Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

The Perfect President

Posted Nov 8, '12 at 3:20pm

VonHeisenbourg

VonHeisenbourg

215 posts

You aren't their master, and they aren't your slaves.

Bah, I don't see how this is people in general my slaves or me being their masters by passing a sin tax. You take what I say out of context. Increasing taxes is in no way making or leading a country towards totalitarianism nor is it making people your slaves or supporting slavery.

If you want to help them, talk to them.

This is talking to them. Saying "pay these taxes, to voluntarily harm your well being and aid your community," is a form of communication.

But don't FORCE them to treat themselves better.

Let's be perfectly honest about two things:

1. This isn't forcing people via any means necessary, it's not like I'm proposing we send cops to peoples' homes to raid them for having an excess of junk food and unhealthy choices within the home. When you say the word force, you make it sound like what I'm suggesting is the worst thing ever and to literally physically force people to stop eating unhealthily.

Both of which are untrue.

2. Let's be perfectly honest about another thing, some people are simply to stupid to look after themselves properly and know what is best for themselves (like children). This is especially true with eating habits. Therefore these tax laws would be justified to help these people.

It's not for a greater good, it's for a great evil. That evil is God complex.

Blatantly false. This is nothing like a God complex. Your thinking might be though. "Preserve everyone's freedom, no matter how harmful or foolish this is!"

If you want to pay extra taxes on soda, write a check to your government.

Would I want to? No. Would I be willing to? Yes. Do I think increased taxes would help with this obesity problem? Yes.

I never said it was unconstitutional. However, it IS infringing on people's freedoms. Forcing someone to pay more money for a product is infringement on one's freedoms.

If you're infringing on someones freedom then that is unconstitutional and unlawful. You can't be infringing on someones freedoms meanwhile being constitutional. Infringing on someones freedom is the willful and knowing act to break the law to do so.

No one is forcing them to buy chips or chocolate bars. They can choose a healthier alternative instead, for a cheaper price too.

I had the perfect song to respond to this, but sadly it's no longer on YouTube.

And we all know what's said on youtube should be taken to heart...

A position of power is not justification for tyranny, whether elected by the people or not.

Increasing taxes isn't tyrannical nor abusing a position of power. When you're elected into office by the people they're supposed to know what you represent and what you stand for. If I ran for office I wouldn't tell a poop load of lies and then when I'm in office completely contradict myself and propose these new ludicrous laws no one would know about until it's proposed. Nor would I want my perfect leader to do so, I thought that was a given?

If I ran for office or if this perfect leader did he would say what he wants done and be perfectly honest. He would let the general population know what laws he wants proposed and passed and the people would know his stances.

Why not fine people for being unhealthy? Oh wait, that would be a prejudice, therefore you have to assume everyone is unhealthy and punish everyone equally. Good job!

It's not a punishment, it's an incentive and meant to help rectify this obesity problem.

I'm healthy, but I have to pay more because other people drink too much soda?

1. Life's not fair. That's a proven fact and yes if one person (in this case many) decide to do something wrong generally speaking other people will get impacted by their actions as you would in this scenario.

You should be handcuffed to a person you hate and realize, it's WRONG to bind people with others against their will.

This perfect leader would have made it abundantly clear what he wanted to have done with the country when he was elected. Therefore if he is elected it shows the majority of the people would want this law or would be willing to live with it. Democracies go by what the majority want. If you don't like that, well then that's just to bad because most people voted the leader into office.

@NoName

On the matter of freedom. Freedom is allowed to a reasonable extent as predicated by the law. According to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore it stands to reason that if a Prime Minister is elected it is reasonable to take away (can you even consider taxing taking away?) people's freedom to commit gluttony (ummm, I mean to use their "freedoms") via taxes.

Fun Fact: Did you know that Canada and America are both Christian countries that follow the word of God (this is in both the constitutions and anthems), and committing gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins? Therefore reducing the amount of gluttony people commit is also patriotic (even if it is by taxes)?

You are suggesting a sin tax for the freedom of the people to buy something.

I know I'm suggesting a sin tax for items that are bad for peoples health.  Which makes it alright in my view.

You make the population slightly healthier and gain taxes for the good of the country (when not misappropriated). Win/win scenario.

but this is a coverup

What is it covering up???

The better president would let the people buy whatever the hell they want to buy with their own money.

For aforementioned reasons I disagree.

You would achieve these results only in extreme excess, much to the same effect that you would have to consume 55 pounds of marijuana in 15 minutes to kill you. In moderation? Miniscule effects. You would tax people to "encourage" them to buy more expensive, healthier foods for miniscule effects?

Perhaps it is true that it would only achieve those results in extreme excess, maybe not. Nonetheless you have agreed that there would be some positive results (however small). After you agree that there are positive results how can you disapprove of the taxes? If you consider the problems with obesity in America or Canada, or England or even Australia you want to forbid taxes on foods when you know it would help the issue? Just because the effect is small, you decide doing nothing instead to rectify these issues is for the best?

It is both an incentive and a punishment. Taxing these products heightens the total price of these goods, forcing people to shell more of their money to feed their families. It's either that, or shelling out money for more expensive, healthier foods at an unrestricted price. You are driving their food prices higher "for their own good", but hey, at least they'll be healthier malnourished, right?

"Feed their families." You make it sound as if the average person relies on junk food like chocolate bars, potatoe chips, cake and icecream to live off of. Which is certainly not true, people eat these things as luxury foods. They certainly don't eat it for breakfast, lunch and dinner. They eat it for snacks far to excessively and in-between meals. Saying that raising the taxes on these foods to let's say 20% would starve families and make people go hungry is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. In contrast it would make people richer by saving there money instead of wasting it on these foods.

P.S. You can buy healthier food and beverage alternatives by bulk for cheaper prices then what these junk foods cost today...

I found this whole paragraph to be flawed and valid by you Frankenstein. People do not:
a) live off junk foods for meals
b) would not go poor if the taxes on chocolate bars and sodas rose to 20%
c) a lot of junk food you buy (depending on brands) cost more than healthier alternatives

You are invoking the Red Herring fallacy, a distraction of the real issue at hand by presenting another topic that pushes the original issue into your favor. Taxes *do* go towards public constructs, but taxing *other* things would be more effective than...junk food.

