When will you New Yorkers stand up to your Nanny Mayor? - Page 6

Warfish · 06-13-2012, 12:26 PM

[QUOTE=chiefst2000;4490486]The reality is that now that Obamacare changed health care from private to public in terms of the expenses we will inevitably need to begin legislating healthy choices and penalizing unhealthy behaviors.[/quote]

The mandate, IMO, is unacceptable.

And the result ou cite above, IMO, is equally unacceptable.

JetPotato · 06-13-2012, 12:57 PM

[QUOTE=chiefst2000;4490486]The reality is that now that Obamacare changed health care from private to public in terms of the expenses we will inevitably need to begin legislating healthy choices and penalizing unhealthy behaviors. This is the natural and necessary evolution when you socialize healthcare. I can see more comprehensive bans or penalties on unhealthy behaviors as a natural progression. Fried foods might face a ban or at least a tax penalty. Cakes and sweets should have a special tax penalty. Also things like bags of potato chips and the like all banned or taxes heavily. Someone needs to pay for the medical care of the fatties. If healthcare was private it would be different. People would and should in that situation be allowed the freedom to choose how to eat and how to behave. If we are going to do the Obamacare socialized thing the it is just natural that anyone acting in a way that is not deemed healthful by the majority should be penalized or banned from doing so.[/QUOTE]

Was it you who in another tgread just advocated for a consumption tax to pay for public health options (which I agree is a right step in getting a good system in place)?

If so, how would you feel about a scaled tax on consumables based on health impact?

Example
0% sales tax on vegetables, tea
1% sales tax on fruit, natural juice, donuts
2% sales tax on chicken
3% sales tax on coffee, beef
5% tax on processed foods, alcohol
8% tax on cigarettes and Paula Deen dishes

copernicus · 06-13-2012, 01:05 PM

[QUOTE=baldnuts1;4481059]The sin-tax sheriff is back on the job.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is proposing another ban on unhealthy foods. This time, he wants to outlaw super-sized sodas and other sugary drinks.

Read more: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/31/nyc-plans-to-ban-sales-sugary-drinks-over-16-ounces/#ixzz1wT0OQ0x4[/url][/QUOTE]

Agree 100%! Cant believe in America we aloud this person to strong arm his way into a third term. Totally unAmerican.

From a NYC teacher's point of view, his mayoral control has massacred the public school system far worse than when the actual community had a say in things, and thats saying a lot.

Seems like Americans only equate success with money but maybe its time to elect people with a closer income and mindset to the working public.

chiefst2000 · 06-13-2012, 01:30 PM

[QUOTE=JetPotato;4490716]Was it you who in another tgread just advocated for a consumption tax to pay for public health options (which I agree is a right step in getting a good system in place)?

If so, how would you feel about a scaled tax on consumables based on health impact?

Example
0% sales tax on vegetables, tea
1% sales tax on fruit, natural juice, donuts
2% sales tax on chicken
3% sales tax on coffee, beef
5% tax on processed foods, alcohol
8% tax on cigarettes and Paula Deen dishes[/QUOTE]

I agree with the concept of higher consumption tax on "sin" items but in general any consumption or vat should leave out things like food. I'm ok with taxing things like soda and alcohol cigarettes and general purchases. I would leave out things like Beef, Chicken, Fruit, Juice and the like. I'm also concerned with providing the Federal Government a new revenue stream. There would need to be measures in place to insure that the funds collected would go directly toward healthcare and not as SS is where they just put the money in the general fund.

SizzleBear287 · 06-13-2012, 06:53 PM

[QUOTE=JetPotato;4490716]Was it you who in another tgread just advocated for a consumption tax to pay for public health options (which I agree is a right step in getting a good system in place)?

If so, how would you feel about a scaled tax on consumables based on health impact?

Example
0% sales tax on vegetables, tea
1% sales tax on fruit, natural juice, donuts
2% sales tax on chicken
3% sales tax on coffee, beef
5% tax on processed foods, alcohol
8% tax on cigarettes and Paula Deen dishes[/QUOTE]

Donuts healthier than chicken??? :eek:

You must know a lot of people who don't eat breakfast.

palmetto defender · 06-14-2012, 09:52 AM

What about milk shakes at fast food (or other) places. Whoa on calories.

