[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
I still can’t figure out where it’s the government’s job to give me health care in the first place. Someone want to fill me in? I certainly agree that they shouldn’t be subsidizing farmers but that’s really just because it’s again none of their damn business what farmers do with their excess, plus it’s bad for the economy.
Henry Hazlitt makes a fantastic case for this specifically in a few of his economics books. Paternalistic government makes me sick and it’s so heavily ingrained in American life that they don’t even see it.
Mike[/quote]
Amen!
I’d rather be a Fat Libertarian than a Lean Socialist.
I can’t beleive people would so gleefuly erode our freedom.
Fat is good for the economy. I’m not sure why the government would want to step in and stop their gravy train.
Fat people are a win-win-win. They buy the junk food, which is made with the subsidized corn syrup. So the farmers are happy, the junk food peddlers are happy. The consumer is happy. Then the consumer gets fat. This creates a market for diet books, for gyms, personal trainers, specialized diets, supplements, plastic surgery, etc.
Fat folks keep a lot of other people employed. Then you have the fat folks that don’t get off their ass. Then they need serious medical intervention. Well that makes the big pharma companies happy. It keeps the doctors and nurses busy. Keeps the insurance companies pushing paper. Add in new trends like car makers having to make new models for fat asses, and you add yet another layer of consumption into the game.
Fat keeps the economy rolling. We don’t manufacture shit anymore. So we make fat people. And that allows all these new jobs to exist. If we had a bunch of healthy people, eating a lot less and better food, and not needing to buy into fad diets, pilates and whatever other junk we get today, well, there would be a lot of unemployed people in this country.
So sure, we can get rid of fat people. But we’d best start actually making something, or doing something as a country that does not revolve around the servicing of the obese.
[quote]Dirty Tiger wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
I still can’t figure out where it’s the government’s job to give me health care in the first place. Someone want to fill me in? I certainly agree that they shouldn’t be subsidizing farmers but that’s really just because it’s again none of their damn business what farmers do with their excess, plus it’s bad for the economy.
Henry Hazlitt makes a fantastic case for this specifically in a few of his economics books. Paternalistic government makes me sick and it’s so heavily ingrained in American life that they don’t even see it.
Mike
Amen!
I’d rather be a Fat Libertarian than a Lean Socialist.
I can’t beleive people would so gleefuly erode our freedom.
This thread is making me sick to my stomach.
Molon Labe! [/quote]
Amen Brother, it’s shit like this thread that makes me feel violent.
Massif,
From what I understand, many people consume fast-food because it is cheap. Habbits are very hard to overcome. People are lazy. Society has a problem which it needs to resolve given the above. So should we do? Create a system of economic incentives punishments that corrects the current imbalance.
[quote]Massif wrote:
This part “Taxation will just make it easier for people to make better food choices” is pure and undilited gayness with a side dish of horseshit.
You argue that it is better to promote better habits and awareness. People don’t eat Maccas now because they think it’s healthy. People know that they need to exercise more and eat less shit. People know what they should be doing but have no motivation. Well, at MMFC (Massif’s Mandatory Fat Camps) they will have plenty of motivation, because if you don’t do the work, you don’t eat.
You get fed a strict diet of protein porridge and ridicule after you do the work. Anybody who is still there after 6 months gets shipped to Japan to be used as land fill. We’ll make millions!!!
[quote]Jprocrastinator wrote:
And if we legalize weed and and tax the crap out of that, we’ll have high tax revenue from weed, and the tax revenue on junkfood will double as well…[/quote]
To others: I want to emphasise that nobody is taking away your right for junk-food. It will just cost more to eat it.
Jprocrastinator wrote:
And if we legalize weed and and tax the crap out of that, we’ll have high tax revenue from weed, and the tax revenue on junkfood will double as well…
To others: I want to emphasise that nobody is taking away your right for junk-food. It will just cost more to eat it.[/quote]
Yeah, screw that. Maybe if we didn’t have an agricultural policy which emphasized “cheap food” at the expense of economic viability for the agricultural producer, the food industry would not have had the cheap raw materials to invent new and ever more fattening junk foods.
[quote]skor wrote:
Massif,
From what I understand, many people consume fast-food because it is cheap. Habbits are very hard to overcome. People are lazy. Society has a problem which it needs to resolve given the above. So should we do? Create a system of economic incentives punishments that corrects the current imbalance.
