Fat Tax (4 Viewers)

[Slidey]

America's health care system isn't really privatised, it's a clusterfuck of rent-seekers and bastards.

They lobbied to have legislation passed to make it illegal to buy insurance across state lines, effectively fucking all forms of competition.

State owned good, private owned bad isn't really the right approach to this situation.

The Singaporean one is. Health care accounts, much like super accounts, liens from wages, and free care for the poor.

Yeah, at a glance I can't disagree with that. America's healthcare system is an example of the worst of both the public and private sectors.

 

[Slidey]

Capitalism and free trade are the greatest liberators of the poor.

The main problem is how to apply them without corruption and corporatism.

For every story of failure in Africa, there actually seems to be an equal number of success stories (e.g. Namibia I think it is). Not to mention places like Indonesia and Brazil who have made some good strides towards a capitalist free market as they simultaneously reduce corruption.

 

[ad infinitum]

Self-defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One can only imagine its cretin fingers fiercey at work compiling the above as the dim light of your lonley caravan window is reflected from a box that reads 'Ron Paul: The Revolution' (housing a troop of recently cleaned guns) onto your lower face, illuminating a vulgar smirk.

 

[SnowFox]

One can only imagine its cretin fingers fiercey at work compiling the above as the dim light of your lonley caravan window is reflected from a box that reads 'Ron Paul: The Revolution' (housing a troop of recently cleaned guns) onto your lower face, illuminating a vulgar smirk.

Haha fuck you are dumbest troll BoS has seen.

 

[BlackDragon]

Well we have pretty middling governments already, though the application of leftist or rightist policies seem to be a bit selective. In that way, there are a lot of state mechanisms in place already that address the creation of positive freedoms. These include education where the state is a part of the market to make it accessable, the same is the case for health care, and there are also things in place that help support those that have a lesser ability to support themselves (students, the disabled, the elderly). I don't think that these services are the be-all-and-end-all but I certainly think that they always need to be addressed to some extent.

I certainly don't agree with constraining our economic choices, or anything like that, in an attempt to make everyone equal. Its not about saying you can't do anything because we don't want poor people and we don't want rich people. So what I am trying to say i I think the level of positive freedoms created is okay and that the government is always making some attempt to address them. Though there is always the need to reform and change.

I think perhaps that they have taken this sort whole affirmitive action, accept all people, type of area slightly to far. But at the same time I think it is important that there is something in place that gives those ingrained outside the mainstream more access. I don't really agree with the right to take away one's money ad finitum, I just think these things need to be addressed in some way.

So lol, to answer your question, there are definitely some things that are too far and really dissatisfying, but there generally things that are important to have as well. There are also often systematised prejudices (against women...gay people) that are perhaps quite subtle where they seem to have the same opportunities but they don't.

 

[badquinton304]

One can only imagine its cretin fingers fiercey at work compiling the above as the dim light of your lonley caravan window is reflected from a box that reads 'Ron Paul: The Revolution' (housing a troop of recently cleaned guns) onto your lower face, illuminating a vulgar smirk.

Where's my source?

Also nice to see you have added those insults we have directed at you to your vocab.

 

[Planck]

The main problem is how to apply them without corruption and corporatism.

It's p easy to get rid of corporatism

For every story of failure in Africa, there actually seems to be an equal number of success stories (e.g. Namibia I think it is). Not to mention places like Indonesia and Brazil who have made some good strides towards a capitalist free market as they simultaneously reduce corruption.

Aid has and continues to be the single greatest cause of corruption, though.

 

[Lentern]

why should manufacturers be punished for providing goods that the public wants?

Nobody said anything about punishment, we're talking about taxation. The punishment would be fining them or gaoling them for not paying it.

 

[BlackDragon]

Well yeah but it is much cheaper just to eat fruit and veg but most people don't do that. But yeah, mandating certain standards of material that fast food chains can use would be a way to make it more healthy and more expensive, though there would be significant opposition from people who say that they should be able to eat whatever they want and people should be able to produce whatever they want. And they do have a point to a certain extent.

But this idea is much better than a tax.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

A little twitty thought, much of which is obvious but will be typed nonetheless because fingers are itchy:

In a competitive market, the food that is cheapest to produce, often regardless of health, wins. This is a major motivation of food science - food alternatives, chemicals, substitutes and rainy manufacturing processes all to FEED THE BOTTOM LINE.

A company can create a fucking incredible burger with 60g saturated fat and CHEMICALS 1-1000 and FORTY TYPES OF POLYURSURPOMETHADONE and meat made from SEASLUGS CAUGHT ON MOULDY ROCKS AND SHAPED INTO COWS and sell it for $2.50 while paying wages and overheads.

Then a COMPETING cowburger company with cows who cook cows and make cows into cow burgers will have to find a way to make sub-$2.50 cows with bread made from priceless clusterdust and 30 chemical flavouring units to mask the taste of a sub-$2.50 cow. If it doesn't, it will usually CRITICALLY MARGINALISE its moneygrub customer base or simply sink under the weight of MOULDY SEA SLUGS.

The greater population does not and will not critically evaluate the food it eats - particularly in fast food restaurants where ingredient information is not ADVERPLASTERED EVERYWHERE nor if it would might it be understood or could. I have wood.

So cheap wins. This may lead to HEALTH CONSEQUENCES which are tax-payers burden. BUT, if the government (I hate to even suggest giving them control) was to intervene and say .. "HAY, if YOU USE REAL COWS, WE WILL REWARD YOUR DOING SO BECAUSE it MAKES EVERYONE a bit HEALTHIER and we WANT HEALTH not BOTTOM LINES", i think that might be a little sunglasses cool, aye?