That is false. I am not distracting the real issue at hand. This is all about taxes. How is saying "if you raise the taxes on junk foods, the tax money from it goes to your community" the Red Herring Fallacy? That is hardly an irrelevant topic. They're both inter-related.

There are something like thirty-five million Canadians in Canada  and 300 something million Americans in America. Imagine if all junk foods like sodas and chips and ice cream were taxed more heavily. Can you imagine the income in the millions that would then be put into our community? If not hundreds of millions? That is also another strong argument in favour of implementing this sin tax. Or do you disagree?

I reiterate to make a point: this is not the Red Herring Fallacy. This is a bonus off taxing junk foods...

but taxing *other* things would be more effective than...junk food.

I have talked about taxing other things too. From the way you make it sound it seems like it should be one or the other. Did you not read my whole post, or just ignored the fact that I said that I thought we should tax motor vehicles and electronics moderately heavily as well?

You are putting a strain on the food industry for taxation of these products that "behooves" people to make a choice between this and this, when in the past, they didn't have to do so. Not all people, but most definitely those in poverty. Due to their low income and your taxation of unhealthy foods, you are effectively restricting their choices in arrays of food.

This can hardly be considered a strain on the food industry. How could it even be construed as such.

Bah, you make it sound like things like chips, fudge, cakes and ice cream is all people living in poverty live off of, when they really don't. Some bags of chips can cost five dollars you know, instead of buying that these people living in "poverty" could instead buy margarine and a bag of bread instead or three two litre bags of milk for a cheaper price. So yes the taxes would make the chips more expensive, but it would encourage people to buy the things they need like apples, and bread and butter and milk instead, for a cheaper price too.

Oh yes and by the way using a sin tax is certainly not Authoritarian. It is everything but that. Implementing new sin taxes does not promote absolute submission or obedience to the government... You and NoName are jumping to conclusions far to often =.=

So let's clarify what you are under the false impression of (if I'm not mistaken):
1. That people only buy junk foods for meals.
2. That people would be broke and would starve if taxes on unhealthy foods is raised.
3. That I used a Red Herring Fallacy.
4. That raising taxes is some how leading towards an authoritarian state...

 

Posted Nov 8, '12 at 7:21pm

ryan7g

ryan7g

489 posts

You're FORCING your views on other people. You believe soda is bad, therefore you want to PUNISH other people for not making healthier decisions. Do you have ANY idea how wrong that is?

He's not forcing people to do anything. I personally like the idea. It's a different persuasive technique to attempt to get people to take better care of their health and maybe even better; Increase life expectancy.

If people want to pay a few extra bucks for the things that deteriorate their body, then so be it. Those who really do want it will pay the extra taxes.

You say he's forcing his condescending ideas? Well quit forcing your opinion down his throat. There's a better way to argue with someone's opinion without using offensive analogies such as "I don't go to your house and force you to stop smoking."

 

Posted Nov 8, '12 at 7:46pm

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,069 posts

Knight

This is talking to them. Saying "pay these taxes, to voluntarily harm your well being and aid your community," is a form of communication.

One: My original quote was, "If you want to help them, talk to them." Clearly you don't understand what this means. Let me rephrase, "if you want to help them, talk to them without using any means of coercion."

Taxation is a form of communication in the same sense holding a gun up to a clerk's head and demanding his money is a form of negotiation.

Two: You're talking about using taxes to "persuade" people to act a certain way. Taxation should NEVER be used to persuade people to act. This creates the idea that there is a "proper" way to live. This suggests that people who live healthier lives deserve to be rewarded by spending less money whereas people who make unhealthy decisions deserve to be punished for their actions. I'm sorry, but that isn't something you, or the government, should be able to decide.

1. This isn't forcing people via any means necessary, it's not like I'm proposing we send cops to peoples' homes to raid them for having an excess of junk food and unhealthy choices within the home. When you say the word force, you make it sound like what I'm suggesting is the worst thing ever and to literally physically force people to stop eating unhealthily.

The type of coercion you suggest is through means of forcing people to pay more. You're not suggesting police raids, but you are suggesting that people are FORCED to pay more money for particular goods simply because you look down on their actions.

Taxation is LITERALLY a form of coercion.

2. Let's be perfectly honest about another thing, some people are simply to stupid to look after themselves properly and know what is best for themselves (like children). This is especially true with eating habits. Therefore these tax laws would be justified to help these people.

You know what? There are stupid people out there who are going to make bad decisions and harm themselves. That doesn't give me authority to make them stop.

We're talking about adults, not children. If an adult is incapable of taking care of themselves in the most efficient manner possible (they choose to eat junk food instead of healthier food), then you need to try and convince them without using fore. If they refuse to change, then that's THEIR decision.

You're "helping" people against their will.

Here's another way of putting it: You aren't everyone's parent.

This is nothing like a God complex. Your thinking might be though. "Preserve everyone's freedom, no matter how harmful or foolish this is!"

My way of thinking is, "people own their own bodies, NOT YOU."

If I want to develop unhealthy habits, then that's MY choice. It might kill me, but who's to blame? My own self! I know you want to prevent death and unhealthy life styles, but people CHOOSE their actions. You're suggesting that I put freedom ahead of safety and foolishness, which is partially true. People should be protected from non-consensual actions and results.

1. Life's not fair. That's a proven fact and yes if one person (in this case many) decide to do something wrong generally speaking other people will get impacted by their actions as you would in this scenario.

"Life's not fair" isn't a valid argument, because it can literally be used to justify any unwanted action. Should I ban all video games because people spend too much time inside playing them? Life's not fair. Your daughter was beat up and *****? Well, what can I say? Life's not fair. Someone slashed the tires of your car?! LOL, didn't you hear? Life's not fair!

For one, It's not fair to tax everyone because a few people make bad decisions.  It would be more fair to let said people suffer the consequences of their own actions.

Two, even the people who abuse something shouldn't be taxed. I know plenty of people who smoke. It's a disgusting habit. They shouldn't be taxed more because of it though. It's their body, and I'm not their master, and they aren't my slave. I don't own them, therefore I should not make decisions against their will for them.

