Soda Tax Weighed to Pay for Health Care
By JANET ADAMY
Senate leaders are considering new federal taxes on soda and other sugary drinks to help pay for an overhaul of the nation's health-care system.
The taxes would pay for only a fraction of the cost to expand health-insurance coverage to all Americans and would face strong opposition from the beverage industry. They also could spark a backlash from consumers who would have to pay several cents more for a soft drink.
On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee is set to hear proposals from about a dozen experts about how to pay for the comprehensive health-care overhaul that President Barack Obama wants to enact this year. Early estimates put the cost of the plan at around $1.2 trillion. The administration has so far only earmarked funds for about half of that amount.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based watchdog group that pressures food companies to make healthier products, plans to propose a federal excise tax on soda, certain fruit drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks and ready-to-drink teas. It would not include most diet beverages. Excise taxes are levied on goods and manufacturers typically pass them on to consumers.
Senior staff members for some Democratic senators at the center of the effort to craft health-care legislation are weighing the idea behind closed doors, Senate aides said.
The Congressional Budget Office, which is providing lawmakers with cost estimates for each potential change in the health overhaul, included the option in a broad report on health-system financing in December. The office estimated that adding a tax of three cents per 12-ounce serving to these types of sweetened drinks would generate $24 billion over the next four years. So far, lawmakers have not indicated how big a tax they are considering.
Proponents of the tax cite research showing that consuming sugar-sweetened drinks can lead to obesity, diabetes and other ailments. They say the tax would lower consumption, reduce health problems and save medical costs. At least a dozen states already have some type of taxes on sugary beverages, said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
"Soda is clearly one of the most harmful products in the food supply, and it's something government should discourage the consumption of," Mr. Jacobson said.
The main beverage lobby that represents Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc., Kraft Foods Inc. and other companies said such a tax would unfairly hit lower-income Americans and wouldn't deter consumption.
"Taxes are not going to teach our children how to have a healthy lifestyle," said Susan Neely, president of the American Beverage Association. Instead, the association says it's backing programs that limit sugary beverage consumption in schools.
Some recent state proposals along the same lines have met stiff opposition. New York Gov. David Paterson recently agreed to drop a proposal for an 18% tax on sugary drinks after facing an outcry from the beverage industry and New Yorkers.
The beverage-tax proposal would apply to drinks that many Americans don't consider unhealthy -- such as PepsiCo's Gatorade and Kraft's Capri Sun -- based on their calorie content.
Health advocates are floating other so-called sin tax proposals and food regulations as part of the government's health-care overhaul. Mr. Jacobson also plans to propose Tuesday that the government sharply raise taxes on alcohol, move to largely eliminate artificial trans fat from food and move to reduce the sodium content in packaged and restaurant food.
The beverage tax is just one of hundreds of ideas that lawmakers are weighing to finance the health-care plans. They're expected to narrow the list in coming weeks.
The White House, meanwhile, is pulling together private health groups to identify cost savings that will help fund the health overhaul. Mr. Obama on Monday held a White House meeting with groups that represent doctors, hospitals, insurers, pharmaceutical companies and medical-device makers. They pledged to help restrain cost increases in the health-care system in an effort to save $2 trillion over the next decade.
"When it comes to health-care spending, we are on an unsustainable course that threatens the financial stability of families, businesses and government itself," Mr. Obama told reporters.
Write to Janet Adamy at janet.adamy@wsj.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124208505896608647.html
I can't believe they see sugar as harmful to a persons health with all the things that are caused by consuming artificial sweeteners. Way to go congress. Tax some more and put some more people out of work.... :mad: :rant:
I see nothing wrong with it. I wish they would tax fast food as well.
I'm with you, Kimmi. If taxes have to go up (what do I mean if?) I very much prefer to see an increase I can choose whether or not to pay. I don't have to drink soda. To avoid this tax, all I have to do is stop buying it.
The governments (both state and fed) must find an untapped revenue source, since the increased taxes on cigarettes and liquor have led to fewer and fewer people smoking and drinking -- at least smoking and drinking less.
Taxing unnecessary consumables is far better, in my opinion, than just slicing a chunk off every dollar I earn.
how about we quit spending so damn much money and layoff taxing everybody under the sun.....it is not governments job to try to FIX everybody's problems.....maybe, just maybe if those bastards in Washington quit .... spending on hippy museums and frisbee golf courses...(just to name a couple of the cuff)....get back to what our Constitution says it is suppose to do...
Now, Henry, you know the big ticket items are not frisbee golf course and esoteric museums. The real money hogs are roads (I want those potholes fixed!), Law Enforcement, Fire Departments, schools, the military ... oh yeah, and salaries for legislators ... we could probably trim some there. Eliminating your pet-peeve projects, or mine, won't solve the problem. We still have to pay for infrastructure. Unless we stop drinking Pepsi, of course.
Quote from: LOsborne on May 13, 2009, 08:25:40 AM
Now, Henry, you know the big ticket items are not frisbee golf course and esoteric museums. The real money hogs are roads (I want those potholes fixed!), Law Enforcement, Fire Departments, schools, the military ... oh yeah, and salaries for legislators ... we could probably trim some there. Eliminating your pet-peeve projects, or mine, won't solve the problem. We still have to pay for infrastructure. Unless we stop drinking Pepsi, of course.
I have no problem with stop drinking Pepsi...it is Coke that is my crutch.. :spooked:
Our Military is our number one reason for having Taxes in the first place....fire dept and schools and our legislators should be more of a State issue....but social security, though it was intended as a good thing....is a form of individual welfare that is not authorized in the Constitution...which is only to promote the
General Welfare....and I know this is open to a big argument.....
