"Fat Tax", Are You For or Against?

[Totori]

I read your link. I still say lack of education is huge. I know suburbanites with easy access to great supermarkets who couldn't cook their way out of a paper bag (hint: it's flammable).

Which is why I'm saying education is important (I don't think I'm disagreeing with you at all, actually). If, as I posted above, I can take 1 chicken and get 6+ meals out of it... well, go price out whole chickens at your local store. They're pretty damn cheap.

Caveat: I cook food for a living.

So... I have friends over for a party/whatever. People like to say things like, "Can I help do anything?" as I'm finishing off the appetizers or whatever. Ok, sure, I have a pot of boiling water on already, just blanch those green beans. "Do what?". Umm... julienne that zucchini? "Who?" Yeah, nevermind, pour yourself a drink and I'll be out with the food in a couple minutes.

People don't know they can cook for themselves, affordably, even if they have limited time. It's a shame, really. Wouldn't mind seeing the tax on fat (and lets add a tax on processed sugars) go to education.

So you should know for a restaurant the cost of a dish increases, because of this the food cost of that particular dish increases, maybe only just a little, from 26% to 27% (from the view of a 4~ star). Due to this the cost to the customer may increase a little, although undesirable. This may cause cheaper ones to increase in price like poultry / pasta as they are the most food cost efficient.

If the restaurant wants to obtain their desired food cost 'quota' for that month, the prices will change due to the increase of cost. Lets just go with a sauce, beurr blanc, contains a high amount of fat (butter). That essentially will increase a lot in price just due to taxes. Now the food cost determines quite a lot for a restaurant. The food quality, the pay per hour, the salary, etc. It covers for maintenance, for replacement equipment, utensils, utilities (water, electricity, gas, etc). A portion is also given to investors (if any). Now unless you live in places where the expense is generally higher (I'm looking at you Las Vegas, being one of the biggest offender) then the restaurant needs to compensate for the increase in price.

Getting a profit margin at even 5%+ is usually harder in this economy, in fact rather hard. It may average around 2-3%. Though some restaurants may be able to get around 9-10%, it is within the minority.

[davep]

I'm overweight and I am For it. I personally don't eat fatty foods anymore but if this were implemented and kept started getting parents to watch what their kids ate then it would be awesome. Obesity in the US is ridiculous and I feel this would fix the problem, at least make people more aware of what they are eating.

[Karrmer]

I would definitely disagree with this.
The average human being needs a minimum of 200 grams of meat each day (which can be replaced by less nutritious means, of course) and poultry really isn't all that good for you. Starches... Don't need them. So I'd suggest mainly raw fruits, raw red meat (hoofed herbivore)/seafood and cooked (but not overcooked) vegetables. Maybe the occasional starch.


This is both enormously selfish and absolutely ridiculous.
If someone needs medical care, then there's a really good chance they can't get a job because they have a severe condition. As such, they won't be able to afford healthcare, in your perfect world, so they should just die? Remember that a statement such as this doesn't cover only those that do it to themselves. It also covers chronic illnesses.


*nods* This, then, I completely agree with. We don't need to eat these. Protein is actually the only source of energy we actually need.

Your average person needing medical care was absolutely not born with some defect that prevents them from finding any sort of work. That is completely ridiculous.

Also, there is where voluntary donation and charity comes in. There is no moral way you can argue that a person should be forced to take the income they earn with their own work and give it away to another person when they'd rather use it to help themselves or their own family. You can argue that these people "deserve" to be taken care of, but no one else should be forced to take on their burden.

[Stir]

Also, there is where voluntary donation and charity comes in. There is no moral way you can argue that a person should be forced to take the income they earn with their own work and give it away to another person when they'd rather use it to help themselves or their own family. You can argue that these people "deserve" to be taken care of, but no one else should be forced to take on their burden.

