I remember having to wear my siblings old costumes every year growing up. I hated it. There is just so many times I could wear a Barbie or Disney Princess costume before it would get embarrassing.
This is a great idea. It would help those fat chicks get unfat. Come on, who wants to see a fat chick, seriously. The money saved can be spent on plastic surgery or nice clothes. I hope this tax passes.
There are opportunities to make some money at this. The money made by concession sales are usually off set by different factors. Most people don't know that festivals charge a vendor fee and some have so many vendors of the same item that you do not break even. Expenses include s supplies,cost of your trailer if you have one, gas, labor, health department fees. All of these costs have been incurred before you even make the first dollar. Then you have to worry about the weather, if the person you sent is taking breaks at peak sale times. I bought a concession trailer, and I have learned how to make money by learning from my mistakes. If I had to do it all over again, I would not do it.
mary, any extra payments will help pay off the balance faster. Guest, I haven't encountered that particular situation but I can say that banks are not always great at math (seriously) so you might want to ask your closing attorney or the agency who regulates these matters to determine what's wrong -- I can see them tacking on interest but it sounds like inflated interest here.
BTW - Joe - if the government could mandate that all alcohol be produced from local, organic crops owned and operated by government supervised, democratic worker collectives on a non-profit bases, and distributed by means of a tightly regulated rationing system, I'd have no problem with the legal alcohol.
Given its current status as a mechanism for conservative business interests to use as a weapon to further entrench their position at the top of the corporate plutocracy by preying on their countrymen's "choices," I'm all for outlawing it.
Once the public secures a monopoly over the distribution and sale of alcohol, it's regulated by the FDA, and the proceeds can be used to promote social harmony and economic justice I'll happily change my mind.
Tax #1: The US government taxes you once, and gives the money to corn farmers to subsidize the corn to make all the corn syrup and corn ships and corn feed for the beef and all of the other corn ingredients hidden in the processed crap you eat CHEAPER THAN HEALTHY FOOD.
Your proposed Tax #2: Now, you want to put another tax on the stuff you subsidized with the first tax money to make it expensive again.
As other writers point out, wouldn't killing the corn (and sugar) subsidies do EXACTLY THE SAME THING, but with 0 taxes this time?
I sympathize with your sentimental attachment to the archaic notions of personal freedom that you persist in believing define the nature and scope of government involvement here in the US, but it's time to face the facts.
The facts, in this case, are that the principle arresting and incarcerating sane people in order to protect them from themselves is already in force, and has been for decades now. We've already got the War on Drugs, and now it's time for the War on Fat.
Anyone who believes that the state can't and shouldn't criminalize things that sane adults choose to do to themselves, or that consenting adults do to one another is living in a Friedmanite fantasy land. Nice idea for a conservative theme park, but that's about it.
Once you get drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc legalized come back and talk to me about how it's "Un-American" for the government to meddle with what people eat.
We've got a public health crisis in this country that conservative folklore about what the government can and can't do is only making worse, and it's time for the grown-ups (e.g., Progressives) to run the show now.
Elections have consequences, one of which is that the invisible hand that's been shoveling junk-food down American's throats is going to get cut-off, and not a moment too soon.
I check every 1-3 days here and have found sales plus free shipping for a set of new tennis shoes, walking Tevas and a Cabelas parka each under $30. Dozens of coupons for free things that come in handy on the road for fast food or office items. Finally the most fun is finding the not too tedious and personal information divulging give aways. It's like a Christmas surprise in the mail when packets of samples or test items are delivered.
It took me going into bankruptcy before I finally got it through my thick skull. I'm keen on the hard core cut backs, like everything but the necessities kind of cut backs. We read for recreation for 3 years!
No, "personal freedom" pretty much never goes out of fashion. In fact, this country was founded on the principles of "personal freedom" and limited government. Your philosophy has more in common with that of the Taliban. Like the Taliban, you want to force people to do what your think is best at the point of a gun. And naturally, you are one of the one's who knows what's best for everyone else.
You are the type of Liberal that is a control freak. Now you want to control what people eat, for chrissakes. There are people all over the world right this second eating twinkies and ice cream. I bet that just burns you up.