This perfect leader would have made it abundantly clear what he wanted to have done with the country when he was elected. Therefore if he is elected it shows the majority of the people would want this law or would be willing to live with it. Democracies go by what the majority want. If you don't like that, well then that's just to bad because most people voted the leader into office.

Oh, mob rule?

Just because a majority of people want something doesn't make it right. That's why America is a Democratic Republic. America defends certain rights, even when it is just a minority being protected.

But, honestly, that's not here nor there. I'm talking about why it's wrong for people to support sin tax, majority or not.

On the matter of freedom. Freedom is allowed to a reasonable extent as predicated by the law. According to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore it stands to reason that if a Prime Minister is elected it is reasonable to take away (can you even consider taxing taking away?) people's freedom to commit gluttony (ummm, I mean to use their "freedoms") via taxes.

This argument is moot. It doesn't matter if a leader is allowed to apply sin tax or not, it doesn't necisarily make it right.

Fun Fact: Did you know that Canada and America are both Christian countries that follow the word of God (this is in both the constitutions and anthems), and committing gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins? Therefore reducing the amount of gluttony people commit is also patriotic (even if it is by taxes)?

Oh, the Christian nation argument... seriously?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

This means the government can't ban "gluttony" just because it's in the bible. (also, eating unhealthy foods isn't necisarily gluttony - eating too much food, healthy or otherwise, is gluttony).

You make the population slightly healthier and gain taxes for the good of the country (when not misappropriated). Win/win scenario.

As Freakenstein pointed out, there are other means of obtaining taxes.

A healthier population? Pardon me, but the ends don't justify the means. We can obtain a safer population if we covered everything in foam, banned everything that's bad, and hire a large number of police to enforce these rules.

A nation that's healthy due to coercive measures is pathetic. Healthy living should be CONSENSUAL, NOT FORCED.

It's better to be unhealthy and free than healthy and coerced.

Perhaps it is true that it would only achieve those results in extreme excess, maybe not. Nonetheless you have agreed that there would be some positive results (however small). After you agree that there are positive results how can you disapprove of the taxes?

The ends don't justify the means.

Then you go on to suggest that we'd rather do nothing. Well, yes, doing nothing would be better than resorting to force. HOWEVER, you can help people without using force.

In the end, some people just won't accept help. And you know what? That's perfectly fine, they can live unhealthy if they wish. It's their ****ing body.

"Feed their families." You make it sound as if the average person relies on junk food like chocolate bars, potatoe chips, cake and icecream to live off of. Which is certainly not true, people eat these things as luxury foods. They certainly don't eat it for breakfast, lunch and dinner. They eat it for snacks far to excessively and in-between meals. Saying that raising the taxes on these foods to let's say 20% would starve families and make people go hungry is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. In contrast it would make people richer by saving there money instead of wasting it on these foods.

Oh, if that's the case, we don't need a sin tax!

If people have to pay more money for "luxury" foods, then they have LESS money for everything else. If someone is working for min. wage, then the sin tax on the cigarettes they buy DOES make a pretty big difference!

You can not argue that sin tax will persuade people to make healthier decisions, then turn around and argue that sin tax isn't expensive enough to do financial harm to people. If sin tax is as minor as you make it out to be, then it's not doing it's job at dissuading people from buying said objects.

That is false. I am not distracting the real issue at hand. This is all about taxes. How is saying "if you raise the taxes on junk foods, the tax money from it goes to your community" the Red Herring Fallacy? That is hardly an irrelevant topic. They're both inter-related.

Not sure if it was necisarily a red-herring or not, but he made a great point. Sin tax can go towards things the government provides. However, if the government needs more taxes, then they should raise taxes on ALL goods, not just "sinful" goods.

The argument that sin tax can go towards anything is moot, because alternative forms of taxation will do the same.

There are something like thirty-five million Canadians in Canada  and 300 something million Americans in America. Imagine if all junk foods like sodas and chips and ice cream were taxed more heavily. Can you imagine the income in the millions that would then be put into our community? If not hundreds of millions? That is also another strong argument in favour of implementing this sin tax. Or do you disagree?

Why tax "sinful" products? Why not just raise taxes in general?

Again, your point is moot.

The reason you want certain products to be taxed heavily is because you want to discourage people from using said products. It's immoral and impractical.
rnHere's some food for thought.

 

Posted Nov 8, '12 at 8:42pm

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,069 posts

Knight

He's not forcing people to do anything. I personally like the idea.

In the most literal sense possible, it is force.

If people want to pay a few extra bucks for the things that deteriorate their body, then so be it. Those who really do want it will pay the extra taxes.

People who REALLY want to eat unhealthy food SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY EXTRA because people like YOU want to tell them what they can and can't do with their own bodies!

Let's put a tax on healthy foods, people who want to be healthy bad enough will pay more.

You say he's forcing his condescending ideas? Well quit forcing your opinion down his throat.

I'm not forcing my "opinion" down his throat, he doesn't have to accept it. However, what he's proposing is something that would FORCE others to pay more money.

If I was FORCING my views onto him, I would have banned him for not agreeing with me.

There's a better way to argue with someone's opinion without using offensive analogies such as "I don't go to your house and force you to stop smoking."

Excuse me, but taxation, or raising the tax burden on people who buy "unhealthy goods" is just that! What I'm saying sounds radical, but it's really not all that different than what's really happening.

People like you want to raise taxes on things such as soda. You believe people who buy soda shouldn't be drinking it, so you're going to raise their tax burden as a way of "discouraging" them from making unhealthy decisions that isn't even your business in the first place.

If you think people should stop drinking soda, then tell them why they should stop and let THEM make their own decision as to whether they stop or not. Don't "persuade" them by forcing them to pay more money. That's literally along the lines of me stealing money out of your pocket because you decided not to heed my warning when I told you to stop buying soda.

 

Posted Nov 8, '12 at 11:42pm

VonHeisenbourg

VonHeisenbourg

215 posts

One: My original quote was, "If you want to help them, talk to them." Clearly you don't understand what this means. Let me rephrase, "if you want to help them, talk to them without using any means of coercion."

