What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

We should have more sin taxes (1 Viewer)

Tax the hell out of the "bad" stuff that people will never stop using in mass quantities.  Smokes, booze, fast food, lottery winnings.......................

 
My favorite part of the soda tax in illinois was how they first wanted to roll it out to distributors. They then changed their mind because they said that this would just be passed on to consumers via higher prices. So instead they rolled it out to consumers...

Phewwwww. Consumers almost got hosed there. 

(I realize the whole thing got repealed eventually anyway)

 
At some point in time (probably the day after the United States of America was founded)

there were people that thought the gov't should be in charge of everything

those people were and continue to be the  ones that disregard the idea of inalienable rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, freedom of religion, right to own guns, right to privacy, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press  etc......

pretty sure sin taxes on food to force people to eat better while not technically unconstitutional, is against the idea of general freedom the country has been enjoying for a long time.

 
ghostguy123 said:
Tax the hell out of the "bad" stuff that people will never stop using in mass quantities.  Smokes, booze, fast food, lottery winnings.......................
Click to expand...
From the Sales Tax Handbook:

In Ohio, cigarettes are subject to a state excise tax of $1.60 per pack of 20. Cigarettes are also subject to Ohio sales tax of approximately $0.37 per pack, which adds up to a total tax per pack of $1.97.

The average cost of a pack of cigarettes in Ohio is $6.10, which is the 23rd highest in the United States.

So, 30%+ for cigarettes is not enough?

 
Da Guru said:
If everybody buys a Tesla and quits drinking beer there will be no tax revenue coming in.   Then healthy things like gym memberships, kale and oatmeal will have to be taxed.
Click to expand...
You know as well as I do that neither of these things will actually happen, though.  We tax the crap out of cigarettes, but still have about 15% of the adult population smoking.  Also, we'd have a pretty big benefit to no longer needing foreign oil, or any oil for that matter.

 
tommyboy said:
At some point in time (probably the day after the United States of America was founded)

there were people that thought the gov't should be in charge of everything

those people were and continue to be the  ones that disregard the idea of inalienable rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, freedom of religion, right to own guns, right to privacy, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press  etc......

pretty sure sin taxes on food to force people to eat better while not technically unconstitutional, is against the idea of general freedom the country has been enjoying for a long time.
Click to expand...
In this country, you can do or say whatever you want.  As long as we all agree with it.

 
TheIronSheik said:
I'd say they are for both.  And that's why they are dumb.  Philly instituted a Soda Tax because it will help fund the schools that are in desperate need of money.  But the tax was put on soda because they feel that too many people are drinking sugary drinks and it's bad for the health of people. 

So which is it?  Pay for schools or better health?  Because if the tax works, schools don't get funded.  But if the pull in a lot of money, then the tax isn't working.  

The truth is the tax is not meant to persuade people from buying a certain item.  It's just a tax that is levied on certain groups of people.  
Click to expand...
I think you're looking at the negative side of both parts.  Wouldn't having more money for schools AND having lower sugary drink consumption be good things?

The more taxes go up on gas (or rather, the more expensive gas gets), the more I either look at more gas thrifty cars or an electric vehicle.  It doesn't have to be a tax, just more out of pocket.  As electricity costs kept going up, it hit a point where it made sense for me to replace the windows in my house and to add additional insulation in my attic.  Maybe most people don't think about things in that sense, but for me it was just a math problem. 

 
D-Day said:
So the people who move to electric vehicles get to use the roads for free?  
Click to expand...
Don't know where your from, but you're apparently a Steelers fan.  In Pennsylvania, over half of the spending for roads comes from sources other than the gas tax.  That's about the national average today.

Going electric means you wouldn't face one specific tax/expenditure, but you would have all of the others still. 

 
D-Day said:
From the Sales Tax Handbook:

In Ohio, cigarettes are subject to a state excise tax of $1.60 per pack of 20. Cigarettes are also subject to Ohio sales tax of approximately $0.37 per pack, which adds up to a total tax per pack of $1.97.

