Reply to I don't agree with Bloomberg, but there just shouldn't be food made with more than 1,000 calories

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "I don't agree with Bloomberg, but there just shouldn't be food made with more than 1,000 calories"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

Actually, what they should do like for cigarettes...heavily tax unhealthy food.  Its currently subsidized.  There is no reason soda should cost less than milk or Doritos cost less than apples.[/quote]

Agree completely.  Make the crap food more expensive to consume.

How did we make it happen for cigarettes?  Can't we do the same for soda?[/quote]

Because cigarettes directly and negatively impact the health of others not participating in the act of smoking through secondhanded smoke.  Other's health is at risk whether they are smoking or not.

Soda only impacts the health of the person consuming the beverage.  You are not going to get diabetes or obese by sitting next to or in the same room with a soda drinker.

Common sense, people.

It is fun to make rules and bans against things other people do that annoy you, but eventually someone is going to start banning things that you enjoy too.  It is a slippery slope, so be careful about jumping on this bandwagon.  Read some history and see where controlling everything to manipulate individual behavior eventually gets you.  Not a good place to end up.[/quote]

Are you really this stupid? You don't tax unhealthy behaviors for "fun," you do it to discourage people from engaging in those unhealthy behaviors. Unhealthy behaviors like excessive soda consumption don't directly kill others the way secondhand smoke does, but it affects us all due to the marginal cost of excessive sugar consumption -- soda is cheap, but the healthcare costs of treating diabetes, obesity, and other related issues are steep and impact us all. A tax addresses that not only by discouraging excessive consumption, but also by raising revenue that can then be applied to addressing the marginal costs.

If there [i]isn't[/i] a tax applied to this sort of behavior, it essentially creates a tax on those [i]who don't engage in the behavior[/i], due to the marginal costs. That's wildly unfair.

Yes, you can't tax every negative behavior, but seriously? Sugar is [i]subsidized[/i] in this country. That's all kinds of f*cked up. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics