Good grief, what a bunch of snobs and spoiled brats most of these commenters are! One should be grateful for ANY gift, no matter what the form. Why in the world should a gift card be considered offensive or thoughtless? I enjoy giving them and I love to get them, from anybody, even my husband--and I don't feel it is a cop-out. All this talk about putting so much effort into picking out the perfect gift is ridiculous and affected. It says, I am so damned important that you had better spend lots of time figuring out exactly what I want, regardless of the possible time and/or financial constraints you have upon you.
Why not work on costumes that are regular clothes put together differently to evoke the character? That way you have good regular clothes that will get worn- rather than just costumes.
Case in point- my daughter wanted to be Kim Possible- a Disney character who is a tweenage spy expert. She wanted me to buy cheapy, flimsy costume stuff that Disney had put out that year. What I bought her was a regular black turtleneck shirt and the type of cargo pants that Kim wears on her missions- plus some bright red hairspray to give her the cartoony red hair color. We augmented the costume by holstering a magnifying glass, some rope, and other "spy-adventurer" stuff to the cargo pants. She got rave reviews from her friends at the Halloween parade that year- and remembers that bigger kids were impressed. She then had good cargo pants and a regular turtleneck after Halloween she could regularly wear- not just something that went into a costume box.
I know littler kids really like to dress up in more character driven costumes- but sometimes its fun to get into family mode. One year, we made simple bear headpieces- a glorified hood that stayed together at the chin w/ velcro and had bear ears on top-- and went as the three bears. I wore a regular "mom" outfit (dress w/ apron, etc), hubby had just khakis and a regular shirt w/ the bear hood on, and our youngest wore the bear hood w/ a baby bib. Once another sibling came along, our oldest daughter was Goldilocks that year with just a nice dress on and me curling her hair all crazy and putting circles of rouge on her cheeks. When we became more overrun with kids, we were zookeepers- wearing cheap straw pith helmets- and we had our kids pick zoo animals to be- one was an elephant in gray sweats and a headpiece I made, another was a lion with a homemade headpiece, and baby was wearing a dragon costume gifted to us- we explained she was really a lizard from our zoo program. I think the kids were happy that we all worked together that year on our creative ideas, rather than just going to buy somewhere.
This year- hubby and I are going as Leia and Han Solo to a Halloween party. I could spend a ton of money on a costume- or get creative. I decided that the easiest would be Leia from the original Star Wars. I will wear a white mock turtleneck, make a white long skirt (out of free white muslin I always seem to get from my uncle in law), and try to make some type of belt that evokes the feeling of the costume. ANd put my hair in Leia buns. Hubby will just be wearing a pair of black jeans, a white shirt and a black vest- with a kids toy "blaster" velcroed onto the thigh. We won 1st prize ($250) one year for a very simple Miss Piggy and Kermit costume I made (sewed pig ears on a blonde Halloween wig, found pig nose piece and dressed divinely swinely; had hubby wear bright green Kermit head I made with some free uncle in law fabric). we won't win this year- but will be presentable enough to not be the saddest costumes in the bunch.
There are so many creative ideas that don't mean buying so much. And don't forget- if you do have to buy actual clothes- that's what thrift stores are for.
If you asked me to, I could certainly come up with compelling arguments for a "sin tax," whether tobacco, alcohol, sugar, or fat. Still, I have a pragmatic problem with the idea. If the sin tax works and said negative behavior diminishes, so does the tax revenue. By that time, the gov't will have gotten used to the money and will need to find another revenue stream. If the sin tax doesn't work, then the stated reason for adding the tax is a failure and it shouldn't be continued. So, unfortunately, I'm not on board.
It also seems crazy to subsidize corn farming, which props up HF corn syrup production, which would then be taxed through soda purchases. Vicious cycle.
The government's involvement in our food is more at the root of our problems than a lack of taxes. The USDA works for the beef and hog industry, not for the health of our children.
Obese does not necessarily mean unhealthy any more than thin means healthy. Time to lay off the fat folks and start focusing on something more important.
