ForumsWEPRThe Perfect President

56 16586
endlessrampage73
offline
endlessrampage73
2,544 posts
Peasant

If the US elected the perfect president, what would they do? Would they lower taxes? Increase defense spending? Talk about what you would see in a perfect president here. No trolling or flaming.

  • 56 Replies
Jacen96
offline
Jacen96
3,113 posts
Herald

Create some kind off incentive for people to bring jobs home instead of in China, get 16 trillion dollars from somewhere and pay off our debt, respect everyone's opinion, not make stupid policies, create a better tax system, come up with a way to maintain our might but decrease spending.


AND REMOVE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

~~~Darth Caedus

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
Bard

perfect does not exist.
talking about the subject perfect takes ages because what is perfect for person A isn't perfect for person B and therefor perfect does not exist.

and seriously another usa elections/president topic?
are there not enough atm?

VonHeisenbourg
offline
VonHeisenbourg
377 posts
Shepherd

Lengthy Post Alert: Read Only if Courageous Enough

I'll take "US Electing the Perfect President" to mean leader or Prime Minister of the poster's country...

I would have to say the best (this is really mostly subjective) Prime Minister/President ever would do the following on the following stances:

I'm Canadian, so my ideal Prime Minister would take these stances on the following matters:

Taxes:Do not tax charities and non-profit non-hate group organizations who seek to benefit the community. For example keep places like The Salvation Army tax-exempt. After all it doesn't make much sense to tax an organization that sells only donated items from the public at a bargain price when all items sold are meant to be sold to the needed and any profit made goes to the employees/food banks/community etc...

Tax junk food, cigarettes and alcohol the most heavily. This would make sense because all these items (except for cigarettes) are good to a small degree, but in excess are bad for you. Taxing these foods and beverages
and narcotics will help to get people to buy other cheaper, more health oriented foods as an alternative.

Tax electronics moderately/heavily. This would be ideal and would make sense because recycling and getting some of these items out of landfills are expensive and electronics are environmentally unfriendly, so taxing them would help alleviate these costs and cons. After all why should the government have to be solely responsible for the fees of disposing of these items when they didn't use them all?

Tax healthy foods and beverages lightly/moderately. While it is understandable that some foods and beverages should be taxed more heavily because the contents used to make some of those food/beverage wrappers and containers is harder to dispose of, or is bad for the environment, encouraging a healthy generation of Canadians is very important. We want strong, healthy and morally just group of descendants after all do we not? So why make these healthy foods non-taxed?

Tax cars, and any other motor vehicles very heavily. To me this would make sense because if you're already paying tens of thousands for motor vehicles (some times even more) what's an extra few thousand dollars. Sure it's a pain to pay off the payments, but in the end the taxes make sense. Cars are very economically unfriendly, they for the most part damage our eco-system (via pollution and smog). are a leading cause in homicides (culpable and non-culpable), and they're expensive to dispose of.

Tax items like furniture, school items, tables, brooms, utensils (so basically all necessities) etc... Gently. Although they're reasonable difficult to dispose of and are mostly environmentally unfriendly it doesn't make sense to charge people on things they need to survive, it just doesn't seem right at all.

Tax luxury items moderately to heavily. Tax these items on the difficulty it is to dispose of, the level of harmful components in them (environmentally speaking) and how healthy they're.

Marijuana: I'm opinion less on this matter and I'm not a user as well as the fact that I do not know enough about it to offer an educated opinion, so I won't say anything about this.

Prostitution: Legalize prostitution, but strictly regulate and monitor it via bawdy-house and have the Ministry of Health watch it closely.

Why you ask is it that prostitution should be legal? My answer is this: [/i]Proponents of legalizing prostitution believe it would reduce crime, improve public health, increase tax revenue, help people out of poverty, get prostitutes off the streets, and allow consenting adults to make their own choices. They contend that prostitution is a victim-less crime, especially in the 11 Nevada counties where it remains legal. I concur with this statement from this website: Why Prositution should be legal.

When and how to allow prostitution. :

[i]- Do not allow anyone with STI (Sexually Transmitted Infections) to become a prostitute and require regular STI testings to guarantee safety to the customers.
- Require any customers to show certification that they're without any type of STIs or STDs, require it so that the certificates are also regularly renewed.
- Require all prostitutes and customers to use protection.
- Obviously make prostitution consensual for the ladies and men.
- Only allow this in bawdy-houses so as to guarantee it is safely and properly conducted, and not in alleys where AIDs can be more easily transmitted without a certificate stating the person is "clean" so to speak, and where the prostitute won't be assaulted.