Gee, if you want to jail someone for selling an ice cream cone, what about Big Alcohol? Gee, I think maybe alcohol has actually harmed some people in this country, maybe even more than twinkies. Do you want to bring back Prohibition? Oh no, that's not one of the Democratic talking points, since Liberals like to get drunk, too. They just want to be healthier alcoholics in a smoke-free bar.
And yes, there is a huge difference between an overweight person and someone strung out on crack.
Sheesh, it's scary to know that there are people like in this country, who talk with such contempt for personal freedom.
They don't need a fat tax. My wife and I stoppe dinto Wendy's the other night - a classic single combo and a chicken strips combo (not upsized) cost more than it would have cost me in ingredients to prepare a steak dinner at home.
That, of course, is standard groceries, nothing organic or fancy.
Why not just a VAT on all restaurant and prepared foods, with no attempt at figuring out which ones make you fat?
I mean, I'm not anti consumption taxes, in general, as part of a mix of progressive and regressive taxes (though I am STILL bitter that my work cafeteria - only accessible to employees, well inside our security - had to pay extra sales taxes because we were in an "entertainment district" to pay for a sports stadium. Make the team owners pay!).
But the "fat tax" rhetoric is abnoxious and divisive, and having to figure out a mixed order of taxed and untaxed items is a pain in the butt - big retailers have to reprogram their POS computers, small retailers have to just remember what is what and make sure their counter staff can, too.
And of course, like all sales taxes, it's regressive. The feds and the states should sack up and admit they need more money and take the political flack for raising income taxes in a progressive way, instead of borrowing more or picking out groups they think they can safely pick on.
Ron - drugs != food. It's possible to say that someone who consumes a certain amount of chemical X will die of a chemical X overdose. It's harder to say that someone who consumes enough bacon will die of a bacon overdose. Sure, eating too much bacon is likely to make you fatter, but so is eating a lot of any other food -- in less food-saturated times, that was kind of the whole point of food in general. If that's how we're going to regulate things, prepare to be taxed to the gills on everything except celery.
And really, what's with this uncritical belief in the infallibility of government agencies? I can't wait for the first "oops, this isn't actually bad for you" study to come out -- people will be lining up around the block to collect their "bacon tax" refunds.
Aren't there enough taxes? The thing is that people need some way to give them a quick and cheap (and legal) high, which is where fast food comes in. Peoples inelasticity to donuts, for example, will be shown by the fact that even if taxes are raised the amount of fast food consumption would eventually return to the pre-tax levels as people absord higher prices. The best thing to do is teach people to cook healthy meals . Otherwise we just have a nation of even poorer fat folks
I hate to break it to you Joe, but that "personal freedom" horse left the barn decades ago, and can now be found in an Elmer's bottle where it belongs.
We *already* put people in jail for selling things that harm other people, whether the people that use them understand or consent to the risks. Don't believe me? Take a look at the drug laws, amigo.
We've got roughly 500,000 thousand people in jail for victimizing their fellow citizens by selling them things that they "want." Are the social costs of obesity any *less* than drug use? We've got those laws in place to protect people from themselves, righ?
We lock up drug dealers for a good reason. Once we get single payer in place, we'll be able to put fat-dealers in the same cell - right where they belong.
The sooner that this neo-con shell game of corporate hegemony masquerading as "freedom" is put to its well deserved rest, the faster we can get the progressive agenda in place and start putting people over profits.
I personally don't like to give or get gift cards; however there are certian people and cases where a gift certificate is the best option. For instance, for Boss's Day tomorrow we all chiped in to get the boss a gift card. It seemed more appropriate than any other gift.
"Putting obesity profiteers behind bars wouldn't end obesity all by itself, but it'd eliminate one more obstacle that stands between us and a healthier public."
Sheesh. You want to put "obesity profiteers" in jail? Would they be put into the same cells as the smokers?
"This uncritical reverence for "essential liberties," "personal responsibility," "choice", etc has gone on for long enough, and it's long past time to put the experts in charge instead of letting the corporate foxes guard the public henhouse."
It's been tried already. Putting "experts" in the government in charge of everything. Check out the histories of Red China, the Soviet Union, Fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany.
And I do have uncritical reference for "essential liberties," "personal responsibility," and "choice." If I didn't I would have the slave mentality which you seem to admire.
I tend to be a believer in you get what you deserve. That being said if you are an avid junk food eater you are likely to suffer ill effects from the additives and the lack of any nutritional value.