I believe they are the perfect gift. One: Because not not everyone that loves you can know for suer what you want, or they may not be able to afford giving you exactly that. Two: Because if they buy you something, it may not be perfect or what you actually want (some people may consider asking people around you and they may have a different concept of what you want, and then create even more social tension) and 3: Because you can save that money for something for later; why receive a present or treat yourself only for your birthday or christmas or something like that? Why not save it for a rainy day? It´s the perfect gift: No expiration date, no problems about the selection (if it´s within the price range and the store) and, no pressure on how to spend it...
i just read a post on another site by a woman who ate so poorly she gained weight to 300 pounds and THEN received disability checks becasue she was too heavy to go to work. So WE are all paying for her living expenses because of her life choices. So WE should recoup some of that money by taxing choices that cost the taxpayers money.
While I usually agree with your logic, not on this. Food is a necessity, like air and water and we don't tax those (yet).Liquor and tobacco are not! Maybe people make bad choices when it comes to food but we live in a consumer/capitalistic society where we give people what they want.And we supersize it to boot.So taxing and controlling what people eat is a slippery slope. What you think is junk food, may not be to someone else. What about cake and brownie mixes, candy, soda,chips...the list goes on. Taxing booze and cigarettes really hasn't kept people from those habits so I think taxing "junk" food would just be another unnecessary financial pressure. I don't eat junk food by the way.
Wow, I had a lot to say about this subject before I read all the comments. Everyone beat me to it!
I got just one thing to say, and that is the pseudo definition of an "expert".
An "X" is an unknown quantity.
A "spert" is a drip under pressure.
Put the two together!
I have seen, in my lifetime, this type of "thing" be taunted as healthy, and in a few years, this same type of "thing" be taunted as unhealthy. Diet soda's are a perfect example.
No more taxes on anything. Period. Government does not belong in every facet of our lives, they are already too much in my daily life....
I am on a personal mission to change that, by the way. It's a passion of mine.
Having your own investment club and having people come together with one mind set to invest. I think that's great. But i'm having a challenge with partnering with other investment clubs, i will appreciate it if i get to meet great minds from other clubs. Please keep me posted with any. Thanks
Actually Linsey, you touched on something I've advocated for years with the dress up clothes collection. Kids love to play act all year long, and if you spring for non Halloween themed costumes (gypsy, doctor, etc.) you can get them after the actual holiday and set them aside for a Christmas trunk of dress up clothing. Pick up one of those affordable foot lockers at Target and stuff it full of dress up costumes. Put a big old bow on it for a frugal wrapping job. Sounds like it would be a huge hit at your house. Great post, as usual.
I hesitate to even join in this discussion, as I really have absolutely no time to come back and be involved in the argument. That said, I'm jumping in anyway.
Paul, first of all, I do wish some had been far less harsh in their disagreement with you. Not sure why folks find it so hard to be civil when disagreeing. That being said, I do disagree with your position, respectfully.
1. There's the poverty / location of stores to buy healthier foods argument several have listed above. And really, this applies to more than just the poor as well. While it's much easier now than it used to be to get healthier food on business trips, it's still difficult in many situations. There just isn't always a hot healthy choice late at night when you're stuck with an unavoidable delay. People who might want to eat healthier don't always have access to the stores and restaurants they need. Subway sandwiches are getting easier to find, but they are still not as prevelant as fast food chains.
2. I don't think the answer is to raise tax money to have yet another subsidy on the healthier foods. A start would be to eliminate some of the ones already in place that others have suggested above. However, based on my understanding of the situation, that would only close the gap between (for lack of a better term) junk food and healthier food.
3. As I understand the situation (and I admit to not being an expert and needing to do more research), a large part of the gap in cost between organic products and others (yes, this is an added layer, because the basic discussion above was more general, but stick with me for a bit) has to do with the cost of transitioning the land if it previously has been under heavy pesticide use, and other transition costs. I did watch a documentary a while back, and will try to find it again and review it for Wise Bread. Based on the cost of transition, I think more of a multi-step process might be in order. First, switch the subsidies completely as I think Nick and possibly others have suggested above. Switch them to more appropriate agricultural practices and products. (Yes, somebody will have to decide.) This will help cover the costs of the transition. Eventually, we won't even need that subsidy, as the cost to the farmers will be balanced out. There are of course some produce items that are more intensive than others, so there might continue to be some sort of price gap, but it would be manageable. Or hey, when we get back on our feet we might even decide that's a subsidy we can afford, as it will cost much less than the original.