I don't think it's as simple as going "FAT IS BAD", "ALL CHEMICALS ARE BAD", "ONLY EAT ORGANIC FOOD" .. but there should definitely be some kind of legalised balance-board to allow real food to compete in the market.

Who is to say cow is any better than seagull?

There already are such laws in place. Your ridiculous (but amusing) suggestion that seagull meat would be made to look like beef would in fact be illegal, it would have to be labeled as seagull.

Many people are very health conscious and this is a growing trend. Government intervention is not needed at all.

 

[BlackDragon]

Who is to say cow is any better than seagull?

There already are such laws in place. Your ridiculous (but amusing) suggestion that seagull meat would be made to look like beef would in fact be illegal, it would have to be labeled as seagull.

It was just a way of illustrating the poor quality of most fast food meat products.. And besides, check those sausage rolls and pies you can buy everywhere (i have), they would be lucky to be 20 - 30% meat. They are mostly just things that make them cheap to produce.

Many people are very health conscious and this is a growing trend. Government intervention is not needed at all.

Many people are health conscious and that is good. But many more people are not. This is why we are having this debate. I'm not implying what should be done from that, but people are clearly getting heavier.

 

[loquasagacious]

Well yeah but it is much cheaper just to eat fruit and veg but most people don't do that. But yeah, mandating certain standards of material that fast food chains can use would be a way to make it more healthy and more expensive, though there would be significant opposition from people who say that they should be able to eat whatever they want and people should be able to produce whatever they want. And they do have a point to a certain extent.

But this idea is much better than a tax.

Actually I disagree that healthy food is cheaper. I recall a US study on cost per calorie which found that fast food was cheaper, can't find it but have a look at some examples:

- Caramel Sundae from McDonalds has 329 calories (a small meal worth) and costs only $1.75
- Bacon cheeseburger with BBQ sauce has 340 and costs only $1.95

 

[BlackDragon]

- Caramel Sundae from McDonalds has 329 calories (a small meal worth) and costs only $1.75
- Bacon cheeseburger with BBQ sauce has 340 and costs only $1.95

Are you kidding? Two examples I could find straight away:

1 KG of carrots at coles - $1.25
1 KG of oranges at coles - $1.50


Coles

If people were really serious about saving money they could eat completely healthily and much more cheaply.

 

[loquasagacious]

It was just a way of illustrating the poor quality of most fast food meat products.. And besides, check those sausage rolls and pies you can buy everywhere (i have), they would be lucky to be 20 - 30% meat. They are mostly just things that make them cheap to produce.

And it says on the packet that they are 20-30% meat, people can chose whether they consume it or not. Neither the vendor or the manufacturer are forcing anyone to eat the product and if they chose to they can purchase a healthier alternative.

And indeed there has been a gradual shift to healthier options.

 

[BlackDragon]

I wasn't imply anything about what people should do. I agree with you. I'm just saying that food standards are already pretty low. Most of what people eat in terms of junk food is barely food. Eating healthily is much cheaper and nutrionally valuable anyway.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Are you kidding? Two examples I could find straight away:

1 KG of carrots at coles - $1.25
1 KG of oranges at coles - $1.50


Coles

If people were really serious about saving money they could eat completely healthily and much more cheaply.

Yeah he said per calorie, not per gram. How much energy does 1 kilo of carrots have?

Also in developed countries even the "poor" can generally afford fast food. It also saves so much time compared to cooking your self. If you pay yourself $10 an hour for the opportunity cost of preparing food you see pretty quickly that fast food is probably more economical.

 

[loquasagacious]

Are you kidding? Two examples I could find straight away:

1 KG of carrots at coles - $1.25
1 KG of oranges at coles - $1.50


Coles

If people were really serious about saving money they could eat completely healthily and much more cheaply.

Let's compare apples to apples (forgive the pun). Calories not grams and how does a macdonalds meal compare to a competing healthy meal (subway) and how do they both compare to a home cooked meal*?

*noting that the labour required to produce a home cooked meal needs to be counted as part of the cost.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Exactly, if we're comparing raw ingredients look at how cheap a litre of vegetable oil is. It has many times the energy content of 1kg of carrots for a similar price.

 

[BlackDragon]

What the hell? If someone really wanted to save my, like me, they wouldn't eat out at these ridiculously expensive and unhealthy places. I'm saving money and I can eat so cheaply and healthly and prepare it myself. Why do I have to incorporate wage costs for myself? That makes no sense. I mean I made a minestrone soup for me and my friends yesterday and it has lasted three of us two meals and it cost less to produce than a single meal at some stupid fast food place. People who expect to save money and be healthy and THEN eat at macdonalds are crazy. If all they did was eat at those places or 'drink vegetable oil' they would become very unhealthy.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

What the hell? If someone really wanted to save my, like me, they wouldn't eat out at these ridiculously expensive and unhealthy places. I'm saving money and I can eat so cheaply and healthly and prepare it myself. Why do I have to incorporate wage costs for myself? That makes no sense.

Because if you used that time to work, you could make money.

Most people do not feel like cooking a meal after a long day's work, and are happy to pay a few extra dollars.

If they purchase poor quality, unhealthy food like McDonalds, it will almost certainly be more expensive than a healthier, yet equally satisfying alternative.