Honestly our Federal Government has stepped WAY out of bounds on numerous issues...this is from ALL parties...we have GOT to get back to it's original intent.....it is WAY out of control and has been for years...
it is scary..
Sure we give up everything to pay for something which is a bad idea to begin with. The thing is diet soda and things with artificial sweeteners in them are not going to be taxed so people will start drink those and another whole new set of illnesses will crop up. None of those things are bad for you if not consumed in excess and what right is it of the governments to dictate how much of something we are allowed to eat or drink. Also who is that tax hurting? The lower income people who Obama said he is trying to help. The "it don't effect me so I don't care" attitude is a lot of what is wrong with things now. What happens when he taxes something that you like to do or consume to pay for his health care plan? Just because you don't particularly like something or think people shouldn't eat or drink it don't mean is ok to tax it out of existence. How many of you gripe up a storm about people smoking and then turn around and smoke pot? One joint is like smoking 5 cigarettes and I don't think people should smoke pot so why don't they make it legal and tax it to the hilt for that health care plan? Since I don't agree with smoking pot I don't care. Sell the product for say 15 cents a joint and put a $1 tax on it. I dislike wine so why don't they raise the tax on that to $2 per bottle or maybe tax that makeup you wear because it's bad for your skin. Gosh you should be willing to pay more in tax than you pay for the product for some eyeliner or blush. Gee $5 for the product and $7 for the tax shouldn't be a problem and look at the revenue it would raise. Sure that might be a bit extreme but my point is where does it stop. Just like with the cigarette tax and the added tax on tobacco products people then consume less which don't raise the revenue expected and they tax something else to replace it. It will eventually infringe on something those of you with the "I don't care it don't effect me" attitudes and then see how loud you start screaming.
Answer me honestly, please. How much would that cost you personally? I can find three pennies on the parking lot at work every day.
Thanks again, me, for bringing up yet another subject that we discussed months ago!
This tax everything subject needs to be brought up. Ignoring it will not make it go away.
Quote from: me on May 13, 2009, 09:07:24 AM
Also who is that tax hurting? The lower income people who Obama said he is trying to help.
Tax me now or tax me later. If a tax on sugary sodas leads to better health among those lower income people, then maybe I won't have to pay for their health care in the future.
Quote from: Bo D on May 13, 2009, 10:26:38 AM
Tax me now or tax me later. If a tax on sugary sodas leads to better health among those lower income people, then maybe I won't have to pay for their health care in the future.
Yep.
Quote from: Bo D on May 13, 2009, 10:26:38 AM
Tax me now or tax me later. If a tax on sugary sodas leads to better health among those lower income people, then maybe I won't have to pay for their health care in the future.
They'll just go to diet drinks and then have a whole new set of problems that are caused by the artificial sweeteners and there will be less than expected revenue from the sugary drinks so congress will have to tax something else. Don't you see a pattern here?
Quote from: me on May 13, 2009, 11:11:16 AM
They'll just go to diet drinks and then have a whole new set of problems that are caused by the artificial sweeteners and there will be less than expected revenue from the sugary drinks so congress will have to tax something else. Don't you see a pattern here?
Care to tell us about those health problems caused by artificial sweeteners?
Quote from: Bo D on May 13, 2009, 10:26:38 AM
Tax me now or tax me later. If a tax on sugary sodas leads to better health among those lower income people, then maybe I won't have to pay for their health care in the future.
Where does it stop then.............Does the government decide what is healthy and not healthy and tax anything they feel?.....does this cross the taxation without representation?.....
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/artificial-sweeteners
http://www.medicinenet.com/artificial_sweeteners/page6.htm
Quote from: Bo D on May 13, 2009, 11:16:15 AM
Care to tell us about those health problems caused by artificial sweeteners?
Aspartame = alzheimers! :eek:
Quote from: mcgonser on May 13, 2009, 11:36:57 AM
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/artificial-sweeteners
http://www.medicinenet.com/artificial_sweeteners/page6.htm
Quotes from the first link ....
"Is there an association between artificial sweeteners and cancer?
these sweeteners and other approved sweeteners have not provided clear evidence of an association between artificial sweeteners and cancer in people."
"Saccharin"
"Human epidemiology studies (studies of patterns, causes, and control of diseases in groups of people) have shown no consistent evidence that saccharin is associated with bladder cancer incidence."
"Aspartame"
"These data do not establish a clear link between the consumption of aspartame and the development of brain tumors."
"Increasing consumption of aspartame-containing beverages was not associated with the development of lymphoma, leukemia, or brain cancer"
"Acesulfame potassium, Sucralose, and Neotame"
"The results of these studies showed no evidence that these sweeteners cause cancer or pose any other threat to human health. "
"Cyclamate
scientists concluded that cyclamate was not a carcinogen or a co-carcinogen"
Yeah but what about that nasty aftertaste?
Quote from: Exterminator on May 13, 2009, 11:48:57 AM
Yeah but what about that nasty aftertaste?
Smoking a joint helps.
:icon_twisted:
Quote from: Bo D on May 13, 2009, 11:59:10 AM
Smoking a joint helps.
:icon_twisted:
Well, yeah!
Quote from: Bo D on May 13, 2009, 11:16:15 AM
Care to tell us about those health problems caused by artificial sweeteners?
