Azazello1313 Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 personally, i hate the idea of the government trying to coerce you into official good behavior. but it's hard to deny that they are a very logical way of appropriating costs in an environment of socialized or semi-socialized heath care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 (edited) Amazing that you of all people would advocate more taxes for anyone. We either need to raise taxes to pay for social services, or stop providing the social services. IMO, the added taxation of chocodiles and KFC is the more just and humane alternative, relative to letting some poor, fat slob die of diabetes-related complications simply because he can't afford decent health care. Is it really that outlandish to expect the chocodile consumer to bear some of the financial responsibility for his own ill-fated diet choices? Edited July 12, 2007 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 We either need to raise taxes to pay for social services, or stop providing the social services. IMO, the added taxation of chocodiles and KFC is the more just and humane alternative, relative to letting some poor, fat slob die of diabetes-related complications simply because he can't afford decent health care. Is it really that outlandish to expect the chocodile consumer to bear some of the financial responsibility for his own ill-fated diet choices? My point is not specifically with junk food addicts - my point is where does this all end? See above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 Where does all this stop? Are we to have differential taxes for those that don't go to the gym or jog four times a week? Shall we have a rebate if you use the stairs instead of the elevator? What about bunjee jumping, sky diving and other dangerous sports? Shall we all just stay safely in bed all day? Amazing that you of all people would advocate more taxes for anyone. agreed, although a sin tax is for consumable goods, not risky/non- healthy behavior....... but I agree, I want less taxes/government, not more. my point was more in regard to trying to balance the healthcare and make the obese, which is proven to cause a magnitude of costly health problems., have to pay a steep premium for abusing their bodies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 (edited) My point is not specifically with junk food addicts - my point is where does this all end? See above. I think Az had a fair point in that regard about the difference between merely allocating economic burdens caused by "bad" behavior (okay) and trying to shape our "good" behavir (not so okay). Edited July 12, 2007 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 agreed, although a sin tax is for consumable goods, not risky/non- healthy behavior....... but I agree, I want less taxes/government, not more. my point was more in regard to trying to balance the healthcare and make the obese, which is proven to cause a magnitude of costly health problems., have to pay a steep premium for abusing their bodies. I agree about risky behaviors. I smoke and I would have no problem with higher health premiums - in fact, that would likely be the final trigger to make me pack the habit. I already pay higher life insurance, rightly so. I can see the logic of making fat people fork over more. BUT......I think there are a ton of other targets to bring down the actual cost of health care. Grotesque hospital overcharges would be one place to start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrobn26 Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 Where does all this stop? Are we to have differential taxes for those that don't go to the gym or jog four times a week? Shall we have a rebate if you use the stairs instead of the elevator? What about bunjee jumping, sky diving and other dangerous sports? Shall we all just stay safely in bed all day? Amazing that you of all people would advocate more taxes for anyone. Well said! I'm tired of taxes and people looking at people as if they are freaks. I'm fat, I drink, and I smoke. God knows I pay dearly in taxes for 2 of those three. The idea that "Someone has to pay for it, but not me, I'm perfect !" attitude is ridiculous. Do you get a rebate if you lose weight? Add to your list, Ursa, scuba diving, driving recklessly, mountain climbing, skateboarding, or bicycle racing. Let's tax the crap out of everything and make the other guy pay! Total Bupkis!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chargerz Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 Well said! I'm tired of taxes and people looking at people as if they are freaks. I'm fat, I drink, and I smoke. God knows I pay dearly in taxes for 2 of those three. The idea that "Someone has to pay for it, but not me, I'm perfect !" attitude is ridiculous. Do you get a rebate if you lose weight? Add to your list, Ursa, scuba diving, driving recklessly, mountain climbing, skateboarding, or bicycle racing. Let's tax the crap out of everything and make the other guy pay! Total Bupkis!!! Very nice rant!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 Very nice rant!! Tobacco and alcohol aren't the only "societal" vices that get taxed - luxury items (boats), gas guzzlers, etc. I agree that there are too many taxes, however I also agree with this type of tax, PROVIDED that the tax goes to offset the governmental costs that are incurred by these items (healthcare for example). Unfortunately, I have zero confidence that the government is capable of discerning these costs, or administering the funds appropriately. As for 'dangerous' hobbies, no tax needed, since insurance companies already adjust your policies for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrobn26 Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Tobacco and alcohol aren't the only "societal" vices that get taxed - luxury items (boats), gas guzzlers, etc. I agree that there are too many taxes, however I also agree with this type of tax, PROVIDED that the tax goes to offset the governmental costs that are incurred by these items (healthcare for example). Unfortunately, I have zero confidence that the government is capable of discerning these costs, or administering the funds appropriately. As for 'dangerous' hobbies, no tax needed, since insurance companies already adjust your policies for this. And insurance companies know if you are sky diving, skateboarding, etc???? In many cases these are one time deals. And maybe the LIFE ins. company knows/asks about them, but what about health ins. co's???? I never saw a questionnaire on health ins. that asked those! I stand w/ what I said. Nut up and live w/ the rest of us! And before you start knocking FAT PEOPLE, grow beyond the age of 40! Walk a mile in MY shoes, and get to my age, then we'll talk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 And insurance companies know if you are sky diving, skateboarding, etc???? In many cases these are one time deals. And maybe the LIFE ins. company knows/asks about them, but what about health ins. co's???? I never saw a questionnaire on health ins. that asked those! I stand w/ what I said. Nut up and live w/ the rest of us! And before you start knocking FAT PEOPLE, grow beyond the age of 40! Walk a mile in MY shoes, and get to my age, then we'll talk. it's not really about "nutting up and living", robn, it's about who bears the costs associated with peoples' own dangerous choices. someone taking the other side could easily say "nut up, and take financial responsibility for your OWN actions!" the bottom line is, if we want to live in a world where everyone is bound by the power of the law to take care of everyone else, then everyone else has a stake in the choices we all make with regard to our own well-being. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 it's not really about "nutting up and living", robn, it's about who bears the costs associated with peoples' own dangerous choices. someone taking the other side could easily say "nut up, and take financial responsibility for your OWN actions!" the bottom line is, if we want to live in a world where everyone is bound by the power of the law to take care of everyone else, then everyone else has a stake in the choices we all make with regard to our own well-being. Pretty much. I could care less what you want to do with your body as long as I don't have to pay for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.