You know alot of you make sense. In fact lets expand this whonderfull idea!! Fat people are unhealthy and run higher risks of heart disease as well as a whole host of other medical issues. They are a burden on our healthcare system! We need a Fat tax! First we will tax the people per pound then we will add tax's to their cheesburgers and chicken nuggets from McDonalds. Think of the benifits! People will lose weight! And the government can pay for all of the poor families to have homes, and transportation and medical care. Forgett the fact that we just removed all motivation to better onself, Let the government take care off you! Eh Comerade?:nope:

I somewhat see your point, but I don't believe that such a tax is unconstitutional.

For the sake of argument, though, let's say that it is socialist. Also, there is no doubt that the public having to pay for related healthcare is socialist. So, unless we're willing to cease all public money for tobacco-related healthcare (my first choice), SOMEONE should have to pay for it.

I believe that such a responsibility should fall upon the smokers themselves. Hence, the tax. Although, in my opinion, using a Pigovian tax such as a tax on cigarettes is perfectly in tune with the principles of capitalism. Sure, it penalizes an industry. However, capitalism is NOT intended to permit an industry to penalize the public in order to support it's profit margins. If an industry is a burden on, say, the public healthcare system, than that industry is accountable to that system.

Just like the shipping industry is a burden on our transportation system, and they pay a large amount of transportation-related taxes.

Not every argument can be simplified into the "it's bad because of the slippery slope" idea.

If there were a "fat tax" or a tax on fatty foods, I'd argue against it. Why? Because the priciple is different. People NEED to eat. People do NOT need to smoke. Taxing the personal choices of something that people NEED to do is quite different than doing so on something people do NOT need to do.

The public cost of smoking is way less than that of drinking but that didn't stop them from going after smoking now did it? Now fatty foods are next on the hit list but guaranteed there will be something after that, maybe video games, maybe skydiving or skiing, what it will be I can't say, but it will be something.

Any activity that incurs some cost to the government will eventually be taxed and regulated. It is the nature of the beast.

All they need is for their target to be a small enough minority that it won't have enough political power to stop it so don't think that just because there is too much opposition to an taxing an activity today that will always be the case.

For example, there was a time when overtaxing smoking, say post WW2, would have resulted in protests large enough to make pols worry about their chances for reelection if they signed off on it. No more. I remember the arguments when they first started considering banning smoking in the workplace. Few people thought it would ever be enacted, given the percentage of smokers to non smokers but things change and they will continue to do so.

Yes, but people do not need a 3 pound steak and a pound of mashed potatoes smothered in butter for nutrition either. Eating is a need, yes. Eating food more nutritious than others is a choice as is smoking. You will find that the government has already attacked the transfats in restaurants. They are looking at a snack tax here in MD because people buy more snack foods(cookies, tastykakes) than fruits. NY is working on a soft drink tax. These are the items consumed in tons daily. This is adding to the sin tax. They are getting clever and cover it under the guise of being concerned for your health.

Just remember Mike, people don't NEED to eat fatty foods either. There are plenty of non fatty foods to take care of the sustenance requirement.

The 'pole' tax

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03112009...are_158991.htm

There is August but my wife will tell you, eating nutritiously is costly. If she were to get the foods that were on the top of the list for the best healthiest eating, she would spend an additional $100.00 to $150.00 a week. You see, the rush to being healthy comes at a price much like anything else that becomes popular or the rage. But you now, you can still get that happy meal at Mac D's for $3.15. :up:

Exactly.

Damn it...a $1.00 lap dance is now $1.20 including the tax:damn: :down:

But one of the reasons that healthy eating is more expensive is because so much food production is devoted to unhealthy foods. Ban beef and the much healthier bison will take it's place thereby lowering the price of bison. Cause and effect.

A single dollar for a lap dance? I shudder to think how ugly the stripper would have to be to get that bargain basement price! :D

Cool, a healthy Bison Burger Happy Meal:down: I do not see my wife eating Bison. I know this because there was some at the market this past weekend. She made a face at it and got the usual 99% fat free ground beef. Ground turkey is not bad. I like turkey sausage also.

Bizarre triple post keyboard mishap

very sorry