go for sugar or salty foods. Does that include chocolate. Half the population of women right there would vote against that bill. If we get the chance to vote.

Your fruits and vegetables must be from some super designer store to be so much money. One banana where I live costs less than a small bag of M & M's. Depending on the time of the month it could be a toss up which I would buy.

What I hate about the States and the Federal Government is that they are forcing upon us their values or the values of a certain group, maybe it is the squeeky wheel concept or whos dropping more money into someones pocket.

Hey, I am still mad that a guy can take off his top when he's hot but a gal can't. Again, the government watching over us.

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)

Profile

Post #: 84

RE: The Fat Tax - 7/15/2007 12:46:19 AM

Pulpsmack

Posts: 394
Joined: 4/15/2004
From: Louisiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

Pulpsmack:

Just a heads up...

You lost credibility here. No one will answer you or argue with you seriously because you simply aren't scoring any interesting points in this thread.

Thank you for the heads up. I was quite perplexed that nobody would argue with me but I couldn't get the feedback I was looking for. Fortunately, you stepped in, appointed yourself spokesperson for the thread, and imparted your intimate knowledge of the minds those involved so that I could learn from your vital assessment. Then again, it could be that you are talking out of your ass. I am inclined to go with the latter.

It's fascinating how my "uninteresting points" inadvertently led to a substantial hijack of the thread. Moreover, as uninteresting and as idiotic as my points have been (your words) you seem to have little problem shaping a response, which means that you are either incorrect, or you are one who likes to sink to the dregs of dullness and idiocy yourself. By my count I have received positive feedback in this thread from at least three posters, and negative from three (including yourself). One young lady wanted to clarify a specific point of mine with her complete knowledge of the situation (which I conceded and which "dull as it was, became a complete hijack). One dissenter did not like my criticism of his argument and he launched his usual hissy fit to "tap out" of the corner he painted his self within. Finally, you responded with a misconstrued rebuttal to what I was saying. There are many more than 7 posters in this thread (myself, 3 assenters, and 3 dissenters), and I don't know why those outside of the six have not responded. Maybe they agree with me. Maybe they aren't interested in my point, maybe they are afraid of the rebuttal, maybe they have moved on from this thread. I don't know. But what I DO know is that you have no clue yourself, and the sheer arrogance you display, appointing yourself the mouthpiece of the posters on this thread and casting your lofty ill-fitting speculation as fact speaks volumes about your own credibility both within the thread and beyond.

So "just a heads up".... speak for yourself from now on.

quote:

I agree that people should educate themselves and make their own decisions about healthy lifestyles. But you fail to understand that every piece of information we get about food and other consumables was bought and paid for through someone else's hardship:
http://www.fda.gov/opacom/backgrounders/miles.html

AGAIN, you fail to understand the argument you are mistakenly launching a rebuttal against. Nobody had argued against making corporations immune from products liability, and nobody argued that all warning labels should be blotted from existence. You consistently misread this and address this and as such you are wasting your breath and bandwith belaboring the point, which is NOT part of the controversy

quote:

You live in a time in the world where unions and endless lawsuits have created a standard of living unprecedented at any time in the history of the world. The corporations did not often give in to reasonable demands until they were forced to by laws, regulations, and lawsuits. It seems to me that you take much as given that was anything but at the outset.

Hold that thought.

quote:

The UK tax is proposed in the same manner as any food tax - you tax it because that in and of itself prevents high consumption levels. Sure, they might be going too far. At the moment I am not sure this is a good policy decision on their part.

But many of the things you lumped into this conversation seem to me to be distinctly different kinds of issues. If you thought they were in some way analogous - well, I think you were just 100% wrong on those points.

Let's try again so you can connect the dots.

#1 (your point in red) This is what the thread is about and this the "Rome" my roads lead to. "Tax the item and it prevents high consumption levels". That is the good intention of the tax. What is the reality? Does it ever work? NO! Look at the sin tax on alcohol and tobacco. If it's an unhealthy vice and people are going to commit to it at substantially the same level regardless of the price. Shortened life spans don't phase people. Cancer, obesity, etc. does not deter those who need help the most. Why in the hell would a $2 tax make any difference when it has been proven ineffective in the past? The fact that you are unsure of the policy decision... the fact that there is a scintilla of doubt on your part is alarming. This is stupid, plain and simple. All it does is hurt the obese and poor dieters financially.