Keep prostitution on the streets illegal and criminalized

Abortion: I think it would be best if the perfect ruler of a country thought this way: Anti pro-choice with exceptions. Those being:

1. The mother's life is in danger if she continues on with the pregnancy.
2. Mother is ***** (I'm not saying I find it right that a person (the baby) is killed because of how the child was conceived, just that it should be the moms choice in this scenario).
3. The mom is known for being an abusive, alcoholic, smoking, and horrible human being with genetic diseases that are passed down the mom's bloodline (it wouldn't be right for a child to be born with a mother like this, death would be a kinder fate).
4. Mother or partner was using birth control, but it failed.

If the soon to be mother had sex without protection then she knew the inherent risks that goes along with this act. Therefore murdering (this is murder, because a one day year old fetus is still a person in my perspective) this child to take away a burden and a financially difficult situation is wrong. Yes, I've seen all the arguments to and for abortion and I know that some people think it should be purely the mothers choice, because she is the mom after all and that it is her body etc, etc, etc... but I purely disagree.

I know some people think fetus's aren't people because they don't feel or dream until a certain stage in the pregnancy, but I disagree. The immensely large probability of this zygote/fetus to turn into a person should deem it close enough to a person to deem it as a person under the law. Yes I know people could argue with this and dissemble my views with ease and make it look silly, but this is the way I feel and think.

Pollution & The Environment: Attack pollution with any and all resources available to simply eradicate all pollution slowly, but surely. The key to fixing this issue is the one of the most pressing concerns that there is (as long as using any and all resources available doesn't destroy the said countries economy).

We only have one planet, we need to secure this planet, guarantee its well being and protection. Since I've done a poor job illustrating why we need to do so please check out the following sites:

Bad For Our Environment

Bad For Our Health

Types of Abuse:
Criminalize child abuse, but make it legal for a parent or guardian to discipline their children to a reasonable limit. ie, make it illegal to hit a child with any implement save for the hands, and deem disciplination legal so long as it doesn't leave a mark. Criminalize physiological abuse.

Like how I created my own word of disciplination (I could think of no better substitution)?

Criminalize any type of spousal abuse. No spouse should have the legal right to harm the other spouse whatsoever.



I haven't nearly touched every issue or stance a perfect leader would take, but this is a summarization of how I think a perfect president should act and what he should legalize/decriminalize. There are many issues still untouched, for example foreign affairs, health care, religious laws, separating religion from state etc... But those are topics for another day =)

TheGenovesan
offline
TheGenovesan
65 posts
Peasant

4. Mother or partner was using birth control, but it failed.

If this was so, then couldn't anyone just claim that they took birth control pills?
In my opinion, there is no such thing as a " perefect president". There is always a flaw, no matter how good they are. A good president to me would be one who works mainly on the economy, because, lets be honest, the U.S.A has one of the worst economies in history. And this president would need to be skilled in foreign relations, as in they must be more forceful on iran's nuclear threat, and be good at maintaining good relations with other countries.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,063 posts
Farmer

Do not tax charities and non-profit non-hate group organizations who seek to benefit the community. For example keep places like The Salvation Army tax-exempt. After all it doesn't make much sense to tax an organization that sells only donated items from the public at a bargain price when all items sold are meant to be sold to the needed and any profit made goes to the employees/food banks/community etc...


The same can be said for any business. If you own a restaurant, you provide FOOD to other people. You take whatever profits you make and you pay your employees, expand your business (which allows you to hire more people, feed more customers, etc.).

Tax junk food, cigarettes and alcohol the most heavily. This would make sense because all these items (except for cigarettes) are good to a small degree, but in excess are bad for you. Taxing these foods and beverages
and narcotics will help to get people to buy other cheaper, more health oriented foods as an alternative.


How could you suggest such a horrible, condescending, thing?

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?

I don't go to your house and demand you stop drinking soda, or to stop smoking. I don't tell you to cough up more cash. It's you body, do whatever the hell you want, I shouldn't be allowed to use ANY means of force to &quotersuade" you to stop. You shouldn't do the same to us.

You think you know what's best for everyone, better than the individual. You're assuming everyone who buys soda is going to abuse it, therefore you PUNISH those people by taxing them more. You want the government to force healthy habits, and that is WRONG.

Value is relative and differs person to person. Some people value certain objects and activity above their own health, why punish them? Why are you forcing your values onto us?

Legalizing prostitution is okay, but let's keep people responsible for their own actions. If someone is harmed because a prostitute had STD's, and the prostitute said she was clean, she should be held reliable. We don't need over regulation, we merely need people to be held responsible for their actions.

