The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
N.M. v. Gamers: Proposing Tax on Video Games to Fight Obiesity...
Zahaladeen
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Story: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080125230108.k05u9plm&show_article=1
In my opinion, a poor attempt to rile up the usual suspects who would support a "sin tax" - ie: taxing alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, etc. - that will most likely die on the vine.
But it's nice to know they are thinking about us.
Yet it comes from the most unlikely of groups, the Sierra Club. When not saving lynx's and endangered waterfoul, they are now trying to save teenagers.
On another tangent, "poor school performance" my ass. They want better performance they have a lot more to hang on high school grades than fucking GTAIV. *white hot fury*
Anyway, discuss.
In my opinion, a poor attempt to rile up the usual suspects who would support a "sin tax" - ie: taxing alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, etc. - that will most likely die on the vine.
But it's nice to know they are thinking about us.
Yet it comes from the most unlikely of groups, the Sierra Club. When not saving lynx's and endangered waterfoul, they are now trying to save teenagers.
On another tangent, "poor school performance" my ass. They want better performance they have a lot more to hang on high school grades than fucking GTAIV. *white hot fury*
Anyway, discuss.
Zahaladeen on
0
Posts
Want to really help fight obesity? Institute a tax on all products containing high-fructose corn syrup.
If they did that, all the midwestern farm lobbies would combine to form Voltron and shove their blazing sword up New Mexico's ass.
Hahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... *hiccup*
Hahahahahaha, hehe, hahahahaha.
*cough*
Was funny.
Meanwhile, all the money going to Fight Obesity! would still just wind up pissed away on unrelated garbage, like all sin taxes do. If it mirrors the tobacco tax scenario, the revenue will probably just be channeled into subsidies for RCA and Microsoft.
Aren't state parks and public lands already being funded by taxes?
So if we create a 20-40% tax on televisions, then maybe we'll see a drop in obesity rates after a couple decades or so?
Boffo.
Well even then it's iffy given all the various contributing factors that have lead to obesity.
There are so many layers of rubbish here it's difficult to even pierce the top level of strata, but since gaming doesn't have a legit, or politically viable lobby to counteract this type of gibberish then gaming will keep taking the hits.
After all, no one ever lost points slapping around video games or gamers.
Unless, of course, you are Cooper Lawrence.
http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/01/mass-effect-m-1.html
There have been some proposals to tax "convenience food" or whatever your preferred term is, and maybe use the money to subsidize healthy foods. As much as people piss and moan about anything getting in the way of their slovenly habits, this really is a public health issue. If there were some disease that killed as many people as does obesity, people would be wearing around lapel pins and donating money and so forth.
Access to fresh and quality produce seems to be increasingly difficult for low income earners to even locate, let alone afford. Maybe throw some junk food tax revenue in that direction? HFCS shows just how effective that can be in spurring ubiquitous consumption!
A big problem is the fact that there's no easy divide between healthy and unhealthy foods. What about milk? Cheese? White bread? Hamburger meat? That shit will kill you just as fast as Sugar Lard Puffs, if eaten in the quantities these bloated little munchkins are accustomed to. So sure, you stave off some empty sugar calories and replace them with some different empty carbs and maybe a brick of fat.
And really, that'll just drive the people to cheaper, yet equally unhealthy, alternatives. Instead of Cheetos they go with the generic equivalent, and pay the same cost as they were before. Or maybe they'll just get the same lazy, unhealthy foods they were before, and take the remainder out of their budget for vegetables and fruits.
The problem is that people are a bunch of lazy fucks who can't be arsed to cook. I don't see taxes changing that.
Prices incent behavior. Just making people take the time to cook isn't really going to do anything, since Hamburger Helper is probably the easiest thing to cook. And granted that there are massive grey areas there in terms of "healthy" or "unhealthy" foods. Still, it's possible to draw some broad lines.
PSN: TheScrublet
They are doing this becaus they can, not because it has anything to do with their concerns for the welfare of America's youth.