That's a stupid argument. The very fact that you are part of a society means that you have the responsibility to take care of your society. That's what governments are for; to take care of its people.
As for voluntary donations and charity: Oh, come on! You can't trust people at large to give freely and willingly. The premise is nice, but naive. History has taught us time and again that without a healthcare system, far too many people end up just rotting away. You might be against such acts of socialism that prevent this from happening, but I am of the opinion that free-for-all capitalism is cold, inhumane and monstrous in nature.

FYI, your argument is exactly why everyone hates the US. It's not even the fact that that country constantly attacks everyone for money. It's the fact that that country is completely willing to abuse its own citizens in the name of greed.

[Gandrake]

unless you are going to make eating real food cost less than potato chips, sandwiches and soda this shit is really not going to make a difference.

[Nevintsha]

It's nobody's business what I eat (as long as it's not people) or how fat I want to be. I bet you were freaking out when SOPA/ACTA tried to take your internet away.

So stay the fuck away from my donuts. -.-

in b4 US-vs-Euro argument.

I feel the same way XD

[Providence]

That's a stupid argument. The very fact that you are part of a society means that you have the responsibility to take care of your society. That's what governments are for; to take care of its people.
As for voluntary donations and charity: Oh, come on! You can't trust people at large to give freely and willingly. The premise is nice, but naive. History has taught us time and again that without a healthcare system, far too many people end up just rotting away. You might be against such acts of socialism that prevent this from happening, but I am of the opinion that free-for-all capitalism is cold, inhumane and monstrous in nature.

FYI, your argument is exactly why everyone hates the US. It's not even the fact that that country constantly attacks everyone for money. It's the fact that that country is completely willing to abuse its own citizens in the name of greed.

its so funny to hear 1 person argue that we shouldn't be forced to pay a tax to feed people who are literally starving to death and then hear someone else say that we all should collectively pay for someone elses medicare

[omglazor]

I am just going to chime in once again with: fat and carbs are not bad for you! Creating AOE legislation to target carbs or fat as being somehow bad for you is absolutely ridiculous. One could try to target "low quality foods usually consumed in large quantities that will cause people to get fat if consumed in such large quantities" (LQFUCILQTWCPTGFICISLQ bill) or something, but you'll be damned if you can identify all types of such foods and to then get someone to inspect individual items for classification. Hell, I bet at that point the bureaucracy and the agencies that would have to be created to support this 'tax' (even if we just tack it all onto USDA) would cost more than the tax would bring in.

[darenyon]

its so funny to hear 1 person argue that we shouldn't be forced to pay a tax to feed people who are literally starving to death and then hear someone else say that we all should collectively pay for someone elses medicare

the difference being the person starving to death is not a citizen of the country being taxed.

[Providence]

the difference being the person starving to death is not a citizen of the country being taxed.

pretty highly irrelevant. in this situation, being a citizen is just a title that literally anyone can get. saying we shouldn't be forced to pay for someone elses food but we should be forced to pay for someone elses medicare is hypocritical. I'm just not jumping over the case of it because 2 different people made the arguments.

I just find it funny

[darenyon]

pretty highly irrelevant. in this situation, being a citizen is just a title that literally anyone can get. saying we shouldn't be forced to pay for someone elses food but we should be forced to pay for someone elses medicare is hypocritical. I'm just not jumping over the case of it because 2 different people made the arguments.

I just find it funny

its not though. a government is obligated to take care of its citizens. where do they get the money for that? taxes.
you're looking at it too simply.

[Providence]

its not though. a government is obligated to take care of its citizens. where do they get the money for that? taxes.
you're looking at it too simply.

i wouldn't go that far. the government is there to provide things that we as individuals cannot do as individuals like providing schools, roads, military protection etc. anything else is just the collective depiction of what the government should do, and even then our government isn't obligated to take care of us.

[MLX]

That's a stupid argument. The very fact that you are part of a society means that you have the responsibility to take care of your society. That's what governments are for; to take care of its people.
As for voluntary donations and charity: Oh, come on! You can't trust people at large to give freely and willingly. The premise is nice, but naive. History has taught us time and again that without a healthcare system, far too many people end up just rotting away. You might be against such acts of socialism that prevent this from happening, but I am of the opinion that free-for-all capitalism is cold, inhumane and monstrous in nature.

