Last edited by Barnabas; 2018-01-16 at 06:01 PM.
Stahp. Just stahp.
Sugar is damned near 100% of the problem. Please, go full glutton on grilled chicken and broccoli. Or a steal and asparagus. Do it for a week. Now go full glutton on little Debbie’s, Coke , and pizza for a week straight.
Afterwards step on a scale. Call yourself the control group. You can eat exponentially more healthy foods than you
can sugary, u healthy foods and not put much weight on. You are right in a sense though. Calories in - calories out = weight gain / weight loss / maintaining. It just so happens that a ton of sugar can be packed into the smallest foods.
I did not come to the same conclusion. What we found is that for every 10% increase in price, 5% of people will chose not to smoke. What's the tax on cigarettes? Not 10%? More than 10%? More than 10%. So what does that mean for how many people choose not to smoke because of taxes? 5%? More than 5%? More than 5%. This is why I will reiterate, work on your critical thinking skills.
Infracted
I buy 4 cases of Diet Dew at a time. that would add up to like 10 bucks more every time i re-up.
or I can burn about 3 dollars in gas and go to the next town over.
We're all newbs, some are just more newbier than others.
Just a burned out hardcore raider turned casual.
I'm tired. So very tired. Can I just lay my head on your lap and fall asleep?
#TeamFuckEverything
You can pack on the pounds via steak and chicken if you go over your calorie limit. Sugar is nowhere near 100% of the problem. It is NOT GOOD for you in anything over very small quantities, but many skinny people survive on a diet of energy drinks and sugar and don't get fat. Watch a couple episodes of Supersize vs Superskinny and you'll see that most of the skinny people on the show subsist on caffeine and sugar.
I'm generally for junk food/sugar taxes, but an extreme localized tax can be problematic. If it was small (like .25 cents per ounce or something), then it would drive tax revenue. Seattle's city limits aren't that massive, so going to buy stuff elsewhere isn't a huge issue if you have access to transportation. It'll basically create a sugar vacuum, where people just don't buy or sell sugary drinks, due to the cost. The proper way to implement this is statewide, cities are usually just too small.
“You can never get a cup of tea large enough or a book long enough to suit me.”
– C.S. Lewis
no, common misconception. a lot of people and im talking millions enjoy 100% free healthcare and did before obamacare... obama however did increase that number by even more millions. approx 95 million americans get their healhcare from the government and those that do not have insurance at all still get serviced when needed.
“You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.”― Malcolm X
I watch them fight and die in the name of freedom. They speak of liberty and justice, but for whom? -Ratonhnhaké:ton (Connor Kenway)
Health issue aside, the best thing to tax are unnecessary items that people really want. Cigarettes, liquor, soda, snack foods are all things that people can live without, but are willing to fork over expendable income on. From an economical standpoint I would rather I be taxed on something I can choose to live without than food or water. I would be healthier and wealthier.
Felpooti - DH - Echo Isles
Hack - Warrior - Echo Isles
Pootie - Hunter - Echo Isles