I have a daughter that gets severe migraines from them and it also caused her to swell up, retain water, and cause joint pain. She has to watch what toothpaste she buys, can no longer chew gum because almost all gum has it as an ingredient, has to be careful what canned fruit she gets and so on because of artificial sweetener. A friend of ours has only used artificial sweetener for years, his wife even used it to cook, and guess what, he is now a diabetic....duh....guess that didn't help him. Another friend of ours has a child with a behavioral problem which the doctors finally traced back to artificial sweeteners...guess what....he's on medicaid....didn't help there either....Just think if he had been having sugar there wouldn't be any medical bills for trying to find out what his behavioral problem was because he wouldn't have had one. Artificial sweetener is
NOT a path to better health or less obese people. That is a lame excuse to tax sugared products.
Quote from: me on May 13, 2009, 01:37:51 PM
I have a daughter that gets severe migraines from them and it also caused her to swell up, retain water, and cause joint pain. She has to watch what toothpaste she buys, can no longer chew gum because almost all gum has it as an ingredient, has to be careful what canned fruit she gets and so on because of artificial sweetener. A friend of ours has only used artificial sweetener for years, his wife even used it to cook, and guess what, he is now a diabetic....duh....guess that didn't help him. Another friend of ours has a child with a behavioral problem which the doctors finally traced back to artificial sweeteners...guess what....he's on medicaid....didn't help there either....Just think if he had been having sugar there wouldn't be any medical bills for trying to find out what his behavioral problem was because he wouldn't have had one. Artificial sweetener is NOT a path to better health or less obese people. That is a lame excuse to tax sugared products.
I was hoping for more than anecdotal evidence.
Quote from: me on May 13, 2009, 01:37:51 PM
A friend of ours has only used artificial sweetener for years, his wife even used it to cook, and guess what, he is now a diabetic....duh....guess that didn't help him.
Uhhhhh ... diabetes is not caused by sugar.
"Too many calories contribute to
excess weight, and excess weight can lead to type 2 diabetes (which accounts for approximately 90 percent of diabetes cases), says Ann Albright, the American Diabetes Association's president of health care and education."
Perhaps your friend forgot to also cut back on the KFC and McDonalds?
Or perhaps he wasn't overweight to begin with and was predisposed to being a diabetic and therefore drinking and eating sugared products would have been of no consequence. Like I said it is just a lame excuse to tax sugared products. Think about what you just said,
Quote from: Bo D on May 13, 2009, 01:51:56 PM
Uhhhhh ... diabetes is not caused by sugar.
"Too many calories contribute to excess weight, and excess weight can lead to type 2 diabetes (which accounts for approximately 90 percent of diabetes cases), says Ann Albright, the American Diabetes Association's president of health care and education."
Perhaps your friend forgot to also cut back on the KFC and McDonalds?
If you overindulge in anything it will cause you to gain weight, even health foods. There will always be overweight people no matter what. Guess they need to start taxing those video games because they are contributing to obesity too, probably more than the sugared drinks or fast foods.
Quote from: me on May 13, 2009, 02:02:41 PM
Or perhaps he wasn't overweight to begin with and was predisposed to being a diabetic and therefore drinking and eating sugared products would have been of no consequence. Like I said it is just a lame excuse to tax sugared products. Think about what you just said, If you overindulge in anything it will cause you to gain weight, even health foods. There will always be overweight people no matter what. Guess they need to start taxing those video games because they are contributing to obesity too, probably more than the sugared drinks or fast foods.
A journey of 1,000 miles starts with but one step.
"If you overindulge in anything it will cause you to gain weight"
thats not true.
you can gorge yourself on catabolic foods and in theory, lose weight.
;D
Quote from: Bo D on May 13, 2009, 02:07:13 PM
A journey of 1,000 miles starts with but one step.
Yep, what are they going to tax next.... :razz:
Quote from: me on May 13, 2009, 02:34:49 PM
Yep, what are they going to tax next.... :razz:
Well ... we could start with taxing ignorance. That would be sure to balance the budget in a hurry! :razz:
Quote from: Bo D on May 13, 2009, 01:46:02 PM
I was hoping for more than anecdotal evidence.
Aren't you the eternal oiptimist!
Quote from: me on May 13, 2009, 02:02:41 PM
Or perhaps he wasn't overweight to begin with and was predisposed to being a diabetic...
Maybe the whole bunch of them are genetic rejects that never should have been bred in the first place? :icon_twisted:
Quote from: Exterminator on May 13, 2009, 03:03:44 PM
Aren't you the eternal oiptimist!
Ahhhhh .... the sound of one hand clapping.
Quote from: me on May 13, 2009, 09:07:24 AM
... None of those things are bad for you if not consumed in excess and what right is it of the governments to dictate how much of something we are allowed to eat or drink.
But
me, maybe the tax will provide incentive to people
not to consume these things in excess.
QuoteAlso who is that tax hurting? The lower income people who Obama said he is trying to help.
How so? There isn't any tax on tap water is there? All these lower income people have to do is refrain from buying the products that carry the tax. We aren't talking about life's necessities. We're talking about soda pop!
Quote.... turn around and smoke pot? One joint is like smoking 5 cigarettes and I don't think people should smoke pot so why don't they make it legal and tax it to the hilt for that health care plan?
Now that is probably the best idea around for eliminating the deficit. Legalize (or decriminalize) ALL drugs, impose quality standards, and tax the hell out of them. It's win-win. We don't fill up prisons with druggies, because even taxed, legal drugs will be cheaper than black market product, and easier to obtain. We don't waste LE time, or court time on prosecutions. We create JOBS!!!! (that's the magic word) in factories which process, package and distribute drugs. And the taxes make this country solvent again. Where's the downside? Why don't we do this?
Anyway, my original point was that a tax on consumables gives choice back to Dick and Jane America. Anyone who objects to paying taxes, just has to watch his purchases, and stay away from the crap carrying the tax. And if you really, really love Pepsi, pay the tax and drink it. It's still your choice. And I love choices.
