Fat Tax...

[Mayhem]

huh, if I am reading you correctly, you like a fat food tax because unemployed, uninsured mofos get fat, then go to the emergency room for health care, and therefore increase the tax burden on employed, insured people. Therefore, in your mind, fat people are getting away with being a tax burden on the rest of us without paying taxes or insurance themselves.

So, in a strange sense, you are proposing a regressive tax on the fat, poor, uninsured, fried-chicken and refried beans eaters who go to the emergency room and raise taxes and insurance premiums for you and me.

huh, if I believed for a moment that your proposed system will work, I would like it just for the fcuk-the-welfare-queens factor of your plan.

The reality is that no matter how much you tax fried chicken and refried beans, they will still pack more empty calories for the buck than a baby spinach and heirloom tomatoes salad with aged balsamic vinegarette. Plus, I am going to have to pay a tax for the blue cheese crumble that I want on my salad for flavor and the the much-needed calcium in my diet.

 

[huh]

Quote from Mayhem:

huh, if I am reading you correctly, you like a fat food tax because unemployed, uninsured mofos get fat, then go to the emergency room for health care, and therefore increase the tax burden on employed, insured people. Therefore, in your mind, fat people are getting away with being a tax burden on the rest of us without paying taxes or insurance themselves.

So, in a strange sense, you are proposing a regressive tax on the fat, poor, uninsured, fried-chicken and refried beans eaters who go to the emergency room and raise taxes and insurance premiums for you and me.

huh, if I believed for a moment that your proposed system will work, I would like it just for the fcuk-the-welfare-queens factor of your plan.

The reality is that no matter how much you tax fried chicken and refried beans, they will still pack more empty calories for the buck than a baby spinach and heirloom tomatoes salad with aged balsamic vinegarette. Plus, I am going to have to pay a tax for the blue cheese crumble that I want on my salad for flavor and the the much-needed calcium in my diet.

Well I like the fat food tax simply because I believe that the growing obese population in this country are simply not paying their fair share for medical costs which is causing the healthy responsible people to be shafted. Obesity is an issue across the political and social spectrum in this country. You have uninsured obese people whether lower or middle class sticking the tax payer with medical bills and then the obese that are insured are simply not paying enough in premiums to cover the cost of their multiple heart attacks, diabetes, etc.

I have no issue with this tax hitting the unemployed, or wellfare cases in this country that choose to eat garbage with their gov't dollars. If they have a heart attack or something they get tax payer backed medical help so I have no issue with taxing them a little bit in exchange for that backstop. Again I would back this tax if the gov't was forced to provide tax credits with the money generated, and not use it for other crap. If they do that then the additional cost of your blue cheese crumble would be offset by the tax credit you receive or the credit towards your health insurance. However if you decide to drop 10 pounds of blue cheese crumble on your salad then yeah you'll probably have to pay more but 10 pounds of blue cheese crumble for a meal I dont' think is normal anyway

The fat tax may not stop a lot of fatties from gorging but at least it would force them to pay up and provide some fair relief to the healthy in the form of tax credits or premium reductions.
An idea I'd be willing to support after I get more details about what is considered to be the "bad" foods, how its decided what is a bad food, etc.....simply because the current health care system of relying on a shrinking population of healthy people subsidizing the cost of a growing amount of obese people is not sustainable in the long run.....

 

[sprstpd]

Quote from huh:

Well I like the fat food tax simply because I believe that the growing obese population in this country are simply not paying their fair share for medical costs which is causing the healthy responsible people to be shafted.

You can "fight back" slightly by buying a high deductible health plan paired with a health savings account.

 

[Mayhem]

Quote from huh:
The fat tax may not stop a lot of fatties from gorging but at least it would force them to pay up and provide some fair relief to the healthy in the form of tax credits or premium reductions.

Your issue seems to be with fat people and not necessarily "fattening" foods. So, why not just tax people on a body fat assessment? It would be a like a property tax assessment -- where the town tax assessor measures the square footage of your home and values your improvements. In this case, the tax man can do a body scan, tell you your body fat percentage, then tax you for being fat. It strikes me as kinda Pol Pot-ish, but it goes more directly to the object of your rage.

I can be a marathon runner, and eat bowls and bowls of pasta to fuel my 27 mile runs... I would be supper fit, but would be eating a huge amount of carbs (carbs being currently identified as a big contributor to obesity). Why should the marathon runner be punished for your indirect tax slap at fat people? If you really want a tax to punish fat people for being fat, then it makes the most sense to tax them directly for being fat... Why punish the healthy weight lifter for eating a lot of steak?

Your proposal is like taxing rat poison because some people abuse rat poison and use it to commit suicide.... Don't tax people who just want to kill rats... if you want to discourage suicide, tax suicide, not tall buildings.