I am also a big believer in people should have options, so if you want to eat junk food you should be allowed. you should be aware of the dangers that it can cause and the fact that they are empty calories.
another point i wanted to bring up is the fact that much of junk food costs a lot less than healthier options. While for the average person they will attempt to bridge that gap by using coupons and other discounts so they can eat higher quality meals, what about those that cant afford it? For anyone who has every given 5 bucks to help someone buy there lunch, you know in major cities that 5 dollars will not go all that far unless you decide to spend that money on what is considered "junk food" but by adding in a tax you are effectivly making it hard for them to get any sort of nourishment.
While it may not be everyones first choice of food, maybe cheap unhealthy food is a nessesity.
My sister would make her kids' costumes out of flannel. After Halloween they became their nightgowns, and were worn till they outgrew them or wore them out.
That sounds like a strata recipe. Great dinner/brunch meal. All it takes is stale bread, eggs, some form of liquid (milk or broth) and whatever leftovers you have on hand.
So who gets to determine the "junk" status of a food -- should it apply to foods that are high-fat, like hamburgers, french fries, olives, avocados and salmon? Or things that are high in refined carbohydrates, like white bread, rice, and pasta? Froot Loops? Oatmeal? Bacon? Chocolate? Sardines? Big Macs?
Even if something like this were going to fly politically, no product could be taxed without first receiving its own personal healthfulness rating. Which means it's only a matter of time before we have a (taxpayer-funded) "Junk Food Czar". Which means massive (taxpayer-funded) studies to determine what attributes legally define a product as "junk food". The studies will be about as conclusive as the ones we already have -- fat is bad for you (except when it's good for you), and that (though the findings weren't really clear) a person can probably eat eggs without dying, but only on Thursdays (maybe).
Ron: What experts are we putting in charge? The same "experts" who shilled cigarettes to our grandparents? And seriously, is Big Food just going to stand idly by while their products get the "crap" stamp, or *gasp* try to influence this legislation to benefit their own interes-uh, I mean, you know, the children?
I remember having to wear my siblings old costumes every year growing up. I hated it. There is just so many times I could wear a Barbie or Disney Princess costume before it would get embarrassing.
This is a great idea. It would help those fat chicks get unfat. Come on, who wants to see a fat chick, seriously. The money saved can be spent on plastic surgery or nice clothes. I hope this tax passes.
There are opportunities to make some money at this. The money made by concession sales are usually off set by different factors. Most people don't know that festivals charge a vendor fee and some have so many vendors of the same item that you do not break even. Expenses include s supplies,cost of your trailer if you have one, gas, labor, health department fees. All of these costs have been incurred before you even make the first dollar. Then you have to worry about the weather, if the person you sent is taking breaks at peak sale times. I bought a concession trailer, and I have learned how to make money by learning from my mistakes. If I had to do it all over again, I would not do it.
mary, any extra payments will help pay off the balance faster. Guest, I haven't encountered that particular situation but I can say that banks are not always great at math (seriously) so you might want to ask your closing attorney or the agency who regulates these matters to determine what's wrong -- I can see them tacking on interest but it sounds like inflated interest here.
BTW - Joe - if the government could mandate that all alcohol be produced from local, organic crops owned and operated by government supervised, democratic worker collectives on a non-profit bases, and distributed by means of a tightly regulated rationing system, I'd have no problem with the legal alcohol.
Given its current status as a mechanism for conservative business interests to use as a weapon to further entrench their position at the top of the corporate plutocracy by preying on their countrymen's "choices," I'm all for outlawing it.
Once the public secures a monopoly over the distribution and sale of alcohol, it's regulated by the FDA, and the proceeds can be used to promote social harmony and economic justice I'll happily change my mind.
Let me get this straight.
Tax #1: The US government taxes you once, and gives the money to corn farmers to subsidize the corn to make all the corn syrup and corn ships and corn feed for the beef and all of the other corn ingredients hidden in the processed crap you eat CHEAPER THAN HEALTHY FOOD.
Your proposed Tax #2: Now, you want to put another tax on the stuff you subsidized with the first tax money to make it expensive again.
As other writers point out, wouldn't killing the corn (and sugar) subsidies do EXACTLY THE SAME THING, but with 0 taxes this time?
Joe:
I sympathize with your sentimental attachment to the archaic notions of personal freedom that you persist in believing define the nature and scope of government involvement here in the US, but it's time to face the facts.