I will continue to drink my Pepsi as long as I can afford it. I just might have to cut back some. LOL
ATTAGIRL!!
Seems to me like lower income people have it hard enough as it is without denying them some of life's pleasures on top of it which is what imposing higher taxes on things like that will do.
No one is denying anyone anything. If they want it, they would have to pay a higher price for it than say orange juice concentrate. WIC already limits what can and cannot be purchased with that money. You can get Cheerios with it, but not Cap't Crunch! Why? Nutritional values.
Quote from: kimmi on May 13, 2009, 08:48:39 PM
No one is denying anyone anything. If they want it, they would have to pay a higher price for it than say orange juice concentrate. WIC already limits what can and cannot be purchased with that money. You can get Cheerios with it, but not Cap't Crunch! Why? Nutritional values.
The point is they cannot afford to pay the higher price.
As things stand now, T-bone steak costs more than hamburger. We don't go all bleeding heart because the lower income people can't eat steak at every meal. What's the difference? These "lower income" folks you are so concerned about pay little if any income tax. Yet they enjoy the benefits of police and fire protection, public education, and a vigilant military that those of us in more comfortable circumstances pay for. I have no problem asking them to carry a little of the freight -- especially if they can opt out by deciding to drink ice water instead of Pepsi.
There are lower income people who do pay taxes too ya know. There are also people on fixed incomes, Social Security, who worked all their lives and paid taxes who might have been barely able to afford the luxury of a case of soda a month that might not be able to if it has the extra tax added to it. Oh, and by the way, some people pay taxes on their Social Security plus having to pay for part of the medicaid they receive. Why do you think there are so many older people working now? What about those lower income people they don't even get WIC to help with their grocery's.
Wouldn't all 'junk food' have to be taxed....not just soda pop. Our gov't will have to decide what is good or bad for the people. Somebody has to be the holy roller determining what is 'bad'. Obama will probably have to create a new cabinet position and 20,000 gov't jobs to manage this.
If our gov't is seriously going to keep looking for more money to fund more programs....the whole tax process needs to be blown up. It makes no sense to just keep picking things almost at random to tax. Go with the flat tax per ole Huckabee.
Legalize and tax the hooch.....still one of the best ideas out there.
(sigh) The WIC program is for Women with Infants and Children. Very few women on SSI have infants and children. Those who pay income tax on social security do so because their income is sufficiently large to merit the tax. And you won't get any sympathy from me for having to pay for part of the Medicaid, because most of us don't get any free (or partially free) medical care. Medicaid recipients have already received subsidies for life's necessities. If they can afford luxuries (like that case of soda,) why aren't they spending the money things they actually need, instead of free-loading off the rest of us. You won't convince me, me. I still say let 'em drink OJ instead of Pepsi.
Quote from: DannyBoy on May 13, 2009, 09:50:04 PM
If our gov't is seriously going to keep looking for more money to fund more programs....the whole tax process needs to be blown up. It makes no sense to just keep picking things almost at random to tax. Go with the flat tax per ole Huckabee.
I still prefer taxing consumables, rather than income, because it gives me some control ... and I'm kind of a control freak. But I agree it's time to scrap it and start over. Of course, I feel that way about the entire government, not just the tax system.
QuoteLegalize and tax the hooch.....still one of the best ideas out there.
Ab-so-freakin'-lute-ly!!
Quote from: LOsborne on May 13, 2009, 09:51:51 PM
(sigh) The WIC program is for Women with Infants and Children. Very few women on SSI have infants and children. Those who pay income tax on social security do so because their income is sufficiently large to merit the tax. And you won't get any sympathy from me for having to pay for part of the Medicaid, because most of us don't get any free (or partially free) medical care. Medicaid recipients have already received subsidies for life's necessities. If they can afford luxuries (like that case of soda,) why aren't they spending the money things they actually need, instead of free-loading off the rest of us. You won't convince me, me. I still say let 'em drink OJ instead of Pepsi.
I know what WIC is. You just have no clue about this Social Security thing do you? If you want to be fully covered you have to buy supplemental insurance which can cost up to $300 or more per month and sometimes the monthly SS check is less than $1000. So it's approx. $100 pr month for pt B, which is prescriptions, and another approx $300 for supplemental which is $400 of the SS check off the top and what does that leave the retiree to live on??? Sometimes less than $500 pr month. Great you say???? Hum, maybe they're lucky enough to be able to still get around and own a car and own a house and maybe aren't one of the lucky ones who have it paid off. There's still utilities which are getting ridiculous and upkeep. Wow, what a great retirement. You would really have the guts to tell them forget the soda you like and drink water? Maybe you'll get lucky enough to have an income like that when you reach retirement age.
Actually I understand the Social Security system quite well. I'm still paying in, of course, but I look after my mother's financial affairs. Most people, including me, live on some kind of a budget. The point of a budget is to be able to pay for the things you must have, and still have money for the things you would like to have. I understand that people in poor health have more expenses, and therefore less disposable income than healthy people. In that case, doesn't your argument against taxing unhealthy substances ring false? Make unhealthy consumables more expensive, and logically, you wind up with a healthier older population.
Personally, I don't want the government to play daddy to me. I would rather see all consumables taxed. But I see a definite return on investment to making people pay out the @ss for stuff that rots their teeth, because then maybe they won't pay out the @ss for dental work. And if these people are indigent, then I won't pay out the @ss for their dental work.
Furthermore, if a person enters the Medicare age group in healthier condition, Part B is unnecessary, and perhaps even the supplement can be forgone.
