Originally Posted By: CivicFan
We'll see about that when you reach age 65.
Yes we will.
We'll see about that when you reach age 65.
Yes we will.
Denmark introduces fat tax
- Thread starter crinkles
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
Food is generally excluded from sales tax.
Not around here. Same rate as other retail sales. State tax of 4% plus county & city.
Food is generally excluded from sales tax.
Not around here. Same rate as other retail sales. State tax of 4% plus county & city.
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
Food is generally excluded from sales tax.
Here "essentials" are excluded from sales tax. Vegetables arent taxed, chocolate milk is.
Fuel is an essential, yet you pay sales tax on the fuel and other excise, yes, a tax on a tax. Also, woman's monthly sanitation products are taxed even though essential. My wife says the govt must think all a woman needs is a rag...
Food is generally excluded from sales tax.
Here "essentials" are excluded from sales tax. Vegetables arent taxed, chocolate milk is.
Fuel is an essential, yet you pay sales tax on the fuel and other excise, yes, a tax on a tax. Also, woman's monthly sanitation products are taxed even though essential. My wife says the govt must think all a woman needs is a rag...
The "expert" politicians think you can tax your way into a utopia. If not then:
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
The flip side would be to deny government provided health care to people who do not follow reasonably healthy lifestyle.
Just let them die because they didn't conform to what temporary politicians define as utopia. Death panels indeed.....
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
The flip side would be to deny government provided health care to people who do not follow reasonably healthy lifestyle.
Just let them die because they didn't conform to what temporary politicians define as utopia. Death panels indeed.....
Kestas
Staff member
I see Denmark is placing the tax at the source - foods high in saturated fat.
For those that speak of penalizing heavy people, how would "heavy" be determined?... and by who? Some people are obviously obese. Most others fall into a gray area. Would a 260-lb linebacker be considered obese? How about the 260-lb fan (same height) in the stands?
Food is easily measured, people not so much.
For those that speak of penalizing heavy people, how would "heavy" be determined?... and by who? Some people are obviously obese. Most others fall into a gray area. Would a 260-lb linebacker be considered obese? How about the 260-lb fan (same height) in the stands?
Food is easily measured, people not so much.
Here in the US, there are MASSIVE subsidies and protections for sugar/corn syrup growers, and then the politicians that vote for these subsidies go out and advocate a sin tax on candy and soda.....
It's insane.
It's insane.
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
The government already does with tobacco tax.
Tax on one hand....then try and put the tobacco farmers out of business. Governments like that are just grand.
Don't agree with taxing a commodity any heavier than is appropriate for any other one.
Tobacco is nothing but harmful substance, that increase medical expense for everyone. Why shouldn't they be taxed higher? Even health insurance is starting to penalize smokers because they cost more than the non smokers.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
The government already does with tobacco tax.
Tax on one hand....then try and put the tobacco farmers out of business. Governments like that are just grand.
Don't agree with taxing a commodity any heavier than is appropriate for any other one.
Tobacco is nothing but harmful substance, that increase medical expense for everyone. Why shouldn't they be taxed higher? Even health insurance is starting to penalize smokers because they cost more than the non smokers.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
The "expert" politicians think you can tax your way into a utopia. If not then:
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
The flip side would be to deny government provided health care to people who do not follow reasonably healthy lifestyle.
Just let them die because they didn't conform to what temporary politicians define as utopia. Death panels indeed.....
I though you agree that people should be responsible for their own health and pay for the consequence in your small government believe. So in your view why should other people subsidize them?
The "expert" politicians think you can tax your way into a utopia. If not then:
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
The flip side would be to deny government provided health care to people who do not follow reasonably healthy lifestyle.
Just let them die because they didn't conform to what temporary politicians define as utopia. Death panels indeed.....
I though you agree that people should be responsible for their own health and pay for the consequence in your small government believe. So in your view why should other people subsidize them?
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
I though you agree that people should be responsible for their own health and pay for the consequence in your small government believe. So in your view why should other people subsidize them?
As you say in your first post, that is why private insurance is charging higher rates. Of course, there is a contract involved in private insurance, where both parties come to an agreement about cost and payout.
There is no such agreement with government as it is under no obligation to use the money it collects for "health insurance" on that item. The differences are vast. Taxes like this usually just become a slush fund for politicians to buy votes with.
I though you agree that people should be responsible for their own health and pay for the consequence in your small government believe. So in your view why should other people subsidize them?
As you say in your first post, that is why private insurance is charging higher rates. Of course, there is a contract involved in private insurance, where both parties come to an agreement about cost and payout.
There is no such agreement with government as it is under no obligation to use the money it collects for "health insurance" on that item. The differences are vast. Taxes like this usually just become a slush fund for politicians to buy votes with.
But citizens do have a choice of buying around taxed items. You said it very well that high tax reduce demand and low tax increase demand, in other posts. This is not about collecting money, it is about deterring higher expense due to unhealthy food intake.