The facts, in this case, are that the principle arresting and incarcerating sane people in order to protect them from themselves is already in force, and has been for decades now. We've already got the War on Drugs, and now it's time for the War on Fat.
Anyone who believes that the state can't and shouldn't criminalize things that sane adults choose to do to themselves, or that consenting adults do to one another is living in a Friedmanite fantasy land. Nice idea for a conservative theme park, but that's about it.
Once you get drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc legalized come back and talk to me about how it's "Un-American" for the government to meddle with what people eat.
We've got a public health crisis in this country that conservative folklore about what the government can and can't do is only making worse, and it's time for the grown-ups (e.g., Progressives) to run the show now.
Elections have consequences, one of which is that the invisible hand that's been shoveling junk-food down American's throats is going to get cut-off, and not a moment too soon.
I check every 1-3 days here and have found sales plus free shipping for a set of new tennis shoes, walking Tevas and a Cabelas parka each under $30. Dozens of coupons for free things that come in handy on the road for fast food or office items. Finally the most fun is finding the not too tedious and personal information divulging give aways. It's like a Christmas surprise in the mail when packets of samples or test items are delivered.
It took me going into bankruptcy before I finally got it through my thick skull. I'm keen on the hard core cut backs, like everything but the necessities kind of cut backs. We read for recreation for 3 years!
Dear Ron,
No, "personal freedom" pretty much never goes out of fashion. In fact, this country was founded on the principles of "personal freedom" and limited government. Your philosophy has more in common with that of the Taliban. Like the Taliban, you want to force people to do what your think is best at the point of a gun. And naturally, you are one of the one's who knows what's best for everyone else.
You are the type of Liberal that is a control freak. Now you want to control what people eat, for chrissakes. There are people all over the world right this second eating twinkies and ice cream. I bet that just burns you up.
Gee, if you want to jail someone for selling an ice cream cone, what about Big Alcohol? Gee, I think maybe alcohol has actually harmed some people in this country, maybe even more than twinkies. Do you want to bring back Prohibition? Oh no, that's not one of the Democratic talking points, since Liberals like to get drunk, too. They just want to be healthier alcoholics in a smoke-free bar.
And yes, there is a huge difference between an overweight person and someone strung out on crack.
Sheesh, it's scary to know that there are people like in this country, who talk with such contempt for personal freedom.
They don't need a fat tax. My wife and I stoppe dinto Wendy's the other night - a classic single combo and a chicken strips combo (not upsized) cost more than it would have cost me in ingredients to prepare a steak dinner at home.
That, of course, is standard groceries, nothing organic or fancy.
i have a small dent on my car..would these methods work for that?
Where is the feed filter site you wanted us to go to? The site I got doesn't do anything. PLEASE update us with the right site! Thanks
Why not just a VAT on all restaurant and prepared foods, with no attempt at figuring out which ones make you fat?
I mean, I'm not anti consumption taxes, in general, as part of a mix of progressive and regressive taxes (though I am STILL bitter that my work cafeteria - only accessible to employees, well inside our security - had to pay extra sales taxes because we were in an "entertainment district" to pay for a sports stadium. Make the team owners pay!).
But the "fat tax" rhetoric is abnoxious and divisive, and having to figure out a mixed order of taxed and untaxed items is a pain in the butt - big retailers have to reprogram their POS computers, small retailers have to just remember what is what and make sure their counter staff can, too.
And of course, like all sales taxes, it's regressive. The feds and the states should sack up and admit they need more money and take the political flack for raising income taxes in a progressive way, instead of borrowing more or picking out groups they think they can safely pick on.
Ron - drugs != food. It's possible to say that someone who consumes a certain amount of chemical X will die of a chemical X overdose. It's harder to say that someone who consumes enough bacon will die of a bacon overdose. Sure, eating too much bacon is likely to make you fatter, but so is eating a lot of any other food -- in less food-saturated times, that was kind of the whole point of food in general. If that's how we're going to regulate things, prepare to be taxed to the gills on everything except celery.
And really, what's with this uncritical belief in the infallibility of government agencies? I can't wait for the first "oops, this isn't actually bad for you" study to come out -- people will be lining up around the block to collect their "bacon tax" refunds.