Prostitution, when legalized, often results in cleaner prostitutes WITHOUT the need of government regulation because, believe it or not, STD's are NOT profitable. Keeping prostitutes clean is. This is why we really don't need government to force regulations. If a person wants to sleep with a shady prostitute when there are better alternatives, it's that person's decision to take such risks, and it's that person who should take responsibility for picking a prostitute that offered no proof of being clean.

Let's take money out of the equation. We don't have regulations on who we can have sex with (for the most part). We don't have to submit paperwork if we want to sleep at the lady from the bar. We don't have to have the government get involved in any way. The only difference between this and prostitution is whether or not money is being exchanged. When people are getting married, they're going to screw each other and have kids, we don't need the government to step in and say "before you get married, we need the two of you to get tested".

Hopefully I made my point by now.

Freedom is sacred. Freedom is not the ability to harm others, as people like to misconstrue. Freedom is the ability to act on your own and make your own decisions as long as you aren't infringing on other people's freedoms.
handlerfan
offline
handlerfan
194 posts
Peasant

I imagine that the perfect president would be acceptable to Republicans, Democrats, and everybody else and would receive one hundred per cent of available votes.

VonHeisenbourg
offline
VonHeisenbourg
377 posts
Shepherd

The same can be said for any business. If you own a restaurant, you provide FOOD to other people. You take whatever profits you make and you pay your employees, expand your business (which allows you to hire more people, feed more customers, etc.).

The same cannot be said, these other businesses make a profit for themselves, do no not sell at bargain prices like The Salvation Army Thrift Store does, they do not give back to the community like a charity/non-profit oranization does, and their purpose is not to be pure good like The Salvation Army is, but instead the main goal is to add money into the owners pockets. There are differences, and that is why charities are tax-exempt and restaurants, and groceries stores aren't.

How could you suggest such a horrible, condescending, thing?

Yea, I know right? The shame of I to try and stop people from killing themselves and to stop obesity and to attempt to make people live longer and more fulfulling lives!!! And then to promote these ideologies I would make people pay an extra thirteen sense on a dollar, which is already taxed on most things that would then go to maintaining our streets, schools, hospitals, adolescent soccer fields, cop salaries, unemployment agencies!!! How could I suggest such a thing?!?

That was sarcasm.

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?

It's hardly forcing to make people pay a few extra pennies on a dollar for a one dollar soda can. The reason is just, and it is for the greater good. I see no wrong. I myself enjoy sodas, I'd be willing to pay more for them, I think others should too.

I see no wrong in this. What you are saying is pure wrong in my opinion and horrible. Allowing people to kill themselves like this and become so unhealthy. That is sick and wrong. What you say is horrible in my perspective (I see your reasoning, I just strongly disagree with it).

I don't go to your house and demand you stop drinking soda, or to stop smoking. I don't tell you to cough up more cash. It's you body, do whatever the hell you want

I wouldn't mind you doing this to me if you were part of the government and the money would be going towards some of the aforementioned things. I would approve of it and suggest you try and get a law passed making it that everyone has to pay, lets say 20% taxes on junk food and such poop instead of 7%. Now instead of $0.99 to consume unhealthy foods/beverages you pay a whole whopping $1.20!!!!!

I shouldn't be allowed to use ANY means of force to &quotersuade" you to stop. You shouldn't do the same to us.

It isn't any means necessary, it's one reasonable mean that causes you two dimes extra...

You think you know what's best for everyone, better than the individual. You're assuming everyone who buys soda is going to abuse it, therefore you PUNISH those people by taxing them more

Wrong. It isn't a punishment, it's an incentive to be more healthy. The incentive is to save more money.

I do not assume everyone will abuse it, just that many people do abuse it. Thus these laws to pay slightly extra money are reasonable and justified... After all the money does go to good use when not misappropriated by the government...

You want the government to force healthy habits, and that is WRONG.

We have to agree to disagree. I believe it is just, right and admirable.

Value is relative and differs person to person. Some people value certain objects and activity above their own health, why punish them? Why are you forcing your values onto us?

Values that make you live longer? Have to pay extra money to a good cause (street maintenance, school maintenance, cop salaries etc...)? You seriously oppose this? Now that is truly horrible of you to say "just because it's someones body we should let them abuse themselves as they see fit".

Legalizing prostitution is okay, but let's keep people responsible for their own actions. If someone is harmed because a prostitute had STD's, and the prostitute said she was clean, she should be held reliable.

Yea I actually knew that, precedence in court shows that people knowingly lying about STDs can be and have been successfully charged with aggravated assault (assault causing someone to be maimed, disfigured and or threatening someones life). Or if the customer was successfully infected with an STD such as AIDs charges including and up to second degree murder (when the infected dies) and attempted murder have been charged.