Quote:
This is not about collecting money, it is about deterring higher expense due to unhealthy food intake.
So the government is to reduce the living standards of its people so as to reduce its own expenses?
Sounds like the very definition of greed.
Quote:
You said it very well that high tax reduce demand and low tax increase demand
So low taxes are good for the economy? Who knew!
This is not about collecting money, it is about deterring higher expense due to unhealthy food intake.
So the government is to reduce the living standards of its people so as to reduce its own expenses?
Sounds like the very definition of greed.
Quote:
You said it very well that high tax reduce demand and low tax increase demand
So low taxes are good for the economy? Who knew!
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
This is not about collecting money, it is about deterring higher expense due to unhealthy food intake.
So the government is to reduce the living standards of its people so as to reduce its own expenses?
Sounds like the very definition of greed.
Do you call subsidizing health care expense (via higher public health cost or insurance cost) that will give you a heart attack, a higher standard of living?
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
You said it very well that high tax reduce demand and low tax increase demand
So low taxes are good for the economy? Who knew!
Low tax is always good, it is how you pay for the low tax (higher tax elsewhere, or borrowing and kicking the can down the road, or financing a bubble that will pop later) that's the problem.
Quote:
This is not about collecting money, it is about deterring higher expense due to unhealthy food intake.
So the government is to reduce the living standards of its people so as to reduce its own expenses?
Sounds like the very definition of greed.
Do you call subsidizing health care expense (via higher public health cost or insurance cost) that will give you a heart attack, a higher standard of living?
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
You said it very well that high tax reduce demand and low tax increase demand
So low taxes are good for the economy? Who knew!
Low tax is always good, it is how you pay for the low tax (higher tax elsewhere, or borrowing and kicking the can down the road, or financing a bubble that will pop later) that's the problem.
Quote:
Do you call subsidizing health care expense (via higher public health cost or insurance cost) that will give you a heart attack, a higher standard of living?
Say what?
Do you call subsidizing health care expense (via higher public health cost or insurance cost) that will give you a heart attack, a higher standard of living?
Say what?
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Do you call subsidizing health care expense (via higher public health cost or insurance cost) for food that will give you a heart attack, a higher standard of living?
Say what?
Who is paying for the ER treatment of heart attack patients? and who's paying for the insulin shots for diabetic patients?
My bad, I should read what I posted earlier (typo, etc).
Quote:
Do you call subsidizing health care expense (via higher public health cost or insurance cost) for food that will give you a heart attack, a higher standard of living?
Say what?
Who is paying for the ER treatment of heart attack patients? and who's paying for the insulin shots for diabetic patients?
My bad, I should read what I posted earlier (typo, etc).
Last edited:
Quote:
Who is paying for the ER treatment of heart attack patients? and who's paying for the insulin shots for diabetic patients?
Patient, insurance or government. Not sure of your point? That a fat populace increases overall costs? So do people driving cars. High heels cause foot problems. Computers cause Carpel tunnel. Should we ban or sin tax those things as well?
Where do you stop?
Who is paying for the ER treatment of heart attack patients? and who's paying for the insulin shots for diabetic patients?
Patient, insurance or government. Not sure of your point? That a fat populace increases overall costs? So do people driving cars. High heels cause foot problems. Computers cause Carpel tunnel. Should we ban or sin tax those things as well?
Where do you stop?
Quote:
Do you call subsidizing health care expense (via higher public health cost or insurance cost) that will give you a heart attack, a higher standard of living?
The road to [hades] is paved with good intentions.
Gasoline tax was supposed to pay for new roads....it doesn't.
The Lottery (which in and of itself is a volutary "poor tax") was supposed to fund our schools. It doesn't.
There are so many taxes already that are supposed to do one thing but do not.
And Scandanavian countries already already have a hugely oppressive tax rate.
One of the people I attended college with was a Swede. He had immigrated to Canada and then to the United States. Why? They care for you from cradle to grave in Sweden.
Taxes....too much of his income went to taxes.
And who decides what gets taxed? Avocados are fattening. Do they get taxed the same as herring or Twinkies?
Do you call subsidizing health care expense (via higher public health cost or insurance cost) that will give you a heart attack, a higher standard of living?
The road to [hades] is paved with good intentions.
Gasoline tax was supposed to pay for new roads....it doesn't.
The Lottery (which in and of itself is a volutary "poor tax") was supposed to fund our schools. It doesn't.
There are so many taxes already that are supposed to do one thing but do not.
And Scandanavian countries already already have a hugely oppressive tax rate.
One of the people I attended college with was a Swede. He had immigrated to Canada and then to the United States. Why? They care for you from cradle to grave in Sweden.
Taxes....too much of his income went to taxes.
And who decides what gets taxed? Avocados are fattening. Do they get taxed the same as herring or Twinkies?
- Status
Similar threads
