ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Rants and Debate => Topic started by: xXNovaxX on September 06, 2009, 02:11:27 pm
-
From H.Sun
Under that scale, a 50g chocolate bar priced at $2.40 would jump to $3.60, and cans of softdrink would exceed $3.
Junk food ban on advertsing before 9pm
I think its ridcilous >:( Our society keeps changing becaue we gfive into those who CAN'T CONTROL WHAT THEY EAT, are TOO LAZY TO TELL THEIR KIDS DON'T EAT FATTY FOODS, Don't cook thesmelves and rely on Macca's everyday for food, don;t buy fruit for their kids etc.
Why should I, you, us, who are relatively heatlhy, average size, do excerise, go out, have fresh air, work etc, be taxed for having a treat or cholcate bar every now and then. SOFT DRINKS TO PASS $3, these ARE DRANK BY LIKE 98% OF US, not just "fat/unhealthy people". The cans alone are pretty expensive as they are now!
I think this whole thing is just a new "name" for ANOTHER tax. I know like 60% of Australian adults are obese, btut is tha MY problem/fault? NO, look at countries like China, Japan, France, etc, they have a multitide of junk food outlets, yet their popualtion is healthy, they dont TAX FOOD.. The GST is already taxing a lot of food, we don;t need another.
I think better solutions would be social programs targeted AT THOSE UDNER THE SPOTLGIHT. The Government is turning too much like a nanny-state, were problems which RESPONSIBLE ADUTLS should be fixing, are being handed to the Government who is all too glad for more power and control.
I am sick of having to change my lifestyle and pay more because of a few people who can't control themselves, for heavens sake.
Any support on this? Because i'm honestly surprised how there isn;t an out cry over mroe expensive food....its already costly enough
And ALSO, we already have a bloody "healthy canteen" for those parnets and kids who cbf MAKING THEIR OWN FOOD. I sued to go to the canteen maybe 3 times a month, now donuts/doughnuts, cakes, chocolate bars, etc don't get stocked anymore. WHY!, Because of lazy people.
>:( >:(
-
?????????/
-
I think WRITING LIKE THIS is very ANNOUYING, don't you THINK? I mean, why don't I just EMPHASIZE every SECOND wORD?!!! >.<
As for the actual 'fat tax', it might mean some fast food and confectionery will be more expensive. So as opposed to blaming other people for causing this, and suggesting to them to get healthy, why not take your own advice and have the healthy alternatives? Buy bottles of water as opposed to cans of drinks, there's an idea.
-
i'd just lost a million brain cells reading that
-
Some of us aren't lazy you know. There are a lot of psychological barriers to losing weight, and it isn't a easy road. Having our bodies crave that kind of food doesn't help either. You could say it's even harder than telling a person that they ought to stop drinking or smoking.
Perhaps this could be a positive incentive. As long as they reduce our income taxes to suit, I'm happy with such a tax.
-
hahaha @ all the comments
sorry, sorry, sorry. My keyboard really started annoying me, because i don't know, it went whack.
And I am by no means blaming fat people, or even bagging them. I know a lot of friends who are struggling with it, and i can really understand the trouble/issues some people have with it. What my argument was trying to shift to, is the lazy people/parents who are not responsible. A lot of the times this is the cause of the problem, not the kids.
btw sorry monkeiki for making you lose brain cells :(. Read a book, or play Nintendo DS brain training :D. haha.
-
Perhaps this could be a positive incentive. As long as they reduce our income taxes to suit, I'm happy with such a tax.
Then whats the point of the tax in the first place? They'll cancel each other out.
-
exactly what i was thinking haha. LOLLLLLLLLL. But i thought i could be missing something from his argument.
But that's what I mean. We're going to be taxed soon for climate change/emissions trading, water bills were said earlier in the year to rise by $1000 p.a., drought=pushing up prices, water meters are going to be replaced (adding $300 every year i think i read), it all adds up. I agree excal, we do need cut in incomes or SOMETHING, because it's unfair on a lot of people.
-
The thing is most teenagers/children buy junk food as opposed to a salad or healthy wrap because healthy food is ridiculously expensive compared. $2 cheeseburger > $9 focaccia. We all know that it's bad for us but we get it because it's the cheaper alternative and we're all pressed for money these days.
Ideally, they'd lower the price of healthy foods but that's not going to happen.
But wth $3.60 for 50g chocolate is just stupid.
-
Exactly! I forgot about that side of the equation. Now that you mention it i do hear a lot about "fresh food is too expensive" etc etc. And it's true (because of the drought blah blah). So ideally it's not that Junk food is too cheap, but its healthy food which is too expensive.
-
Perhaps this could be a positive incentive. As long as they reduce our income taxes to suit, I'm happy with such a tax.
Then whats the point of the tax in the first place? They'll cancel each other out.
It means that those who seek out a healthier lifestyle, in fact, benefit from the arrangement. Think of it as a form of consumption tax (like GST).
-
hahaha @ all the comments
sorry, sorry, sorry. My keyboard really started annoying me, because i don't know, it went whack.
Uh huh...
-
...and it was dark, lol. Couldn't see ;P
-
Perhaps this could be a positive incentive. As long as they reduce our income taxes to suit, I'm happy with such a tax.
Then whats the point of the tax in the first place? They'll cancel each other out.
It means that those who seek out a healthier lifestyle, in fact, benefit from the arrangement. Think of it as a form of consumption tax (like GST).
uh-ah! Yeah. I get what you mean now.