We don't need over regulation, we merely need people to be held responsible for their actions.

Certification, bawdy-houses, consent is hardly over regulation in my opinion 0.o

Let's take money out of the equation. We don't have regulations on who we can have sex with (for the most part). We don't have to submit paperwork if we want to sleep at the lady from the bar. We don't have to have the government get involved in any way. The only difference between this and prostitution is whether or not money is being exchanged. When people are getting married, they're going to screw each other and have kids, we don't need the government to step in and say "before you get married, we need the two of you to get tested".

Point taken, but I think for the safety of the general public and the prostitutes bawdy-houses and certification are needed if there is going to be an institution specifically just to have sex... I didn't think what I said was over regulation at all, but I can see how you may think that.

Hopefully I made my point by now.

I mostly agree with what you said about prostitution, but disagree with much of everything else.

Freedom is sacred. Freedom is not the ability to harm others, as people like to misconstrue. Freedom is the ability to act on your own and make your own decisions as long as you aren't infringing on other people's freedoms.

Charging taxes on junk foods to keep people healthy is certainly not unconstitutional or infringing on another person's freedoms. If you were voted into office it is because the people of your country wanted you to be in office. It is then up to said politician to serve the public as she or he sees fit.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,063 posts
Farmer

The shame of I to try and stop people from killing themselves and to stop obesity and to attempt to make people live longer and more fulfulling lives!!!


You aren't their master, and they aren't your slaves. If you want to help them, talk to them. But don't FORCE them to treat themselves better.

It's hardly forcing to make people pay a few extra pennies on a dollar for a one dollar soda can. The reason is just, and it is for the greater good. I see no wrong. I myself enjoy sodas, I'd be willing to pay more for them, I think others should too.


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

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

Charging taxes on junk foods to keep people healthy is certainly not unconstitutional or infringing on another person's freedoms.


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 were voted into office it is because the people of your country wanted you to be in office. It is then up to said politician to serve the public as she or he sees fit.


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

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

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!

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

You should be handcuffed to a person you hate and realize, it's WRONG to bind people with others against their will.
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,554 posts
Bard

Yea, I know right? The shame of I to try and stop people from killing themselves and to stop obesity and to attempt to make people live longer and more fulfulling lives!!! And then to promote these ideologies I would make people pay an extra thirteen sense on a dollar, which is already taxed on most things that would then go to maintaining our streets, schools, hospitals, adolescent soccer fields, cop salaries, unemployment agencies!!! How could I suggest such a thing?!?


You are suggesting a sin tax for the freedom of the people to buy something. If people wish to pay for sugary, unhealthy foods, allow them to unrestricted by extra pay. It is regulating the peoples' right to consumation. We all want to do things "for the good of the people", but this is a coverup. The better president would let the people buy whatever the hell they want to buy with their own money. Tax something else.

I see no wrong in this. What you are saying is pure wrong in my opinion and horrible. Allowing people to kill themselves like this and become so unhealthy. That is sick and wrong. What you say is horrible in my perspective (I see your reasoning, I just strongly disagree with it).


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?

Wrong. It isn't a punishment, it's an incentive to be more healthy. The incentive is to save more money.


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?

Values that make you live longer? Have to pay extra money to a good cause (street maintenance, school maintenance, cop salaries etc...)? You seriously oppose this? Now that is truly horrible of you to say "just because it's someones body we should let them abuse themselves as they see fit".


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.

Charging taxes on junk foods to keep people healthy is certainly not unconstitutional or infringing on another person's freedoms.


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.

Straining or restricting the choices of the people altogether is Authoritarian.
VonHeisenbourg
offline
VonHeisenbourg
377 posts
Shepherd

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 &quotay 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&quot 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 &quotoverty" 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...
ryan7g
offline
ryan7g
488 posts
Farmer

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."
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,063 posts
Farmer

This is talking to them. Saying &quotay 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 &quotersuade" people to act a certain way. Taxation should NEVER be used to persuade people to act. This creates the idea that there is a &quotroper" 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, &quoteople 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&quot 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.

Here's some food for thought.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,063 posts
Farmer

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 &quotersuade" 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.
VonHeisenbourg
offline
VonHeisenbourg
377 posts
Shepherd

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

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.


Coerce


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 &quotersuade" 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 &quotroper" 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, &quoteople 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 &quotersuade" 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.
Jacen96
offline
Jacen96
3,113 posts
Herald

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
Showing 1-15 of 56