#2 Who in the hell gives the government the power to play parents to adults? Granted, I speak with a slanted tongue on the issue, since this is UK legislation and my legal/historical language is "American" (like people across the pond trying to comment on gun ownership in the US when they have no clue that such a thing is a fundamental right here). But looking it from my "skewed" anti-socialist, anti-authoritarian perception, what gives them the right to legislate what people eat, or how they live their lives? This goes to the next point

#3 Idiots, AKA "Sheeple". These people do not have any conception of personal responsibility. They go through life stupid, and they fail miserably. They blame everything else for their failures and oversights, and then they expect someone else to step in and fix their problems. They are wrong for doing this and their infectious mindset is what fuels the fire that burns personal freedoms we have. It's not "Hey, We haven't had a hurricane in 30 years... I hate sitting on the interstate in gridlock when I could be drinking a brew on my couch over this false alarm, so I stayed. I was wrong and I put myself into a bad and life threatening situation". Instead, it's "Why come Geoge Bush dint come in time? Dat's booshit. Dey had 'FEMA dis' an dey had 'da national gerd dat' but dey dint lift a finga ta do nothin fo me". No responsibility. blame everybody else, demand legislation, then wonder why there are laws in place that take money away from people and deliver nothing in return, or worse, limit freedom and provide hollow security in exchange.

#4 The same idiot mindset infiltrates the corporate issue. Everybody sees big business as the bad guy. Everybody hates it. Yet everybody's willing to create their own monster with their dollar votes. I do agree 100% that corporations have, can, and will resort to unscrupulous business practices to help impact the bottom line. I believe when this is truly what is happening they should be subject to criminal and civil proceedings. This is the extreme end of the pendulum that people have trained their eyes upon with tunnel vision. Most remain ignorant of the other side... the side where the idiot unduly harasses business due to stupidity or personal gain. It is not the fault of the Sturm Ruger company that Billy Joe got hold of Daddy's legally purchased Mini-14 rifle and went on a school shooting spree. But Sturm Ruger has deep pockets, so let's get the lawyers to band the victims families together and sue the company. Where does this point come in? A certain poster on a "la-la-la... I can't hear you, but I'll lob 2nd grade pot shots" trip made the ridiculous assertion that fast food companies (who already release the nutritional information of their meals) have some sort of "obligation" to the public who they are "forcing" to patronize their establishments, to feed them cheap, nourishing meals. No, they don't, and I responded to that.

In conclusion, the INDIVIDUALS are the captains of their own destiny. If corporations are playing by the rules, they have no obligation to play wet nurse to the public and abstain from making a dollar selling "lard-stuffed pizza" do a demanding public when they inform the consumer of its nutritional (or lack thereof) information. Moreover, government has no place dictating certain aspects of how people should live their lives. Maybe I have stated it clearly enough from the get go and you have misread more than that one issue I have highlighted, but you get it now. Maybe you just don't get it, but hopefully you do now.

< Message edited by Pulpsmack -- 7/15/2007 12:55:42 AM >

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)

Profile

Post #: 85

RE: The Fat Tax - 7/15/2007 2:56:15 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack

#2 Who in the hell gives the government the power to play parents to adults? Granted, I speak with a slanted tongue on the issue, since this is UK legislation and my legal/historical language is "American" (like people across the pond trying to comment on gun ownership in the US when they have no clue that such a thing is a fundamental right here). But looking it from my "skewed" anti-socialist, anti-authoritarian perception, what gives them the right to legislate what people eat, or how they live their lives? This goes to the next point

]

Where a railway company is negligent and it leads to the deaths of tens of people travelling on one of their trains, is there no duty of care? should the passenger take individual responsibility because he/she is aware of the risks of travelling by train, and, thus, it's up to the individual to take it or leave it? this is the logical conclusion of your point of view. If you accept that the train company has a duty of care, then how would you square this with a corporation selling products that they know are a risk to health, but they sell for personal gain?

There's a flaw in your logic with the nutritional label in that it simply tells people the ingredients (sometimes it is a lie, by the way, and companies have been investigated and fined, here, for false product labelling). It doesn't warn people of the consequences. You could argue that it's up to the individual to understand the consequences, but is it up to the individual to know everything about the internal workings of a train company in order to understand the potential for a train crash?

Duty of care exists in all of our lives to protect the individual, and, yes, we all need this because our resources are limited, and all of the information from which to be fully equipped to be personally responsible, does not exist in the public domain. You're up againt corporations with the best lawyers money can buy and the resources to dominate the individual. Recently, it was discovered, here, that supermarkets are placing out of date joints of meat and other foods on their meat counters. How do you protect the individual from this without government bodies investigating these corporations (it was a government watchdog, by the way, that uncovered this)? Perhaps you live off the land, but the vast majority of people live in the modern world. 51% of GDP is generated by corporations, today, and 49% by nation states - the implications for the individual, and the role of regulation, is obvious.

