Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Let's go full-hog.

JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 10:51:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ok, so we're going to tax people for not having insurance, for(presumably) the greater good. If we're going to do this, why not do it right?

$10 tax on every fast-food meal. $5 tax on any sugary beverage. $5/day tax for not doing 30 minutes of cardio-vascular exercise. $5/day tax for not cooking at least one fresh meal from organic ingredients. $5/day tax for not spending at least 30 minutes in the sun. $5/day tax for not taking multivitamins.

And, since we are taxing people for not doing things... let's come up with more new taxes for not doing things.

$100/year tax for not riding a bicycle to work at least once a week. 10% tax on any money you don't spend.

What do YOU think we should tax people for not doing?

inb4taxingpeoplefornotparticipatingonDDO
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 11:00:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is probably a very unpopular political proposal, but once I thought that, to improve the nation's health and lower the nation's health care costs significantly and vastly improve the quality of life of our nation's citizens, I thought that we should tax people who don't exercise 30 minutes a day, or force people who are unhealthy to exercise or else they face such a penalty.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 11:04:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 11:00:49 PM, Contra wrote:
This is probably a very unpopular political proposal, but once I thought that, to improve the nation's health and lower the nation's health care costs significantly and vastly improve the quality of life of our nation's citizens, I thought that we should tax people who don't exercise 30 minutes a day, or force people who are unhealthy to exercise or else they face such a penalty.

America should go the Japan way. Introduce a fat tax. It is imperative for one of the world's major power to look the part. It's for American's own good :)

http://www.globalpost.com...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 11:11:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 11:04:55 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/4/2012 11:00:49 PM, Contra wrote:
This is probably a very unpopular political proposal, but once I thought that, to improve the nation's health and lower the nation's health care costs significantly and vastly improve the quality of life of our nation's citizens, I thought that we should tax people who don't exercise 30 minutes a day, or force people who are unhealthy to exercise or else they face such a penalty.

America should go the Japan way. Introduce a fat tax. It is imperative for one of the world's major power to look the part. It's for American's own good :)

http://www.globalpost.com...

A fat tax would not work so long as there is a demand for the food. In order for the fat tax to work, it would have to be so high that it would destroy the industries producing fatty foods; this would be an economic nightmare, and hurt millions of people.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 11:19:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What we need to do is increase physical fitness.

The proposals of salt taxes, and salt regulations hurt me, as I had to increase my salt intake due to low blood pressure (caused by not enough sodium).

When bureaucrats make it their goal to regulate or tax people's diets, in order to force them to eat healthier, they run the risk of hurting people.

Another example is the tanning bed tax. Yes they can cause cancer, but I know someone who has a vitamin D deficiency, and therefore the doctor prescribed tanning beds.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 11:28:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 11:19:17 PM, DanT wrote:
What we need to do is increase physical fitness.

The proposals of salt taxes, and salt regulations hurt me, as I had to increase my salt intake due to low blood pressure (caused by not enough sodium).

When bureaucrats make it their goal to regulate or tax people's diets, in order to force them to eat healthier, they run the risk of hurting people.

Another example is the tanning bed tax. Yes they can cause cancer, but I know someone who has a vitamin D deficiency, and therefore the doctor prescribed tanning beds.

So, you oppose excise taxes like the tanning bed tax because although they may have good intent they may end up hurting people?

Would you therefore oppose the Tobin tax idea?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 11:28:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 11:11:40 PM, DanT wrote:
At 7/4/2012 11:04:55 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/4/2012 11:00:49 PM, Contra wrote:
This is probably a very unpopular political proposal, but once I thought that, to improve the nation's health and lower the nation's health care costs significantly and vastly improve the quality of life of our nation's citizens, I thought that we should tax people who don't exercise 30 minutes a day, or force people who are unhealthy to exercise or else they face such a penalty.

America should go the Japan way. Introduce a fat tax. It is imperative for one of the world's major power to look the part. It's for American's own good :)

http://www.globalpost.com...

A fat tax would not work so long as there is a demand for the food. In order for the fat tax to work, it would have to be so high that it would destroy the industries producing fatty foods; this would be an economic nightmare, and hurt millions of people.

I wasn't really serious. However, I wouldn't go as far as to say it wouldn't work. The traditional model of ONLY taxing fattening food is kind of useless, but if combined with counselling sessions and motivational sessions- like that in Japan, it might work. This is if we are only talking about the workability and not about the normative aspect.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 11:29:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Foolishness. There is no reason to add further disincentives to being fat when being fat has some of the worst inherent disincentives available already. Why is it that people are becoming fat? This is the question... trust me, the answer isn't "because the gov't hasn't implemented harsh enough penalties."
Rob
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2012 9:00:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 11:19:17 PM, DanT wrote:
What we need to do is increase physical fitness.