Either way, I don't think we need more money on this issue, we need to just rechannel the money we are spending.Even a reduced amount going to the organic farmers and having the high fructose corn syrup money dry up would be a huge help. As I mentioned in my article on how Cuba transitioned (and Paul, I got my tush chewed in that one too, so I feel you) I'd really love someone with subsidy expertise to comment. Based on my understanding of how the system works, that's really where the answer lies.
That's as clear as my pre-coffee brain can be this morning. Would love to hear some additional subsidy information.
Before you put down an offer could you take a minute to read the tips at this site, http://www.firsthomeexperience.com/main/. I think you'll find a lot of helpful advice. (and maybe you can enter one of the contests too :) )
I'm kind of shocked that an in-n-out board (or similar) would be used for "junk food."
That's all good food, for your health it just depends what else you've had that day, and how hard you've world.
Walk 5 miles to an in-n-out and you probably can enjoy a burger and fries before you walk home. If you drive your fat ass up in an SUV, you might have a different problem.
So, the problem junk food tax is that it often isn't the food. It's the choices surrounding the food.
Not to bad mouth clothes swapping but...
Given what I do in mine, it would be kind of yucky wearing used clothes. How would you get the smell out? Just not sanitary if you ask me.
It's fair to charge enough to pay our expenses and make a decent profit for our hard work. We are not there to work hard and make a profit. We charge what the market will bear.
It's called supply and demand. You might need to take some business classes and you might get an idea of why we charge what we charge or better yet why not volunteer at one of these concession stands on a hot summer day without any air.
Good grief, what a bunch of snobs and spoiled brats most of these commenters are! One should be grateful for ANY gift, no matter what the form. Why in the world should a gift card be considered offensive or thoughtless? I enjoy giving them and I love to get them, from anybody, even my husband--and I don't feel it is a cop-out. All this talk about putting so much effort into picking out the perfect gift is ridiculous and affected. It says, I am so damned important that you had better spend lots of time figuring out exactly what I want, regardless of the possible time and/or financial constraints you have upon you.
Shame, shame, people!
Why not work on costumes that are regular clothes put together differently to evoke the character? That way you have good regular clothes that will get worn- rather than just costumes.
Case in point- my daughter wanted to be Kim Possible- a Disney character who is a tweenage spy expert. She wanted me to buy cheapy, flimsy costume stuff that Disney had put out that year. What I bought her was a regular black turtleneck shirt and the type of cargo pants that Kim wears on her missions- plus some bright red hairspray to give her the cartoony red hair color. We augmented the costume by holstering a magnifying glass, some rope, and other "spy-adventurer" stuff to the cargo pants. She got rave reviews from her friends at the Halloween parade that year- and remembers that bigger kids were impressed. She then had good cargo pants and a regular turtleneck after Halloween she could regularly wear- not just something that went into a costume box.
I know littler kids really like to dress up in more character driven costumes- but sometimes its fun to get into family mode. One year, we made simple bear headpieces- a glorified hood that stayed together at the chin w/ velcro and had bear ears on top-- and went as the three bears. I wore a regular "mom" outfit (dress w/ apron, etc), hubby had just khakis and a regular shirt w/ the bear hood on, and our youngest wore the bear hood w/ a baby bib. Once another sibling came along, our oldest daughter was Goldilocks that year with just a nice dress on and me curling her hair all crazy and putting circles of rouge on her cheeks. When we became more overrun with kids, we were zookeepers- wearing cheap straw pith helmets- and we had our kids pick zoo animals to be- one was an elephant in gray sweats and a headpiece I made, another was a lion with a homemade headpiece, and baby was wearing a dragon costume gifted to us- we explained she was really a lizard from our zoo program. I think the kids were happy that we all worked together that year on our creative ideas, rather than just going to buy somewhere.
This year- hubby and I are going as Leia and Han Solo to a Halloween party. I could spend a ton of money on a costume- or get creative. I decided that the easiest would be Leia from the original Star Wars. I will wear a white mock turtleneck, make a white long skirt (out of free white muslin I always seem to get from my uncle in law), and try to make some type of belt that evokes the feeling of the costume. ANd put my hair in Leia buns. Hubby will just be wearing a pair of black jeans, a white shirt and a black vest- with a kids toy "blaster" velcroed onto the thigh. We won 1st prize ($250) one year for a very simple Miss Piggy and Kermit costume I made (sewed pig ears on a blonde Halloween wig, found pig nose piece and dressed divinely swinely; had hubby wear bright green Kermit head I made with some free uncle in law fabric). we won't win this year- but will be presentable enough to not be the saddest costumes in the bunch.
