|
U-Know! Forum » Just heard on the radio... |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Moon Cat 9577 posts |
Edited Sep 28, 2009, 17:22
Sep 28, 2009, 17:17
|
||
|
Squid Tempest wrote: handofdave wrote: Squid Tempest wrote: Great! Let's charge more for food to bring down obesity! I'm not against raising prices on high fat, high salt junk food. It's been proposed here that the crap that's most responsible for obesity be taxed. Thing is, the food industry profits from selling non-nutritive, cheap corn-based sugary offal, but the results are that we've got an epidemic of bad health problems that further enrich the pharmaceutical industry, for example, as diabetes cases rise. It's a vicious cycle, and it's not a big stretch to call it a conspiracy, either. High fat, high sugar, low-quality food also makes people stupid and lethargic. Not a trend that ought to be encouraged. Sorry Dave, I wasn't being entirely serious. I'm just not a fan of what you call "sin tax". Who determines what is a sin? Besides, the money raised doesn't always go to the appropriate places, but instead just fills the government coffers where they've spent too much on other stuff I don't agree with like frinstance the war machine. In other words I don't think these sort of taxes are really designed to reduce "sin" rather than screw more cash out of the populace, usually most affecting the poorer parts of society in the process. I concur. And what's with the constant reliance on a negative, punitive approach to all these things? The best thing that's happened in parts of the UK recently has been the POSITIVE action of trial heroin/methadone clinics and the success they've had in treating people and reducing crime in the areas where they've been implemented. A dose of rationale and compassion can work if it's skillfully applied instead of simply demonzing users and so-called abusers.
|
|||
dodge one 1242 posts |
Sep 28, 2009, 17:23
|
||
|
Squid Tempest wrote: Who determines what is a sin? The self-righteous counsel of elders. And this guy: http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/satanic_pope.jpg
|
|||
handofdave 3515 posts |
Edited Sep 28, 2009, 17:51
Sep 28, 2009, 17:41
|
||
|
Squid Tempest wrote: Who determines what is a sin? We don't question luxury taxes, in most cases, do we? What is a luxury? Something that people can live without. Same as with 'sin' products... nobody's gonna die if they can't have a cig and a swill. And as I pointed out, the industries that profit from selling these things are helping to create health and crime problems that heap burdens on the system. Who pays for those? Squid Tempest wrote: Besides, the money raised doesn't always go to the appropriate places, but instead just fills the government coffers where they've spent too much on other stuff I don't agree with like frinstance the war machine. In other words I don't think these sort of taxes are really designed to reduce "sin" rather than screw more cash out of the populace, usually most affecting the poorer parts of society in the process. Tax revenues can be directed. Granted, it does happen that money raised for specific purposes do end up in the wrong place... the states that took a cut of the tobacco industry settlements were supposed to spend that on smoking cessation programs and such. Unfortunately a lot of it ended up going elsewhere. If you're poor, you probably ought to think twice about spending your limited resources on booze and cigs, which nobody needs to survive. I know that sounds didactic, but personal responsibility and restraint is a pretty reasonable virtue. Nobody who's voluntarily paying for things that they don't need, make them sick, and cost society in the form of violence, auto accidents, etc. is being 'victimized'. What pisses me off much more than raising prices on 'sin' stuff is the outrageous climb of housing, energy, healthcare prices. Those are essentials and far more gouging than any tax on beer. Perhaps if we called it 'non-essential goods' instead of 'sins' it'd sound more reasonable?
|
|||
|
Moon Cat 9577 posts |
Edited Sep 28, 2009, 18:12
Sep 28, 2009, 17:52
|
||
|
Yeah, but isn't it jusy easy, not to mention a nice vote-earner, to point to the junkies & drunks and say, "It's all their fault, let's start with them then" when the real demons of society are the suits implementing these half-baked Crusades anyway? And I'd take issue with your point about people forking out on what they "don't need". Clearly, if it gets to a dependency - not a state I'd wish on anyone - then they do 'need' these things to an extent. And, if it is a dependency then price means fuck all. Why not sell a few subs n tanks and address these addictions and the social problems behind them instead of simply saying "We're gonna cut off your supply you losers".
