We’re Gonna Get Your Mind Right (and tax you, too)

Because we have, in this country, a little thing called Freedom of Choice, some people make bad choices. That’s okay, they have the freedom to be less than smart- at least for now. But if Hussein and his bevy of Czars have their way, we will have so much less in the way of freedoms and choices.
Like cattle in the chute, our path is narrowing, and soon we will have nowhere else to go but in the direction they are herding us. All in the name of control and taxes.

First up on the tax agenda was cigarettes, in the name of “sin” taxes- I mean, those bad old cigarettes, who could possibly object to the persecution of those misguided sinners? I am sure that beer and liquor are coming up fast, but since sodas and fattening foods are more prevalent, there is more to be made from taxing these, and the body police can make the case that this will help the healthcare costs. I am dubious, since, if one wants, most of these things can be made at home.

Still, here come the food taxes, like it or not, as these people “nudge” our behavior ( “Nudge” is a behavioral theory propounded by one of Hussein’s Czars, Cass Sunstein) towards what they perceive to be the “ideal” way to live, which they will dictate.

If you happen to be the 1-in-3 Americans who is neither obese nor overweight (and, thus, considered at risk of becoming obese), you might well conclude that the habits of the remaining two-thirds of Americans are costing you, big time. U.S. life expectancies are expected to slide backward, after years of marching upward. (But that’s their statistical problem: Yours is how to make them stop costing you all that extra money because they are presumably making poor choices in their food consumption.)

“Facing the serious consequences of an uncontrolled obesity epidemic, America’s state and federal  policy makers may need to consider interventions every bit as forceful as those that succeeded in cutting adult tobacco use by more than 50%,” the Urban Institute report says. It took awhile — almost 50 years from the first surgeon general’s report on tobacco in 1964 — to drive smoking down. But in many ways, the drumbeat of scientific evidence and the growing cultural stigma against obesity already are well underway — as any parent who has tried to bring birthday cupcakes into her child’s classroom certainly knows.

latimes.com

Perhaps instead of banning the cupcakes, people might consider the choice of healthy foods at home, but to disappoint children by not having cupcakes on a special occasion is a fairly mean- spirited thing to do, all in the name of fitness. But indeed, fitness is but a strawman argument for these “Czars” and their policies.

It is really all about raising money for their repressive policies and behavioral theories.

Key among the “interventions” the report weighs is that of imposing an excise or sales tax on fattening foods. That, says the report, could be expected to lower consumption of those foods. But it would also generate revenues that could be used to extend health insurance coverage to the uninsured and under-insured, and perhaps to fund campaigns intended to make healthy foods more widely available to, say, low-income Americans and to encourage exercise and healthy eating habits.

If anti-tobacco campaigns are to be the model, those sales taxes could be hefty:  The World Health Organization has recommended that tobacco taxes should represent between two-thirds and three-quarters of the cost of, say, a package of cigarettes;  a 2004 report prepared for the Department of Agriculture suggested that, for “sinful-food” taxes to change the way people eat, they may need to equal at least 10% to 30% of the cost of the food.

And although 40 U.S. states now impose modest extra sales taxes on soft drinks and a few snack items, the Urban Institute report suggests that a truly forceful “intervention” — one that would drive down the consumption of fattening foods and, presumably, prevent or reverse obesity — would have to target pretty much all the fattening and nutritionally empty stuff we eat: “With a more narrowly targeted tax, consumers could simply substitute one fattening food or beverage for another,” the reports says.

latimes.com

Yes, these Socialists are making a list and checking it twice. They are going to make you skinny by taxing you so much that you have no money left to make a bad choice with.

Except the bad choice that was made with the last election.

Blake

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

7 Responses to “We’re Gonna Get Your Mind Right (and tax you, too)”

  1. Blake says:

    And as a by- note, it is just as easy and cheap to buy healthy foods now as it is to buy fattening foods. I know, I just got home from shopping, and I know that broccoli costs less than a big Mac and fries with a shake.
    It’s all about choices- or should be, at any rate.

  2. Darrel says:

    [quote] “If you happen to be the 1-in-3 Americans who is neither obese nor overweight…”

    DAR
    That’s an amazing statistic. Two thirds obese or overweight.

    I just checked the rate for Arkansas. 28% obese and 64% overweight. Incredible. When I went to a fourth of July event in a small town, that’s exactly what I observed. Nearly everyone was fat or obese. A few old people weren’t but being fat/obese does not go well with being old. As Mike Huckabee said in his book: “We are killing ourselves with a knife and a fork.”

    But this is using the ridiculously fussy BMI index which is controversial (and ancient). I’ll have to look into that. I have noticed much less overweight people here in Canada. But then, BC is the thinnest province.

    Using the same BMI standard: “23% of Canadians 18 and older were obese and 36% overweight.” They aren’t in Vancouver.

    D.
    —————
    “American obesity rates are the highest in the world with 64% of adults being overweight or obese, and 26% are obese.[2] Estimates of the number of obese American adults have been rising steadily, from 19.4% in 1997, 24.5% in 2004[3] to 26.6% in 2007.[4] Should current trends continue, 75% of adults in the US are projected to be overweight and 41% obese by 2015.[5]”
    –ibid

    • Mike Radigan says:

      I don’t THINK your figures are comparing the same thing. I’m pretty sure the 64% overweight in Arkansas includes the 26% you are obese or 41% of the overweight are obese. I don’t know where you got your figures for Canada but it is hard to believe that 64% of the overweight are obese. I would be more inclined to think that your 36% overweight does not include the 23% who are obese. But I don’t know.

      • Darrel says:

        Mike: “the 64% overweight in Arkansas includes the 26% you are obese”>>

        DAR
        I think you are right. That’s makes more sense. The last sentence I quoted above is a good clue. 75% + 41% tells us they overlap.

        MIKE: “I don’t know where you got your figures for Canada”>>

        DAR
        Canadian obesity.

        This source adds them together:

        “A 2004 study called the Canadian Community Health Survey found 23% of Canadians 18 and older were obese and 36% more were overweight”

        And it notes: “According to Forbes, Canada ranks 35 on a 2007 list of fattest countries with a percentage of 61.1% of its citizens with an unhealthy weight.”

        Forbes.

        The US is ninth. It’s an interesting list. The US doesn’t have any peer/comparable countries around it.

        D.

        • Blake says:

          Darrel- we all die from something- that is a fact- but I would like to be able to make my own choices- wouldn’t you?

        • Darrel says:

          Yes. You should have the right to swing your arms until they touch someone else on the nose.

          Deciding where the other persons nose begins, is the trick.

          Example: Because of the motorcycle lobby, Arkansas dropped it’s helmet law (for those over 21). In a way, I like that. Sometimes it’s nice to not have to wear a helmet.

          But years ago I remember reading that head injuries from motorcycle accidents (to people without insurance I assume) was costing the state of Arkansas about $8 million a year. So the state should have some say in the rules on this since it costs us money.

          There are lots of moral dilemmas like this.

          D.

  3. Blake says:

    My point being, however, is that it is not the government’s business what we weigh- we have the freedom of choice to make the bad choices. We should make good choices, but what we should do and what we do, can be two different things.
    Witness who we elected, rather than who we should have elected. Two different things.
    We as a people do not always do what is right.