# Fat Tax



## tjf67 (Dec 16, 2008)

I saw this morning they are thinking about putting a fat tax on soda that is not considered diet.  WTF  where does it stop. Yeah lets go after some of the few industries that are doing ok in this economy


----------



## Glenn (Dec 16, 2008)

A lot of this stuff is getting out of hand IMHO. There's way to much "policing" going on regarding what people do with their lives.


----------



## Beetlenut (Dec 16, 2008)

Glenn said:


> A lot of this stuff is getting out of hand IMHO. There's way to much "policing" going on regarding what people do with their lives.


 
Enter DMC in 3...2...1...


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 16, 2008)

I'm pretty certain they over turned it during November's vote, but the State of Maine last spring passed a tax on all beverages outside of juice, milk and bottled water.  The additional tax was put in to help pay for a state run low income health plan and basically was done during the 11th hour with no time for the public to comment.

When it comes to sales taxes, I don't like the idea of targeting one particular product user over another.  If there's any tax at all, I think it should be a flat across the board tax.


----------



## Marc (Dec 16, 2008)

I predict this thread will go pretty smoothly.


----------



## Warp Daddy (Dec 16, 2008)

Targeted tax is akin to  a user fee 

. With diabetes and obesity( Both juvenile and adult )  mushrooming out of control and the resultant impact on health care costs ( YOURS and MINE ) to take care of folks who neither have health insurance or the WILL to alter their lifestyle choices forces this action as well as the need to contain health care costs  -- this was done with TOBACCO 

-- SO while this tax may seem frivolous it is a serious attempt to  manage MANY cost deficits that heretofore have been paid from our collective largesse -- similar to what happened with tobacco 

FI folks want to kill themselves with drugs , tobacco  and uncontrolled consumption of sugar FINE but i for one am getting TIRED of SUBSIDIZING their healthcare  for those who lack the willpower to change bad nutritional behavior


----------



## severine (Dec 16, 2008)

What's stupid is that they want to tax any soda that isn't diet. WTF is up with that? Artificial sweeteners have been linked to obesity because the body doesn't process them the same way... and that fullness trigger doesn't go off... and you drink more and more and more of it because "it's diet, so it's okay".... and it snowballs. Not to mention the other health issues linked to aspartame, Splenda, etc, etc, etc, etc. :roll:

I get why they would consider it, like the other sin taxes (booze and cigs)... but it's the wrong approach.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Dec 16, 2008)

tjf67 said:


> I saw this morning they are thinking about putting a fat tax on soda that is not considered diet.  WTF  where does it stop. Yeah lets go after some of the few industries that are doing ok in this economy



Sounds like a good idea..all these fat people cost society alot of money..not to mention when they have a BigMac attack..I'm for a flat tax and a fat tax..


----------



## Warp Daddy (Dec 16, 2008)

Carrie i HEAR you on the diet soda exclusion -- seems perhaps to be a concession of sorts to beverage industrty which no doubt will scream bloody hell in spite of  harm theit products cause when used to excess 

So while the approach is not perfect --it is a start to address a very serious issue


----------



## drjeff (Dec 16, 2008)

approximately [size=+4]*16*[/size] teaspoons of sugar in your standard 20oz bottle of regular soda ("regular" soda usually averages just over 3 grams of sugar per fluid ounce and a teaspoon of sugar is essentially 4 grams)

Enuff said.

When I talk with my cavity ladened, soda addicted patients(and I've got ALOT of them),  personally I don't call it soda, but "liquid candy" is the descriptive term I use.  The scary thing is that annually, non diet soda consumption averages out to just under 40 gallons per year per person,  and that doesn't even venture into all the sports drinks and calorie containing flavored waters and juices that folks consume


----------



## severine (Dec 16, 2008)

Juice also=liquid sugar, and is also linked to obesity.

Then again, eating is linked to obesity. All food should be taxed with that logic, huh?


----------



## ctenidae (Dec 16, 2008)

severine said:


> Juice also=liquid sugar, and is also linked to obesity.
> 
> Then again, eating is linked to obesity. All food should be taxed with that logic, huh?



THey should probably ban water outright, too, since it's the leading cause of drowning.


----------



## Warp Daddy (Dec 16, 2008)

ctenidae said:


> THey should probably ban water outright, too, since it's the leading cause of drowning.



Don't give them any ideas


----------



## drjeff (Dec 16, 2008)

Warp Daddy said:


> Don't give them any ideas



air tax.  Yup, that's coming too


----------



## Warp Daddy (Dec 16, 2008)

yep a "new -- GAS tax too --- especially imposed @ Tex/Mex restaurants   to be called the BOOBA  bag tax


----------



## jack97 (Dec 16, 2008)

If it was up to me, I would set up official weight scales that would be used every year for the weigh in. People get taxed based on the bmi numbers. Think of the new job opportunities that would be created on this big government initiatives. Health clubs enrollment would skyrocket, personal trainers would be in high demand, nutritionist can set their own pay.....

problem is we will live longer and that will cripple this pyramid scheme we have with social security and medicare. Oh well, can't have everything.


----------



## davidhowland14 (Dec 16, 2008)

jack, I agree with you. I put alot of work into staying in shape and I feel like I should be rewarded for it. Maybe a tax credit for each pound under as opposed to an extra tax on pounds over?


----------



## marcski (Dec 16, 2008)

Warp Daddy said:


> yep a "new -- GAS tax too --- especially imposed @ Tex/Mex restaurants   to be called the BOOBA  bag tax



Hey you should get a tax BREAK for this one...could be harnessed for alternative fuels.


----------



## marcski (Dec 16, 2008)

OldsnowboarderME said:


> Reminds me of the Beatles song "Taxman"...



Super great bass line in that song!


----------



## jack97 (Dec 16, 2008)

davidhowland14 said:


> I put alot of work into staying in shape and I feel like I should be rewarded for it.



Me too... and its getting harder with age and a hectic schedule. What ticks me off is that I will be paying for the health care cost of all the obese people in about 15-20 years. Preteen kids diagnose with diabetes due to weight issues just doesn't seem right to me.  

Fat and stupid people are costing me mula!





davidhowland14 said:


> Maybe a tax credit for each pound under as opposed to an extra tax on pounds over?



Hard to enforce, you get a doctors note.... got to figure out if the doctor or the note is legit. IMO, we have too many tax credits and we have an industry of accountants just to figure out the tax system b/c its so complicated.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Dec 16, 2008)

jack97 said:


> If it was up to me, I would set up official weight scales that would be used every year for the weigh in. People get taxed based on the bmi numbers. Think of the new job opportunities that would be created on this big government initiatives. Health clubs enrollment would skyrocket, personal trainers would be in high demand, nutritionist can set their own pay.....
> 
> problem is we will live longer and that will cripple this pyramid scheme we have with social security and medicare. Oh well, can't have everything.



If everybody is fit and in shape..then the death rate will go down and I'll lose business.


----------



## Glenn (Dec 16, 2008)

Make health insurance higher for people who aren't healthy. Hell, if you're a bad driver, you pay more for car insurance.....


----------



## Warp Daddy (Dec 16, 2008)

Glenn said:


> Make health insurance higher for people who aren't healthy. Hell, if you're a bad driver,
> 
> Excellent  theoretical concept Glenn.. except in practice  except in practice those WITHOUT insurance  or with medicaid  USE the ER.  l  and Hospitals CANNOT refuse  treatment by statute
> 
> ...


----------



## Warp Daddy (Dec 16, 2008)

Charity care has TRIPLED in the last 3 months at our hospital  costs us .75 mill on our bottom line in a business with a less than 1% margin AND with unlimited demand for service -- NOT a happy scenario


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Dec 16, 2008)

This thread is getting political..


----------



## Warp Daddy (Dec 16, 2008)

Not political steeze this  scenario is going on all over the country and will implode soon as demographic wave sets in


----------



## drjeff (Dec 16, 2008)

Warp Daddy said:


> Not political steeze this  scenario is going on all over the country and will implode soon as demographic wave sets in



Bingo!

Warp, I'd bet that a significant portion of the hospitals operating cost (and revenvue generation source for that matter) can be attributed directly to weight related issues.

No pun intended, but this is a HUGE issue that needs to be dealt with


----------



## Warp Daddy (Dec 16, 2008)

drjeff said:


> Bingo!
> 
> Warp, I'd bet that a significant portion of the hospitals operating cost (and revenvue generation source for that matter) can be attributed directly to weight related issues.
> 
> No pun intended, but this is a HUGE issue that needs to be dealt with



Right on target Doc -- the NUMBER of CO-Morbidities in most patients these days is simply STAGGERING and is exacerbating cost .

 Multiple generations of neglect or failure to manage one's own health  within families, has resulted in a SEA of RED INK due to under employment and thus under insured lives  and exponentially higher  costs to treat them . 

And what is SCARY is  if un attended there will BE FEWER community based hospitals AND Providers --  this is a POWDER keg issue waiting to go off


----------



## severine (Dec 16, 2008)

jack97 said:


> If it was up to me, I would set up official weight scales that would be used every year for the weigh in. People get taxed based on the bmi numbers.