 

[huh]

Quote from Mayhem:

Your issue seems to be with fat people and not necessarily "fattening" foods. So, why not just tax people on a body fat assessment? It would be a like a property tax assessment -- where the town tax assessor measures the square footage of your home and values your improvements. In this case, the tax man can do a body scan, tell you your body fat percentage, then tax you for being fat. It strikes me as kinda Pol Pot-ish, but it goes more directly to the object of your rage.

I can be a marathon runner, and eat bowls and bowls of pasta to fuel my 27 mile runs... I would be supper fit, but would be eating a huge amount of carbs (carbs being currently identified as a big contributor to obesity). Why should the marathon runner be punished for your indirect tax slap at fat people? If you really want a tax to punish fat people for being fat, then it makes the most sense to tax them directly for being fat... Why punish the healthy weight lifter for eating a lot of steak?

Your proposal is like taxing rat poison because some people abuse rat poison and use it to commit suicide.... Don't tax people who just want to kill rats... if you want to discourage suicide, tax suicide, not tall buildings.

If I had a choice I'd rather see us tax or raise premiums on fat people rather than fatty foods. But congress is not bringing up a fattie tax because they're gutless so instead they are proposing a fat food tax so that the fatties won't have their feelings hurt by being singled out. Since I don't find the current state of the medical system to be viable in the long run I have to consider what else is on the table.

This tax on food isn't exactly what I want but its more viable than the current system which rewards bad behavior. I completely agree that its better to tax the fattie and not the fat but thats not an option at the moment for some reason.

Again depending on what ends up being the basis of the tax (ie eating a serving of almonds which have a lot of good fats is not the same as eating a candy bar, or eating certain fatty fish is not as unhealthy as eating red meat) I dont' think the tax increase to healthy people will be more than the benefit of lower health care costs. Even the endurance athlete you mentioned carbo loads for ony a few days before a marathon. Its not like they are consuming 5000 calories of pasta everyday, usually you carbo load for a few days before a marathon so unless you're running a marathon every single weekend I don't think it would be a major issue. Plus I dont' think there are that many people that run marathons every single weekend because if there were we wouldn't even be having a fat tax conversation. There are 3 months out of the year where I have to consume close to 4500 calories a day just to maintain weight but I doubt a signficant portion of my calories would be subject to this tax as very little of the calories come from sugar. So I'd be open to looking at this tax as long as what items they are taxing are reasonable and make sense.

 

[Mayhem]

Quote from huh:

Since I don't find the current state of the medical system to be viable in the long run I have to consider what else is on the table.

This tax on food isn't exactly what I want but its more viable than the current system which rewards bad behavior.

huh, IMO, you're just another nanny-statist who wants to control other people by government edict.

It sounds like you don't like the idea of insurance which, by definition, means you're paying an entity to transfer and pool your risk. As others have mentioned, you have options here: You can not carry insurance, or you can just buy catastrophic coverage which carries a high deductible and a low premium.

In addition to fat people, health care costs have be rising, and will continue to rise, for a number of reasons including:

- malpractice lawsuits and the paperwork and unnecessary procedures and tests conducted in fear of lawsuits

- third parties (insurance companies, the government, and employers) paying for care which disincentivizes end-users and doctors from being frugal. Third party payment also means a lot more paperwork and administrative costs

- new technologies, devices, medications, and techniques which makes it possible to improve outcomes for more people, but which adds to costs (20 years ago, you couldn't get an MRI, now you can get one for an ankle sprain if your doc wants to check for ligament damage)

- an aging population as the Baby Boom bubble generation cycles through

Your proposal to tax "fattening" food is like someone trying to set up committee to explore the rearranging of deck chairs while the Titanic is sinking -- too little, too late, and too unrelated to the primary drivers of your "crisis."

If you are fit and healthy, you can opt-out of the unhealthy pool of people buying insurance by being self-insured. Create your own medical savings account, and continue to eat granola and sprouts and workout daily. That way you won't have to wring your hands about what your next door neighbor is eating.

The fact of the matter is, if you get your health insurance from your employer, then the insurance premiums that you and your employer pay are already taking into account the general age and health and family structure profile of the pool of people who work in your company. Sorry if you work with a bunch of smoking fatties, but that's life... you can opt-out of your company's health insurance program.

In addition to all of the above, your proposal is unworkable. Who will define unhealthy foods? The Agriculture Department? The same government that subsidizes farmers to grow corn, is now going to tax high-fructose corn syrup as an unhealthy food product? How retarded is that? Who is going to pay for all the lawsuits when the beef, dairy, and prepared food industries sue the government not to have their food labeled unhealthy? How do you think the money from your "fat tax" is going to be used when Kraft and General Mills and Campbells send their lobbyists to Washington DC to get their food products favorable treatment?