There are so many creative ideas that don't mean buying so much. And don't forget- if you do have to buy actual clothes- that's what thrift stores are for.
If you asked me to, I could certainly come up with compelling arguments for a "sin tax," whether tobacco, alcohol, sugar, or fat. Still, I have a pragmatic problem with the idea. If the sin tax works and said negative behavior diminishes, so does the tax revenue. By that time, the gov't will have gotten used to the money and will need to find another revenue stream. If the sin tax doesn't work, then the stated reason for adding the tax is a failure and it shouldn't be continued. So, unfortunately, I'm not on board.
It also seems crazy to subsidize corn farming, which props up HF corn syrup production, which would then be taxed through soda purchases. Vicious cycle.
The government's involvement in our food is more at the root of our problems than a lack of taxes. The USDA works for the beef and hog industry, not for the health of our children.
A more constructive approach is found here:
http://www.edibleschoolyard.org/video
and here:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ann_cooper_talks_school_lunches.html
Obese does not necessarily mean unhealthy any more than thin means healthy. Time to lay off the fat folks and start focusing on something more important.
Like tolerance. Whatever happened to that? Hm?
I believe they are the perfect gift. One: Because not not everyone that loves you can know for suer what you want, or they may not be able to afford giving you exactly that. Two: Because if they buy you something, it may not be perfect or what you actually want (some people may consider asking people around you and they may have a different concept of what you want, and then create even more social tension) and 3: Because you can save that money for something for later; why receive a present or treat yourself only for your birthday or christmas or something like that? Why not save it for a rainy day? It´s the perfect gift: No expiration date, no problems about the selection (if it´s within the price range and the store) and, no pressure on how to spend it...
i just read a post on another site by a woman who ate so poorly she gained weight to 300 pounds and THEN received disability checks becasue she was too heavy to go to work. So WE are all paying for her living expenses because of her life choices. So WE should recoup some of that money by taxing choices that cost the taxpayers money.
While I usually agree with your logic, not on this. Food is a necessity, like air and water and we don't tax those (yet).Liquor and tobacco are not! Maybe people make bad choices when it comes to food but we live in a consumer/capitalistic society where we give people what they want.And we supersize it to boot.So taxing and controlling what people eat is a slippery slope. What you think is junk food, may not be to someone else. What about cake and brownie mixes, candy, soda,chips...the list goes on. Taxing booze and cigarettes really hasn't kept people from those habits so I think taxing "junk" food would just be another unnecessary financial pressure. I don't eat junk food by the way.
Wow, I had a lot to say about this subject before I read all the comments. Everyone beat me to it!
I got just one thing to say, and that is the pseudo definition of an "expert".
An "X" is an unknown quantity.
A "spert" is a drip under pressure.
Put the two together!
I have seen, in my lifetime, this type of "thing" be taunted as healthy, and in a few years, this same type of "thing" be taunted as unhealthy. Diet soda's are a perfect example.
No more taxes on anything. Period. Government does not belong in every facet of our lives, they are already too much in my daily life....
I am on a personal mission to change that, by the way. It's a passion of mine.
Having your own investment club and having people come together with one mind set to invest. I think that's great. But i'm having a challenge with partnering with other investment clubs, i will appreciate it if i get to meet great minds from other clubs. Please keep me posted with any. Thanks
Actually Linsey, you touched on something I've advocated for years with the dress up clothes collection. Kids love to play act all year long, and if you spring for non Halloween themed costumes (gypsy, doctor, etc.) you can get them after the actual holiday and set them aside for a Christmas trunk of dress up clothing. Pick up one of those affordable foot lockers at Target and stuff it full of dress up costumes. Put a big old bow on it for a frugal wrapping job. Sounds like it would be a huge hit at your house. Great post, as usual.
You can also follow me on Twitter and Trek Hound.
For some reason "worked" came across as "world."
And I left out some whole words in the sentence:
"So, the problem with a junk food tax is that it often isn't the food. It's the choices surrounding the food."
