Not really a tax on being fat, but just taxing food/drink that make people fat.
How much more re-damn-diculous can you get??
quote:
Reynar said this about your mom:
How much more re-damn-diculous can you get??
Tax the gays.
quote:
Reynar wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
http://www.bangornews.com/editorialnews/article.cfm?ID=426887/Not really a tax on being fat, but just taxing food/drink that make people fat.
How much more re-damn-diculous can you get??
Well, you know, Suddar told me that Maine is full of overweight people. But I guess that it is their choice to be fat.
It is held in thought
only by the understanding
of the Wind.
quote:
Puggy said this about your mom:
It gives people more initiative to stop buying unhealthy foods and start eating better, I dont see whats wrong with that...
The fact that you should be able to eat whatever you want to maybe?
i dont go there at all anyway. good thing michigan doesnt have this tax. nobody would live here
It's too bad the people who would be affected by this the most can't fit in the box to vote against it, but THAT'S DEMOCRACY! 
quote:
So quoth Naimah:
The fact that you should be able to eat whatever you want to maybe?
There is no restriction of personal freedom here. You are not barred from partaking in it, simply because it is a greater strain on your wallet.
quote:
Pvednesing:
There is no restriction of personal freedom here. You are not barred from partaking in it, simply because it is a greater strain on your wallet.
Unfairly extorting those who choose to partake in a certain lifestyle more than others is just as much an infringement on individual freedom as an outright ban on said lifestyle.
It's like suggesting a "muslim tax" or a "black tax" or (dare I suggest!) banning gay marriage. Penalty taxing isn't any less a violation of rights than a ban, it's just easier to swallow. However the population of Maine, being a predominantly liberal state, likely places little value on individual freedom. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 08-06-2004 at 04:43 AM.
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Puggy who doth quote:
It gives people more initiative to stop buying unhealthy foods and start eating better, I dont see whats wrong with that...
So maybe we should impliment a steep video game tax to give kids more initiative to go outside and play, because doing so is healthier. Sound good?
I say go for it, force compaines to make healther food cheaper and more aviable rather than buggers the cheapest food to eat outside of ramen noodles. Maybe if the FDA said that beef has alot of carbs in it....
quote:
ACES! Another post by Maradon!:
Unfairly extorting those who choose to partake in a certain lifestyle more than others is just as much an infringement on individual freedom as an outright ban on said lifestyle.It's like suggesting a "muslim tax" or a "black tax" or (dare I suggest!) banning gay marriage. Penalty taxing isn't any less a violation of rights than a ban, it's just easier to swallow. However the population of Maine, being a predominantly liberal state, likely places little value on individual freedom.
Suggesting that a higher price on unhealthy foods is restricting your freedom to partake in them is like me suggesting that DeBiers are restricting my freedom to partake in diamonds, or that Boeing are restricting my freedom to partake in a private jet. Just because I cannot afford them, (well I can afford diamonds, but I have better things to do with my money at present) does not mean my rights to them have been lost, because if I cannot afford to purchase them I have no right to them anyway. Whereas if private jets and diamonds were banned, then that freedom would have been violated. Pvednes fucked around with this message on 08-06-2004 at 05:29 AM.
No, it is not, because you are in no way restricted in your options. A ban on cigarettes, for example, would have the effect of cutting down on the number of smokers, but would be restricting personal freedoms. Taxing a packet of cigarrettes to the price of a bottle of whisky would have the same effect, but would NOT restrict personal freedoms because one can still legally and easily buy a packet of cigarrettes.
quote:
Maradon! obviously shouldn't have said:
So maybe we should impliment a steep video game tax to give kids more initiative to go outside and play, because doing so is healthier. Sound good?
Poorly thought out, it being that it is not the kids that actually buy the video games, but otherwise, yes, it does.
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Pvednes said this:
No, it is not, because you are in no way restricted in your options. A ban on cigarettes, for example, would have the effect of cutting down on the number of smokers, but would be restricting personal freedoms. Taxing a packet of cigarrettes to the price of a bottle of whisky would have the same effect, but would NOT restrict personal freedoms because one can still legally and easily buy a packet of cigarrettes.Suggesting that a higher price on unhealthy foods is restricting your freedom to partake in them is like me suggesting that DeBiers are restricting my freedom to partake in diamonds, or that Boeing are restricting my freedom to partake in a private jet.
Just because I cannot afford them, (well I can afford diamonds, but I have better things to do with my money at present) does not mean my rights to them have been lost, because if I cannot afford to purchase them I have no right to them anyway. Whereas if private jets and diamonds were banned, then that freedom would have been violated.
Now you're talking about private industry. Private companies can do whatever they want with their prices (for the most part). We are talking about state sanctioned regulation on "stuff that we deem is bad for you". How much more socialist can you get? Reynar fucked around with this message on 08-06-2004 at 11:03 AM.
quote:
Reynar had this to say about the Spice Girls:
Now you're talking about private industry. Private companies can do whatever they want with their prices (for the most part). We are talking about state sanctioned regulation on "stuff that we deem is bad for you". How much more socialist can you get?
Well, the economy could be owned and run in the entirety by a totalitarian dictatorship, but you'll notice that is neither my suggestion, or at all relevant to the discussion.