Finally, I don't believe it is only luck that determines what funds we have available when we reach retirement. I believe intelligent planning plays a big part.
You know not everyone who drinks sodas has rotten teeth and not everyone who eats at fast food restaurants is obese. Not everyone who eats healthy is the proper weight or are they particularly healthy either. I can't wait until some of the taxes that are being implemented start affecting you which they obviously haven't yet.
Quote from: me on May 13, 2009, 11:24:36 PM
You know not everyone who drinks sodas has rotten teeth and not everyone who eats at fast food restaurants is obese. Not everyone who eats healthy is the proper weight or are they particularly healthy either. I can't wait until some of the taxes that are being implemented start affecting you which they obviously haven't yet.
The people who are not obese or have rotten teeth have not made these food choices a main staple of their diet either.
Damned well told, Kimmi.
Quote from: me on May 13, 2009, 11:24:36 PM
I can't wait until some of the taxes that are being implemented start affecting you which they obviously haven't yet.
That is the second time in this conversation that you have ended a post by wishing me ill fortune. This was the other:
"Maybe you'll get lucky enough to have an income like that when you reach retirement age." Is that your habitual method of persuasion? To call down "divine retribution" on someone who doesn't agree with you? Have a lot of success with that do you?
Here's a tip: if your rebuttal is going to consist of stomping around on the playground and hollering "You stink!" don't waste your time. In 20+ years of conflict resolution on the job, I have never seen that approach work.
But on the other hand you seem to have no compassion for those who happen to be less fortunate than you. I don't like paying taxes for those who chose to live on welfare and could be doing something better with their lives or overindulge but I also realize there are those who are just less fortunate and it will hurt them. I would not reply that way if your attitude didn't come across as holier than thou. What I'm saying is put yourself in the place of the older retiree who has worked hard all their lives but didn't pay much into Social Security to get a big check or wasn't able to save because of one reason or another and is barely making it, not because they were too lazy to work but because of circumstances beyond their control. The widow who never worked because she didn't have to who can only draw a portion of her husbands Social Security because she never paid in. Those disabled due to accidents or a genetic disease not caused by an unhealthy lifestyle. Are you going to tell them drink water 'cause you don't need those luxuries anyway. They've already been hit with higher utility bills which has shrunk their meager check why hurt them even more by taking away some of the things they might still be able to enjoy.
Quote from: me on May 14, 2009, 08:31:23 AM
I would not reply that way if your attitude didn't come across as holier than thou.
I am not responsible for inflections your imagination puts into my typed words. If you feel threatened by something I say, show me the words which led you this assumption, and I will attempt to explain.
You don't know me, or anything about me. Do not assign attitudes to my expressions that support your prejudices. Go back and read the posts paying attention to the words, instead of what you assume to be the expression on my face. Usually that expression is a slight smile. What is your expression when you type?
Quote from: kimmi on May 14, 2009, 06:54:08 AM
The people who are not obese or have rotten teeth have not made these food choices a main staple of their diet either.
what happened to "pro-choice".... :confused:
maybe we should TAX abortions....and that money can go to our "healthcare plan"...
Quote from: LOsborne on May 13, 2009, 09:29:08 PM
As things stand now, T-bone steak costs more than hamburger. We don't go all bleeding heart because the lower income people can't eat steak at every meal. What's the difference? These "lower income" folks you are so concerned about pay little if any income tax. Yet they enjoy the benefits of police and fire protection, public education, and a vigilant military that those of us in more comfortable circumstances pay for. I have no problem asking them to carry a little of the freight -- especially if they can opt out by deciding to drink ice water instead of Pepsi.
This statement for one.
Quote from: me on May 13, 2009, 10:06:45 PM
I know what WIC is. You just have no clue about this Social Security thing do you? If you want to be fully covered you have to buy supplemental insurance which can cost up to $300 or more per month and sometimes the monthly SS check is less than $1000. So it's approx. $100 pr month for pt B, which is prescriptions, and another approx $300 for supplemental which is $400 of the SS check off the top and what does that leave the retiree to live on??? Sometimes less than $500 pr month. Great you say???? Hum, maybe they're lucky enough to be able to still get around and own a car and own a house and maybe aren't one of the lucky ones who have it paid off. There's still utilities which are getting ridiculous and upkeep. Wow, what a great retirement. You would really have the guts to tell them forget the soda you like and drink water? Maybe you'll get lucky enough to have an income like that when you reach retirement age.
I certainly feel bad for the people you describe above...and we all know a handful of them. But, frankly, they are in a situation of their own making. Social security was never intended to be the sole income for a comfy and cushy retirement.
Quote from: Gryphon on May 14, 2009, 08:57:08 AM
I certainly feel bad for the people you describe above...and we all know a handful of them. But, frankly, they are in a situation of their own making. Social security was never intended to be the sole income for a comfy and cushy retirement.
I realize that but there are those who either were not able to save or lost everything they had saved due to circumstances beyond their control.
I think this is the most retarded way of generating federal revenue....letting a bunch of pompass asses decided what is best for Americans and then taxing them for their pet projects...
where does it stop....
taxing video's?...because they encourage sitting on your butt and ususally partake in a snack that they may not need?
taxing pizza's? or maybe just a pepperoni tax?
pancakes tax?
M&M Tax?
NFL Tax?....no more couch patato's on Sunday afternoon?
maybe a calorie tax..... :yes:
Then that will lead to a Tax Credit for those who join a health spa....or maybe a cauliflower tax exempt system for eating this three times a day.....of course if you add cheese it reduces the tax rate.....