I know what this means. It means exactly what it says. "Talk to them if you want to help them". Taxation is a form of speech. Plain and simple. If you meant "don't talk to them using coercion" the onus is on you to clearly identify and say what you mean. Not say what you mean in easily misconstrued riddles :D

Now let's find the definition of coercion:

1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
2. To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the strikers into compliance.
3. To bring about by force or threat: efforts to coerce agreement.

I really don't think that any of these things means or were meant to mean "to make a sin tax," as you're implying sin taxes are coercive.

rnCoerce

Taxation is a form of communication in the same sense holding a gun up to a clerk's head and demanding his money is a form of negotiation.

*facepalm

I'm sure that victims of armed robbery would disagree that a sin tax is even remotely similar to a hostage situation. I'm also sure they would be offended that you would have the audacity to suggest that. Buying poopy foods for a few extra nickles or dimes isn't quite the same as forced compliance with a gun. Paying taxes for foods that deteriorate your insides is optional, and scarcely is forcing or taking away ones freedoms to choose to scoff food.

Two: You're talking about using taxes to "persuade" people to act a certain way. Taxation should NEVER be used to persuade people to act.

Indeed I am, and taxation should certainly be used to persuade people not to destroy their bodies and themselves.

There is another reason for this taxation as well. Usually when parents choose an unhealthy life style they force their life styles on their children (by telling them what to eat) or negatively influence their children in such a self-destructive way that government's intervention is required (even if it is via taxes).

That's another good reason for these taxes to be passed in my opinion.

This creates the idea that there is a "proper" way to live.

There most certainly is a proper way to live. I don't mean this to be patronizing or make it seem as though that I think I'm superior to everyone else, but the Criminal Code of Canada (or America) and The Highway Traffic Act testifies to this. By making all the acts in both of these entities (I do consider a Traffic and Criminal code an entity) illegal and telling us what to do implies and tells us there is a proper way to live and an improper way that'll get us locked away.

This suggests that people who live healthier lives deserve to be rewarded by spending less money whereas people who make unhealthy decisions deserve to be punished for their actions.

It doesn't only suggest it, it tells people that. When I say that I mean that healthier lives do deserve to be rewarded by spending  less money, whereas self-destructive ones get the exact opposite.

It is kind of like the same thing with driving insurance. If you behave and act well your insurance goes down (spend less) and if you act poorly on the road and cause accidents your insurance goes up (spend more money). This is a concept I agree with. Behave properly get rewarded, do the opposite and the opposite happens.

I'm sorry, but that isn't something you, or the government, should be able to decide.

As a resident of my country determining what I want done to my country, this is exactly for me to decide, but most importantly it is up to our government appointed officials to decide.

You're simply incorrect about that statement.

The type of coercion you suggest is through means of forcing people to pay more.

1. It is not coercion in the typical sense, instead it is coercion in a sense that the word was twisted and redefined to mean what you want it to mean.

2. I prefer people not to pay for this junk, just altogether avoid it.

You're not suggesting police raids, but you are suggesting that people are FORCED to pay more money for particular goods simply because you look down on their actions.

I'm not forcing anyone to buy these foods/beverages, but I suppose if you want to be so obtuse about this I guess I am forcing people to pay a bit more money for particular goods, if they so desperately want them, I do this to simply help them and create a better country and a better future generation. Not because I look down on their actions.

Taxation is LITERALLY a form of coercion.

For aforementioned reasons it isn't literally coercion, instead it is a mutated form of coercion.

You know what? There are stupid people out there who are going to make bad decisions and harm themselves. That doesn't give me authority to make them stop.

We're talking about adults, not children. If an adult is incapable of taking care of themselves in the most efficient manner possible (they choose to eat junk food instead of healthier food), then you need to try and convince them without using fore. If they refuse to change, then that's THEIR decision.

You're "helping" people against their will.

Here's another way of putting it: You aren't everyone's parent.

Perhaps I'm not their parents, but have you ever heard of the Good Samaritan Law?

I consider this a good example of The Good Samaritan Law. By introducing a sin tax you're successfully obligating your duty as a good Samaritan and saving people from peril (in this case body deterioration).

My way of thinking is, "people own their own bodies, NOT YOU."

If I want to develop unhealthy habits, then that's MY choice. It might kill me, but who's to blame? My own self! I know you want to prevent death and unhealthy life styles, but people CHOOSE their actions. You're suggesting that I put freedom ahead of safety and foolishness, which is partially true. People should be protected from non-consensual actions and results.

Yes it's your body, your choice to harm it, but it is also my legal obligation to attempt to stop you from doing so.

As for the bold section, that's a given.

You know what? There are stupid people out there who are going to make bad decisions and harm themselves. That doesn't give me authority to make them stop.

Actually it does... The above law may not actually say "stop people from committing sloth", but as a responsible and good citizen, I shall attempt it anyways (even if it is only via taxation).

"Life's not fair" isn't a valid argument, because it can literally be used to justify any unwanted action. Should I ban all video games because people spend too much time inside playing them? Life's not fair. Your daughter was beat up and *****? Well, what can I say? Life's not fair. Someone slashed the tires of your car?! LOL, didn't you hear? Life's not fair!

Would you like to hear the major difference between what you just said and what I suggest?

I'm glad you asked, the difference is: all of the above examples of "justification" you used for committing any act was illegal. Sin tax isn't illegal.

For one, It's not fair to tax everyone because a few people make bad decisions.  It would be more fair to let said people suffer the consequences of their own actions.

Oh? Over one hundred million Americans being obese is now a few people? I think you should inform the dictionary guys to change the definition of "a few".

Obesity

Another thing is that you aren't only letting the obese people suffer, you're allowing these obese adults to negatively influence their children to the point where it may kill or cause serious health problems for the kids.

Two, even the people who abuse something shouldn't be taxed. I know plenty of people who smoke. It's a disgusting habit. They shouldn't be taxed more because of it though. It's their body, and I'm not their master, and they aren't my slave. I don't own them, therefore I should not make decisions against their will for them.