Aren't there enough taxes? The thing is that people need some way to give them a quick and cheap (and legal) high, which is where fast food comes in. Peoples inelasticity to donuts, for example, will be shown by the fact that even if taxes are raised the amount of fast food consumption would eventually return to the pre-tax levels as people absord higher prices. The best thing to do is teach people to cook healthy meals . Otherwise we just have a nation of even poorer fat folks
I hate to break it to you Joe, but that "personal freedom" horse left the barn decades ago, and can now be found in an Elmer's bottle where it belongs.
We *already* put people in jail for selling things that harm other people, whether the people that use them understand or consent to the risks. Don't believe me? Take a look at the drug laws, amigo.
We've got roughly 500,000 thousand people in jail for victimizing their fellow citizens by selling them things that they "want." Are the social costs of obesity any *less* than drug use? We've got those laws in place to protect people from themselves, righ?
We lock up drug dealers for a good reason. Once we get single payer in place, we'll be able to put fat-dealers in the same cell - right where they belong.
The sooner that this neo-con shell game of corporate hegemony masquerading as "freedom" is put to its well deserved rest, the faster we can get the progressive agenda in place and start putting people over profits.
I personally don't like to give or get gift cards; however there are certian people and cases where a gift certificate is the best option. For instance, for Boss's Day tomorrow we all chiped in to get the boss a gift card. It seemed more appropriate than any other gift.
"Putting obesity profiteers behind bars wouldn't end obesity all by itself, but it'd eliminate one more obstacle that stands between us and a healthier public."
Sheesh. You want to put "obesity profiteers" in jail? Would they be put into the same cells as the smokers?
"What are you in for?"
"Murder. What are you in for?"
"Sold some Ice Cream."
"This uncritical reverence for "essential liberties," "personal responsibility," "choice", etc has gone on for long enough, and it's long past time to put the experts in charge instead of letting the corporate foxes guard the public henhouse."
It's been tried already. Putting "experts" in the government in charge of everything. Check out the histories of Red China, the Soviet Union, Fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany.
And I do have uncritical reference for "essential liberties," "personal responsibility," and "choice." If I didn't I would have the slave mentality which you seem to admire.
I tend to be a believer in you get what you deserve. That being said if you are an avid junk food eater you are likely to suffer ill effects from the additives and the lack of any nutritional value.
I am also a big believer in people should have options, so if you want to eat junk food you should be allowed. you should be aware of the dangers that it can cause and the fact that they are empty calories.
another point i wanted to bring up is the fact that much of junk food costs a lot less than healthier options. While for the average person they will attempt to bridge that gap by using coupons and other discounts so they can eat higher quality meals, what about those that cant afford it? For anyone who has every given 5 bucks to help someone buy there lunch, you know in major cities that 5 dollars will not go all that far unless you decide to spend that money on what is considered "junk food" but by adding in a tax you are effectivly making it hard for them to get any sort of nourishment.
While it may not be everyones first choice of food, maybe cheap unhealthy food is a nessesity.
My sister would make her kids' costumes out of flannel. After Halloween they became their nightgowns, and were worn till they outgrew them or wore them out.
F.D.A.
Works for drugs. It'll work for food.
Simple.
That sounds like a strata recipe. Great dinner/brunch meal. All it takes is stale bread, eggs, some form of liquid (milk or broth) and whatever leftovers you have on hand.
So who gets to determine the "junk" status of a food -- should it apply to foods that are high-fat, like hamburgers, french fries, olives, avocados and salmon? Or things that are high in refined carbohydrates, like white bread, rice, and pasta? Froot Loops? Oatmeal? Bacon? Chocolate? Sardines? Big Macs?
Even if something like this were going to fly politically, no product could be taxed without first receiving its own personal healthfulness rating. Which means it's only a matter of time before we have a (taxpayer-funded) "Junk Food Czar". Which means massive (taxpayer-funded) studies to determine what attributes legally define a product as "junk food". The studies will be about as conclusive as the ones we already have -- fat is bad for you (except when it's good for you), and that (though the findings weren't really clear) a person can probably eat eggs without dying, but only on Thursdays (maybe).
Ron: What experts are we putting in charge? The same "experts" who shilled cigarettes to our grandparents? And seriously, is Big Food just going to stand idly by while their products get the "crap" stamp, or *gasp* try to influence this legislation to benefit their own interes-uh, I mean, you know, the children?