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...
Posts
Sunk cost does not come into play here. It's a 1% tax. If you had a $1,000 to spend on a TV, you'll to buy a $990 TV instead of a $1,000 TV. You'd have to make it an absolutely ridiculous tax before it starts having any impact.
You eat more when you're awake more.
Shift workers have terrible health.
. . .
What the study found is a direct causal relationship between electronic media use (active OR passive) and sleep depravity, and sleep depravity is a contributing factor to obesity. I don't know how much more clear cut it can get before you comprehend the point.
Even if you're simply watching TV, the effect of staring at a bright screen messes up your internal clock. It might help some people fall asleep, but the fact of the matter is that they won't sleep as well as someone who doesn't stare at a bright screen before bed. This means that watching an action movie right before bed is worse than reading an action novel, and watching a mellow movie is worse than reading a mellow novel. Get it?
It doesn't have to be absolutely ridiculous. Sure, 1% is too little, but 10% would make a noticeable difference, and it's not "absolutely ridiculous".
Because we still have Medicare and numerous state funded healthcare programs that give them an excuse to tax them. Also smoking is really unpopular and it's politically easy to tax, even if the funding isn't going to health-care (it often isn't).
The notion that the US is a completely private system is inaccurate.
You can make it 20%, and you're now buying an $833 TV. And it'll still be a pretty good TV, and you'll still be putting down a $1,000 for it.
The tax serves two purposes:
1- Generate money for obesity research
2- Discourage people from buying video games and possibly TVs
The second one is optional because the primary goal is the first one. Even if the tax has zero affect on consumer behavior, it will still generate funding for research and that is a success. So whether a 1% tax or a 10% tax or a 20% tax will affect behavior is besides the point here.
Jesus.
And ege is right, screens are linked to affecting melatonin levels, making you more awake. Geting outraged and posting anecdotal evidence won't change the general effect on the population.
I guess asking you lot to read and think before boarding the Outrage Express to Denialsville was too much to ask
How does reading affect melatonin levels?
Huh. I would have expected such a mentally stimulating activity would increase awakeness. I mean I really would. That's part of why I stopped reading novels in the first place.
Because I just bet that when you lower the quality of life of the lowest income brackets, they'll respond by spending more time on healthy activities.
I just bet.
Also, Athel's point about phones deserves more attention. I only mentioned it in passing, but communication devices keep people up, waiting for the next message. I think that safely applies to this forum as well as little Sally's Nokia.
I bet it's because screens act like lights.
There are plenty of gamers and computers geeks out there that aren't fat. They aren't healthy. They're sendentary and live on caffeine and candy, but why do you want to punish them?
The "difficult to tax just unhealthy foods" thing is kinda crap no? All the food in the grocery store has nutritional info on it, the same tag that tells me that 2.5 cookies or 9 chips is a serving. Why can't a healthy component to unhealthy component algorythm be applied when the nutritional analysis is done and unhealthy foods be progressively taxed?
I don't think UK broadcasting law counts as precedence in U.S. courts, and you pay that tax to receive broadcasts, correct? Not to watch DVDs on a TV you already bought? I'm pretty sure that tax is more about broadcasting issues more than loafing issues.
Man, outraged? What? Unsurprised by the evidence and unconvinced by the conclusions postulated, at best. It's not me they're going to be taxing. I mean, I know we're supposed to be one big brotherhood of man, but my empathy has certain limitations.
You can get fined if you use said TV to receive broadcasts. If you don't plug it into the aerial socket and just use it to watch DVDs then you wouldn't get fined (as far as I know).
I personally think that the unfair tax targeting sucks, even if I like where the money is going.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
That would be exactly why. Melatonin is inhibited by blue light*, so as long as your eyes are being exposed to a strong light source, your body continues to generate melatonin and you stay awake. The thing is though, from what I've read of those studies, it's only people who remain exposed to their screen who stay awake 'I was up all night on mysace' type of thing. Well duh, of course you were. If you play videogames shortly before going to bed, then it's not going to take your body too long to build up it's melatonin levels again. Wikipedia suggests wearing blue-light inhibiting goggles about an hour before your desired bedtime, so I guess it would stand that it takes about an hour for a decently drowsy amount of melatonin to build up. This would tally with my anecdotal bedtime habit, where I'd normally be on the computer until around 10pm, go to bed and read until 11pm and then fall asleep shortly afterwards.
Being able to get to sleep within 1hour of playing videogames or working on a computer is hardly health-destroying, the real problem, as I say from inference from the studies is that not removing oneself from in front of the screen means that you can artificially stave off drowsyness for many hours beyond your ideal bedtime through continued exposure to the screen. But as soon as you remove yourself from that exposure, you ought to be able to get to sleep within an hour (assuming you haven't stayed up so late the sun has risen, then you're fucked). Once you step away from the monitor, it no longer has any power over your ability to sleep.
*Incidentally, the average LCD monitor/TV outputs at around 6500K (although hunting around, some sources suggest HDTV output over 10,000K, which is pretty crazy). Light above 7500K is generally consider 'in the blue range', so it might be debatable just how much a TV or monitor actually does contribute to melatonin inhibition. However, I guess it's fair to assume that they would certainly contribute more than incandescnet lighting typical of homes which would only output up to 3000K for the strongest wattage and which you aren't generally going to be staring directly into anyway.
You're right on the money. Poverty often leads to poor nutrition. I recommend the book Nickel and Dimed for a great perspective on the hardships of poverty.
I don't know anything about a tobacco black market, but it stands to reason one exists. In fact I'd consider young adults buying tobacco for their underage friends a black market, no? So while prohibition of a drug creates a huge black market, I wouldn't be surprised to see high taxes create a modest black market.
As for tobacco taxes actually reducing tobacco consumption, I'm gonna have to call BS. (Not on you MrMister, on those who claim so.) I've never seen any hard numbers to back this up. Besides tobacco and alcohol are addictive substances. Addicts are willing to use up a lot of time and money to get the chemicals they need to function normally and avoid withdrawal. Sure tobacco taxes might stop some from starting, but I would guess they do little to help people quit.