[/quote]
I just don’t think it will work. Every person I know who drinks too much and smokes is a dirt poor motherfucker. Over here taxes make up about 50% of the cost of smokes and beer. A pack of smokes is about $12 and a carton of beer is about $35.
The only people who smoke and drink a lot of beer are the ones who can’t afford it. They go behind in their rent and don’t feed their kids because smokes and beer are so expensive.
I don’t see it being different for junk food. Junk food is about laziness, and I think lazy motherfuckers will cut back on other items so they can continue to afford their burgers and chips.
[quote]Beatnik wrote:
They would probably just end up charging by fat content. Because we all know fat is the cause of societies ills. Who wants pricier fish oil caps?
I dont trust the government to make basic classifications of food to be taxed.[/quote]
Excellenet Point.
Many people get fat of HEALTHY FOODS,
Are you gonna tax Whole Wheat Flour, Whole Milk, Potatoes and Chicken?
These are questions of a completely different character. Specifically, how to draft an effective policy. We still have a government despite possibility of abuse of power, don’t we?
Clearly charging by fat content alone is not a good idea. Tax the most products high in saturated fat, sugar, refined carbs and combo of the above. I’m sure somewhat effective policy can be achieved.
Don’t outlaw beef, but tax fattier beef a little more. Maybe it’ll make it more profitable for companies to produce lean meat but adjusting cattles diet. Nothing wrong with whole wheat flour. As I mentioned above, 2-3 categories will be enough
Clearly good food, e.g. fruits/veg, nuts, whole grains, etc
Things inbetween.
Clearly junk-food - saturated fat, sugar…
[quote]Dirty Tiger wrote:
Beatnik wrote:
They would probably just end up charging by fat content. Because we all know fat is the cause of societies ills. Who wants pricier fish oil caps?
I dont trust the government to make basic classifications of food to be taxed.
Excellenet Point.
Many people get fat of HEALTHY FOODS,
Are you gonna tax Whole Wheat Flour, Whole Milk, Potatoes and Chicken?
I’m not pro-tax. I’m pro-solution.
If eliminating corn subsidies will have a significant impact - good. But you need to realize that eliminating the existing corn subsidy is almost equivalent to taxing corn; what you call it is a matter of symantics. And if just elimanating the subsidy will not be enough, negative subsidy should be given.
Plus, corn is only a small part of the problem. People pay a lot of attention to how things are taxed, I think. Hence if our food-tax system will emphasise good food, it’ll be a daily reminder to a consumer.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You pro tax guys don’t get it.
All we have to do is stop subsidizing corn and the like.
This will make corn more scarce and expensive.
Cows will eat less corn and more grass leading to healthier beef.
Less corn syrup will be forced into every food product.
The solution is simple. Implementation would be difficult. The corn lobby is rich and powerful.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You pro tax guys don’t get it.
All we have to do is stop subsidizing corn and the like.
This will make corn more scarce and expensive.
Cows will eat less corn and more grass leading to healthier beef.
Less corn syrup will be forced into every food product.
The solution is simple. Implementation would be difficult. The corn lobby is rich and powerful.
[/quote]
You make excellent points… but I would much rather see corn production increased in this country, and corn consumption by humans (eating it) decreased by at least 50%.
How is this possible (what the fvck am I talking 'bout)? We need more flex fuel vehicles that ‘run on corn’ so we can tell the Mid East to fuck off once and for all. Bush could easily fix his legacy if he took this initiative seriously…
[quote]tremelo24 wrote:
…
You make excellent points… but I would much rather see corn production increased in this country, and corn consumption by humans (eating it) decreased by at least 50%.
How is this possible (what the fvck am I talking 'bout)? We need more flex fuel vehicles that ‘run on corn’ so we can tell the Mid East to fuck off once and for all. Bush could easily fix his legacy if he took this initiative seriously…
[/quote]
Corn is a lousy energy source. This is another example of the strong corn lobby.
Corn is a lousy energy source. This is another example of the strong corn lobby.
[/quote]
Believe it or not, I agree with you. Here is my logic though…
Hydrogen powered vehicles are 10 years away at a minimum. In the meantime, we can begin extracting the Middle East’s fist out of our collective asses if we at least make the attempt to find an alternative.
If we can cut our reliance on them, funding for terrorism would drop dramatically. In the meantime, the increase in corn demand (I am viewing this through rose colored lenses admittedly) would help cut down on the government subsidies. I’m sorry, but I am all for American dollars staying in this country. We are hemorrhaging enough as it is.