They do something like that in Japan...

http://surgery.about.com/b/2008/06/...-measuring-movement-to-halt-obesity-trend.htm



> Under Japanese law, men are expected to have a waist measurement of 33.5 inches, women, 35.4 inches or less. Corporations and the government are expected to do their share and will suffer financial penalties if they are unable to decrease their obese populations by 10% in the next four years, and by 25% in the next seven years. Large companies stand to lose millions of dollars in fines if their employees don't slim down.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 16, 2008)

The Japanese system clearly shows that there is no exact science in the matter.  In my adult life, I've weighed on average between 180 and 205, typically mid 190's.  I've worn the same size 34" waist pants throughout that difference.  Some people put on weight in different places than just the waist.  There are plenty of women you see walking the streets with a big ole padunkadunk butt that are relatively thin in their waist.


----------



## dmc (Dec 16, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> There are plenty of women you see walking the streets with a big ole padunkadunk butt that are relatively thin in their waist.



Icebergs...


----------



## Geoff (Dec 16, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> The Japanese system clearly shows that there is no exact science in the matter.  In my adult life, I've weighed on average between 180 and 205, typically mid 190's.  I've worn the same size 34" waist pants throughout that difference.  Some people put on weight in different places than just the waist.  There are plenty of women you see walking the streets with a big ole padunkadunk butt that are relatively thin in their waist.



You are making the classic mistake here...

*WAIST* is measured at your belly button.  Unless your name is Steve Urkel, that is not where you wear your pants.  Your true waist measurement absolutely had to have fluctuated greatly if your weight varied 25 pounds.  The health risk is tied to abdominal fat.  Anybody who measures more than 37" is at fairly high risk of eventually developing diabetes and heart issues.  40" is a flashing red light that you are risking serious short-term issues.

The Japenese measure abdominal fat and require men who measure more than 33 1/2" at their waist to undergo counselling.  

I think that the proper social policy should be to reward "good" behavior and penalize "bad" behavior.  "Good" behavior is a waist measurment below 37" and daily exercise.  At a minimum, government-supplied food like school cafeteria lunches should be healthy... 25+ grams of protien, low fat, complex carbs.  Schools should require daily exercise.  It could be something simple like a mile jog around the school grounds.  No excuses.  That's what they used to make me do when I was a kid in elementary school in the 1960's.  We didn't have a gym.  We didn't have a cafeteria.  We also didn't have a bunch of obese kids or kids loaded up on Ritalin since everybody blew some steam off in a structured way and kids weren't wired on sugar and junk carbs.

I also think that corporate-subsidized healthcare should have penalties if you are not living a healthy life.  At a minimum, smoking, obesity, and poor exercise should all cause the employee contribution to go up dramatically.  This is accepted as a matter of course with automobile insurance.  It's insane that everybody pays the same for health insurance.

Social policy for the poor is more difficult.  I think it's probably better to reward "good" behavior than penalize "bad" behavior.  Food stamps should buy more if they're used for healthy foods.  They should buy less if they're used for things loaded with fats or junk carbs.  You'd really like to have a way to reward people for getting exercise even if it's just walking.  You'd really like to have a way to reward people for dropping abdominal fat since it's so highly correlated with high healthcare costs.

I think a direct tax on junk carbs is probably pretty good social policy.  The problem is that it's tough to draw the line properly.  Soda is pretty obvious.  Potato chips and cookies are pretty obvious.  What about white bread which is just about as bad?


----------



## jack97 (Dec 16, 2008)

Warp Daddy said:


> Not political steeze this  scenario is going on all over the country and will implode soon as demographic wave sets in



And this will force the nation into a nationalize health care system if we don't have one already.

Fat people will cost me my retirement!


----------



## severine (Dec 16, 2008)

Geoff said:


> I think a direct tax on junk carbs is probably pretty good social policy.  The problem is that it's tough to draw the line properly.  Soda is pretty obvious.  Potato chips and cookies are pretty obvious.  What about white bread which is just about as bad?


You get on shaky ground with that. Depending on which food philosophy you believe, different foods are considered "healthy" and are therefore desirable. According to Weston A. Price/Real Milk/Nourishing Traditions people, traditional foods and fats are healthy. So butter, whole RAW milk, grass fed beef with fat, etc. (with sugars/many carbs being undesirable). If you go with the low-fat craze, then any fats are bad and therefore unhealthy. If you're vegetarian, all meat is bad. If you're vegan, anything that comes from an animal is bad... See where this is going? Who determines the guidelines? Some are clearcut, easy decisions to make.. but others are a slippery slope.

As for the foodstamps thing, the other complaint I have about those programs is that WIC is only good for what equates to as junk food: juice, processed cheese, certain cereals, peanut butter that has hydrogenated oils... If you're going to help people out who can't afford good, healthy food, why not encourage them to actually eat good, healthy food instead of subsidizing crap? It's built into the system...


----------



## Warp Daddy (Dec 16, 2008)

you MAY be right on the first part of it


However the scary part is  --------------even that doesn't guarantee THAT DOCTORS will be available as more and more of them are getting FED up with LOOOOOOOOOOOONG hrs,  low reimbursements ( below marginal cost)  controlled by pointed -headed bureaucrats and stupid ass pols   and coupled  with  watching   greedy HMO executives take home  7 figure BONUSES .

I just hope there IS a HEALTH care system in the  future that provides Quality care , reasonable access and a fair price --------------but I'm not very hopeful -- it may well be a TWO Tier system


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 16, 2008)

Geoff said:


> I also think that corporate-subsidized healthcare should have penalties if you are not living a healthy life.  At a minimum, smoking, obesity, and poor exercise should all cause the employee contribution to go up dramatically.  This is accepted as a matter of course with automobile insurance.  It's insane that everybody pays the same for health insurance.



....I still say it's a slippery slope.  I don't have the best habbits out there (smoker, sometimes drink too much, could lose 15 pounds) BUT I do exercise pretty regularly and I'm far less of a tax on the health system than anyone I know.  Obviously down the road, that could change if I don't make some changes, particularly with smoking, but again, you can't define things as simply as you can with car insurance.

I'm 33 and outside of 2 routine check ups, I've been to the doctor's exactly three times since graduating high school.  Once was for a work related injury, once a kidney infection when I didn't have insurance and paid for it out of pocket and once for persistent migraines two years ago, that quickly abated after some minor drug therapy.  So technically only one time have I cost my insurers money in 15 years.  In that same time I can recall exactly once getting the flu and I've never once called off a day of work.

Now, during that very same time, I've had plenty of girlfriends who didn't drink, didn't smoke etc, and they were at the doctors every other month for some issue or another.  

I just don't think things are that cut and dry.  Some people naturally have better immune systems than others irregardless of habits.


----------



## Beetlenut (Dec 16, 2008)

Why not start at the source. The food manufacturers. Govern what junk they produce, and penalize the bad stuff and reward the healthy stuff. I know it's not that simple, but these companies could be offered incentives to induce them to do produce healthy food. Kind of like the spot the car manufactureres are in now with fuel efficency problems. Since schools receive Federal funding, there already is a way to ensure that school lunches become more healthy. Take all the soda and snack machines out of the schools and replace them with healthier alternatives. Some schools have already adopted these policies on their own.


----------



## jack97 (Dec 16, 2008)

official weigh-ins once a year.....

I would throw in a fitness test, you fail you pay more. Maybe make it so hard that some will pass out but then you have to force everyone to wear a helmet


----------



## mondeo (Dec 16, 2008)

jack97 said:


> People get taxed based on the bmi numbers.


 
Per BMI, I'd be overweight at 175. It's been a while since I've been at that weight, but there's no way I'm overweight at 175 - it's probably close to my ideal weight (maybe 170.) BMI has some pretty serious drawbacks that are fairly widely recognized in that it assumes a body composition.

It's also a fairly slippery slope. Do you tax people for other activities that put them at increased risk? I'm more likely to put strain on the health care system as a skier than someone who doesn't go flying down a steep, icy hill with a couple of planks of wood attached to their feet. What about taxing people with genetic predispositions for costly diseases for having children? Where does it end?

And it isn't a fat tax. It's a calorie tax. While they're the exception, how is this justified for the people that like to have a pop after they get back from their 5 mile daily run?


----------



## Warp Daddy (Dec 16, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> ....I still say it's a slippery slope.  I don't have the best habbits out there (smoker, sometimes drink too much, could lose 15 pounds) BUT I do exercise pretty regularly and I'm far less of a tax on the health system than anyone I know.  Obviously down the road, that could change if I don't make some changes, particularly with smoking, but again, you can't define things as simply as you can with car insurance.
> 
> I'm 33 and outside of 2 routine check ups, I've been to the doctor's exactly three times since graduating high school.  Once was for a work related injury, once a kidney infection when I didn't have insurance and paid for it out of pocket and once for persistent migraines two years ago, that quickly abated after some minor drug therapy.  So technically only one time have I cost my insurers money in 15 years.  In that same time I can recall exactly once getting the flu and I've never once called off a day of work.
> 
> ...


 

AT 33 this is valid however as we age several years of bad habits can suddenly materialize in a series of co-morbidities that ensue resulting in chronic illness requiring regular visits to your physicians and specialists , regualr lab tests and and sometimes costly intervention. Not saying it happens to all BUT MOST see this scenario play out to some degree as they enter their 4th , 5th , 6th or 7 th decade . 