Which is why I'm trying to get proposition 94 on my state ballot for the upcoming June election. If passed, the state department agents of Vegetables and Enlightened Grains and Nutrition (VEGAN) will be deployed to our inner cities distributing broccoli and brussel sprouts to gang members, since those people are too dumb to buy fresh vegetables.
Prices definitely incent behavior, but I think it's fair to assume that they will incent it along the path of least resistance. What's easier, buying a cheaper version of the same shit you always buy, or switching up your lifestyle?
To the extent that the cigarette taxes work - and I think it's a very small extent - it's based on the fact that it's a fucking huge tax, larger than the price difference between most competing brands. I mean, we're talking $2-3 a pack on a $5 pack of cigarettes.
Like I said, if the tax is ginormous - like a 30% tax on junk food and teevees - I can see it having a disincentive effect. Otherwise, it'll just promote cheaper brands.
Ginormous taxes lead to black markets. Then the state collects nothing and you get crime sprouting up the poorest areas who cannot afford to pay the regressive taxes.
I also think excessive taxation on addictive substances is particularly vicious. The self-righteous people who fought tooth and nail to get the tobacco companies to admit it's an addictive substance are the same people advocating massive taxation on it. Since addicts will pretty much do whatever it takes to get high, making them fork over more money to get their fix is at best stupid and at worst evil.
And as for the "difficult to tax just unhealthy foods," I think my high-fructose corn syrup tax would be a great way to focus that particular tax. Even if they replaced it with sugars from other sources, it would still be an improvement.
It's fine for discouraging those to start, but I have a problem when they tax people who have been smoking for 10-20 years because they are already hooked. They should tax based on age or something (since you already have to show ID to buy them anyway).
Or we could just stop subsidizing corn and start trading with Cuba so they put real sugar back in our Coke. HFCS sucks ass.
Since fat little Johnny's too busy reading Harry Potter to go running around the middle of the New Mexico desert all day.
Thank you sir, for this link. Very interesting.
One question that should be asked is why games and not television, movies, or books.
Yeah, it is possible to draw some broad lines. We can start with taxing HFCS and trans fats, for example.
Also, taxes incent not only consumer behavior, but producer behavior too. A consumer tax on HFCS for example will not only encourage people to buy products with real sugars in them, it will also encourage producers to use real sugar so people actually buy their (now cheaper) shit.
Cigarettes are a shitty analogy in general, because they are actively addictive instead of just desirable, but it wasn't my analogy to begin with. I was only bringing the cig taxes up as an illustration of how use taxes see their revenue go all over the damned place, and not just towards addressing the relevant issue. Sin taxes are generally just a way to squeeze extra revenue out of a particular demographic the public deems sufficiently demonizable.
Why? Are people who are already hooked somehow more entitled to having the thing available for cheap?
If addiction is a disease, I consider excessive taxation on it reprehensible, particularly a regressive tax which hits the poorest people hardest.
Neither one is the principal reason - they go hand in hand. Someone who exercises a bunch is unlikely to be obese, regardless of how much he eats. Someone who eats really well is unlikely to be obese, regardless of how sedentary he is.
There's also the fact that poor people need to eat a lot of food just to consume the minimum number of nutrients because the food they can afford is all nutrient-free calories.
Actually, no.
Even if you exercise, if you don't watch what you eat, it will do jack. This is the primary reason people who exercise lose motivation after a while; they jog their ass off and sweat at the gym regularly, but because they still eat a lot (even if it's good, healthy stuff), they can't lose weight. Then they brand themselves "big-boned" or something and accept their status quo.
However, even if you don't exercise you can still lose weight, or be slim or skinny. Now, you won't be healthy and strong, but as far as weight goes, what and how much of it you eat has a far, far larger impact on your weight than whether you exercise or not. What exercise primarily does is determine the composition of your weight: whether the weight you gain will be fat or muscle, or the weight you lose will be far or muscle.
So you're right in a sense that exercise and diet go hand in hand, but your explanation is wrong.