The government isn't telling you anything though.
You're still free to make your purchase of whatever you want to drink.
So you're saying that's you're short-sighted and you're trying to figure things out??
Seems to me you have a problem when your own opinion gets challenged...why not try going on a twitter rant? I hear that's the thing to do these days.
Soda makes me super gassy and bloated, so I stopped drinking it. Havent drank any soda in over 15 years lol :P
I love Warcraft, I dislike WoW
Unsubbed since January 2021, now a Warcraft fan from a distance
Aren't cigarettes taxed even more? You're setting an arbitrarily line at "doubling of the price," so why isn't tripling bad? Or 50% more?
The reality is that sodas offer absolutely no positive benefits to the drinker, and all studies agree that they wreck your kidneys and teeth. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to save people from themselves. Didn't the government do the same thing with incandescent light bulbs? People kept buying incandescents even though they were only slightly less expensive, but terribly inefficient and burned out faster than CFL or LED. Unfortunately, facts don't sway a lot of people, so you have to put in regulations or taxes or whatever.
It sucks that these retailers are losing revenue, but is it any different from drug dealers losing revenue? Do we really care that the crack dealers are in dire straights? Sugar is just as addictive and probably more harmful than drugs or at least just as bad: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5281670.html and http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2015/...ealth-research
You're saying it's "retarded," but I think it's a step in the right direction. Tax the hell out of things that are demonstrably unhealthy with no benefits to us, nutritionally, and use the money to subsidize healthy things.
Raise taxes on alcohol, junk food and tobacco too! Subsidize healthier vegetables and not corn.
Please. The old ones were 70 cents a piece, and would last me half a year or so. These new ones are close to 3 a piece, and it's miracle if they last 3 months. Usually not. So, "slightly less" = ~400% increase? "burns out faster" = 50% of the lifetime if that (which combined with the first, actually makes it 800% price increase per piece). Great, thanks for saving me from those evil slightly less expensive and faster burning bulbs. Totally loving the new ones.
Oh, a note on the inefficiency: I've noted no change in electricity bills from back then to now, from just light bulbs. Maybe there's couple cents difference, but I dare say the 8 times price increase per bulb more than enough eats any lifetime savings you'd possibly get, per bulb purchase.
No that is the old way of thinking. You SHOULD pay more for doing/consuming things that are more dangerous. Just like with smoking cigarettes. You pay more for your health insurance, and usually a significant amount more.
You should be rewarded for eating and being healthy. Being punished for doing something bad for your health is not "retarded", it's common sense and in the end saves everyone money.
What on earth?????? This is gobbledygook.
The system adjusts. After we started raising taxes on cigarettes we didn't suddenly end up with permanently elevated unemployment. After the computer replaced the filing clerk, we didn't end up with tens of millions of permanently unemployed filing clerks. This will be no different. There will be zilch zero nada effect on unemployment as the system will adjust.
They're on about doing this or something similar in the UK, think it's a load of shit personally. Why should us normal people have to suffer because some fatties can't stop guzzling it down their gobs? Ah yeah, let's punish everyone because some people have 0 will power to stop themselves.
Is red meat good or bad? Heart disease is on the rise and heavy red meat consumption gets most of the blame. Red meat is also fairly nutritious. So does it get a pass on the taxes? A Big Mac is less healthy, but we can't say it has no nutritional value at all, yet we've have several attempts at a fast food tax and I think it's just a mater of time before we get it started somewhere.
You CFL comparison does have health risk in terms of exposure when broken. Will the average person be exposed to enough broken bulbs to see an effect? It will probably take another 20-30 years to get a bigger data pool. Sure they are better, but some folks have a legit concern about a light bulb that has special clean up procedures. For the record, I switched to CFL long before they were cool, sadly, I didn't know there was a danger and have improperly cleaned them up a few times now.
Last edited by Mad_Murdock; 2017-02-18 at 05:58 PM.