The singular impact with covered lives is one thing but with the uninsured or under insured it is afiancial and emotional drain not only on the indivdual but often on the healthcare system . As i mentioned before The vast majority of hospital are LOSING money bcause----------------- they must treat the ill and charity is ON THE RISE and without $$ relief teh bottom mat well fall out of the safety net -- JUST SAYIN


----------



## jack97 (Dec 16, 2008)

mondeo said:


> It's also a fairly slippery slope. Do you tax people for other activities that put them at increased risk? I'm more likely to put strain on the health care system as a skier than someone who doesn't go flying down a steep, icy hill with a couple of planks of wood attached to their feet. What about taxing people with genetic predispositions for costly diseases for having children? Where does it end?



this will weed out the genetic defects, sometimes I think Sparta had the right idea. Get rid of the weak and keep the strong for the benefit of the state. We just need a class of Melots (?) to do the mundane work.... maybe more mexicans should cross the border.


----------



## Johnskiismore (Dec 16, 2008)

On the initial subject on taxing non diet soda is just dumb.  Tax both or none at all, please, like another poster said drinking non diet soda will do you no good if you have six a day!  We've all seen or heard of the big order at McDonalds followed by a 'Diet Coke'.  Or in one of my lines in work people ask for the low-carb beer, or a light beer for that matter, but end up having way more than one!  Oh yeah, we're drinking healthy now!

I agree with what a lot of you have said that obesity is burdening our hospitals and health care professionals (understatement I know), but is a tax really going to change people's habits?  Why are people eating/drinking too much junk?  Is it really lack of education or just plain laziness?  Why aren't more people out running or doing some sort of physical activity daily?


----------



## tjf67 (Dec 16, 2008)

Warp Daddy said:


> Targeted tax is akin to  a user fee
> 
> . With diabetes and obesity( Both juvenile and adult )  mushrooming out of control and the resultant impact on health care costs ( YOURS and MINE ) to take care of folks who neither have health insurance or the WILL to alter their lifestyle choices forces this action as well as the need to contain health care costs  -- this was done with TOBACCO
> 
> ...




Dude your a retired professor, how much do you pay for health care?  What exactly are you subsidizing?


----------



## tjf67 (Dec 16, 2008)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> If everybody is fit and in shape..then the death rate will go down and I'll lose business.



How can the death rate go down?


----------



## Warp Daddy (Dec 16, 2008)

tjf67 said:


> Dude your a retired professor, how much do you pay for health care?  What exactly are you subsidizing?


 

DUDE : I  also OWNED my own BUSINESS with EMPLOYEES and INCURRED several thousands of dollars each year in THOSE costs   and BTW i pay 3600 as a retired educator too


----------



## Glenn (Dec 16, 2008)

Geoff said:


> I also think that corporate-subsidized healthcare should have penalties if you are not living a healthy life.  At a minimum, smoking, obesity, and poor exercise should all cause the employee contribution to go up dramatically.  This is accepted as a matter of course with automobile insurance.  It's insane that everybody pays the same for health insurance.



That's the angle I was going for. I certainly don't want to get into the policy of heath insurance at all because that's almost getting political. 

I'm 32, in good health, go to the gym regularly and watch what I eat. What bothers me is that I pay the same amount of insurance premium as the fattyboombalatty who's had gastric bypass, eats like crap and is probably at the doctor weekly. It's like me paying the same insurance rate as "Junior" who's crashed his Civic a few times, has multiple speeding tickets, oh, and he's 16. 

There are laws out there that don't allow companies to charge different rates for insurance. I think those could be tweaked. 

One thing I am tired of hearing: Being "fat" is somehow a disability. Are some people genetically disposed to be that way? Sure. But certainly not 100% of the large n' in charge people out there. You make a lot of choices daily...from the food you eat, to the amount of time you spend on your arse. Habbits can be changed. I modified what I ate a little bit and lost 20lbs since last year. It ain't rocket science people.


----------



## Johnskiismore (Dec 16, 2008)

Glenn said:


> One thing I am tired of hearing: Being "fat" is somehow a disability. Are some people genetically disposed to be that way? Sure. But certainly not 100% of the large n' in charge people out there. You make a lot of choices daily...from the food you eat, to the amount of time you spend on your arse. Habbits can be changed. I modified what I ate a little bit and lost 20lbs since last year. It ain't rocket science people.



+10


----------



## davidhowland14 (Dec 16, 2008)

Glenn said:


> It's like me paying the same insurance rate as "Junior" who's crashed his Civic a few times, has multiple speeding tickets, oh, and he's 16.



Or me, at 17 being charged the same amount as my classmates who go out, break 90 in a 55 zone, total their cars and kill someone. I go the speed limit, stop at stop signs, and drive extremely safely. And yet I pay the same insurance as my incredibly stupid comrades-in-age. Or how bout the fact that old people don't pay hugely high rates or face driving tests despite the fact that they regularly confuse the gas with the brake and drive into swimming pools, drift over the center line, fail to see stop signs and red lights, etc, etc. 


> One thing I am tired of hearing: Being "fat" is somehow a disability. Are some people genetically disposed to be that way? Sure. But certainly not 100% of the large n' in charge people out there. You make a lot of choices daily...from the food you eat, to the amount of time you spend on your arse. Habbits can be changed. I modified what I ate a little bit and lost 20lbs since last year. It ain't rocket science people.



I definitely agree with you there. The culture that has convinced our children that everyone has good ideas and everyone is right has condition us that things like obesity are not the faults of the obese people. To a certain degree, you can be predisposed to it. But a little hard work and you can solve that problem.


----------



## snoseek (Dec 16, 2008)

I'm all over taxing soda, diet soda, candy, salty snacks with no redeeming qualities. It would be nice if this money wasn't pooled with the general tax funds and kept separately for some sort of plan for health care and creating a fitter nation (how they do that I haven't a clue). We are indeed a nation of mouthbreathers and we will pay dearly in the long run if no action is taken....

Time for some pretzles.


----------



## mondeo (Dec 16, 2008)

snoseek said:


> I'm all over taxing soda, diet soda, candy, salty snacks with no redeeming qualities. It would be nice if this money wasn't pooled with the general tax funds and kept separately for some sort of plan for health care and creating a fitter nation (how they do that I haven't a clue). We are indeed a nation of mouthbreathers and we will pay dearly in the long run if no action is taken....
> 
> Time for some pretzles.



So let's tax cars more heavily because if people rode bikes they'd be healthier.

Let's tax bikes because if people walked they'd be healthier than if they rode a bike.

Movies and books. Go out and exercise.

Ski resorts. If people earned turns rather than getting lift served...

Hell, let's just turn the clock back and make us an agrarian, subsistence society again. If all people did was worked the fields, they'd be much healthier.

The fact is that buying snacks with no redeeming qualities, on its own, does not make one unhealthy. Hell, there'll be times when I eat an entire package of Oreos. But for the most part it'll be a few weeks between binges where I'll eat decently healthy and excercise an hour + every day. When it comes down to it, there's really nothing that bad about it, and I could do far worse by eating 3500 calories every day of food with "redeeming" qualities and no excercise.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Dec 16, 2008)

snoseek said:


> I'm all over taxing soda, diet soda, candy, salty snacks with no redeeming qualities. It would be nice if this money wasn't pooled with the general tax funds and kept separately for some sort of plan for health care and creating a fitter nation (how they do that I haven't a clue). We are indeed a nation of mouthbreathers and we will pay dearly in the long run if no action is taken....
> 
> Time for some pretzles.



Can't people just enjoy all that stuff...and help the snack food company executives get fatter monetarily speaking???  I freaking love combos..it would be cool if you could plant a combo and grow a combo tree..:idea: If I have to pay an extra dime for a bag of combos due to the fat tax..I'm down..the pizza flavored combos and goldfish crackers as well make me feel like I'm in a real New York City Pizzeria..lol


----------



## snoseek (Dec 17, 2008)

mondeo said:


> So let's tax cars more heavily because if people rode bikes they'd be healthier.
> 
> Let's tax bikes because if people walked they'd be healthier than if they rode a bike.
> 
> ...





Not really the same imho....although I can see taxing larger vehicles as they themselves have an overall hidden cost. I am all about more consumer taxes and less income, especially with non-essential things. A package of oreos is o.k. to buy but has a much bigger strain on our society than say a dozen apples. 

I agree it's a fine line to determine what is healthy and not healthy but I can promise that many companies begin to reformulate their product to become healthier. Just look at the shelves of an average grocery store and the sheer amount of crap they sell...that speaks volumes about how Americans purchase food. I think cookies, crackers, and chips could all fit in one aisle.


----------



## mondeo (Dec 17, 2008)

snoseek said:


> Not really the same imho....although I can see taxing larger vehicles as they themselves have an overall hidden cost. I am all about more consumer taxes and less income, especially with non-essential things. A package of oreos is o.k. to buy but has a much bigger strain on our society than say a dozen apples.
> 
> I agree it's a fine line to determine what is healthy and not healthy but I can promise that many companies begin to reformulate their product to become healthier. Just look at the shelves of an average grocery store and the sheer amount of crap they sell...that speaks volumes about how Americans purchase food. I think cookies, crackers, and chips could all fit in one aisle.



You're missing the point, though. It's not what people eat, it's their entire lifestyle that matters. Food is just a small part of that. If someone exercises 2 hours a day, but eats 1000 calories of crap a day on top of a balanced diet, who cares? They're getting the right nutrition and aren't eating in excess of what they burn off. When it comes down to it, a perfectly healthy lifestyle.