This is wrong on sooooo many levels (the extra o's are for emphasis). Morally, fundamentally, for the good of the people, being a good citizen/person etc...

I disagree that the abusers of harmful substances shouldn't be taxed for the above reasons.

You should definitely make decisions to go against smokers. It's a nasty habit as you said and I quote Clancy here:

Smoking gives you yellow teeth, yellow fingers and you smell horrible. If a smoker is near you all you want to do is get away.

Smoking is a leading cause of lung, bladder, kidney, pancreatic, throat, mouth, skin, stomach and esophageal cancer.

The worst part is that anybody near you has a higher chance of getting cancer. Even if it is only for a few minutes.

Finally, The health effects from cigarette smoking account for 20% of all deaths in the United States alone.

As you yourself said if other people are not consensual about smokers being around them then the said smokers should be stopped because the smoking is non-consensually causing others real harm.

Oh, mob rule?

Not quite... It's called democracy. I would ask if you've heard of it and know what it is (because you consider the above "mob rule" when it really isn't), but then I would seem rude, and now that would be a poor choice for me. Being rude to a mod :)

Just because a majority of people want something doesn't make it right. That's why America is a Democratic Republic. America defends certain rights, even when it is just a minority being protected.

WTF???

Obviously America is a Democratic Republic, which is the reason this law would be passed. What I mean is that the leader was voted in to office with the choice to pass the law. Which is in essence the meaning of Democratic Republic (voted into office with power to create laws, this power coming from the citizens). You make it sound like passing this law would be "unamerican" (whatever that subjective word means) when it would actually be very "American" or even Canadian. There are no rights you would need to defend if this law is ever passed. If it is passed you're successfully adding money to our streets, and paying cops and firefighters salaries, defending children from undue negative influence, and making your country a healthier and fitter nation.

But, honestly, that's not here nor there. I'm talking about why it's wrong for people to support sin tax, majority or not.

I agree, what you said (just above this sentence) was irrelevant and off topic.

This argument is moot. It doesn't matter if a leader is allowed to apply sin tax or not, it doesn't necisarily make it right.

The argument is not moot, you just think it is. I disagree, if the law and the constitution define this as legal and the public votes in a leader who would want this tax law passed, then it definitely does make it right.

Oh, the Christian nation argument... seriously?

Well I should've said Catholic nation, because Jewish people and and Jehovah Witnesses are Christians, but the great nation of Canada and America was not built off Jewish/Jehovah views I think.

And why ever not the Christian nation argument, I may not be Christian, but my great nation is. Seeing as how I'm patriotic I follow its laws and do my best to do what is best for the nation however Christian it is.

This means the government can't ban "gluttony" just because it's in the bible. (also, eating unhealthy foods isn't necisarily gluttony - eating too much food, healthy or otherwise, is gluttony).

The reason for the banning of gluttony and sloth wouldn't be one that is for or against a religious establishment, nor would its intent be to have anything to do with religion. Instead it has to do with the good of the country and it's residents.

As Freakenstein pointed out, there are other means of obtaining taxes.

This isn't all about gaining money, it's more so about the safety and health of our respective countries inhabitants.

A healthier population? Pardon me, but the ends don't justify the means. We can obtain a safer population if we covered everything in foam, banned everything that's bad, and hire a large number of police to enforce these rules.

That is impractical, unlawful, and unconstitutional and restricts the residents of the said countries freedom by far to much. The difference between what I said and this is that what I said was practical, lawful, constitutional, reasonable and is NOT banning anything. just implementing a new tax. What you say seems to often be taken to far out of proportion and is simply ludicrous. For example this is like when you said "sin taxes and holding a gun to someone's head is very alike." Simply ridiculous (I reiterate to make a point).

A nation that's healthy due to coercive measures is pathetic. Healthy living should be CONSENSUAL, NOT FORCED.

This is only coercive by the loosest most mutilated definition of the word.

This would be consensual and not forced because the said leader was voted into power. This means the citizens of the said nation supports his or her ideals. A Prime Minister has to do what is for the best of the country, even if the minority of people disapprove of his ideals and stances.

It's better to be unhealthy and free than healthy and coerced.

This should say "it's better to be healthy and taxed, than unhealthy and untaxed."

The ends don't justify the means.

They most certainly do.

Then you go on to suggest that we'd rather do nothing. Well, yes, doing nothing would be better than resorting to force. HOWEVER, you can help people without using force.

My proposal to help people isn't through force. No one would be forcing anyone to buy the unnecessary junk food. So, since this is scarcely forcing, doing nothing would certainly not be better. Saying that nothing is better is truly quite sick if I may say so myself...

Oh, if that's the case, we don't need a sin tax!

If people have to pay more money for "luxury" foods, then they have LESS money for everything else. If someone is working for min. wage, then the sin tax on the cigarettes they buy DOES make a pretty big difference!

You can not argue that sin tax will persuade people to make healthier decisions, then turn around and argue that sin tax isn't expensive enough to do financial harm to people. If sin tax is as minor as you make it out to be, then it's not doing it's job at dissuading people from buying said objects.

Let me rephrase this in a way you may understand and agree with:

My proposed sin tax is meant as an incentive to purchase healthy alternatives, not to financially cripple people. So the tax would be high enough to be a successful incentive, but no where near enough to be a financial crippler.

I was also saying that meanwhile people do not have junk foods for breakfast, lunch and supper they do have a seriously excessive amount for desserts, and in-between meal snacks.

Not sure if it was necisarily a red-herring or not, but he made a great point. Sin tax can go towards things the government provides. However, if the government needs more taxes, then they should raise taxes on ALL goods, not just "sinful" goods.

The argument that sin tax can go towards anything is moot, because alternative forms of taxation will do the same.

I don't understand how you can actually think that what I'm proposing is just about the money. I'm saying the money aspect that would be redirected into our country is a pro for this proposal, meanwhile the main reason for implementing this law would be for the safety and well being of the citizens.

Did you seriously not know that's what I meant?

Again, your point is moot.