On top of all that, sorry, but it is not the government's place to socially engineer Americans' lifestyles through taxation.

 

[huh]

Quote from Mayhem:

huh, IMO, you're just another nanny-statist who wants to control other people by government edict.

LOL wow my communication skills are obviously lacking as I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. I've been called many things and "Asshole fiscal conservative" is what I prefer but nanny-statist that is a new one. How exactly am I a nanny-statist for having the nerve to say that people should pay for their bad habits rather than expect everyone else to pay for them? I think its quite the opposite.

The CURRENT health care system that both the right and left in this country think is the best in the world is the biggest POS nanny system. In the current system the fatties are told to eat whatever they want and don't worry about the consequences because all the other people in your insurance pool will cover your cost when its time to face the consequences (that is a nanny system). And if you decide you don't care and don't want insurance then its okay just keep eating whatever you want because when its time to pay the price for your bad behavior its okay the tax payer will pick up the tab (that is a nanny system).

I am simply saying fine eat what you want but we want to make sure we make you pay your fair share of the cost you are going to incur because you chose to do this to yourself and I don't think everyone should have to pay for you. How is that being a nanny? You're hung up on the tax hitting everybody obese or not but as I've said, the tax would have to be structured so that all the collected or at least 90-95% collected revenue would be given back in the form of either outright tax credits or some sort of reimbursement from your insurance premiums. So if you're eating a candy bar and a soda a day the extra cost should be reimbursed to you so you should see no difference at the end of the day. However if you're drinking a six pack of coke and eating 3 or 4 candy bars a day then yeah you're going to be paying more and frankly you should be.

I have NO INTEREST in controlling anyone with gov't edict. My only interest in this tax is to make sure that the fatties pay their fair share for the costs they incur. If the fattie decides he's gonna go on a diet as a result of this tax then fine, if they choose to stay fat then fine I don't care. I have no interest in forcing fatties to lose weight because I don't believe I have the right to force people to eat what I want them to eat. My only interest is to make sure the hungry hungry hippos pay up for massive amount of medical costs they are or will eventually rack up. Whether they lose the weight or not I don't care. So I don't know how I would want to control someone that I couldn't care less about.

Costs are going up for several reasons as you correctly pointed out but obesity is a significant contributor to the rising costs and its only getting worse. Its gonna get even worse with the increasing obese aging population. In most cases it is self inflicted therefore there is no reason that a person that inflicts this upon themselves should not be expected to pay more for their poor choices. We're not talking about a plain stroke victim or somebody that wakes up with testicular cancer. These are people that have KNOWINGLY made a decision to live an unhealthy lifestyle with no care about the consequences and if they don't care about themselves then why should everyone else be forced to give a crap by subsidizing their eventual heart attacks and other issues?

Simply self-insuring is not exactly the best solution because again as a tax payer I'm still on the hook as a backstop to all the uninsured fatties not to mention the POS medicare and medicaid crap so just simply self-insuring does nothing to buffer me from that.

And frankly I will gladly spend a few minutes to roll up my sleeve, move a couple of chairs for people to sit down calmly and work on a plan to get as many people off the sinking ship as responsibly as I can. I may not be able to save the whole sinking ship but its better than locking myself up in the cabin thinking everything is just fine watching the water rush in. Taxing the rich to pay for everything or just cutting taxes as a solution to everything really doesn't solve many real issues. At least this tax could be used to lessen the subsidies some people are receiving for bad behavior and give a benefit to people that are unfairly being forced to subsidize that behavior. This is a tax if creatively done right, it could help people that are being unfairly steamrolled by high costs.

You have correctly pointed out the gaping holes in details on who is deciding what should be taxed and what shouldn't be and the inevitable lobby groups that would influence the govt officials but hey I'm willing to sit in the chair and listen rather than go lock myself up in my sinking cabin. If at the end I get more details and I don't like what details that get filled in then I won't support it but if by some miracle the red and blue piles of dog shit in congress manage to come up with something good then I'm in.

 

[Mayhem]

Quote from huh:

LOL wow my communication skills are obviously lacking as I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. I've been called many things and "Asshole fiscal conservative" is what I prefer but nanny-statist that is a new one. How exactly am I a nanny-statist...

You want the Federal Government to create some sort of national sales tax to discourage the consumption of food that the state is to deem as fattening. If that's not a nanny state, then what is?

What's next? A tax on spending too much time in the sun without an appropriate SPF sunscreen and a wide-brimmed hat?

Maybe the government can put a meter on your TV and tax you for more than 1 hour of TV viewing as TV viewing time is an indicator of sedentary lifestyle.