----------



## Glenn (Dec 17, 2008)

Here's what worries me about the "fat" tax. I see it the same as the cig tax: Good intentions, but the government will just pilfer the taxes and dump it in the general fund. If the cig tax is any indication, they'll then b!tch when people start eating better, but their tax revenues from the fat tax start going down.

I just wish people would take a bit more personal reseponsibility. We need to realize that we make a lot of our own choices and can't blame a company for what we decide to put in our bellies.


----------



## campgottagopee (Dec 17, 2008)

Warp Daddy said:


> yep a "new -- GAS tax too --- especially imposed @ Tex/Mex restaurants   to be called the BOOBA  bag tax



Almost
http://www.cnycentral.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=232250


----------



## Warp Daddy (Dec 17, 2008)

campgottagopee said:


> Almost
> http://www.cnycentral.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=232250



Right on target Camp !! we saw it up here and all our aggies are rightfully raising Hell about it -- friggin idiot bureaucrats


----------



## Geoff (Dec 17, 2008)

mondeo said:


> You're missing the point, though. It's not what people eat, it's their entire lifestyle that matters. Food is just a small part of that. If someone exercises 2 hours a day, but eats 1000 calories of crap a day on top of a balanced diet, who cares? They're getting the right nutrition and aren't eating in excess of what they burn off. When it comes down to it, a perfectly healthy lifestyle.



Right....

Which is why I think the incentives and penalties should be on abdominal fat and overall fitness level.  If somebody allows themselves to be obese and out of shape, the incremental cost to society should cost them something.  Think of what it costs to treat somebody with type 2 diabetes or heart disease.  Most of the time, those are self-induced.  Similarly, people should be rewarded for staying in shape and maintaining their proper body weight.

Some incentives that might make sense:
* Lower healthcare deductable if you are fit and your proper body weight
* Make gym memberships and similar physical activities tax deductable
* Food stamps double in value for buying complex carbs and lean protein sources


----------



## tjf67 (Dec 17, 2008)

snoseek said:


> I'm all over taxing soda, diet soda, candy, salty snacks with no redeeming qualities. It would be nice if this money wasn't pooled with the general tax funds and kept separately for some sort of plan for health care and creating a fitter nation (how they do that I haven't a clue). We are indeed a nation of mouthbreathers and we will pay dearly in the long run if no action is taken....
> 
> Time for some pretzles.




Of course you are, you dont eat any of those foods.  How about they tax your ski ticket cause people who ski are more likely to get hurt.  You may not like that.

hell why not just add a tax to people in bands of ages as they get older.  It is a fact older people need more health care service.


----------



## jack97 (Dec 17, 2008)

Geoff said:


> Right....
> 
> Which is why I think the incentives and penalties should be on abdominal fat and overall fitness level.  If somebody allows themselves to be obese and out of shape, the incremental cost to society should cost them something.  Think of what it costs to treat somebody with type 2 diabetes or heart disease.  Most of the time, those are self-induced.  Similarly, people should be rewarded for staying in shape and maintaining their proper body weight.
> 
> ...



I like the approach but that will never fly in this political climate. 

btw,  I use to workout in a gym where some of the regulars were not in the best of shape. Plenty of beer belly playing tennis as a casual thing. See folks just moving the legs around on the elipticals at the lowest settings. Just because you belong in a gym does not mean you are in shape... just mean you belong in a gym.


----------



## severine (Dec 17, 2008)

I know what you mean, guys, but really, I'm for less government involvement and taxing than more. Isn't this supposed to be the land of the free? There are plenty of other risky things I'm sure you people do that put you in a bracket that you should pay more for health care/car insurance/whatever but you don't. It all evens out in the end, doesn't it? Why should government dictate what you eat? The next thing you know, we'll all be in standardized uniforms with barcodes and only allowed to do what our genetic code predisposes us to... and have to apply for permits for everything from skiing to having sex (because the risk of you procreating and carrying on your genetic code...oh my, the horrors!!!!!).

Common sense. That's all that's needed. And balance.


----------



## Beetlenut (Dec 17, 2008)

severine said:


> The next thing you know, we'll all be in standardized uniforms with barcodes and only allowed to do what our genetic code predisposes us to... and have to apply for permits for everything from skiing to having sex (because the risk of you procreating and carrying on your genetic code...oh my, the horrors!!!!!).


 
You mean we'll all become Chinese?


----------



## Warp Daddy (Dec 17, 2008)

you mean we  aren't already ?


----------



## Warp Daddy (Dec 17, 2008)

Common sense is a RARE commodity today it seems


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 17, 2008)

severine said:


> I know what you mean, guys, but really, I'm for less government involvement and taxing than more. Isn't this supposed to be the land of the free? There are plenty of other risky things I'm sure you people do that put you in a bracket that you should pay more for health care/car insurance/whatever but you don't. It all evens out in the end, doesn't it? Why should government dictate what you eat? The next thing you know, we'll all be in standardized uniforms with barcodes and only allowed to do what our genetic code predisposes us to... and have to apply for permits for everything from skiing to having sex (because the risk of you procreating and carrying on your genetic code...oh my, the horrors!!!!!).
> 
> Common sense. That's all that's needed. And balance.



+1

I think it's all too difficult to define personally.  

Breakfast: Three fried-egg sandwiches loaded with cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, fried onions and mayonnaise. Two cups of coffee. One five-egg omelet. One bowl of grits. Three slices of French toast topped with powdered sugar. Three chocolate-chip pancakes.

Lunch: One pound of enriched pasta. Two large ham and cheese sandwiches with mayo on white bread. Energy drinks packing 1,000 calories.

Dinner: One pound of pasta. An entire pizza. More energy drinks. 

That's Michael Phelps' diet.  He's most likely healthier than any single one of us in this debate, yet most would look at the above diet and say that individual must be 400 pounds and on the verge of a heart attack.

Yes certain behaviors are risky and can lead to a higher burden on the system, but even if you were to define certain activities such as skiing, there is still too much gray area.  A never ever skier on a bunny slope probably has a greater risk of injury than an experienced skier going down Outer Limits.  

Too many variables and too many special interest groups having a say.  I vote NO on the fat tax :lol:


----------



## jack97 (Dec 17, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> Breakfast: Three fried-egg sandwiches loaded with cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, fried onions and mayonnaise. Two cups of coffee. One five-egg omelet. One bowl of grits. Three slices of French toast topped with powdered sugar. Three chocolate-chip pancakes.
> 
> Lunch: One pound of enriched pasta. Two large ham and cheese sandwiches with mayo on white bread. Energy drinks packing 1,000 calories.
> 
> ...



lol... that's a special diet, yeah heavy on the carbs and proteins. Problem is you wont see Phelps super sizing it at McD steakhouse. I hear that most fast foods are not healthy in general, rich in fat and carbs. Things a normal person (meaning non Olympic athlete) would not need for daily food intake

I still have a to pass an eye exam to get my driver's license. I say official weigh ins and fitness test. Pass the test and you get a tax break. Big government at its finest.


----------



## severine (Dec 17, 2008)

Weight is not an indicator of fitness or health. There are a lot of studies out there that show people who are outside normal weight guidelines, but are healthier than those who are considered ideal weight. Too much gray area.


----------



## Warp Daddy (Dec 17, 2008)

What will be amusing to watch the Big soda industry  here in NYS start "cry assing"  -- soon  very soon


----------



## Beetlenut (Dec 17, 2008)

Warp Daddy said:


> What will be amusing to watch the Big soda industry here in NYS start "cry assing" -- soon very soon


 
Crank-up the lobbyists!!


----------



## snoseek (Dec 17, 2008)

So I would assume you all oppose the current tax on liquor? Both liquor and unhealthy food can both be enjoyed in moderation but why tax liquor and not soda? Both have potentially negative effects and cost.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 17, 2008)

jack97 said:


> lol... that's a special diet, yeah heavy on the carbs and proteins. Problem is you wont see Phelps super sizing it at McD steakhouse. I hear that most fast foods are not healthy in general, rich in fat and carbs. Things a normal person (meaning non Olympic athlete) would not need for daily food intake
> 
> I still have a to pass an eye exam to get my driver's license. I say official weigh ins and fitness test. Pass the test and you get a tax break. Big government at its finest.



It is, but breakfast sandwiches loaded with cheese and mayo, a full pizza.  There's plenty of fat in there as well; not like fast food has, but a large pizza is a huge amount of fat for someone to be consuming in one day.

Fitness test maybe, but what are you going to test?  How much someone can lift?  How fast they can run a mile?  Heart rates vary by individual as well.  My father is 6'1", 172 pounds, doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, works out five days a week, yet he's been on high blood pressure medication for 15 years.  Genetics do play a factor.    

Weigh ins?  A man who is 6'1" with a 'large' frame is supposed to weigh between 168 and 192. New England Linebacker Jerod Mayo is 6'1" and 242 pounds.    Is he unhealthy?  Doubtful

There's honestly no way to justly define the parameters across a population and have equitable taxing based off of it.  There are far too many variables.  It's not as simple as stepping up to a picture window and reading letters across a screen.


----------



## Geoff (Dec 17, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> It is, but breakfast sandwiches loaded with cheese and mayo, a full pizza.  There's plenty of fat in there as well; not like fast food has, but a large pizza is a huge amount of fat for someone to be consuming in one day.
> 
> Fitness test maybe, but what are you going to test?  How much someone can lift?  How fast they can run a mile?  Heart rates vary by individual as well.  My father is 6'1", 172 pounds, doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, works out five days a week, yet he's been on high blood pressure medication for 15 years.  Genetics do play a factor.
> 
> ...