-
...and it was dark, lol. Couldn't see ;P
Uh huh...
-
...and it was dark, lol. Couldn't see ;P
Uh huh...
i give up. LMAO
-
...and it was dark, lol. Couldn't see ;P
Uh huh...
i give up. LMAO
I laugh MY arse off TOO, but my FINGERS aren't STUCK to the SHIFT key.
-
lolllllllllllllllllllllllllllll. woops, left my hand on "l" LMAO (woops here i go again on caps).
-
What I'm trying to say is that your original post was clearly not an accident as suggested by:
sorry, sorry, sorry. My keyboard really started annoying me, because i don't know, it went whack.
-
Re: strange typesetting
So what?
The reaction to this thread is a perfect example of the extremely nepotistic behaviour that drove me away from VCENotes.
Re: fat tax
A classic case of government intervention creating mistakes that are not fixed by the removal of it, but by "patching it" with more government intervention. (e.g.: medicare system makes fat people a burden on the health system, so fat people need to be punished - if the system was set under liberal and free principles, then we would not need to interfere with personal lifestyle choices)
-
Re: strange typesetting
So what?
The reaction to this thread is a perfect example of the extremely nepotistic behaviour that drove me away from VCENotes.
hello again~ :)
-
I can understand the tax on cigarettes and so on, but I think that most people who buy chocolate bars don't actually abuse them and therefore the tax would be too blunt to actually work well. Besides, with cigarette taxes, the only people willing to buy them still are complete addicts. If the same is true for chocolate, then only obese people would be eating chocolate which is kind of weird.
Personally, it would obviously reduce my incentive to buy chocolate and I would do so less often, as per basic economics, but I'm not obese, so *shrugs*
-
U hit the nail on the hammer Eriny!! That's what I was trying to get across. People that buy chocolate bars don't abuse eating chocolate, and therefore it won't work well. It's all just a cover up for another tax.
-
I can understand the tax on cigarettes and so on, but I think that most people who buy chocolate bars don't actually abuse them and therefore the tax would be too blunt to actually work well. Besides, with cigarette taxes, the only people willing to buy them still are complete addicts. If the same is true for chocolate, then only obese people would be eating chocolate which is kind of weird.
Personally, it would obviously reduce my incentive to buy chocolate and I would do so less often, as per basic economics, but I'm not obese, so *shrugs*
Another allegory could be made for taxes on alcohol. Alcohol shares much of the same properties as chocolate in that in moderate amounts, it is not deadly, but in too much is not a good thing.
-
Just tax the most inelastic (non-essential) goods on the market. Should work fine.
-
Providing revenue more efficiently than by other taxes, is the only [good] reason to tax luxury goods, [as Brendan argued here http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,7904.0.html]
As Eriny said, hiking up chocolate bar prices as a disincentive to fat people is very much of a scattergun approach, unjustly burdening all consumers of that good*; furthermore, as Coblin intimated, if the government withdrew its assistance to victims of self harm,** the problem [at least in terms of cost to the taxpayer] would be solved at a stroke.
*Though I disagree with her that cigarettes are fundamentally different from chocolates, for the purposes discussed
**Brendan advocated a 'HECS-style debt', for people who were in urgent need of treatment, but unable to pay
Re: strange typesetting
So what?
The reaction to this thread is a perfect example of the extremely nepotistic behaviour that drove me away from VCENotes.
+1
lol srsly Mao + Excal, was there a potion at the Global Mod initiation ceremony, which suddenly makes any drinker insufferably holier-than-thou?
(i am bubble :))
-
The reaction to this thread is a perfect example of the extremely nepotistic behaviour that drove me away from VCENotes.
And just why did you come back, anyway? :)
-
the power of being a moderator is irresistible :P (now your chance to ask for a pay rise)
-
Providing revenue more efficiently than by other taxes, is the only [good] reason to tax luxury goods, [as Brendan argued here http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,7904.0.html]
As Eriny said, hiking up chocolate bar prices as a disincentive to fat people is very much of a scattergun approach, unjustly burdening all consumers of that good*; furthermore, as Coblin intimated, if the government withdrew its assistance to victims of self harm,** the problem [at least in terms of cost to the taxpayer] would be solved at a stroke.
*Though I disagree with her that cigarettes are fundamentally different from chocolates, for the purposes discussed
**Brendan advocated a 'HECS-style debt', for people who were in urgent need of treatment, but unable to pay
Re: strange typesetting
So what?
The reaction to this thread is a perfect example of the extremely nepotistic behaviour that drove me away from VCENotes.
+1
lol srsly Mao + Excal, was there a potion at the Global Mod initiation ceremony, which suddenly makes any drinker insufferably holier-than-thou?
(i am bubble :))
And ye shall all bow before my grandness. :P
Nah, I just don't like people who do something that's clearly intentional and then (fail at) lying about their intentions. Just one of those little things that irritate me!
And harro there bubble.
BACK ON TOPIC:
With that in mind though, with the higher cost of chocolate due to this tax will (presumably) come with additional income due to reduced taxes. Would it be fair to say that things would be remain the relatively same (i.e., a person could buy 4 bars a week with their disposable income before and after the changes)? I know it's not going to be an exact science, but that's the aim behind it anyway.
And those who don't eat chocolate win.
-
lol! Dam it, he blew my cover :P. fineeeee i ADMIT (woops caps again), but I was typing very fast, and yes, didn't check my spelling, but I did know I made errors.
*raises white flag*