Here is a little F.Y.I. insulting arguments and being condescending is detrimental to your own argument. You appear as silly and childish. Thus your points are taken less seriously. "Your argument is moot," is a good example of what not to say... Maybe you should say: "I do not believe you have a valid point," instead, it's more polite...

Ha... look at me telling a mod to be polite :) Ironic

As for the food for thought thing, I'll watch it later, probably tomorrow, I'm getting tired right now.

In the most literal sense possible, it is force.

In one of the most unliteral, and loose sense of the words you have a very small point.

I'm not physically stopping people from being healthy or physically making them be active. The word force is not literally meant to mean "if there are sin taxes implemented this is force."

People who REALLY want to eat unhealthy food SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY EXTRA because people like YOU want to tell them what they can and can't do with their own bodies!

Let's put a tax on healthy foods, people who want to be healthy bad enough will pay more.

Read just about anything I've written above to see how incorrect this is in my point of view.

I'm not forcing my "opinion" down his throat, he doesn't have to accept it. However, what he's proposing is something that would FORCE others to pay more money.

In a loose sense of the word force... I suppose I am.

The means are justified and the ends are great. This makes the sin tax righteous and just.

If I was FORCING my views onto him, I would have banned him for not agreeing with me.

I can't say so for sure, but I think I would either be unbanned, or permitted to make another account if you did so, plus you would likely be stripped of being a moderator and get banned in return for abusing your powers.

Excuse me, but taxation, or raising the tax burden on people who buy "unhealthy goods" is just that! What I'm saying sounds radical, but it's really not all that different than what's really happening.

Can you explain more in depth what's really happening here? Two reasonable and logical people discussing a legitimate tax proposal?

People like you

You shouldn't say that, it comes off as rude, offensive, patronizing and condescending =.=

You believe people who buy soda shouldn't be drinking it

I believe people should drink soda in a reasonable amount and not drink it in excess.

so you're going to raise their tax burden as a way of "discouraging" them from making unhealthy decisions that isn't even your business in the first place.

Oh contraire. This is certainly my business as a good person, good citizen, and a patriotic citizen. You may not want to help and aid people, but I most certainly do, thus this is my business.

If you think people should stop drinking soda, then tell them why they should stop and let THEM make their own decision as to whether they stop or not. Don't "persuade" them by forcing them to pay more money. That's literally along the lines of me stealing money out of your pocket because you decided not to heed my warning when I told you to stop buying soda.

My preferred president would make a statement as to why he made this law and as to why self-destruction is a poor choice. Persuasion along the line of taxes is perfectly right in my eyes and a good start to rectifying this obesity issue. If you have a better proposal other than to do nothing and recommend they stop abusing themselves and negatively influencing their children I would love to hear it.

P.S. Taxation is not along the lines of theft. One is legal the other is not.

 

Posted Nov 9, '12 at 12:01am

Jacen96

Jacen96

2,145 posts

Sounds to me that what Heisonnberg is proposing is that we put a tax on all foods considered unhealthy, so he can punish everyone who scrapes money together to buy their kids a treat, or buy themselves a treat. Because of the so called obesity epidemic which is based on a flawed system (BMI), says that all those who live in America are fat, no matter what their genetics or mind previously determined.

Well I should've said Catholic nation,

Why would you say Catholic nation, don't you know your history, and how most areas were fiercely protestant and against the Catholic Church Source

Persuasion along the line of taxes is perfectly right in my eyes and a good start to rectifying this obesity issue.

I am with NoName, you have no right to add extra penalties for those who make their own choices about what to do about THEIR body.

Also, your car insurance analogy is hogwash, as being accident free is more than just protecting your self (like eating healthy), but if you are an unsafe driver you could easily injure or kill other people.