We've already covered this ground in this thread.  Weight doesn't matter.  Abdominal fat matters.  You can measure that with a tape measure.  The CDC numbers are probably a good start.... 37" is the "do not exceed" measurement for males.  40" is the flashing red danger lights.  I'd bet a month of unemployment checks that Jerod Mayo, at 6'1" and 242 pounds, is far less than 37".


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 17, 2008)

Geoff said:


> We've already covered this ground in this thread.  Weight doesn't matter.  Abdominal fat matters.  You can measure that with a tape measure.  The CDC numbers are probably a good start.... 37" is the "do not exceed" measurement for males.  40" is the flashing red danger lights.  I'd bet a month of unemployment checks that Jerod Mayo, at 6'1" and 242 pounds, is far less than 37".



It's probably a good goal, but probably still a somewhat arbitrary number.  I'd imagine there are plenty of people with an abdominal measurement of 37 who are still in great shape.

I have no way of telling, but I bet Mayo's numbers are pretty close to 37.  I just did a quick check on everyone's favorite big fit guy, the Governator and Arnold had a 34" waist during the prime of his lifting career. It's conceivable that Mayo has considerably more fat around his abdomen than Arnold did and I'd still make the argument that he's probably in better shape than 99% of guys on the planet. Maybe Dr. Jeff as a season ticket holder has he inside scoop on Mayo's measurement :lol:

I just think that there are far too many variables to come up with an equitable tax deduction based on health.  I'll go with smokers paying more for insurance.  I currently do not, but I have with a couple of insurers in my life time, $15 a month extra was the charge.  I paid it, but it bothered me to see obese people who were far less healthy than I not have to pay extra.  I still don't know how to come up with an equitable measurement of how to charge people extra for being obese.  There are too many variables.


----------



## tjf67 (Dec 17, 2008)

snoseek said:


> So I would assume you all oppose the current tax on liquor? Both liquor and unhealthy food can both be enjoyed in moderation but why tax liquor and not soda? Both have potentially negative effects and cost.



I oppose the tax in general.  What really steams my panties is the way they get it passed and what they actually do with the money.  
If they took the taxes that they charge smokers and used it only for health care our health care system would be in far better shape today.  
BTW yesterday was the anniversery of the Boston Tea Party.


----------



## Geoff (Dec 17, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> It's conceivable that Mayo has considerably more fat around his abdomen than Arnold did and I'd still make the argument that he's probably in better shape than 99% of guys on the planet. Maybe Dr. Jeff as a season ticket holder has he inside scoop on Mayo's measurement :lol:



I'll bet Mayo only has 5% body fat.  If you don't have abdominal fat, you can't possibly have a waist measurement of 37".


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 17, 2008)

Geoff said:


> I'll bet Mayo only has 5% body fat.  If you don't have abdominal fat, you can't possibly have a waist measurement of 37".



I guess I can't wrap my mind around the concept of 37" as the be all end all figure for measuring health risks.  I bet there are plenty of people that have a waist measurement of 37" that are far healthier than those with a 32" waist. There is probably some merit to your argument, but I still say it's far too arbitrary to base tax and/or insurance rates off of.


----------



## jack97 (Dec 17, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> Fitness test maybe, but what are you going to test?  How much someone can lift?  How fast they can run a mile?  Heart rates vary by individual as well.  My father is 6'1", 172 pounds, doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, works out five days a week, yet he's been on high blood pressure medication for 15 years.  Genetics do play a factor.
> 
> Weigh ins?  A man who is 6'1" with a 'large' frame is supposed to weigh between 168 and 192. New England Linebacker Jerod Mayo is 6'1" and 242 pounds.    Is he unhealthy?  Doubtful



Speaking of the pats, first week in training camp they make all players go thru a conditioning drill. Pass it and you get to practice in the grueling summer heat. Fail and you go on the stationary bike until you pass the test. I think more teams are doing this due to heat related deaths during camp.

Conditioning test and pass/fail criteria is based on the positions of the players but all of them has to do with running sprints and or longer with a time factor.


Back to the tax, not matter what type of test is involved you will get some that say it is fair and some not fair. Can say the same about taxes in general. But that is what big government is all about.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Dec 17, 2008)

Geoff said:


> We've already covered this ground in this thread.  Weight doesn't matter.  Abdominal fat matters.  You can measure that with a tape measure.  The CDC numbers are probably a good start.... 37" is the "do not exceed" measurement for males.  40" is the flashing red danger lights.  I'd bet a month of unemployment checks that Jerod Mayo, at 6'1" and 242 pounds, is far less than 37".



I agree with you..weight doesn't matter so much....my arms are big from pushing around tombstones and my legs are solid from skiing,,,but it's the beer gut that is the killer..and nobody wears their pants like Steve Urkel except my 82 year old buddy at the bar.  I'm alot fatter than my pant size..:sad:


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 17, 2008)

jack97 said:


> Speaking of the pats, first week in training camp they make all players go thru a conditioning drill. Pass it and you get to practice in the grueling summer heat. Fail and you go on the stationary bike until you pass the test. I think more teams are doing this due to heat related deaths during camp.
> 
> Conditioning test and pass/fail criteria is based on the positions of the players but all of them has to do with running sprints and or longer with a time factor.
> 
> ...



Fitness and health cost per citizen aren't 100% transferable entities.  There are far too many variables to base insurance / taxes off of just because you run a faster lap at the track then your neighbor.  Sure, it might be good for you, but what about if you have an autistic child?  Are you going to have them compete, do their best athletically on an even playing field against other autistic children and say, yeah, you tried harder, you cost the hospital less money, you pay less taxes?  A 3 day old kid today had a FOOT removed from his brain, probably cost a million dollars to do http://www.thedenverchannel.com/health/18297954/detail.html#-, but what if the dad had crap insurance because he missed his weigh in by a few pounds?     

The point I'm trying to make is that there are far too many, genetic, physical and or mental variables to even come close to instituting equitable systems for a 'fat tax' or to base 'insurance rates' off of.   Geoff says 37" fat stomach should be the cut off.  You suggest athletic pursuits.  Vince Wilfork probably has a 45 inch waist, but he could out run me and my 35 inch waist like the wind.  By Geoff's standards, I'm the healthier guy because he looks at abdominal fat.  By your standards, Vince is the man because he can sprint faster and run longer than me.  

Obesity is but one of many health problems, we need to get healthier, but......

Offering monetary incentives is a stupid way to look at improving the nations health.  If it succeeds, it tells me one thing.  America has a greater addiction to money than it does cheese burgers and potato chips.  I'm not sure which is worse.


----------



## Geoff (Dec 18, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> The point I'm trying to make is that there are far too many, genetic, physical and or mental variables to even come close to instituting equitable systems for a 'fat tax' or to base 'insurance rates' off of.   Geoff says 37" fat stomach should be the cut off.  You suggest athletic pursuits.  Vince Wilfork probably has a 45 inch waist, but he could out run me and my 35 inch waist like the wind.  By Geoff's standards, I'm the healthier guy because he looks at abdominal fat.  By your standards, Vince is the man because he can sprint faster and run longer than me.



You forgot the other corner cases like Sumo Wrestlers.

I give up.  Let the obese Walmart shoppers suck our healthcare system dry over an obscure exception like a friggin' NFL lineman.  There's no point in having social policy that encourages people to get daily exercise and maintain a medically acceptable amount of body fat.  As we spiral towards socialized medicine, the care for type 2 diabetes and heart disease is going to be tightly rationed anyways so those people will quickly die off.  I'm going to boot up and get my daily exercise.  I already ate my cup of eggbeater vegetarian omelette to control my body fat.  I'm gonna live long enough to be a burden on society.


----------



## severine (Dec 18, 2008)

Geoff said:


> I already ate my cup of eggbeater vegetarian omelette to control my body fat.  I'm gonna live long enough to be a burden on society.


But you see, according to Nourishing Traditions/Weston A Price, you just cut your life short by not eating the egg as it was made. You cut out an essential part of the egg in the herd-minded mentality that that is healthier because cholesterol in must mean higher cholesterol in the body, forgetting that the egg was made perfectly balanced with the right fats/protein ratio and your body was made to process it that way...

See what I mean? What's considered healthy by one is not by another. 

Once you let government in, it's awfully hard to get them to step out later... There are a lot of changes one should make for the greater good. But government impositions, penalties, and credits should not be the incentives to initiate that change. You end up with far greater consequences than imagined.


----------



## Geoff (Dec 18, 2008)

severine said:


> But you see, according to Nourishing Traditions/Weston A Price, you just cut your life short by not eating the egg as it was made. You cut out an essential part of the egg in the herd-minded mentality that that is healthier because cholesterol in must mean higher cholesterol in the body, forgetting that the egg was made perfectly balanced with the right fats/protein ratio and your body was made to process it that way...
> 
> See what I mean? What's considered healthy by one is not by another.
> 
> Once you let government in, it's awfully hard to get them to step out later... There are a lot of changes one should make for the greater good. But government impositions, penalties, and credits should not be the incentives to initiate that change. You end up with far greater consequences than imagined.