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Sep 28, 2009, 18:17
|
||
|
"Clearly, if it gets to a dependency - not a state I'd wish on anyone - then they do 'need' these things to an extent. And,if it is a dependency then price means fuck all." So, do we make booze cheap and plentiful to keep the alcoholics from impoverishing themselves? That's not really doing them much of a favor... it's just making it easier for them to drink themselves to death. And if you are not an addict, surely this isn't a backbreaker. I think the 'problem' of raising taxes on the stuff is overstated. What are we talking about, a few more cents on each bottle? I agree that military expenditures are taking away from more pressing domestic issues.. both our countries blow insane amounts there.
|
|||
|
Moon Cat 9577 posts |
Edited Sep 28, 2009, 18:30
Sep 28, 2009, 18:26
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: "Clearly, if it gets to a dependency - not a state I'd wish on anyone - then they do 'need' these things to an extent. And,if it is a dependency then price means fuck all." So, do we make booze cheap and plentiful to keep the alcoholics from impoverishing themselves? That's not really doing them much of a favor... it's just making it easier for them to drink themselves to death. And if you are not an addict, surely this isn't a backbreaker. I think the 'problem' of raising taxes on the stuff is overstated. What are we talking about, a few more cents on each bottle? I agree that military expenditures are taking away from more pressing domestic issues.. both our countries blow insane amounts there. But above and beyond the actual money, it's the attitude of the mind set that implements these schemes that I find troubling. As I was trying to say in another post, the emphasis on punitive style measures seems to reflect a lack of willingness to address the social issues at the root of these problems. And of course, it is a cynical vote-booster. Hit the scum-bags: Vote for Me! Plus of course, all us 'sinners' get hit with the same missile, regardless of the extent of our 'sinning'. It deflects the problem away from being a huge divide between the rich and the poor, social division, poverty and so on, to being the fact that you can drown your sorrows for £1.50 or something and we can't have that! Plus the rank hypocrisy of it all. If you're a junkie/piss head but work in the coke snorting city, well, that's not being scummy or dependent - that's recreational. If you're a poor slob, well, you're a messy addict.
|
|||
Ziggypop 300 posts |
Sep 28, 2009, 22:09
|
||
|
I've been watching this discussion with some interest..It seems like the age old argument about who/what causes the problems in society and it generally focuses on the poor/average and their habits and the end results always points to increasing taxation on their luxuries and choices The truth of the matter is we are fucked and need to raise taxation..and pointing out the social problems of fags and booze and other drugs always sedate the daily paper reading types and don't loose votes for any political party that want's to intoduce them. I don't know where you buy alchohol but here in Bristol the average pint of shit lager is £2.80 that's not cheap but no matter how much tax is piled on top people will still buy it and they know it..If you have real concerns about these issues it's easy tax the fucking well off and spend the money on programs /treatment that help the addicted. it isn't going to happen is it but then that's not the point. They are doing the best they can to kill the pub/club trade as they want us to lock our doors and be brainwashed by 24 hr TV telling us how clever they are and how they look after us.
|
|||
|
duckbreath 254 posts |
Sep 28, 2009, 23:05
|
||
|
could result in a 20% reduction in related deaths according to (well reputed) researchers at Sheffield University http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2009/09/28081626
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Sep 29, 2009, 02:21
|
||
|
But do you think that the issue is social problems leading to drunkenness and addiction, or drunkenness and addiction leading to social problems? Or both? It goes both ways. Some people born into good situations end up shambling wrecks because of the stuff (I've seen it firsthand). I just don't think this is a 'punitive' thing... unless you think that alcoholics have some sort of right to be alcoholics without it affecting their wallet. Truth is it already affects their wallet. They don't need more cheap booze, they need to moderate or quit their consumption. We are also talking about how drunkenness affects other people... car wrecks, broken families, etc. Saying that the problem is something other than booze is avoiding the elephant in the room. No, I don't think most people are really going to be that put out if their beer costs a little more. Like I said, that's paltry in comparison to rising rents and other things that are far more important to people.
|
|||
Squid Tempest 8761 posts |
Sep 29, 2009, 10:22
|
||
I don't know what it is like in the states, but over here it feels like these things are yet another extension of the nanny state. "we know what's best for you, and we'll make you pay to prove it". more rules, more taxes, more over-government. less freedom, more poverty. to me these are just back-door taxes that let the government squeeze us dry while they fritter all the cash on their own jollies.
|
| Pages: 6 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
