Gov. Patterson Proposes Obesity Tax

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+

[url="http://hotair.com/archives/2008/12/16/the-new-york-nanny-state-continues-apace/"]Via HotAir[/url]
Gov. Paterson, as part of a $121 billion budget to be unveiled Tuesday, will propose an “obesity tax” of about 15% on nondiet drinks.

[track2004]

Nice, but it'd be better if it was on all sodas, diet ones aren't good for you either. I know a lot of states don't tax some foods like bread, milk, eggs, fruit and vegies, etc. They do tax stuff like soda though. It seems like a natural extension of that, which I'm not really against.

More importantly though, won't the price of McD's fly through the roof?!

[Winchester]

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[BG45]

Idiocy at its finest, but we have similar measures here. I buy a bottle of water on truck days to take with me into the warehouse, with tax it costs $1.33; I then use it and refill it from the water fountain until they randomly decide one day to clean out the fridge in the break room. My coworkers (bar one who also gets water) buy a soda/pop/whatever you call it for $1.37 when tax is included, but the base cost is the same.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1730686' date='Dec 17 2008, 05:39 PM']+J.M.J.+

[url="http://hotair.com/archives/2008/12/16/the-new-york-nanny-state-continues-apace/"]Via HotAir[/url]
Gov. Paterson, as part of a $121 billion budget to be unveiled Tuesday, will propose an “obesity tax” of about 15% on nondiet drinks.[/quote]

Gov Paterson is ridiculous-he's also trying, once again, to break a treaty with the Seneca Nation. -Katie

[jkaands]

There's a tax on liquor and cigarettes. In many states, there are no taxes on essential foodstuffs.

I agree that sodas, candy, chips and non-essential foodstuffs should be taxed.

Obesity in this country is akin to cigarettes, alcohol and HIV in its causal relationship to devastating diseases,, which will soon make available health care out of reach for most Americans and businesses. Taxing high-calorie snack foods is one way of making them less attractive, and generating the means to pay for the health care to treat the diseases that these foods produce.

[KnightofChrist]

Time for another Tea Party Boston style?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='jkaands' post='1733178' date='Dec 21 2008, 03:23 PM']There's a tax on liquor and cigarettes. In many states, there are no taxes on essential foodstuffs.

I agree that sodas, candy, chips and non-essential foodstuffs should be taxed.

Obesity in this country is akin to cigarettes, alcohol and HIV in its causal relationship to devastating diseases,, which will soon make available health care out of reach for most Americans and businesses. Taxing high-calorie snack foods is one way of making them less attractive, and generating the means to pay for the health care to treat the diseases that these foods produce.[/quote]

Speaking of HIV, Homosexual men are at a higher rate of risk of being infected by it. Should they also be taxed, taxed for being Gay? If the state justifes taxing sodas and junk food because it is a risk why not?

[track2004]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1733182' date='Dec 21 2008, 04:31 PM']Speaking of HIV, Homosexual men are at a higher rate of risk of being infected by it. Should they also be taxed, taxed for being Gay? If the state justifes taxing sodas and junk food because it is a risk why not?[/quote]

People who have unprotected sex are at risk for HIV, not just homosexuals.

Also, let's go with your argument, just for fun. If they guys weren't actually having sex then they wouldn't be at risk, so no tax. You can just not eat junk food and, hey!, you won't get taxed either. They are taxing it because it is something you can opt not to buy AND it's bad for you. With your argument condoms shouldn't be taxed because they protect against HIV, so are thus good for people.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='track2004' post='1733260' date='Dec 21 2008, 06:45 PM']People who have unprotected sex are at risk for HIV, not just homosexuals.[/quote]

Just as all people are at the risk of getting fat junk food or no junk food. Any who, homosexual men are in fact at a higher risk of being infected with HIV, than other groups.