The average cost of a pack of cigarettes in Ohio is $6.10, which is the 23rd highest in the United States.

So, 30%+ for cigarettes is not enough?
Click to expand...
nope

 
tommyboy said:
At some point in time (probably the day after the United States of America was founded)

there were people that thought the gov't should be in charge of everything

those people were and continue to be the  ones that disregard the idea of inalienable rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, freedom of religion, right to own guns, right to privacy, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press  etc......

pretty sure sin taxes on food to force people to eat better while not technically unconstitutional, is against the idea of general freedom the country has been enjoying for a long time.
Click to expand...
You do realize that a sin tax doesn't force you to do anything, right?  Nobody is forcing you to stop drinking soda.  

 
Short Corner said:
You do realize that a sin tax doesn't force you to do anything, right?  Nobody is forcing you to stop drinking soda.  
Click to expand...
yes i realize its coercive

I also prefer to live my life without the grandma gov't telling me i should brush my teeth more often and don't forget to put the seat down

 
matttyl said:
I think you're looking at the negative side of both parts.  Wouldn't having more money for schools AND having lower sugary drink consumption be good things?

The more taxes go up on gas (or rather, the more expensive gas gets), the more I either look at more gas thrifty cars or an electric vehicle.  It doesn't have to be a tax, just more out of pocket.  As electricity costs kept going up, it hit a point where it made sense for me to replace the windows in my house and to add additional insulation in my attic.  Maybe most people don't think about things in that sense, but for me it was just a math problem. 
Click to expand...
So if the tax eventually stops everyone from drinking sugary drinks, how do the schools get funded?

 
tommyboy said:
At some point in time (probably the day after the United States of America was founded)

there were people that thought the gov't should be in charge of everything

those people were and continue to be the  ones that disregard the idea of inalienable rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, freedom of religion, right to own guns, right to privacy, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press  etc......

pretty sure sin taxes on food to force people to eat better while not technically unconstitutional, is against the idea of general freedom the country has been enjoying for a long time.
Click to expand...
I think diet was considered by the founders, and it seems that they were on the side of general freedom regarding it.  

 
I'm totally in favor of taxing everyone except me 90% of their earnings.  We'd have no poverty, all the schools would be funded, everyone would have a home.  And honestly, why wouldn't you want to help the less fortunate?  I'd vote in favor of that tax plan 100 out of 100 times.  That's how much I care about this issue.

 
Tax the #### out of drive-thru food. Lazy fatties sit in their car and have 2000 calories handed to them thru their car window.

No need to burn a calorie walking into Taco Bell.

... as far as fatties being a burden on our health care system...

How many fit people do you hear of wearing out their knees? (not talking about an injury ... just worn out)

.

and while we're fat bashing ... Seems most people with handicap parking plates weren't born handicapped and didn't suddenly become handicapped by disease, illness, or accident ...

they just became fat.

Now they get the best parking spot. ... and burn less calories going into the store / restaurant. Shouldn't these fatties have to park the furthest away?

Give the skinny dudes and gals the closest spot! They earned it at the gym.

People riding their Health Care provided Rascals ... because their too fat to walk. Knees, hips, and spines weren't meant to carry that kind of weight.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bossman said:
Tax the #### out of drive-thru food. Lazy fatties sit in their car and have 2000 calories handed to them thru their car window.

No need to burn a calorie walking into Taco Bell.

... as far as fatties being a burden on our health care system...

How many fit people do you hear of wearing out their knees? (not talking about an injury ... just worn out)

.

and while we're fat bashing ... Seems most people with handicap parking plates weren't born handicapped and didn't suddenly become handicapped by disease, illness, or accident ...

they just became fat.

Now they get the best parking spot. ... and burn less calories going into the store / restaurant. Shouldn't these fatties have to park the furthest away?

Give the skinny dudes and gals the closest spot! They earned it at the gym.

People riding their Health Care provided Rascals ... because their too fat to walk. Knees, hips, and spines weren't meant to carry that kind of weight.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but we have to preserve our freedom to become fat, disgusting burdens on society.  That's what the forefathers intended.    

 
Why do people get so mad at fat people?  I've seen a ton of fat people and I've never gotten upset.  Am I missing something?  Did fat people kick a puppy or welsh on an election bet?  

Why are people so angry with fat people eating fattening food?  :confused:

 
TheIronSheik said:
So if the tax eventually stops everyone from drinking sugary drinks, how do the schools get funded?
Click to expand...
You understand that's not the only source of school funding, right?

But anyway, say that the tax was that good - that no one had those (bad for you) drinks - Medicaid (and Medicaid, and Tricare, and individual ACA insurance subsidized by the government) costs would fall because we'd now have a healthier population.  So less money would be needed to go to those things, leaving money available for schools. 

 
TheIronSheik said:
Why do people get so mad at fat people?  I've seen a ton of fat people and I've never gotten upset.  Am I missing something?  Did fat people kick a puppy or welsh on an election bet?  

Why are people so angry with fat people eating fattening food?  :confused:
Click to expand...
🤷‍♂️Burdening our already overburdened healthcare system?  And now that the system is even more socialistic, means more money out of their pockets. 

 
TheIronSheik said:
Why do people get so mad at fat people?  I've seen a ton of fat people and I've never gotten upset.  Am I missing something?  Did fat people kick a puppy or welsh on an election bet?  

Why are people so angry with fat people eating fattening food?  :confused:
Click to expand...
im only angry at fat people who wear bikinis because they are "beautiful" too

 
matttyl said:
cancer <> obesity, though (generally). 
Click to expand...
Well, obesity leads to disease.  Heavy drinking can lead to stomach cancer.  Smoking can lead to lung cancer.  

At what point in the process do we go from hating to caring? 

And regardless of our argument, you know I love you, GB.  Right?

 
TheIronSheik said:
Well, obesity leads to disease.  Heavy drinking can lead to stomach cancer.  Smoking can lead to lung cancer.  

At what point in the process do we go from hating to caring? 

And regardless of our argument, you know I love you, GB.  Right?
Click to expand...
Of course I know that, man.  You're my boo. 

Two recent cases of cancer in my family - one was stage 4 esophageal (father in law, we believe from contact with Agent Orange from his time in Vietnam), the other was stage 1 colon cancer (from an otherwise healthy individual).  Though I do have less empathy for someone who gets lung cancer after a lifetime of smoking.  It's case by case. 

Generally, and likely because of what I've seen around me, I view obesity as being much more from lifestyle choices than cancer.

 
TheIronSheik said:
Depends.  When you say "that" what are you implying?
Click to expand...
"A sin tax is an excise or sales tax specifically levied on certain goods deemed harmful to society and individuals, for example alcohol and tobacco, candies, drugs, soft drinks, fast foods, coffee, sugar, gambling and pornography.[1] Two claimed purposes are usually used to argue for such taxes. In contrast to Pigovian taxes, which are to pay for the damage to society caused by these goods, sin taxes are used to increase the price in an effort to lower their use, or failing that, to increase and find new sources of revenue."

 
I chime in with a
Haven't you ever heard of closing a goshdarn door?
No, it's much better to face these kinds of things with a Big Gulp of high fructose corn syrup.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

belljr
Normal aging brain function or something more?
Replies
46
Views
1K
popeye
popeye
coyote5
Hail damage - getting new roof, what questions should I have?
Replies
5
Views
346
The Z Machine
The Z Machine
Corporation
From Fat to Fit 2024 - New Year New Goals!
22 23 24
Replies
1K
Views
29K
-fish-
-fish-

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top