How about Obama hiring acorn to go door to door and do a refridgerator check and based upon the amount of trans fats, sugars and preservatives will determine your tax rate for that fical year...
I feel so much better...I have Hope! :yes:
How about a tax on breeding? :yes:
Quote from: Exterminator on May 14, 2009, 09:51:50 AM
How about a tax on breeding? :yes:
Oh, how about a NASCAR Tax? or a mobile home tax? or a tooth tax?..you get a tax break for every tooth that is STILL intact in your jaws?....or a tax for every non-running vehicle you have parked in your front yard?...
Call it the WT TAX? :yes:
What about a tax on Alcohol(all of it) This is a drain on our resources with sickness, absentism, DWI's and mental and physical abuse to others. I find it interesting that they ignore liquor as a source of tax. I don't know what their problem is, only the well off can afford to drink and it won't bother them financially!
Quote from: mcgonser on May 14, 2009, 10:17:52 AM
What about a tax on Alcohol(all of it) This is a drain on our resources with sickness, absentism, DWI's and mental and physical abuse to others. I find it interesting that they ignore liquor as a source of tax. I don't know what their problem is, only the well off can afford to drink and it won't bother them financially!
What are you, stupid?
There are already federal excise taxes on liquor, beer, etc.
Quote from: Gryphon on May 14, 2009, 11:44:13 AM
There are already federal excise taxes on liquor, beer, etc.
There already was taxes on tobacco and it did not stop them from raising them. I think we should make alcohol a luxury.
There's talk of raising the excise on liquor as well. I'd venture the health care costs associated with smoking are far higher than those associated with drinking.
Well, I would wager that alcohol causes more deaths and health care problems than Over eating. Soooooooooo!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 14, 2009, 09:37:20 AM
I think this is the most retarded way of generating federal revenue....letting a bunch of pompass asses decided what is best for Americans and then taxing them for their pet projects...
where does it stop....
taxing video's?...because they encourage sitting on your butt and ususally partake in a snack that they may not need?
taxing pizza's? or maybe just a pepperoni tax?
pancakes tax?
M&M Tax?
NFL Tax?....no more couch patato's on Sunday afternoon?
maybe a calorie tax..... :yes:
Then that will lead to a Tax Credit for those who join a health spa....or maybe a cauliflower tax exempt system for eating this three times a day.....of course if you add cheese it reduces the tax rate.....
How about Obama hiring acorn to go door to door and do a refridgerator check and based upon the amount of trans fats, sugars and preservatives will determine your tax rate for that fical year...
I feel so much better...I have Hope! :yes:
They would have to pay for a carbon tax credit for expelling more carbon dioxide into the air though. Haven't you heard that is also contributing to global warming now?
Quote from: mcgonser on May 14, 2009, 11:52:29 AM
Well, I would wager that alcohol causes more deaths and health care problems than Over eating. Soooooooooo!
You'd be wrong. ;D Obesity is poised to overtake smoking as the number one preventable cause of death.
Quote from: mcgonser on May 14, 2009, 11:52:29 AM
Well, I would wager that alcohol causes more deaths and health care problems than Over eating. Soooooooooo!
And you'd be dead wrong.
Quote from: Gryphon on May 14, 2009, 12:03:02 PM
You'd be wrong. ;D Obesity is poised to overtake smoking as the number one preventable cause of death.
Then maybe a Microbial and Toxic agents Tax...is killing 160,000 US citizens and they are a preventable death then..
we need a sex tax....cause that is killing over 20,000 in the U.S and has millions of health realted issues.....
this whole concept is ludicrious...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 14, 2009, 12:22:20 PM
Then maybe a Microbial and Toxic agents Tax...is killing 160,000 US citizens and they are a preventable death then..
we need a sex tax....cause that is killing over 20,000 in the U.S and has millions of health realted issues.....
this whole concept is ludicrious...
Please Henry don't give them any ideas...... :o
heck why we are on it.............if we would outlaw Male homosexual sex and intravenous drug use...we could nearly stamp out the AIDS virus.....but THAT is not going to happen.. :no:..and neither should TAXING everything under the SUN to give it to the crooked bureaucrats in Washington...
Quote from: me on May 14, 2009, 12:24:22 PM
Please Henry don't give them any ideas...... :o
no kidding........I would get busted for tax evasion for sure!!
http://www.america.gov/st/develop-english/2008/October/20081023115119abretnuh0.9323999.html
and this is not factoring in the deaths due to dui or dwi each year.
Quote from: mcgonser on May 14, 2009, 12:45:38 PM
http://www.america.gov/st/develop-english/2008/October/20081023115119abretnuh0.9323999.html
and this is not factoring in the deaths due to dui or dwi each year.
No one said alcohol isn't a major cause of preventable death but it's already heavily taxed; are you unaware of what the seal on a liquor bottle is for? That notwithstanding, it's still not as much of a problem as the fatties according to the CDC.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 14, 2009, 12:39:33 PM
no kidding........I would get busted for tax evasion for sure!!
If they tax by the inch, you shouldn't have a problem. :razz:
Quote from: Exterminator on May 14, 2009, 12:54:23 PM
If they tax by the inch, you shouldn't have a problem. :razz:
but that would mean that I would have to pay TWICE as much as you do!!... :razz:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 14, 2009, 12:56:38 PM
but that would mean that I would have to pay TWICE as much as you do!!... :razz:
That's not what she said.
Quote from: Exterminator on May 14, 2009, 12:57:35 PM
That's not what she said.
your own Mother said that?... :spooked:
Thanks for proving my point.
"Alcohol accounts for 3.7 percent of total global deaths and 4.4 percent of global disease, according to the WHO, and 140 million people throughout the world suffer from alcohol dependence."