Suggest all the health crazies on here take a look at labels. I always have but because of this thread have intensified (much to my wife's annoyance).

Pasta with sauce? Doritos. Whole milk? Tuna sandwich. Macaroni or potato salad or cole slaw. Cheese. Pizza (oh the horror).

Barbecue sauce for burgers at home. I lke 73% lean BTW. Great taste.

Is Tropicana OJ ok. Lots of cals. Gatorade? HS coaches willl all be charged with felonies (distibution of a controlled substance).

Unless ALL unhealthy things are banned or controlled, subject to a selective enforcement suit.

I always laugh how some schools ban peanut butter because one kid in a class MAY be allergic. Then don't eat MY sandwich.

But hey, let's legalize drugs of all types.

JetPotato · 06-14-2012, 10:04 AM

[QUOTE=SizzleBear287;4491041]Donuts healthier than chicken??? :eek:

You must know a lot of people who don't eat breakfast.[/QUOTE]

Donuts = superfood

It's science.

Trades · 06-14-2012, 10:51 AM

[QUOTE=chiefst2000;4490750]I agree with the concept of higher consumption tax on "sin" items but in general any consumption or vat should leave out things like food. I'm ok with taxing things like soda and alcohol cigarettes and general purchases. I would leave out things like Beef, Chicken, Fruit, Juice and the like. I'm also concerned with providing the Federal Government a new revenue stream. There would need to be measures in place to insure that the funds collected would go directly toward healthcare and not as SS is where they just put the money in the general fund.[/QUOTE]

Yes because the government just knows what is best for us. Forget that the government is the one that moved us to a primarily processed corn and grain (carbohydrate) diet by subsidizing the foods to make them cheap. The government needs to stay out of personal decisions!

Warfish · 06-14-2012, 10:57 AM

[QUOTE=chiefst2000;4490750]I agree with the concept of higher consumption tax on "sin" items[/QUOTE]

:eek:

More Govt., less freedom.

What I eat or drink is none of your business and not yours to tax at a greater rate because YOU object to it.

Since when is a social-engineering tax system to penalize "unacceptable" behavior of the individual a conservative ideal?

06-13-2012, 12:26 PM	#101
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=chiefst2000;4490486]The reality is that now that Obamacare changed health care from private to public in terms of the expenses we will inevitably need to begin legislating healthy choices and penalizing unhealthy behaviors.[/quote] The mandate, IMO, is unacceptable. And the result ou cite above, IMO, is equally unacceptable.

06-13-2012, 12:57 PM	#102
JetPotato fermenting Hall Of Fame Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New York, NY Posts: 12,142	[QUOTE=chiefst2000;4490486]The reality is that now that Obamacare changed health care from private to public in terms of the expenses we will inevitably need to begin legislating healthy choices and penalizing unhealthy behaviors. This is the natural and necessary evolution when you socialize healthcare. I can see more comprehensive bans or penalties on unhealthy behaviors as a natural progression. Fried foods might face a ban or at least a tax penalty. Cakes and sweets should have a special tax penalty. Also things like bags of potato chips and the like all banned or taxes heavily. Someone needs to pay for the medical care of the fatties. If healthcare was private it would be different. People would and should in that situation be allowed the freedom to choose how to eat and how to behave. If we are going to do the Obamacare socialized thing the it is just natural that anyone acting in a way that is not deemed healthful by the majority should be penalized or banned from doing so.[/QUOTE] Was it you who in another tgread just advocated for a consumption tax to pay for public health options (which I agree is a right step in getting a good system in place)? If so, how would you feel about a scaled tax on consumables based on health impact? Example 0% sales tax on vegetables, tea 1% sales tax on fruit, natural juice, donuts 2% sales tax on chicken 3% sales tax on coffee, beef 5% tax on processed foods, alcohol 8% tax on cigarettes and Paula Deen dishes

06-13-2012, 01:05 PM	#103
copernicus All Pro Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 7,130	[QUOTE=baldnuts1;4481059]The sin-tax sheriff is back on the job. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is proposing another ban on unhealthy foods. This time, he wants to outlaw super-sized sodas and other sugary drinks. Read more: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/31/nyc-plans-to-ban-sales-sugary-drinks-over-16-ounces/#ixzz1wT0OQ0x4[/url][/QUOTE] Agree 100%! Cant believe in America we aloud this person to strong arm his way into a third term. Totally unAmerican. From a NYC teacher's point of view, his mayoral control has massacred the public school system far worse than when the actual community had a say in things, and thats saying a lot. Seems like Americans only equate success with money but maybe its time to elect people with a closer income and mindset to the working public.