(If you tax people who CHOOSE to eat junk food, you should also tax those who eat healthy.)

~~~Darth Caedus

 

Posted Nov 9, '12 at 12:15am

VonHeisenbourg

VonHeisenbourg

215 posts

Sounds to me that what Heisonnberg is proposing is that we put a tax on all foods considered unhealthy, so he can punish everyone who scrapes money together to buy their kids a treat, or buy themselves a treat. Because of the so called obesity epidemic which is based on a flawed system (BMI), says that all those who live in America are fat, no matter what their genetics or mind previously determined.

It sounds like that because you haven't been paying close enough attention to what I said. I propose to implement this new tax to (if you so badly want to phrase it this way) "punish" the obese people and help this (as you put it) "epidemic" be rectified.

You make it sound as though a vast majority of Americans aren't overweight and everyone is at the right wieght and that obesity is non-issue in America. Is this what you truly think?

Why would you say Catholic nation, don't you know your history, and how most areas were fiercely protestant and against the Catholic Church Source

Not knowing the history of every state (like Maryland) doesn't really bother me all that much. If I asked you the history of a random province like Nova Scotia about something totally random would you know it without using google?

I say Catholic because there are simply a lot of Catholics in England and the English settled America, so it stands to reason that America was raised with English ideologies and religious standings. That was my logic anyways.

Catholics In England

I'll get to the rest of what you said late, getting tired.

 

Posted Nov 9, '12 at 12:54am

Devoidless

Devoidless

3,553 posts

You make it sound as though a vast majority of Americans aren't overweight and everyone is at the right wieght and that obesity is non-issue in America. Is this what you truly think?

You make it sound as if America is the only country with such an issue. Any modern and industrialized modern nation has such problems. Why? Because of the work that most of its citizens perform. Work that entails driving there, sitting there for eight or more hours, driving back and sleeping for at least hour more hours. Just to repeat that at least five days a week.
rnObesity rates in modern industrialized nations
The article may be a couple years old, yet I still hold it as largely relevant. According to the graphs, the obesity rate in Mexico is large than that in the states. Granted the US comes second. Yet further review of the data shows that all of the top five are separated by a mere few percentage points.
That is not even mentioning how all of the nations shown have a fairly decent percentage of citizens considered 'overweight.' Japan, at the low end of the scale, has roughly twenty-five percent of it's citizens labeled as overweight. Meaning that at least one out of every four people one would see in Japan is overweight. Which for the lowest end of the scale is still outrageous.

 

Posted Nov 9, '12 at 4:13am

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,069 posts

Knight

1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.

That's taxation right there! YOU WILL LITERALLY BE FINED AND POSSIBLY GO TO PRISON IF YOU DO NOT PAY TAXES.

Taxation is COERCION. That's a FACT. Taxes are NOT optional.

*facepalm

I'm sure that victims of armed robbery would disagree that a sin tax is even remotely similar to a hostage situation. I'm also sure they would be offended that you would have the audacity to suggest that. Buying poopy foods for a few extra nickles or dimes isn't quite the same as forced compliance with a gun. Paying taxes for foods that deteriorate your insides is optional, and scarcely is forcing or taking away ones freedoms to choose to scoff food.

I'm offended that you want to FORCE (TO MAKE PEOPLE SPEND MORE MONEY) because they want to do something YOU don't agree with, even though it has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

Taxation is force. To say it isn't a form of coercion is FACTUALLY WRONG.

Taxation is to communication as armed robbery is to negotiation. What does this mean, because obviously you are intentionally missing the point so you can misconstrue my point.

When someone holds a gun to another person's face and demands money, that's a form of FORCE. That's a form of COERCION. When someone says, "you must pay us taxes or we'll arrest you and throw you in a cage", THAT'S ALSO a form of coercion.

Indeed I am, and taxation should certainly be used to persuade people not to destroy their bodies and themselves.

Why is it WRONG for regular citizens to force other people to make certain decisions, yet it's magically acceptable when it's the government? Why is it wrong to forcefully take money as a human being, yet it's okay when the government does it?

Again, other people's health isn't of YOUR concern, it isn't of the government's concern. If you want to make them stop, then it must be CONSENSUAL.

There most certainly is a proper way to live. I don't mean this to be patronizing or make it seem as though that I think I'm superior to everyone else, but the Criminal Code of Canada (or America) and The Highway Traffic Act testifies to this. By making all the acts in both of these entities (I do consider a Traffic and Criminal code an entity) illegal and telling us what to do implies and tells us there is a proper way to live and an improper way that'll get us locked away.

There are rules when it comes to driving so people can remain safe from harming EACH OTHER.

It doesn't only suggest it, it tells people that. When I say that I mean that healthier lives do deserve to be rewarded by spending  less money, whereas self-destructive ones get the exact opposite.

That's sickening! Again, why are you so obsessed with telling other people what to do with THEIR OWN BODIES? You aren't my master.

As a resident of my country determining what I want done to my country, this is exactly for me to decide, but most importantly it is up to our government appointed officials to decide.

You want other people to live a certain way because you're a resident? You're lucky I'm a moderator and I have a certain image to keep.

1. It is not coercion in the typical sense, instead it is coercion in a sense that the word was twisted and redefined to mean what you want it to mean.

2. I prefer people not to pay for this junk, just altogether avoid it.

It's LITERALLY coercion through textbook definition! Holy Mother of God! It's IS coercion. You are LITERALLY forced to pay taxes. Taxation is not a suggestion, it is something you do to stay out of PRISON.

As for preferring people make healthier decisions, IT'S NONE YOUR BUSINESS WHAT PEOPLE DO TO THEIR OWN BODIES.

I'm not forcing anyone to buy these foods/beverages, but I suppose if you want to be so obtuse about this I guess I am forcing people to pay a bit more money for particular goods, if they so desperately want them, I do this to simply help them and create a better country and a better future generation. Not because I look down on their actions.

I'm glad you're so concerned, but again, people should be FREE to make their OWN ****ING DECISIONS. It's this idea that we must control actions for the benefit of society that's infuriating, because people should not be forced to live according to your own personal agenda. We need to protect people from coercion. We need to keep people safe from OTHERS, like you. We need to let people live how they see fit.

Sometimes, we do need to make rules. But when we make rules, we do so because other people are being harmed. It should never be, because someone is harming themselves.

For aforementioned reasons it isn't literally coercion, instead it is a mutated form of coercion.

I've made my argument, so here's this.

Perhaps I'm not their parents, but have you ever heard of the Good Samaritan Law?

I consider this a good example of The Good Samaritan Law. By introducing a sin tax you're successfully obligating your duty as a good Samaritan and saving people from peril (in this case body deterioration).

Good Samaritan Laws are in place so that people can help others when there is no time to talk to things out. When someone is about to get hit by a train, you can tackle them out of the way. But when someone is smoking, and you tell them it's bad for them and they still refuse to stop, then they have rejected your help.

I thought about this earlier, actually. I had a feeling you would make such an argument. However, forcing people to pay a fine (or to pay extra taxes - same concept) when they buy certain goods, the alternative to which is imprisonment, is NEVER acceptable and would NEVER be considered under Good Samaritan Law.

If you want to help people, and there's plenty of time to talk to them about whatever dangers are ahead, then you can't forcefully help them.

Yes it's your body, your choice to harm it, but it is also my legal obligation to attempt to stop you from doing so.