You make some decent points as per usual, but you stray from the beaten track by overestimating the individual's access to all of the information and underestimating the role of peoples' environments in their lives.

No one wants unnecessary government intrusion in their lives, it's human nature to not want to have your wings clipped by government or anyone for that matter, but government is in everyone's lives daily. They manage defence and justice and have done for thousands of years. Whether or not you think this should be centralised or decentralised is a different matter, but part of managing justice is limiting the power of corporations over the individual. Where regulation does not exist, you would have corporations placing labels on their products that do not give the correct information on the ingredients. Thus, regulation over corporations exists for a very good reason.

< Message edited by NorthernGent -- 7/15/2007 2:59:12 AM >

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Pulpsmack)

Profile

Post #: 86

RE: The Fat Tax - 7/15/2007 7:16:02 AM

caitlyn

Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline

While I don't want to get involved in these ten page posturing debates, an opinion can be offered.

1. Prior to regulation, large corporations largely had their way with the American worker.
2. Given freedom to do so, large corporation will largely abuse whe working class.
3. Government regulation was an invention, born of necessity.
4. The government doesn't do that good a job, at times.
5. We have largely lost control of our government.

Conclusion: You make the assumption that government regulation is a bad idea, because of #4. I see that as self-perpetuating. I feel if we were to eliminate #5, such that the government was now a government 'for the people', than #4 would largely take care of itself.

_____________________________

I wish I could buy back ...
the woman you stole.

(in reply to Pulpsmack)

Profile

Post #: 87

RE: The Fat Tax - 7/15/2007 8:43:58 AM

Lordandmaster

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

What I don't quite understand is this: If we all agree that people are responsible for their own actions (and I think we all agree on that), then why aren't corporations responsible for their actions too?

(in reply to caitlyn)

Profile

Post #: 88

RE: The Fat Tax - 7/15/2007 9:03:25 AM

SugarMyChurro

Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline

With respect, I'd like to add to caitlyn's list:
6. When all else fails - and because we haven't actually been foolish enough to allow tort reform to pass - you can still sue a person's or a corporation's ass off in court and force a system-wide correction.

You know, we might not appreciate it now but many things have been corrected by the right to sue. Oh how they'd love to shut down that simple final right for the redress of grievances. And if you were to set a cap on the possible outcome of such cases you have no idea how radically that would alter the landscape of modern life - so many more people would suffer, die, be mutilated because of corporate greed it is not even funny.

Tort reform? Good god, do you know how many times some paid asshole has sat in front of some store somewhere and misrepresented what was on some petition in order to get me to sign it? You do not know the scene I cause and the volume my voice hits when I publicly *correct* such a person. A few minutes later you will not see that person and their dumb-fuck petition.

Tort reform? Over my goddamn corpse!

-----

Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

- from the movie "Fight Club"

(in reply to caitlyn)

Profile

Post #: 89

RE: The Fat Tax - 7/15/2007 1:41:04 PM

Pulpsmack

Posts: 394
Joined: 4/15/2004
From: Louisiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Where a railway company is negligent and it leads to the deaths of tens of people travelling on one of their trains, is there no duty of care? should the passenger take individual responsibility because he/she is aware of the risks of travelling by train, and, thus, it's up to the individual to take it or leave it? this is the logical conclusion of your point of view. If you accept that the train company has a duty of care, then how would you square this with a corporation selling products that they know are a risk to health, but they sell for personal gain?

You answered your own question. the formula for negligence is duty (of care), breach, actual damages, and proximate causation. If there is no duty there is no negligence. If I have a BBQ at my house and left a loaded antique shotgun in the closet which my friend's son discovers and maims himself with it, I am negligent because I had a duty to my guests to provide them with a safe environment, and accepting children in the home expands the scope to places they might investigate in mischief. If a burglar on the other hand knocks it over he is SOL (barring separate legislation) because I owe no duty to a trespasser. It's the same arguably dangerous behavior but without the duty of care, there is no negligence.

quote:

There's a flaw in your logic with the nutritional label in that it simply tells people the ingredients (sometimes it is a lie, by the way, and companies have been investigated and fined, here, for false product labelling). It doesn't warn people of the consequences. You could argue that it's up to the individual to understand the consequences, but is it up to the individual to know everything about the internal workings of a train company in order to understand the potential for a train crash?

I see the argument you are making, but I disagree with it. Might as well chuck the misleading ingredients point out because that is an entirely different can of worms, where consequences can and will be had. The FDA has released the nutritional information legend, which explains the 2,000 calorie diet and the daily percentages of nutrients to maintain a healthy diet. The information released by fast food conforms with their legend and the dietary information is easily ascertainable and translatable. We have all had health or science class in grade school which taught us the basic food groups and how much we should/ shouldn't have of each. The duty of the fast food chains is thus fulfilled.