The above from your study. (Granted your study is global)
Compare to: "In 2000, poor diet including obesity and physical inactivity caused 400,000 U.S. deaths -- more than 16 percent of all deaths and the No. 2 killer. That compares with 435,000 for tobacco, or 18 percent, as the top underlying killer."
http://www.doctorslounge.com/primary/articles/obesity_death/
Now unless there is a new math Im unaware of 16 percent is a heckuva lot larger than 3.7 percent.
Quote from: Gryphon on May 14, 2009, 01:01:48 PM
Thanks for proving my point.
"Alcohol accounts for 3.7 percent of total global deaths and 4.4 percent of global disease, according to the WHO, and 140 million people throughout the world suffer from alcohol dependence."
The above from your study. (Granted your study is global)
Compare to: "In 2000, poor diet including obesity and physical inactivity caused 400,000 U.S. deaths -- more than 16 percent of all deaths and the No. 2 killer. That compares with 435,000 for tobacco, or 18 percent, as the top underlying killer."
http://www.doctorslounge.com/primary/articles/obesity_death/
Now unless there is a new math Im unaware of 16 percent is a heckuva lot larger than 3.7 percent.
are you comparing 3.7% WORLD deaths to 16% US deaths?
Quote from: Gryphon on May 14, 2009, 01:01:48 PM
Now unless there is a new math Im unaware of 16 percent is a heckuva lot larger than 3.7 percent.
What? There's math?
(you might want to help Henry out; he seems to be having issues with measurements).
Quote from: Gryphon on May 14, 2009, 01:01:48 PM
Thanks for proving my point.
"Alcohol accounts for 3.7 percent of total global deaths and 4.4 percent of global disease, according to the WHO, and 140 million people throughout the world suffer from alcohol dependence."
The above from your study. (Granted your study is global)
Compare to: "In 2000, poor diet including obesity and physical inactivity caused 400,000 U.S. deaths -- more than 16 percent of all deaths and the No. 2 killer. That compares with 435,000 for tobacco, or 18 percent, as the top underlying killer."
http://www.doctorslounge.com/primary/articles/obesity_death/
Now unless there is a new math Im unaware of 16 percent is a heckuva lot larger than 3.7 percent.
then you are saying that
400,000 is a heckuva lot larger than 140 million ...help me out here Gryphon, because that is what it looks like you are implying.....am I mis-reading this?..
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 14, 2009, 01:25:26 PM
then you are saying that 400,000 is a heckuva lot larger than 140 million ...help me out here Gryphon, because that is what it looks like you are implying.....am I mis-reading this?..
Told you he was having problems with math. :biggrin:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 14, 2009, 01:04:51 PM
are you comparing 3.7% WORLD deaths to 16% US deaths?
yes Henry...we're talking about US taxes arent we? My numbers are for the US. Obesity causes 16 percent of US deaths. If you, or anyone else, can make whatever point mcgonser is reaching for by showing me something that says alcohol causes more than 16 percent of US deaths, Id be happy to take a look, but darned if I could find anything that came anywhere near that number.
If you dug a lil deeper in my article on US deaths, you might have seen this:
"The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435 000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400 000 deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85 000 deaths; 3.5%). Other actual causes of death were microbial agents (75 000), toxic agents (55 000), motor vehicle crashes (43 000), incidents involving firearms (29 000), sexual behaviors (20 000), and illicit use of drugs (17 000). "
And heres a lil graph that illustrates the same truth *in pictures!*
http://riskometer.org/pages/riskringsExposures.html
Now, does the poster wish to continue to labor under the delusion that alcohol causes more deaths than obesity?
Boy, you guys get touchy when it affects you huh? Hit a nerve did I?
Quote from: mcgonser on May 14, 2009, 01:57:24 PM
Boy, you guys get touchy when it affects you huh? Hit a nerve did I?
the only thing that hits a nerve with me are ill informed people who cant admit they are wrong.
;D
Quote from: Gryphon on May 14, 2009, 01:40:16 PM
yes Henry...we're talking about US taxes arent we? My numbers are for the US. Obesity causes 16 percent of US deaths. If you, or anyone else, can make whatever point mcgonser is reaching for by showing me something that says alcohol causes more than 16 percent of US deaths, Id be happy to take a look, but darned if I could find anything that came anywhere near that number.
btw, I was not disputing the facts....just the way you worded them...
I know Henry. And Im not disputing that alcohol is (if anything is) as "deserving" of a tax as cigarettes and soda pop--certainly it causes health problems and adds to our total health care bill.
Heavily tax birth (not breeding). Being born poses a 100% possibility of death. The less births...the less medical problems to be treated for any cause, the less deaths occur.
Quote from: pariann on May 14, 2009, 02:13:30 PM
Heavily tax birth (not breeding). Being born poses a 100% possibility of death. The less births...the less medical problems to be treated for any cause, the less deaths occur.
ya know pari....you are right...in about 75 years we would NOT have the problems that we have today!!... :yes: ;D
Pari for Prez!! ;D
Quote from: Gryphon on May 14, 2009, 02:02:51 PM
the only thing that hits a nerve with me are ill informed people who cant admit they are wrong.
;D
Thank you.
Quote from: Exterminator on May 14, 2009, 02:24:38 PM
Thank you.
Man Ex: Are you going to let him talk to you like that?
Im sure it was crystal clear who I was talking to.
The better question...is mcgonser ready to admit the error of this statement?
"Well, I would wager that alcohol causes more deaths and health care problems than Over eating. Soooooooooo!"