You're a conservative? Well, maybe a conservative in the I-know-what's-good-for-you-so-do-as-I-say sense. But your proposal isn't conservative in the small central government, minimize bureaucracy, no social engineering, minimize taxes, keep Big Brother off my back sense.

You're gripe isn't with food, you're gripe is with people who use the health care system too much. If you're that pissed off with fat diabetics going to their doctors too often, then why not tax doctor visits? That seems like a more direct route to punish those people who are heavy users of health care. Then, you not only punish the fatties, but you punish the sexually promiscuous, the junkies, the binge drinkers, the hypochondriacs, and the old cat ladies who have nothing better to do than to watch Dr Oz and call their doctors for recommendations on B12 supplements.

 

[huh]

Quote from Mayhem:

You want the Federal Government to create some sort of national sales tax to discourage the consumption of food that the state is to deem as fattening. If that's not a nanny state, then what is?

Again I have no interest in discouraging anybodies food consumption. I'm interested in making sure over consumers pay their fair share. I am in favor of a national consumption tax and the elimination of the federal tax or a significant reduction in the federal tax. There is nothing nanny statist about a consumption tax. You pay for what you use. In this case it comes off as nanny statist because you are targeting a specific item such as sugar rather than an across the board consumption tax. But that could be nullified by giving money back to the people that don't over consume. If people change their eating habits as a result of this tax then fine, if they don't I don't care.

As I've pointed out previously, the current system is a nanny state system. So this idea is trying to bring some fairness in a nanny system. This idea is not taking a free market system and turning it into a nanny system...its already a nanny system.


What's next? A tax on spending too much time in the sun without an appropriate SPF sunscreen and a wide-brimmed hat?

You've just pointed out one of my big concerns that I've been trying, apparantly unsuccessfully, to communicate. The idea of "keep the government off my back because the current system is great" has resulted in a nanny state system. The huge premium increases the past ten years have caused some people to drop insurance altogether which means now they're on the tax payer backstop, and the people that kept insurance have gotten slapped with massive increases. So is it a surprise that so many people voted to put somebody into office that was promising a massive health care reform? And then the reform we got was pretty half assed and expensive. One of the sources of revenue in Obama care is a tax on tanning salons!


You're a conservative? Well, maybe a conservative in the I-know-what's-good-for-you-so-do-as-I-say sense. But your proposal isn't conservative in the small central government, minimize bureaucracy, no social engineering, minimize taxes, keep Big Brother off my back sense.

Obviously this is a little bit out there for me in the sense the consumption tax is targeted rather than an across the board consumption tax as I would prefer but I see a major disaster coming at the current rate so have to sit and consider other ideas. The major issue is trying to raise money for the ballooning costs. So if you do nothing then when the medical premiums double or triple over the next 10 years, you're going to see a flood of people dropping insurance and jumping on the tax payer backstop thus expanding the nanny state system. So exactly how does doing nothing and expanding the nanny state system make gov't smaller? At the end of the day, the libs are going to win this battle because just by doing nothing the skyrocketing costs are going to drive more and more of the population onto the tax payer backstop and then since so much of the population is on the tax payer backstop they'll just say to hell with it and you'll have full blown gov't control of health care. So trying out this tax that could avert these massive premium increases and the eventual gov't take over of health care is not big gov't compared to the fallout of doing nothing!

You're gripe isn't with food, you're gripe is with people who use the health care system too much. If you're that pissed off with fat diabetics going to their doctors too often, then why not tax doctor visits? That seems like a more direct route to punish those people who are heavy users of health care. Then, you not only punish the fatties, but you punish the sexually promiscuous, the junkies, the binge drinkers, the hypochondriacs, and the old cat ladies who have nothing better to do than to watch Dr Oz and call their doctors for recommendations on B12 supplements.
Absolutely, I'm all for taxing doctor visits.

Again the key for me to support something like this is that the raised tax revenue should be given back to people to help with the medical costs. If they are going to take this tax revenue and use it to pay for wars, welfare, etc then forget it.

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from Harry Minot:

It's difficult for me to read a posting like this without a very personal reaction. A couple of years ago, at 5'11", I weighed 260 pounds, which made my BMI 36.3 and put me in the "obese Class 2" category, not too far from "morbidly obese". Today I weigh 165, with a BMI of 23, on the high side of "normal". I take no pride in being slim now. I'm the same person. My weight loss was a by-product of a meditation regimen which mandates only one meal a day. I willingly endure this starvation as a condition for the benefits I derive from the meditation. But I'll tell you that it's simply torturous for a formerly fat person to maintain a lower weight. I wouldn't wish that on anyone...

You went about your weight loss in the wrong way. If this is the manner in which you expect to maintain your current weight, I expect you will be disappointed in due course.