The proposals of salt taxes, and salt regulations hurt me, as I had to increase my salt intake due to low blood pressure (caused by not enough sodium).

What this means is that it isn't enough just to have a simple tax, there must exceptions. A bureaucracy must be set up to determine if certain people merit waivers, which you and your lawyers can apply for. The Salt Planning Advisory Board can write rules that admit that some people need more salt and issue a license to carry a salt shaker, provided it is locked in such a way that children won't be able to use it.

We'll also need an Obesity Planning Advisory Board. Bicycle racers need 12,000 calories a day. It would be a simple matter to submit GPS tracking data to qualify for a Hamburger Permit.

Don't laugh. As we all know, electricity is the spawn of Satan and using electricity must be punished. But wait, charging electric cars is a moral imperative. California has electric rates that start at about 12 cents a kwH and rapidly escalate to 44 cents with increased usage. But a qualified electrician can install a separate electric meter so you can charge your Chevy Volt for only 7 cents a kwH, well below cost. There are fines and penalties for plugging an unapproved, and presumably immoral, device into the car outlet.

Once you understand the principle, you'll see why California has 30 official electric rates depending upon how moral or immoral the usage. If you need to keep medicine refrigerated, a flat $15 per month subsidy is available to keep your fridge running. Goodness prevails throughout the State.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2012 12:40:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 11:28:09 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/4/2012 11:19:17 PM, DanT wrote:
What we need to do is increase physical fitness.

The proposals of salt taxes, and salt regulations hurt me, as I had to increase my salt intake due to low blood pressure (caused by not enough sodium).

When bureaucrats make it their goal to regulate or tax people's diets, in order to force them to eat healthier, they run the risk of hurting people.

Another example is the tanning bed tax. Yes they can cause cancer, but I know someone who has a vitamin D deficiency, and therefore the doctor prescribed tanning beds.

So, you oppose excise taxes like the tanning bed tax because although they may have good intent they may end up hurting people?

Would you therefore oppose the Tobin tax idea?

I oppose taxes imposed in order to deter. I am not opposed to tariffs, but I am opposed to protective tariffs.
I'm not oppose to excise taxes, I am opposed to excise designed to deter people.

When you impose a tax to deter people, you end up hurting people. Taxes should only be implemented in order to gain a revenue; taxing for the purpose of deterrence leads to excessive taxation, which harms one group of people in order to forcibly help others.

The protective tariffs hurt the south as was a leading factor in the build up towards the civil war. Tanning bed deterrent taxes hurt those with vitamin D deficiency, and salt deterrent taxes hurt those with low sodium intake.

Taxes should only be laid in order to provide a revenue for a specific purpose. Where the taxes are appropriated should also determine where they are collected.

I believe all taxes should be flat indirect taxes, and that the tax code should be made as simple as possible.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2012 1:12:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/5/2012 12:40:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 7/4/2012 11:28:09 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/4/2012 11:19:17 PM, DanT wrote:
What we need to do is increase physical fitness.

The proposals of salt taxes, and salt regulations hurt me, as I had to increase my salt intake due to low blood pressure (caused by not enough sodium).

When bureaucrats make it their goal to regulate or tax people's diets, in order to force them to eat healthier, they run the risk of hurting people.

Another example is the tanning bed tax. Yes they can cause cancer, but I know someone who has a vitamin D deficiency, and therefore the doctor prescribed tanning beds.

So, you oppose excise taxes like the tanning bed tax because although they may have good intent they may end up hurting people?

Would you therefore oppose the Tobin tax idea?

I oppose taxes imposed in order to deter. I am not opposed to tariffs, but I am opposed to protective tariffs.
I'm not oppose to excise taxes, I am opposed to excise designed to deter people.

When you impose a tax to deter people, you end up hurting people. Taxes should only be implemented in order to gain a revenue; taxing for the purpose of deterrence leads to excessive taxation, which harms one group of people in order to forcibly help others.

The protective tariffs hurt the south as was a leading factor in the build up towards the civil war. Tanning bed deterrent taxes hurt those with vitamin D deficiency, and salt deterrent taxes hurt those with low sodium intake.

Taxes should only be laid in order to provide a revenue for a specific purpose. Where the taxes are appropriated should also determine where they are collected.

I believe all taxes should be flat indirect taxes, and that the tax code should be made as simple as possible.

So, assuming that we have fair and simple progressive tax reform, and eliminate all welfare, would you support the NIT if funded by a progressive consumption tax?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2012 4:43:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/5/2012 1:12:11 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/5/2012 12:40:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 7/4/2012 11:28:09 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/4/2012 11:19:17 PM, DanT wrote:
What we need to do is increase physical fitness.

The proposals of salt taxes, and salt regulations hurt me, as I had to increase my salt intake due to low blood pressure (caused by not enough sodium).