If you were to say such a thing while holding the authority to create such a law, it wouldn't be out of lines for me to tell you to piss off. It isn't your legal obligation any more than it's my legal obligation to limit the amount of time you're on the internet.

Actually it does... The above law may not actually say "stop people from committing sloth", but as a responsible and good citizen, I shall attempt it anyways (even if it is only via taxation).

If that's the case, then you don't need government to get involved. You can enforce these rules YOURSELF. Go for it! You believe it falls under Good Samaritan Law to help protect others from their own sloth, then go around and demand they stop buying unhealthy products. If they refuse, demand they pay more for said products and threaten to throw them in a prison cell if they disobey.

I'm glad you asked, the difference is: all of the above examples of "justification" you used for committing any act was illegal. Sin tax isn't illegal.

We're talking morality, not legality.

Another thing is that you aren't only letting the obese people suffer, you're allowing these obese adults to negatively influence their children to the point where it may kill or cause serious health problems for the kids.

Honestly, being a little over wieght isn't necisarily a problem, especially since a lot of people gain weight pretty **** easily due to their genes. It's not nearly as serious an issue as health nuts would have you believe.

This is wrong on sooooo many levels (the extra o's are for emphasis). Morally, fundamentally, for the good of the people, being a good citizen/person etc...

Not your body - not your business.

As you yourself said if other people are not consensual about smokers being around them then the said smokers should be stopped because the smoking is non-consensually causing others real harm.

This is the ONLY argument that makes any real sense. However, it is COMPLETELY inconsistent with sin tax. If smoking causes harm to others, then how does sin tax help the other people? Sure, it might reduce the number of smokers (in reality it doesn't, so we're pretending), but it still allows people to actually do so. If smoking around other people is an issue you would like to address, sin tax is NOT the proper solution.

Not quite... It's called democracy. I would ask if you've heard of it and know what it is (because you consider the above "mob rule" when it really isn't), but then I would seem rude, and now that would be a poor choice for me. Being rude to a mod :)

First of all, don't worry about me being a moderator.

Second, it is mob rule. Democracy is just a "sweet" and "gentle" term for it. Sometimes mob rule is okay. When you have something that isn't necisarily infringing on people's freedoms, mob rule is the best way to get things done.

The argument is not moot, you just think it is. I disagree, if the law and the constitution define this as legal and the public votes in a leader who would want this tax law passed, then it definitely does make it right.

The constitution exists to limit the powers of government. It doesn't state that everything the government does otherwise is "right".

What is right and what is legal are completely different.

Well I should've said Catholic nation, because Jewish people and and Jehovah Witnesses are Christians, but the great nation of Canada and America was not built off Jewish/Jehovah views I think.

And why ever not the Christian nation argument, I may not be Christian, but my great nation is. Seeing as how I'm patriotic I follow its laws and do my best to do what is best for the nation however Christian it is.

First Amendment.

The reason for the banning of gluttony and sloth wouldn't be one that is for or against a religious establishment, nor would its intent be to have anything to do with religion. Instead it has to do with the good of the country and it's residents.

You said the government was a Christian nation, and that gluttony is a sin. You used this to support sin tax. Sounds like what I said was perfectly relevant!

Anyway, to keep myself sane and the post wall somewhat shorter, I'm just going to stop here.

 

Posted Nov 9, '12 at 6:12am

Devoidless

Devoidless

3,553 posts

Now, I shouldn't jump into this yet I will. For two reason, really. One being that Nemo happens to share a lot of the same ideas as myself (but I tend to be the less easy going of the two of us) and the other being that I can not stand seeing people incessantly waggle their tongues whilst sophistry pours forth and dribbles down their chins.

Let me grab a canned, carbonated (as possibly alcoholic) beverage right after I smoke a bone.

Yes it's your body, your choice to harm it, but it is also my legal obligation to attempt to stop you from doing so.

No, not it is not. You have no legal jurisdiction nor obligation to tell me nor anyone else what to do and what not to do, even more so when put in terms of the current discussion. You speak of and use this law for your defense, yet you fail to grasp even the most baseline intention of said law.
It was put forth to make sure that no person (outside of some circumstances not relevant to the topic at hand) be required to give aid of any sort to a victim. Some jurisdictions require the a person at the scene of an emergency to give reasonable assistance to a person in need, ranging from calling the proper services/authorities and up (yet only if they are deemed to be necessary and cause no harm). In my state (NY), this law give immunity to the person who aids another in an emergency.
So you more or less just took the name of the law and added your own definition to it. I fail to see how that works in shape, way or form. And simply adding "I consider this..." does not change the fact that you are talking about a law which you obviously have no grasp of.

Actually it does... The above law may not actually say "stop people from committing sloth", but as a responsible and good citizen, I shall attempt it anyways (even if it is only via taxation).

Not only does it not say those actual words, it does not even imply anything close to that. I already touched on why your statements are mere suppositions whimsy.
Yet I would love to see you try, even more so since consent must be given for aid in accordance to the law you so gleefully pull to your aid. There would be no given consent nor implied consent in such a case. Tell you what, if you ever see me smoking a cigarette or enjoying a beverage, please try to tell me to stop. Because then I'd have to use your own bizarro world Good Samaritan law on you and warn you, as a good citizen, that continuing to do so is putting your well being and life at risk.

The argument is not moot, you just think it is. I disagree, if the law and the constitution define this as legal and the public votes in a leader who would want this tax law passed, then it definitely does make it right.

Everything the government decides for its citizens must be right, yeah? And it totally has to do with only what the voters want. Nothing to do with the lobbyist groups that throw insane amounts of money towards whichever laws further their cause (which is typically the fattening of their wallets.)

Well I should've said Catholic nation, because Jewish people and and Jehovah Witnesses are Christians, but the great nation of Canada and America was not built off Jewish/Jehovah views I think.

    And why ever not the Christian nation argument, I may not be Christian, but my great nation is. Seeing as how I'm patriotic I follow its laws and do my best to do what is best for the nation however Christian it is.

Baa a bit louder, little sheep. Brandish your ill-conceived notion of patriotism as a shield, and your best intentions as a weapon. Use the assumed all-encompassing umbrella of religion for an entire country for what you see fit. Whatever ignorant and ill-believed hogwash makes you feel better at night when you lay down to rest.

Oh? Over one hundred million Americans being obese is now a few people? I think you should inform the dictionary guys to change the definition of "a few".

The ways of defining someone as obese or overweight are draconian and insane at best. They base it off of the BMI scale. It simply just takes the height of weight of a person and spits out a number. 30 is considered obese, with the other categories falling under that. The glaring problem with such a system is that it does not take into consideration the build of the person. When it comes to categorizing someone in such terms, this just does not work, seeing as the build of each person is different.
Example:
I'm 6' and roughly 195 pounds. Punch in the numbers, let it calculate and it tells me that my BMI is 26.4. Overweight. Even if I lost ten pounds of pure fat, I'd still be labeled as overweight. In order to be labeled as 'normal', I'd had to lose a whopping fifteen pounds of fat. If someone was to shave fifteen pounds of anything off of my frame, I'd look sickly and malnourished.
They would have to go on a person to person basis to determine a true number of 'obese' citizens. Which would take far too much work. So they just gather numbers, crunch them, look at the bollocks results and label the results as srs bizness.

 
Reply to The Perfect President

You must be logged in to post a reply!