It has nothing to do with cholesterol since the link between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol has pretty much been debunked.  I eat egg beater omelettes for breakfast rather than whole egg omelettes because they're less calories.  A cup of egg beaters is only 120 calories.  That's roughly the calories in one egg.  I'm getting 3x the protein and 3x the volume of food in my stomach.

I get plenty of whole eggs in my diet.... just not for breakfast since I don't need the calories.


----------



## severine (Dec 18, 2008)

I was just trying to make a point that setting up a system of punishing for not following what one group thinks are appropriate dietary guidelines is looking for trouble. That's all. And despite what you say about the debunking of the link between dietary and blood cholesterol, doctors are still advising patients that there is, as well as a multitude of other outdated information that is perpetuated in the system.

I know common sense is in short supply, but really, there's no substitute for it.


----------



## Geoff (Dec 18, 2008)

severine said:


> I was just trying to make a point that setting up a system of punishing for not following what one group thinks are appropriate dietary guidelines is looking for trouble. That's all. And despite what you say about the debunking of the link between dietary and blood cholesterol, doctors are still advising patients that there is, as well as a multitude of other outdated information that is perpetuated in the system.
> 
> I know common sense is in short supply, but really, there's no substitute for it.



I'd point out that I've never suggested in this thread that the government should regulate what people eat other than when the government is supplying the food (school lunches is the obvious candidate).  I think a tax on soda is a stupid idea.  I think that making it so food stamps don't buy soda and other junk carb processed food is just fine.  I'm also suggesting that the government should provide incentives for people to be fit and relatively low body fat.  


Enough... my boots are on.  Time to make some turns.


----------



## drjeff (Dec 18, 2008)

Bottomline and there is absolutely no magical secret to this, if you BURN more calories than you CONSUME over the course of a day, you'll loose weight reguardless of what you stuff in your mouth.

Personally,  what I'm doing now eating wise is just plain and simple,  I try and have 2 or 3 different colored foods per meal with aside from some heat to warm things up, as little processing to the food as possible.  In between meals(once I get my AM caffeine load in me) I drink water.  Also, generally speaking I want to have to prepare a meal rather than just opening up a package and tossing stuff in the microwave for 1 minute.  Most days, this plan will get me a nice balance of protein, complex carbs and the other micro nutrients I need and keep the wasteline at a decent size.


----------



## Dr Skimeister (Dec 18, 2008)

A poignant op-ed piece from today's NY Times.....

Miracle Tax Diet 
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
When the human body was evolving, almost the only things we drank were breast milk for the first few years and then water, water and more water. 

It would obviously have been bad if we had evolved to feel full when water was sloshing about our stomachs because then we wouldn’t have eaten our fill the next time we speared a mastodon. Today, the unfortunate result is that if you drink a bottle of 7-Up, you still don’t feel full — the body treats the liquid as empty calories, like water — and so you won’t eat any less the next time you spear a Big Mac. 

That has presented a huge problem in an age of sugary drinks, and some scholars believe they have become a major source of obesity. That’s why the new soda tax proposed by Gov. David Paterson of New York is such a breakthrough.

Mr. Paterson suggested the tax — an 18 percent sales tax on soft drinks and other nondiet sugary beverages — to help raise $400 million a year to plug a hole in the state budget. But it’s also a landmark effort that, if other states follow, could help make us healthier. 

Let’s break for a quiz: What was the biggest health care breakthrough in the last 40 years in the United States? Heart bypasses? CAT scans and M.R.I.’s? New cancer treatments?

No, it was the cigarette tax. Every 10 percent price increase on cigarettes reduced sales by about 3 percent over all, and 7 percent among teenagers, according to the 2005 book “Prescription for a Healthy Nation.” Just the 1983 increase in the federal tax on cigarettes saved 40,000 lives per year.

In effect, the most promising cure for lung cancer didn’t emerge from a medical research lab but from money-grubbing politicians. Likewise, the best cure for obesity may turn out to be not a pill but a tax.

These days, sugary drinks are to American health roughly what tobacco was a generation ago. A tax would shift some consumers, especially kids, to diet drinks or water.

“Soft drinks are linked to diabetes and obesity in the way that tobacco is to lung cancer,” says Barry Popkin, a nutrition specialist at the University of North Carolina and author of the excellent new book, “The World Is Fat.” He warns that the cola industry will spend vast sums fighting the proposed tax.

One of industry’s objections is that soft drinks aren’t the only problem. That’s true, and I’d love to see a “Twinkie tax” as well. But evidence is accumulating that sugary drinks are a major contributor to obesity because of the evolutionary heritage I mentioned at the outset: Except for soups, liquid calories don’t register with the body, according to Professor Popkin and other specialists.

If you have a snack, even something unhealthy like potato chips, you’ll eat less at your next meal. But have a Coke, and despite all those calories, you’ll still eat just as much. Indeed, according to some studies, you’ll actually eat more.

“These findings raise the possibility that soft drinks increase hunger, decrease satiety or simply calibrate people to a high level of sweetness that generalizes to preferences in other foods,” said a peer-reviewed article last year in the American Journal of Public Health.

The average American consumes about 35 gallons of nondiet soda each year and gets far more added sugar from soda than from desserts.

Barack Obama has pledged to move toward a system of universal health coverage, and Democrats mostly see health care reform as a matter of providing access to doctors. Access and universal coverage are indeed essential, but there’s only so much doctors can do in this environment.

One priority must be a public health campaign to change social behavior. A starting point is to recognize that risky teen behavior these days can involve not just alcohol, drugs or sex but also extra-large Cokes.

One new study estimates that 24 million Americans now have diabetes, more than four times the number in 1980. The total direct and indirect cost to Americans is $218 billion each year — an average of $1,900 per American household. Each year, diabetes contributes to the deaths of more than 200,000 Americans. 

Part of the solution must come from reforming agriculture so that we stop subsidizing corn that ends up as high fructose corn syrup inside soft drinks. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama on Wednesday chose Tom Vilsack, the former governor of Iowa who has longstanding ties to agribusiness interests, as agriculture secretary — his weakest selection so far.

The soft-drink industry will throw enormous resources into defeating the proposed New York tax on sugary drinks. We should stand behind Governor Paterson’s bold gesture. He is blazing a path that other states should follow.

Losing weight is never easy, but one of the most effective diets would start with a soft drink tax. 

•


----------



## jack97 (Dec 18, 2008)

Dr Skimeister said:


> A poignant op-ed piece from today's NY Times.....
> 
> Miracle Tax Diet
> By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
> ...



I like the politics of Gov Paterson's  predecessor.... no one was above law expect for himself. Plain and simple... no need for big time lobbyist.


----------



## Dr Skimeister (Dec 18, 2008)

jack97 said:


> I like the politics of Gov Paterson's  predecessor.... no one was above law expect for himself. Plain and simple... no need for big time lobbyist.



OK...I'll take the bait and open up the can of worms that my response is likely to result in.....

Help me connect the dots here.....

But how does Spitzer's hobby of paying for sex with high-price hookers lead to the assertion the he thought he was above the law?  He was found out, he resigned. His biggest concern should be how much it will hurt when his soon-to-be-ex-wife cuts his balls off.

And what does any of that have to do with Paterson's proposed tax?


----------



## tjf67 (Dec 18, 2008)

No, it was the cigarette tax. Every 10 percent price increase on cigarettes reduced sales by about 3 percent over all, and 7 percent among teenagers, according to the 2005 book “Prescription for a Healthy Nation.” Just the 1983 increase in the federal tax on cigarettes saved 40,000 lives per year.

In effect, the most promising cure for lung cancer didn’t emerge from a medical research lab but from money-grubbing politicians. Likewise, the best cure for obesity may turn out to be not a pill but a tax.

WOW seeing as how it is put that way, these people are my heros.  Polititions SUCK ASS.


----------



## jack97 (Dec 18, 2008)

Dr Skimeister said:


> OK...I'll take the bait and open up the can of worms that my response is likely to result in.....
> 
> Help me connect the dots here.....
> 
> ...



Just goofing about this whole situation.

I hate big government since it basically imposes on our personal freedoms. What I find interesting is that the reason for having big government or big tax programs is really the masses saying protect us from this pending doom. Health care cost has been an issue for the past twenty years, I blame the doctors and pharmaceutical for this bleed off. Presently, the automaker bailout is hinging on the high cost of health care. And in the future, all the obese poeple who do not have the will power to make that life style change. 

Spitzer's follies is something I rather have than to put another level of taxation (either break or penalties) on the masses. I rather see health care cost lowered and make the issue of soda and junk food a public health issue similar to smoking. Who knows, maybe some of the state level DAs can sue McD steakhouse, Burger King, Coke, Pepsi b/c they are contributing to the higher health care cost.


----------



## mondeo (Dec 18, 2008)

Dr Skimeister said:


> Mr. Paterson suggested the tax — an 18 percent sales tax on soft drinks and other nondiet sugary beverages — to help raise $400 million a year to plug a hole in the state budget.
> 
> Let’s break for a quiz: What was the biggest health care breakthrough in the last 40 years in the United States? Heart bypasses? CAT scans and M.R.I.’s? New cancer treatments?
> 
> ...



So what constitutes a non-diet sugary beverage? Fruit juices? Smoothies? Milk?

And the part on cigarettes is B.S., too. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that increasing taxes coincided with increased public awareness of the health risks...:roll:

What does saving a life mean, anyways? All I know that can be done is prolonging life.