FYI, your argument is exactly why everyone hates the US. It's not even the fact that that country constantly attacks everyone for money. It's the fact that that country is completely willing to abuse its own citizens in the name of greed.

I don't know what the government in whatever country you reside in is for, however in the United States we have something called the constitution, it defines precisely what the government is responsible to do, which fundamentally is to maintain national defense and borders, ensure a fair playing field for interaction and maintain infrastructure. The government is in no way responsible to "take care of anyone". If you would like to see examples of governments that try to take care of everyone please refer to perhaps hugo chavez in venezuela, or communist russia, or socialist china,or the failed states of greece, spain, portugal etc etc (the list is precisely as long as the list of countries that have embraced or flirted with socialism) and you will quickly find that the result of trying to "take care" of everyone is to reduce the freedoms of everyone.

[darenyon]

i wouldn't go that far. the government is there to provide things that we as individuals cannot do as individuals like providing schools, roads, military protection etc. anything else is just the collective depiction of what the government should do, and even then our government isn't obligated to take care of us.

theres a fine line i guess.
buuuut anyways just meant that not paying for other countries food & medicare/healthcare are not mutually exclusive..

[Rukentuts]

I don't know what the government in whatever country you reside in is for, however in the United States we have something called the constitution, it defines precisely what the government is responsible to do, which fundamentally is to maintain national defense and borders, ensure a fair playing field for interaction and maintain infrastructure. The government is in no way responsible to "take care of anyone". If you would like to see examples of governments that try to take care of everyone please refer to perhaps hugo chavez in venezuela, or communist russia, or socialist china,or the failed states of greece, spain, portugal etc etc (the list is precisely as long as the list of countries that have embraced or flirted with socialism) and you will quickly find that the result of trying to "take care" of everyone is to reduce the freedoms of everyone.

You sure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...rs_of_Congress

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[Karrmer]

That's a stupid argument. The very fact that you are part of a society means that you have the responsibility to take care of your society. That's what governments are for; to take care of its people.
As for voluntary donations and charity: Oh, come on! You can't trust people at large to give freely and willingly. The premise is nice, but naive. History has taught us time and again that without a healthcare system, far too many people end up just rotting away. You might be against such acts of socialism that prevent this from happening, but I am of the opinion that free-for-all capitalism is cold, inhumane and monstrous in nature.

FYI, your argument is exactly why everyone hates the US. It's not even the fact that that country constantly attacks everyone for money. It's the fact that that country is completely willing to abuse its own citizens in the name of greed.

Nope, you have the responsibility to take care of yourself and those you care about. If others aren't willing to put forth the effort to do the same, why should I have to pay for them?

The only role of government is to protect the rights of the citizens. The current system is nothing more than a group of people forcibly taking your income and deciding that they know how to use it better than you do.

[Cattaclysmic]

I don't know what the government in whatever country you reside in is for, however in the United States we have something called the constitution, it defines precisely what the government is responsible to do, which fundamentally is to maintain national defense and borders, ensure a fair playing field for interaction and maintain infrastructure. The government is in no way responsible to "take care of anyone". If you would like to see examples of governments that try to take care of everyone please refer to perhaps hugo chavez in venezuela, or communist russia, or socialist china,or the failed states of greece, spain, portugal etc etc (the list is precisely as long as the list of countries that have embraced or flirted with socialism) and you will quickly find that the result of trying to "take care" of everyone is to reduce the freedoms of everyone.

i find it hilarious that whenever socialism comes up people like you always fail to mention succesful socialist nations like those of scandinavia... Heck, even france has quite many socialist policies

[belfpala]

i find it hilarious that whenever socialism comes up people like you always fail to mention succesful socialist nations like those of scandinavia... Heck, even france has quite many socialist policies

Agreed. In fact, in the US we have Title 42 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sup_01_42.html (The Public Health and Welfare). Good luck fighting that one, if anyone thinks they can change the law.