[quote name='track2004' post='1733260' date='Dec 21 2008, 06:45 PM']Also, let's go with your argument, just for fun. If they guys weren't actually having sex then they wouldn't be at risk, so no tax. You can just not eat junk food and, hey!, you won't get taxed either.[/quote]

You would be correct don't buy junkfood don't have to pay the special tax on them.

[quote name='track2004' post='1733260' date='Dec 21 2008, 06:45 PM']They are taxing it because it is something you can opt not to buy AND it's bad for you. With your argument condoms shouldn't be taxed because they protect against HIV, so are thus good for people.[/quote]

Where talking special taxes here, sodas, junk food are already taxed. And so are condoms. While the State is using the lame excuse that junk foods put people at risk to increase a special tax on junk food it is really all about the fact their government is itself to fat and piggish. The state is the one that needs a diet. Today their taxing 'unhealthy' food, when they run out of that type of food to place high taxes on healthy foods and other types of 'normal' things will be next.

Edited December 22, 2008 by KnightofChrist

[Lilllabettt]

They came first for soda pop drinkers, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a soda pop drinker.

And then they came for fast food lovers, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a fast food lover.

And then ... they came for twinkie snackers like me ... And by that time there was no one left to speak up.
"

Edited December 22, 2008 by Lilllabettt

[Winchester]

They came first for the homosexuals. I said nothing, because I am a conservative and not a homosexual.

Then they came for the liberals. I said nothing, because I am a conservative and not a liberal.

Then they came for me. And I shot them. Because I am a conservative, and I own a gun.

[KnightofChrist]

[img]http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e34/TheVoodookilla/iloled.jpg[/img]

[track2004]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1733495' date='Dec 21 2008, 11:35 PM']They came first for the homosexuals. I said nothing, because I am a conservative and not a homosexual.

Then they came for the liberals. I said nothing, because I am a conservative and not a liberal.

Then they came for me. And I shot them. Because I am a conservative, and I own a gun.[/quote]

Lezzie Liberal with a Gun for the win!

Seriously though, you, me and an epic battle for some forgotten desert town. I'll see you at high noon in the square.

[Winchester]

Yeah, it requires a little stereotyping.

[Niccolò]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1733495' date='Dec 21 2008, 10:35 PM']They came first for the homosexuals. I said nothing, because I am a conservative and not a homosexual.

Then they came for the liberals. I said nothing, because I am a conservative and not a liberal.

Then they came for me. And I shot them. Because I am a conservative, and I own a gun.[/quote]


Haha that's great. I might have to steal it for later use.

[CatherineM]

It's amazing that we could start out talking about taxing junk food, and end up on homosexuals and guns.

[Socrates]

[quote name='track2004' post='1733260' date='Dec 21 2008, 06:45 PM']People who have unprotected sex are at risk for HIV, not just homosexuals.

Also, let's go with your argument, just for fun. If they guys weren't actually having sex then they wouldn't be at risk, so no tax. You can just not eat junk food and, hey!, you won't get taxed either. They are taxing it because it is something you can opt not to buy AND it's bad for you. With your argument condoms shouldn't be taxed because they protect against HIV, so are thus good for people.[/quote]
It is an interesting fact, though, how many liberals have no problem with government stepping in regulating, taxing or banning things deemed unhealthy or unsafe - tobacco products, fatty foods, sugary soft drinks, etc., or enforcing helmet, seatbelt, or gun safety lock laws - yet if anyone dare suggests that the government say anything concerning unhealthy practices like sodomy or promiscuous sex, they howl.
As witnessed by the spread of AIDS and other vds, these practices are not safe or healthy on a purely physical level, yet it is politically taboo to so much as utter a word against them.

And I really don't think there's any coherent argument to be made that engaging in sodomistic practices is any more of a sacrosanct right than enjoying a cigar or a big greasy cheeseburger.

Edited December 24, 2008 by Socrates

[CatherineM]

Up here liberals are also for safe injection sites.

[Saint Therese]

Its about time someone taxed those fatties. They don't deserve to eat like the rest of us.