Quote from: mcgonser on May 14, 2009, 02:27:04 PM
Man Ex: Are you going to let him talk to you like that?
Act your age, not your IQ.
http://www.rachelelliott.org/Drunk_Driving_Statistics.html
Again you are not factoring or adding in the deaths and injuries caused by drunk driving. Which is caused by alcohol.
Quote from: mcgonser on May 14, 2009, 02:41:39 PM
http://www.rachelelliott.org/Drunk_Driving_Statistics.html
Again you are not factoring or adding in the deaths and injuries caused by drunk driving. Which is caused by alcohol.
Based on your link, it's still way behind the fatties.
Quote from: mcgonser on May 14, 2009, 02:41:39 PM
http://www.rachelelliott.org/Drunk_Driving_Statistics.html
Again you are not factoring or adding in the deaths and injuries caused by drunk driving. Which is caused by alcohol.
17,602
thats the number of people who died from drunk driving in the united states last year.
17,602 plus 85,000 (alcohol consumption deaths)= 102,602
102,602<400,000
=you're still wrong.
There you go bringing math into the conversation again!
Quote from: Exterminator on May 14, 2009, 03:02:31 PM
There you go bringing math into the conbversation again!
The what?
Quote from: me on May 14, 2009, 08:51:00 AM
This statement for one.
I have re-read the post, and others of mine, and I don't find even one emotionally laden word. If you choose to be rude in response, the fault does not lie with me (that's
myself, not
me). For future reference, when I post I am either teasing you, or speaking courteously. If I ever decide to be rude, you'll have no doubt as to my intention. I have made no personal attacks on you,
me, unless you count that
"You're no fun" post. At that point I was teasing, and I did in fact invite you along on the virtual trip. Teasing or courtesy will continue to be my mode of expression, unless you persist in personal attacks. At that point I will probably have to decide whether to simply ignore you, or too turn you into the butt of every joke I make.
For the most part I have enjoyed our discussions. However, I cannot tolerate gratuitous
ad hominem attacks made just because you can't think of any other way to rebut a point.
Quote from: Gryphon on May 14, 2009, 12:03:02 PM
You'd be wrong. ;D Obesity is poised to overtake smoking as the number one preventable cause of death.
Source, please.
Quote from: Gryphon on May 14, 2009, 01:01:48 PM
Compare to: "In 2000, poor diet including obesity and physical inactivity caused 400,000 U.S. deaths -- more than 16 percent of all deaths and the No. 2 killer. That compares with 435,000 for tobacco, or 18 percent, as the top underlying killer."
http://www.doctorslounge.com/primary/articles/obesity_death/
Now unless there is a new math Im unaware of 16 percent is a heckuva lot larger than 3.7 percent.
Never mind. And thank you.
Quote from: Gryphon on May 14, 2009, 02:35:29 PM
Im sure it was crystal clear who I was talking to.
The better question...is mcgonser ready to admit the error of this statement?
"Well, I would wager that alcohol causes more deaths and health care problems than Over eating. Soooooooooo!"
Did she bet a car? Better get it on paper, then, 'cause there are some terrible welchers on this forum.
Yer welcome. (And no we didnt actually make the bet. A darn shame, cause I would be collecting now) :biggrin:
Quote from: LOsborne on May 14, 2009, 07:03:43 PM
I have re-read the post, and others of mine, and I don't find even one emotionally laden word. If you choose to be rude in response, the fault does not lie with me (that's myself, not me). For future reference, when I post I am either teasing you, or speaking courteously. If I ever decide to be rude, you'll have no doubt as to my intention. I have made no personal attacks on you, me, unless you count that "You're no fun" post. At that point I was teasing, and I did in fact invite you along on the virtual trip. Teasing or courtesy will continue to be my mode of expression, unless you persist in personal attacks. At that point I will probably have to decide whether to simply ignore you, or too turn you into the butt of every joke I make.
For the most part I have enjoyed our discussions. However, I cannot tolerate gratuitous ad hominem attacks made just because you can't think of any other way to rebut a point.
I didn't take it as being aimed at me or rude it just was worded in such a way as to sound like you had no compassion for those less fortunate.
Maybe I'm picking up bad habits from Ex with my choice of wording sometimes. I don't wish anyone ill will I guess I just said that because it seemed like you were not understanding what I was saying about people who were classed as lower income through no fault of their own who are being hurt by all this taxing on some of the so called "sins".
"classed as lower income through no fault of their own "
what do you mean?
There are those who chose to live on welfare because they don't want to work who are lower income by choice. There are those who are working hard but can't seem to get ahead because they either lack the education or the ability to get the higher paying jobs. And before you say "well that makes it their fault" someone has to do those lower paying jobs.
Quote from: me on May 14, 2009, 09:37:38 PM
Maybe I'm picking up bad habits from Ex with my choice of wording sometimes.
Because I have such influence on you? Puh-lease. Learn to take responsibility for your own failings.
Quote from: Exterminator on May 15, 2009, 08:20:40 AM
Because I have such influence on you? Puh-lease. Learn to take responsibility for your own failings.
Hey, if no one else has to take responsibility for anything why should I? :razz: Ain't it the goin' thing to blame everything on everyone else now? :biggrin:
But....it's not MY fault that I'm in the 'no-income' catagory. Really. I have 10 fingers and they are all pointed at someone else.....I know I didn't get my own self in this situation.
Quote from: me on May 15, 2009, 08:30:30 AM
Hey, if no one else has to take responsibility for anything why should I? :razz: Ain't it the goin' thing to blame everything on everyone else now? :biggrin:
In your world, I'm sure it is.
Mine too. :wink: