Saturday, August 22, 2009
"Fat Tax" - unbelievable
There is a gentleman from the East Coast that works for my company; he was recently in Chicago for some advanced training. While we were talking about work we ventured into a conversation about politics, which happens a lot. He told me about a 4% tax on sugar (soda, cookies, and junk food) and fast food that was probably going to happen in his state.
I wish I could say that I was surprised. New York already outlawed trans-fats in the entire city; and in most cities admitting to being a smoker is tantamount to a Scarlett Letter.
I believe that any penalties for health issues (obesity, not “preexisting conditions) should be relegated to the world of health insurance. If someone is in good shape, and has the occasional sweet tooth, why should they pay a “fat tax” to support the health needs of the obese? Is this not an issue of choice and self control?
Just to be sure I have this straight: everyone that eats “unhealthy” foods must pay a penalty in the form a “fat tax” to supplement the increased health care costs of the obese that have no self control in the face of the same “unhealthy” foods.
Pay attention, I want you to read this here first:
If the price of “unhealthy” food skyrockets (because of increased taxation) then eventually it will create a black market for Big Macs. That right, I said it, there will be drug-trafficking arrests for people that smuggle Whoppers & Coke across state lines. Does that mean phrases like “Burger King,” or the “Hamburgler,” or even Skittles’ “Taste the Rainbow” will take on new meanings in pop culture; even finding their way into popular music as euphemisms for “contraband,” or for getting a “sugar high.”
Soon the ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives) will become the ATFEFS for Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives, Fast Food & Sugar. I don’t like the sound of that. How about: FATFES. Yeah, that’ll look good on a hat or badge.
Here is an interesting observation, since becoming obese has more to do with quantities-eaten than it does with the item eaten; does that mean there will be a frequent-diner-surcharge. Think about it, the average family of four only needs 8-10,000 calories a day to meet FDA recommendations. So, if a family buys too much food (traceable with their saver-cards at the grocery store), then there will be an “indulgent diet tax.” And if that happens, no longer will people throw BYOB parties; they will throw Bring Your Own Food parties because buying food for a cookout in mass quantities will be too expensive.
Am I being ridiculous? Really? You think so? Go back in time 50 years to 1959, tell people that smoking would be outlawed in bars, trans fats would be outlawed in New York City, the government would own most of General Motors, cameras would ticket you at red lights…shall I continue?
I wish I could say that I was surprised. New York already outlawed trans-fats in the entire city; and in most cities admitting to being a smoker is tantamount to a Scarlett Letter.
I believe that any penalties for health issues (obesity, not “preexisting conditions) should be relegated to the world of health insurance. If someone is in good shape, and has the occasional sweet tooth, why should they pay a “fat tax” to support the health needs of the obese? Is this not an issue of choice and self control?
Just to be sure I have this straight: everyone that eats “unhealthy” foods must pay a penalty in the form a “fat tax” to supplement the increased health care costs of the obese that have no self control in the face of the same “unhealthy” foods.
Pay attention, I want you to read this here first:
If the price of “unhealthy” food skyrockets (because of increased taxation) then eventually it will create a black market for Big Macs. That right, I said it, there will be drug-trafficking arrests for people that smuggle Whoppers & Coke across state lines. Does that mean phrases like “Burger King,” or the “Hamburgler,” or even Skittles’ “Taste the Rainbow” will take on new meanings in pop culture; even finding their way into popular music as euphemisms for “contraband,” or for getting a “sugar high.”
Soon the ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives) will become the ATFEFS for Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives, Fast Food & Sugar. I don’t like the sound of that. How about: FATFES. Yeah, that’ll look good on a hat or badge.
Here is an interesting observation, since becoming obese has more to do with quantities-eaten than it does with the item eaten; does that mean there will be a frequent-diner-surcharge. Think about it, the average family of four only needs 8-10,000 calories a day to meet FDA recommendations. So, if a family buys too much food (traceable with their saver-cards at the grocery store), then there will be an “indulgent diet tax.” And if that happens, no longer will people throw BYOB parties; they will throw Bring Your Own Food parties because buying food for a cookout in mass quantities will be too expensive.
Am I being ridiculous? Really? You think so? Go back in time 50 years to 1959, tell people that smoking would be outlawed in bars, trans fats would be outlawed in New York City, the government would own most of General Motors, cameras would ticket you at red lights…shall I continue?