Applying the letter of the law to a real life case is part science and part art (or BS, depending how you look at it). The word "reasonable" and "reasonably believes" is thrown around often, which is an objective standard that measures the person's actions against the average informed person on the street. Exposure to the information where the "reasonable man" can ascertain 4 supersize Big Mac value meals per week will through his diet in the crapper based in the info furnished, and you have no breach of duty, thus no negligence.

So, is providing nutritional information reasonable to determine whether you will get fat from (over) eating? Most people seem to have no problem if they actually and consicously use the information. Does the fast food chain then have an increased obligation to make their meals unappealing by listing all the health maladies it can potentially cause (when the restaurant has no idea how much THAT consumer uses/abuses)? This opens an ugly and expensive can of worms. Cigarette companies were required to list all these maladies. Then the argument might have been that most people don't know what these big words are (that and the antis were dismayed by the ineffectiveness of the warning label) and as such, legislation was entertained to put a picture of diseased lungs on the cigarettes. When is the "warning" issue being pushed too far over to government-mandated sabotage"?

AGAIN, here's my warning/disclaimer: I am and have been speaking strictly on the subject of people too stupid to understand fast food over consumption makes you fat. If they use a controversial preservative or some such additive, you are talking about a completely different issue.

quote:

Duty of care exists in all of our lives to protect the individual, and, yes, we all need this because our resources are limited, and all of the information from which to be fully equipped to be personally responsible, does not exist in the public domain. You're up againt corporations with the best lawyers money can buy and the resources to dominate the individual. Recently, it was discovered, here, that supermarkets are placing out of date joints of meat and other foods on their meat counters. How do you protect the individual from this without government bodies investigating these corporations (it was a government watchdog, by the way, that uncovered this)? Perhaps you live off the land, but the vast majority of people live in the modern world. 51% of GDP is generated by corporations, today, and 49% by nation states - the implications for the individual, and the role of regulation, is obvious.

You are biting the same hook even after I pointed out in my last post. Nobody has argued against corporate responsibility. Attacking idiots makes me as "pro-corporation" as attacking Bush Jr automatically makes someone a Democrat. When a corporation is guilty of wrongdoing then it should be held responsible, and that is why the legal system evolved to put such abuses in check. But there is another side that most people turn a blind eye towards, employing this ghetto "have nots" sense of justice. There is a reason why the corporations have the best lawyers money can buy. Part of it deals with defending their actions, part deals with defending them against the actions of other corporations, and the remainder is defending them from the greed of the people, which most won't acknowledge because they feel it is justice.

quote:

You make some decent points as per usual, but you stray from the beaten track by overestimating the individual's access to all of the information and underestimating the role of peoples' environments in their lives.

Again the problem here is a hand full of mistaken responses to my argument. This was about the fat tax. This is about fat people. Fast food was brought up and I responded about corporate liability, people's fat asses, and the information released UPON THAT SUBJECT. People have failed to read closely enough and began circling the wagons over everything that corporations do not disclose or try to get away with. That's all well and good, but it's irrelevant, because nobody raised those issues. Although you have made a couple irrelevant arguments (arguing issues with my posts that I never argued my self) I will give you credit by saying you are the only person who has provided an argument that is both contradictory AND relevant to what I was saying: "What duty is owed by the corporation regarding fast food and how much info is necessary to fulfill the "fat" duty?" The rest however, is going too far and does not address what I have asserted.

quote:

No one wants unnecessary government intrusion in their lives, it's human nature to not want to have your wings clipped by government or anyone for that matter, but government is in everyone's lives daily. They manage defence and justice and have done for thousands of years.

"Nobody wants it, but it's been here and will be here to stay." You can plug in violent crime, disease etc. into that equasion of yours as well. Your conclusion may ultimately be right but I am not going to bend over in acceptance and spread for it either. Government has always been placed in check by the people when the people were so motivated. This is one of those lines I feel must be drawn in the sand, and the defeatist acceptance of the government's well-intentioned will shall only accelerate the erosion of this government as it gains momentum and oversteps its bounds more and more. A healthy government fears the people. A doomed government inspires fear in the people.

quote:

Whether or not you think this should be centralised or decentralised is a different matter, but part of managing justice is limiting the power of corporations over the individual. Where regulation does not exist, you would have corporations placing labels on their products that do not give the correct information on the ingredients. Thus, regulation over corporations exists for a very good reason.

Agreed and (over)discussed. See above.

< Message edited by Pulpsmack -- 7/15/2007 1:56:25 PM >

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Profile

Post #: 90