----------



## Dr Skimeister (Dec 18, 2008)

mondeo said:


> So what constitutes a non-diet sugary beverage? Fruit juices? Smoothies? Milk?
> 
> And the part on cigarettes is B.S., too. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that increasing taxes coincided with increased public awareness of the health risks...:roll:
> 
> What does saving a life mean, anyways? All I know that can be done is prolonging life.



I disagree.

 I think that you can bark and rant about health risks to people to no avail, but you start to hit them *directly* in their pocketbooks they take notice. The indirect hits to the wallet that increased health costs provide aren't enough to make so many people pay attention.

The whole discourse of this thread concedes that defining "non-diet sugary beverage" will likely be the biggest stumbling block to enactment of a law like this.


----------



## snoseek (Dec 18, 2008)

mondeo said:


> So what constitutes a non-diet sugary beverage? Fruit juices? Smoothies? Milk?
> 
> And the part on cigarettes is B.S., too. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that increasing taxes coincided with increased public awareness of the health risks...:roll:
> 
> What does saving a life mean, anyways? All I know that can be done is prolonging life.



Those taxes help pay for the media campaign against tobacco.

Edit-As I understand from An article I read a couple months ago there is a push to rate all food on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 100 on grocery store shelves. I'm pretty sure this scale could be used to tax any beverage less than a certain number. The scale is based on not just calories but overall redeeming qualities of the foodstuff. As I mentioned before I think this could result in many reformulations by the companies to avoid the tax, which also would be helpful.


----------



## snoseek (Dec 18, 2008)

Dr Skimeister said:


> I disagree.
> 
> I think that you can bark and rant about health risks to people to no avail, but you start to hit them *directly* in their pocketbooks they take notice. The indirect hits to the wallet that increased health costs provide aren't enough to make so many people pay attention.
> 
> The whole discourse of this thread concedes that defining "non-diet sugary beverage" will likely be the biggest stumbling block to enactment of a law like this.



I fully agree about the whole money thing, It is easily the best way to get anything done in this country. I am personally not so cynical that I will abandon the idea of some goverment intervention. God knows Pepsi or Frito-Lay could really give a rats ass about the obesity epedemic.


----------



## severine (Dec 18, 2008)

Are Pepsi or Frito-Lay shoving that stuff down people's gullets?

Whatever happened to personal responsibility?


----------



## Dr Skimeister (Dec 18, 2008)

severine said:


> Are Pepsi or Frito-Lay shoving that stuff down people's gullets?
> 
> Whatever happened to personal responsibility?



But..when my neighbor chooses not to be personally responsible, it does impact my health care costs. It's become the government's charge to protect the idiots from themselves as well as to protect others from the idiots.


----------



## snoseek (Dec 18, 2008)

severine said:


> Are Pepsi or Frito-Lay shoving that stuff down people's gullets?
> 
> Whatever happened to personal responsibility?



We have already proved that personal responsibility is not working-as a nation we just keep getting fatter and fatter.It is time for a new plan.

O.K. answer me this-Do you think obesity in this country is as big of a problem as tobbaco or alcohol consumption


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 18, 2008)

snoseek said:


> Those taxes help pay for the media campaign against tobacco.
> 
> Edit-As I understand from An article I read a couple months ago there is a push to rate all food on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 100 on grocery store shelves. I'm pretty sure this scale could be used to tax any beverage less than a certain number. The scale is based on not just calories but overall redeeming qualities of the foodstuff. As I mentioned before I think this could result in many reformulations by the companies to avoid the tax, which also would be helpful.



Some grocery stores have already taken it upon themselves to do such a thing.  Hannaford has it's Star program for all it's products

http://www.hannaford.com/Contents/Healthy_Living/Guiding_Stars/index.shtml?lid=mb


----------



## snoseek (Dec 18, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> Some grocery stores have already taken it upon themselves to do such a thing.  Hannaford has it's Star program for all it's products
> 
> http://www.hannaford.com/Contents/Healthy_Living/Guiding_Stars/index.shtml?lid=mb



That's cool I think we will see more in the future. I'm wondering if a can of pringles gets one star-that would fall under good nutritional value by their guidelines. I still would rather see a numerical scale from 1-100 so consumers would not be misled.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 18, 2008)

Dr Skimeister said:


> But..when my neighbor chooses not to be personally responsible, it does impact my health care costs. It's become the government's charge to protect the idiots from themselves as well as to protect others from the idiots.



But you as a skier could directly effect your neighbors health care costs by hurting yourself while participating in the sport.  Maybe not you so much as I assume you have health insurance, so I'm saying the 'hypothetical' you.  

There's been exactly three months in my adult life that I did not have health insurance and wouldn't you know it was when I got real sick and I had to go to the emergency room.  The charge was $1800, but because I was uninsured, I got a discount that brought the price down to $1300.  My guess is that $500 got passed on somehow to others in higher fees charged by the hospital.


----------



## jack97 (Dec 18, 2008)

snoseek said:


> O.K. answer me this-Do you think obesity in this country is as big of a problem as tobbaco or alcohol consumption



My doom and gloom answer is yes and will be even bigger than cigs and booz. 

The main difference is that normal humans can survive without tobacco and alcohol. Food intake is a basic necessity. I say this as a disclosure, I have eaten at burger king or mcd when I'm short for time. That drives my wife crazy.... literally. The other key item is that these fast foods are becoming cheaper than food that provide more well rounded nutrients. 

So given fast food (and I will admit they are junk food) save the masses in terms of time and money, how can you beat that? Also, placing an extra tax on that would just add more burden to food cost to the poor. 

 btw, getting 2% milk in these places is way more expensive than the soft drinks... that still blows me away.


----------



## snoseek (Dec 18, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> But you as a skier could directly effect your neighbors health care costs by hurting yourself while participating in the sport.




Yeah but millions of people aren't putting a burden on the system by injuries. If that ever happened I would fully support a tax to recover the losses and stop skiing-it would be insanely crowded.


----------



## snoseek (Dec 18, 2008)

jack97 said:


> My doom and gloom answer is yes and will be even bigger than cigs and booz.
> 
> The main difference is that normal humans can survive without tobacco and alcohol. Food intake is a basic necessity. I say this as a disclosure, I have eaten at burger king or mcd when I'm short for time. That drives my wife crazy.... literally. The other key item is that these fast foods are becoming cheaper than food that provide more well rounded nutrients.
> 
> ...



I agree that it would be tough on the less fortunate-there must be a way around that....


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 18, 2008)

snoseek said:


> Yeah but millions of people aren't putting a burden on the system by injuries. If that ever happened I would fully support a tax to recover the losses and stop skiing-it would be insanely crowded.



The thing is that millions of people do get injured playing sports each year. In fact 85% of elite or recreational badminton players suffer an injury each year :lol:

http://www.sportsinjurybulletin.com/archive/0123a-sport-injuries.htm

What do you tax there?  The bird?  65% of runners suffer an injury each year, should you tax their shoes?  Some people probably hurt themselves having sex. Should you tax birth control or condoms :lol:

If you're going to look at one thing like soda consumption and how it affects the national health, you have to look at ALL things in my opinion.  It could probably be done and countless risk management jobs would spring up from the studies.

To me, that's just too much.  I'd rather the government stay out of it.


----------



## Dr Skimeister (Dec 18, 2008)

snoseek said:


> O.K. answer me this-Do you think obesity in this country is as big of a problem as tobbaco or alcohol consumption



Yes, I do. And, every pun intended, it will get bigger and bigger. 

Didn't you see Wall-E??  



deadheadskier said:


> But you as a skier could directly effect your neighbors health care costs by hurting yourself while participating in the sport.  Maybe not you so much as I assume you have health insurance, so I'm saying the 'hypothetical' you.



This switches the conversation from personal/social responsibility to health care/health insurance. 

I assume that a large majority of skiers & riders, being in the economic position to partake in these activities, afford health insurance. I also assume that a big part of the target audience for foods and drinks of questionable nutritional value are people of lower socioeconomic standing that have a greater liklihood of being less educated on the perils of such a diet. My assumption goes one step further that lower socioeconomic standing increases the liklihood of inadequate health insurance. Hence the social burden of these foods and drinks as opposed to social burden of ski injuries.


----------



## snoseek (Dec 18, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> The thing is that millions of people do get injured playing sports each year. In fact 85% of elite or recreational badminton players suffer an injury each year :lol:
> 
> http://www.sportsinjurybulletin.com/archive/0123a-sport-injuries.htm
> 
> ...




I don't think it's on the same scale as say Diabetes,heart disease, cancer ect......

Besides overall I think the general public benefits from any kind of activity-whether it be running, badmitton whatever. I'm looking at the big picture here and obesity is a rapidly growing problem that kills lot's and lot's of people and racks up a huge bill doing so. Running not so much. If millions of people were being hospitalized from badmitton then yes I would like someone to come up with a solution.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 18, 2008)

Foie Gras has 130 calories per ounce, 111 of those calories from fat.  Should there be a Foie Gras tax to?


----------



## snoseek (Dec 18, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> Foie Gras has 130 calories per ounce, 111 of those calories from fat.  Should there be a Foie Gras tax to?



