Rest in Peace TosaInu, the Org will be your legacy
Originally Posted by Leon Blum - For All Mankind
Ja Mata, Tosa.
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder
Rest in Peace TosaInu, the Org will be your legacy
Originally Posted by Leon Blum - For All Mankind
Ah, it seems we might not be on the same page regarding the plan of action we're each talking about. The article mentions changing federal regulations and adding taxes. If public schools decide not to sell high-sugar food for lunch or in snack machines that's fine by me.
CR
Ja Mata, Tosa.
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder
Rest in Peace TosaInu, the Org will be your legacy
Originally Posted by Leon Blum - For All Mankind
Tax revenue. I hear there's a hole in the UK's coffers because people are smoking and drinking much less.Excessive cigarette and alcohol taxes are just as dumb--they harm the industry and hurt the consumers who are going to buy the stuff anyway just so that self-righteous types can feel better about themselves.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
As an asthmatic who struggles to breath if I so much as walk past someone smoking, no they aren't enough.
Excessive cigarette and alcohol taxes are just as dumb--they harm the industry and hurt the consumers who are going to buy the stuff anyway just so that self-righteous types can feel better about themselves.Can you please reconcile these two statements?The industry might care, but you're probably still going to buy the products that get price-jacked. The only person that gets hurt by measures like these are the consumers.
Rest in Peace TosaInu, the Org will be your legacy
Originally Posted by Leon Blum - For All Mankind
Last edited by naut; 02-07-2012 at 13:33.
#Hillary4prism
BD:TW
Some piously affirm: "The truth is such and such. I know! I see!"
And hold that everything depends upon having the “right” religion.
But when one really knows, one has no need of religion. - Mahavyuha Sutra
Freedom necessarily involves risk. - Alan Watts
This is an issue that should be solved through social awareness, not taxation. Such taxation schemes disproportionately hurt the poor.
To create the social awarness you will have to spend money on various programmes in school and in society at large to get the message out.
Unfortunately in most countries these will be immediately attacked as evidence of "Big Guvmint go mad" the temptation will be to row back eventually and lose the gains.
Setting actual targets for producers to fulfill will be more likely to sort this problem.
They slew him with poison afaid to meet him with the steel
a gallant son of eireann was Owen Roe o'Neill.
Internet is a bad place for info Gaelic Cowboy
Not at all. America was very successful in greatly reducing smoking habits through public awareness campaigns - many of them privately funded. Today, those who choose to smoke are educated as to the risks. Taxes and fees, whether on manufacturers or consumers, have had more questionable results.
Today, most parents don't know the extent of health issues associated with sugar intake. Educate them, and most will act in the best interests of their children.
Or they will simply push higher prices on to the consumer as is common when new fees are levied by the government for whatever reason.Setting actual targets for producers to fulfill will be more likely to sort this problem.
Possibly
but we know for sure that poor people only buy what eat cos they can afford it, the reason there is cos sugar an salt are cheap and help bulk up the foods.
producers must be incentivised to reduce there reliance on these particular ingredients, eventually the costs would come down as manufacturers compete for the poor mans belly.
At least thats the theory anyway
Of course it could all backfire with higher costs but thats hardly worse than the status quo.
Last edited by gaelic cowboy; 02-07-2012 at 14:24.
They slew him with poison afaid to meet him with the steel
a gallant son of eireann was Owen Roe o'Neill.
Internet is a bad place for info Gaelic Cowboy
One thing that struck me is it was probably easier to educate people to the danger of smoking as they could just push the idea of quitting to increase lifespan.
But unhealthy eating is more complicated and requires a broader approach than simply quiting etc.
There can be more factors in the calculation and as a result more outcomes, you might not be obese but you could be eating unhealthily just the same.
Since we are the majority of us separated from the means of producing our own food we rely on the manufacturer to a massive degree, unfortunately thats where the problems starts. We both of us have different motives I want cheap food to eat but the manufacturer want to sell more produce, sugar and salt reduce cost and increase sales.
We have to be seen as serious that we want less of this stuff in our food, they wont change the recipe until we force them too.
They slew him with poison afaid to meet him with the steel
a gallant son of eireann was Owen Roe o'Neill.
Internet is a bad place for info Gaelic Cowboy
If there exists public healthcare and everybody can benefit from it regardless of lifestyle, then it seems pretty normal to me that living unhealthy is taxed.
Indeed, living unhealthy and then let society pay for your treatments is pretty selfish. Taxing sounds perfectly reasonable.
However, if there doesn't exist something like public healthcare worthy of the name public healthcare, then why taxing? If everybody pays for his own healthcare, then the guy eating 10 hamburgers a day and smoking 2 packs a day, will have to pay a lot more for his personal healthcare (or he'll die young) and, assuming public healthcare is non existant, he'll pay for it himself. So the healthy guy doesn't feel any negative consequences of his neighbours' unhealthy lifestyle.
How good is your public healthcare? If you tax the unhealthy lifestyle, then you need to get better public healthcare in return. If there's no such thing as public healthcare, then why should you have to pay taxes on a unhealthy lifestyle, since you'll take care yourself of the funding of the treatment your lifestyle will one day force you to get.
Last edited by Andres; 02-07-2012 at 14:03.
Andres is our Lord and Master and could strike us down with thunderbolts or beer cans at any time. ~Askthepizzaguy
Ja mata, TosaInu
Andres if you take a Darwinian view of this you problem then you will not solve it EVER.
Even people who think there are engaging in healthy eating are actually ingesting far too much sugars, fats an salts etc.
The profit motive to use them is too high so you need to curb it somehow, limits on amounts put in food seems fairer to me.
Initially the poor would suffer due to higher production costs but the motive of manufacturers to reduce there own costs while not incurring sanctions would eventually bring back down the cost for healthier alternatives.
They slew him with poison afaid to meet him with the steel
a gallant son of eireann was Owen Roe o'Neill.
Internet is a bad place for info Gaelic Cowboy
Bookmarks