06-13-2012, 01:30 PM	#104
chiefst2000 Champion of Common Sense All Pro Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 5,838	[QUOTE=JetPotato;4490716]Was it you who in another tgread just advocated for a consumption tax to pay for public health options (which I agree is a right step in getting a good system in place)? If so, how would you feel about a scaled tax on consumables based on health impact? Example 0% sales tax on vegetables, tea 1% sales tax on fruit, natural juice, donuts 2% sales tax on chicken 3% sales tax on coffee, beef 5% tax on processed foods, alcohol 8% tax on cigarettes and Paula Deen dishes[/QUOTE] I agree with the concept of higher consumption tax on "sin" items but in general any consumption or vat should leave out things like food. I'm ok with taxing things like soda and alcohol cigarettes and general purchases. I would leave out things like Beef, Chicken, Fruit, Juice and the like. I'm also concerned with providing the Federal Government a new revenue stream. There would need to be measures in place to insure that the funds collected would go directly toward healthcare and not as SS is where they just put the money in the general fund.

06-13-2012, 06:53 PM	#105
SizzleBear287 Veteran Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,414	[QUOTE=JetPotato;4490716]Was it you who in another tgread just advocated for a consumption tax to pay for public health options (which I agree is a right step in getting a good system in place)? If so, how would you feel about a scaled tax on consumables based on health impact? Example 0% sales tax on vegetables, tea 1% sales tax on fruit, natural juice, donuts 2% sales tax on chicken 3% sales tax on coffee, beef 5% tax on processed foods, alcohol 8% tax on cigarettes and Paula Deen dishes[/QUOTE] Donuts healthier than chicken??? :eek: You must know a lot of people who don't eat breakfast.

06-14-2012, 09:52 AM	#106
palmetto defender All League Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 4,683	What about milk shakes at fast food (or other) places. Whoa on calories. Suggest all the health crazies on here take a look at labels. I always have but because of this thread have intensified (much to my wife's annoyance). Pasta with sauce? Doritos. Whole milk? Tuna sandwich. Macaroni or potato salad or cole slaw. Cheese. Pizza (oh the horror). Barbecue sauce for burgers at home. I lke 73% lean BTW. Great taste. Is Tropicana OJ ok. Lots of cals. Gatorade? HS coaches willl all be charged with felonies (distibution of a controlled substance). Unless ALL unhealthy things are banned or controlled, subject to a selective enforcement suit. I always laugh how some schools ban peanut butter because one kid in a class MAY be allergic. Then don't eat MY sandwich. But hey, let's legalize drugs of all types.

06-14-2012, 10:04 AM	#107
JetPotato fermenting Hall Of Fame Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New York, NY Posts: 12,142	[QUOTE=SizzleBear287;4491041]Donuts healthier than chicken??? :eek: You must know a lot of people who don't eat breakfast.[/QUOTE] Donuts = superfood It's science.

06-14-2012, 10:51 AM	#108
Trades Jets Insider VIP Join Date: May 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,558	[QUOTE=chiefst2000;4490750]I agree with the concept of higher consumption tax on "sin" items but in general any consumption or vat should leave out things like food. I'm ok with taxing things like soda and alcohol cigarettes and general purchases. I would leave out things like Beef, Chicken, Fruit, Juice and the like. I'm also concerned with providing the Federal Government a new revenue stream. There would need to be measures in place to insure that the funds collected would go directly toward healthcare and not as SS is where they just put the money in the general fund.[/QUOTE] Yes because the government just knows what is best for us. Forget that the government is the one that moved us to a primarily processed corn and grain (carbohydrate) diet by subsidizing the foods to make them cheap. The government needs to stay out of personal decisions!

06-14-2012, 10:57 AM	#109
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=chiefst2000;4490750]I agree with the concept of higher consumption tax on "sin" items[/QUOTE] :eek: More Govt., less freedom. What I eat or drink is none of your business and not yours to tax at a greater rate because YOU object to it. Since when is a social-engineering tax system to penalize "unacceptable" behavior of the individual a conservative ideal?