FWIW, evidence is that stone age men ate 2900 calories a day, compared to our ~2000. They just burned 600 or 800 off in daily athletic necessity.
Disregard Scott's comments.
We are going through a bad separation.
BTW Scott, I'm keeping the Benz and Mr. Biggles.
Was he worth it? Drunk or not, I don't care.
I hesitate to even join in this discussion, as I really have absolutely no time to come back and be involved in the argument. That said, I'm jumping in anyway.
Paul, first of all, I do wish some had been far less harsh in their disagreement with you. Not sure why folks find it so hard to be civil when disagreeing. That being said, I do disagree with your position, respectfully.
1. There's the poverty / location of stores to buy healthier foods argument several have listed above. And really, this applies to more than just the poor as well. While it's much easier now than it used to be to get healthier food on business trips, it's still difficult in many situations. There just isn't always a hot healthy choice late at night when you're stuck with an unavoidable delay. People who might want to eat healthier don't always have access to the stores and restaurants they need. Subway sandwiches are getting easier to find, but they are still not as prevelant as fast food chains.
2. I don't think the answer is to raise tax money to have yet another subsidy on the healthier foods. A start would be to eliminate some of the ones already in place that others have suggested above. However, based on my understanding of the situation, that would only close the gap between (for lack of a better term) junk food and healthier food.
3. As I understand the situation (and I admit to not being an expert and needing to do more research), a large part of the gap in cost between organic products and others (yes, this is an added layer, because the basic discussion above was more general, but stick with me for a bit) has to do with the cost of transitioning the land if it previously has been under heavy pesticide use, and other transition costs. I did watch a documentary a while back, and will try to find it again and review it for Wise Bread. Based on the cost of transition, I think more of a multi-step process might be in order. First, switch the subsidies completely as I think Nick and possibly others have suggested above. Switch them to more appropriate agricultural practices and products. (Yes, somebody will have to decide.) This will help cover the costs of the transition. Eventually, we won't even need that subsidy, as the cost to the farmers will be balanced out. There are of course some produce items that are more intensive than others, so there might continue to be some sort of price gap, but it would be manageable. Or hey, when we get back on our feet we might even decide that's a subsidy we can afford, as it will cost much less than the original.
Either way, I don't think we need more money on this issue, we need to just rechannel the money we are spending.Even a reduced amount going to the organic farmers and having the high fructose corn syrup money dry up would be a huge help. As I mentioned in my article on how Cuba transitioned (and Paul, I got my tush chewed in that one too, so I feel you) I'd really love someone with subsidy expertise to comment. Based on my understanding of how the system works, that's really where the answer lies.
That's as clear as my pre-coffee brain can be this morning. Would love to hear some additional subsidy information.
You can also follow me on Twitter and Trek Hound.
Before you put down an offer could you take a minute to read the tips at this site, http://www.firsthomeexperience.com/main/. I think you'll find a lot of helpful advice. (and maybe you can enter one of the contests too :) )
I'm kind of shocked that an in-n-out board (or similar) would be used for "junk food."
That's all good food, for your health it just depends what else you've had that day, and how hard you've world.
Walk 5 miles to an in-n-out and you probably can enjoy a burger and fries before you walk home. If you drive your fat ass up in an SUV, you might have a different problem.
So, the problem junk food tax is that it often isn't the food. It's the choices surrounding the food.
Gapbuster are fraudulent. Beware
You rock! See you at the next meeting. The theme is going to be "French Riviera" this month.
Amanda B.
Treasurer
Not to bad mouth clothes swapping but...
Given what I do in mine, it would be kind of yucky wearing used clothes. How would you get the smell out? Just not sanitary if you ask me.
I have nothing to add.
You may go now.
I have nothing to add. Carry on everyone, carry on.
It's fair to charge enough to pay our expenses and make a decent profit for our hard work. We are not there to work hard and make a profit. We charge what the market will bear.
It's called supply and demand. You might need to take some business classes and you might get an idea of why we charge what we charge or better yet why not volunteer at one of these concession stands on a hot summer day without any air.
Emo's are always fun to laugh at.
If it helps people make better choices I'm all for it. Healthy food should be cheaper than junk food.
And I agree with comment #62, fatties are very hard on the eyes.
I love Phish! I don't know why every keeps getting so down on them. People need to relax and stop criticizing people's choice of music.
Free the weed!