When bureaucrats make it their goal to regulate or tax people's diets, in order to force them to eat healthier, they run the risk of hurting people.

Another example is the tanning bed tax. Yes they can cause cancer, but I know someone who has a vitamin D deficiency, and therefore the doctor prescribed tanning beds.

So, you oppose excise taxes like the tanning bed tax because although they may have good intent they may end up hurting people?

Would you therefore oppose the Tobin tax idea?

I oppose taxes imposed in order to deter. I am not opposed to tariffs, but I am opposed to protective tariffs.
I'm not oppose to excise taxes, I am opposed to excise designed to deter people.

When you impose a tax to deter people, you end up hurting people. Taxes should only be implemented in order to gain a revenue; taxing for the purpose of deterrence leads to excessive taxation, which harms one group of people in order to forcibly help others.

The protective tariffs hurt the south as was a leading factor in the build up towards the civil war. Tanning bed deterrent taxes hurt those with vitamin D deficiency, and salt deterrent taxes hurt those with low sodium intake.

Taxes should only be laid in order to provide a revenue for a specific purpose. Where the taxes are appropriated should also determine where they are collected.

I believe all taxes should be flat indirect taxes, and that the tax code should be made as simple as possible.

So, assuming that we have fair and simple progressive tax reform, and eliminate all welfare, would you support the NIT if funded by a progressive consumption tax?

Flat sales tax. Progressive taxation is only good in regards to property taxes.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2012 5:09:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Proper diet and exercise should be encouraged by the government, but it should NEVER be enforced by the government. People have a right to be fat or skinny, and to lead whatever kind of life they want. We shouldn't even be entertaining the idea of taxing someone based on what they eat, or how much they exercise. I think what would really help though is if the insurance companies stepped up their game and started doing what car insurance companies do; giving discounts for good behaviour.

My car insurance company offered to mail me a device that attaches to my car. It will monitor how many times I go make sudden starts and stops, what time of day I drive, and how fast I drive. If I drive properly I get to pay less for auto insurance. I'm a good driver, so I said yes. I have no qualms about letting someone monitor my behaviour so long as it is done with my consent, and does not expand to other aspects of my life.

I think the same could be done for health insurance companies. They could set up a physical fitness test that is voluntary, send out a personal trainer to observe the test, and give discounts based on how well they perform. They could also test for illegal drugs (voluntarily,) and BMI at the same time. People would then have an economic incentive to be healthier, and it would of course all be voluntary.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2012 6:38:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"The policy of American government is to leave its citizens free,
neither restraining them nor aiding them in their pursuits." ~ Thomas Jefferson to M. L'Hommande, 1787.

"Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2012 10:57:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 11:00:49 PM, Contra wrote:
This is probably a very unpopular political proposal, but once I thought that, to improve the nation's health and lower the nation's health care costs significantly and vastly improve the quality of life of our nation's citizens, I thought that we should tax people who don't exercise 30 minutes a day, or force people who are unhealthy to exercise or else they face such a penalty.

That's actually kinda disturbing.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2012 11:04:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 11:00:49 PM, Contra wrote:
This is probably a very unpopular political proposal, but once I thought that, to improve the nation's health and lower the nation's health care costs significantly and vastly improve the quality of life of our nation's citizens, I thought that we should tax people who don't exercise 30 minutes a day, or force people who are unhealthy to exercise or else they face such a penalty.

Quadripalegics
Comatose people
Asthmatics
Infants
Centenarians
Supercentenarians
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2012 11:18:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/6/2012 10:57:29 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/4/2012 11:00:49 PM, Contra wrote:
This is probably a very unpopular political proposal, but once I thought that, to improve the nation's health and lower the nation's health care costs significantly and vastly improve the quality of life of our nation's citizens, I thought that we should tax people who don't exercise 30 minutes a day, or force people who are unhealthy to exercise or else they face such a penalty.

That's actually kinda disturbing.

Yeah, that was one of my earlier political views. Since then I've moved from those ideas. I was a hardcore liberal then.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Platypus666
Posts: 262
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2012 3:42:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Tax people who don't smoke weed.
NEVER LOGGING IN UNLESS I AM HIGH

Official "The (Weed) Aquatic (Weed) and (Weed) Egg (Weed) Laying (Weed) Mammalian (Weed) Enforceress (Weed) of (Weed) Liberty (Weed), Cuddliness (Weed), and (Weed) Involuntary (Weed) Administration (Weed) of (POT) Psychoactive (Weed) Substances (Weed) To (Weed) All (Weed) The (Weed) Masses (Weed) Under (Weed?) The (Weed!) Control (Weed) of (Weed) The (Weed) All (Weed) High (Weed) FREEDO (Weed) and (Weed) Yyyyyyyyyyyyeah (WEED)" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.