I think that soda and snacks are a good starting point as they are feeding the masses. I'm pretty sure most people don't even know what Foie Gras is. Step back and look at the big picture. Americans aren't getting fatter from eating more meat, butter ect... than previous generations but from all the junk and processed foods. Next time you're at The grocery store count the number of different tortilla chips in the aisle-that speaks a lot about us as consumers. I can't for the life of me come up with one real negative about taxing soda and snacks.


----------



## Dr Skimeister (Dec 18, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> Foie Gras has 130 calories per ounce, 111 of those calories from fat.  Should there be a Foie Gras tax to?



I'm pretty sure PETA thinks there should be a substantial tax on foie gras.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 18, 2008)

Dr Skimeister said:


> I'm pretty sure PETA thinks there should be a substantial tax on foie gras.



Actually there already is a PETA tax on it.  $1 for every pound of Foie sold in the US goes to lawyers fighting the activist groups.


----------



## Dr Skimeister (Dec 18, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> Actually there already is a PETA tax on it.  $1 for every pound of Foie sold in the US goes to lawyers fighting the activist groups.



Hasn't it actually been outlawed somewhere....LA, perhaps?


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 18, 2008)

Dr Skimeister said:


> Hasn't it actually been outlawed somewhere....LA, perhaps?



It was outlawed in Chicago for a few years and overturned last May.  You couldn't sell it in the city, but you could give it away.  The popularity of Foie shot through the roof with the ban with restaurants selling toast points for $18 :lol:  

In California, the ban takes place in 2012, it was signed into law a few years ago, but there is a large Foie farm there and the state wanted to give the farmers time to re-tool.  The hope is that by then that ban to will be overturned.

PETA goes after Foie because it's a small industry in the US that they can easily over power financially. There are only 3 farms, Hudson Valley and Labelle Farms in NY and Sonoma in California.  

The truth is that you will not find a farm raised animal that lives a more humane life than ducks raised for Foie Gras.  They are literally treated like gold and I encourage anyone to go to Hudson Valley and visit the farm.  

If anything, PETA should be going after chicken farmers.


----------



## snoseek (Dec 18, 2008)

Foie Gras is like the Cocaine of food.

Damn is it good though. The Foie Gras silly!

How much is it running commercially these days?


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Dec 18, 2008)

jack97 said:


> My doom and gloom answer is yes and will be even bigger than cigs and booz.
> 
> The main difference is that normal humans can survive without tobacco and alcohol. Food intake is a basic necessity. I say this as a disclosure, I have eaten at burger king or mcd when I'm short for time. That drives my wife crazy.... literally. The other key item is that these fast foods are becoming cheaper than food that provide more well rounded nutrients.
> 
> ...



I totally agree...for 5 bucks you can get alot more food at KFC than at Wholefoods..and my old roommate was a real soda-jerk.  At a local mini-mart he'd buy 2-3..32 ounce Cokes or Mountain dews everyday..he hardly ate and he was overweight..because he sat around playing video games all day...should there be a tax on video games as well???  A couch Potato tax??  I was raised on fast food.  When I got paper-route money,.,I wanted to check out the McRib or the new Taco Bell..it's so much a part of our culture..whenever I get a Big Mac attack..Mickey D's is always crowded..and they have a good breakfast..not healthy but if you are going skiing afterwards it's good..



deadheadskier said:


> Foie Gras has 130 calories per ounce, 111 of those calories from fat.  Should there be a Foie Gras tax to?



I never had Foie Gras..but that seems similar to bacon in terms of fat..how many ounces are in a typical serving of Foie Gras???




deadheadskier said:


> Actually there already is a PETA tax on it.  $1 for every pound of Foie sold in the US goes to lawyers fighting the activist groups.




When I was a little kid I though Foue Gras was some sort of grass or vegetable..but I know how it is produced and it's torture..not much different than rabbits in the cosmetics company lab wearing Mascara..


----------



## snoseek (Dec 18, 2008)

Steeze it's usually a component to an appetizer or main course. An example would be a seared duck beast with a braised ducked leg and a little two ounce peice of seared Foie Gras. It is also used often as an app-maybe over some brioche with something tart like apples, raspberry, or gastrique to cut the richness. It's a super velvety texture with a rich but mild liver flavor. I can't imagine not liking it but lots of people are grossed out or think it's ethically wrong. I agree with Deadhead that it's no worse than eating mass produced chicken but thats only second hand knowledge.


----------



## Geoff (Dec 18, 2008)

Au Pied de Cochon is a fairly famous foie gras place in Montreal.  GSS would probably be pretty happy with foie gras poutine and a foie gras burger.  

http://www.restaurantaupieddecochon.ca/index_eng.html#


----------



## Dr Skimeister (Dec 18, 2008)

The ethical dilemma associated with foie gras has to do with the accelerated force-feeding of the geese or ducks of a grain mixture that leads to a fattier, more epicurean-desirable liver. Granted, any flesh-producing animal in the typical factory-farming environment is fed and housed in a way that can be considered "unnatural" for the species, but many think foie gras production is above and beyond acceptable.

There's big bucks in those livers though. Lobbying efforts by domestic producers curtailed the attempt by the American Veterinary Medical Association to condemn the husbandry practices involved in foie gras production.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 18, 2008)

They actually have a vet on staff at the farm in Hudson Valley.  He is all about the ducks welfare.  The whole facility was humane audited by Temple Granden and from 1 day old until processing everything is designed to create the most comfortable life possible for the duck.  The better any animal is treated, the better the quality of the meat will be.  From making the surfaces of the farm as comfortable as possible for their feet, too make chicks walk up slight ramps for water to strengthen their legs, to the temperature, manure control, a cage free environment, it's an emaculate facility.

There's a lot of misconception regarding the 'gavage' and in some ways it's wrong to translate the word force feeding.  The first propaganda against it is that the tube placed into the throat of the duck creates discomfort and is painful.  The truth is that the duck has no pain receptors in that area of the throat, it's also very tough tissue as in nature, ducks swallow spiny fish whole without issue that are far larger than the tube and struggle in the throat for a longer period.

The second is the term force feeding.  The ducks are fed three times a day with about a half cup of a corn silage.  Ducks at this point are in groups of 14.  The same person handles the duck for every feed for the entire 21 day process of feeding.  When the lady, they are all women as they apparently handle ducks better than men, goes to feed a duck, she checks it's crop (where it first stores food for digestion).  If the crop still contains food, she will not feed it and the bird is tagged.  Most times they are ready to eat again, but if not, the duck is removed from the gavage and taken to be processed.  So, they aren't forced to eat if they aren't ready to eat. 

Lastly, the information being spread that the fattened liver is diseased.  Bringing it back to the beginning of the point of this thread, a ducks liver will return to normal if the diet changes just like a humans gut will return to normal if they stop drinking taxed non-diet soda    Ducks gavage naturally and enlarge their livers in the process for migration.   Natural Foie Gras was discovered 4000 years ago by Egyptians.  Changing raising conditions for this process to occur artificially isn't all that different from stimulating a hen to lay eggs.


Hope you enjoyed Foie Gras 101 

Anthony Bourdain clip on Foie and Hudson Valley farm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABeWlY0KFv8


----------



## Glenn (Dec 19, 2008)

severine said:


> Are Pepsi or Frito-Lay shoving that stuff down people's gullets?
> 
> Whatever happened to personal responsibility?



I agree. If you tax these foods, everyone pays a higher price; even those who occationally indulge in them. If you make people who are deemed "at risk" (yet to be determined exactly how that would be determined) you only hit those who live an unhealthly lifestyle. 

Taxing anything worries me for a number of reasons. But like I mentioned before, the cig tax and settlement was/is one of the greatest goverment cluster f's of our time. All this money was supposed to help people stop smoking. That was BS...it all went states' general funds. I think CT put a few hundred thousand in to smoking prevention programs. The rest of the million went into that black hole of unaccountability knowns as the "general fund." 

I'm sure politicians have good intentions with this, but I'd bet the farm that any of this money will eventually be diverted. We see the effects of it now here in CT. The goverment has already been b!tching about the decline of revenue generated from the cig tax. "We can't pay for _____ because cig taxes are down." It's unreal folks.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Dec 19, 2008)

Geoff said:


> Au Pied de Cochon is a fairly famous foie gras place in Montreal.  GSS would probably be pretty happy with foie gras poutine and a foie gras burger.
> 
> http://www.restaurantaupieddecochon.ca/index_eng.html#



I've been trying to cut fat from my diet..I still enjoy snacks but just less.  I buy smalled bags for portion control.  I don't think I could go a month without salty snacks..


----------



## jack97 (Dec 19, 2008)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> ..I still enjoy snacks but just less.  I buy smalled bags for portion control.  I don't think I could go a month without salty snacks..



I crave salt also, for snacks I eat roasted and salted nuts; peanuts, almonds, cashews or pistachios. A bag of chips is something I eat to treat myself, maybe once every week or two. 

BTW, most food markets place nuts in the snack section. If they tax "snack foods" will nuts which contain plenty of nutrient and are less processed than potato chips be taxed in the same manner?


----------



## snoseek (Dec 19, 2008)

jack97 said:


> BTW, most food markets place nuts in the snack section. If they tax "snack foods" will nuts which contain plenty of nutrient and are less processed than potato chips be taxed in the same manner?



I highly doubt it, nuts are increbibly good food to eat.They are my snack food when I ski beacause they provide the good slow burn throughout the day, go excellent with cheap beer, and are compact.


----------

