I hate this elitist crap. That's really what this fat tax boils down to: the people who can least afford it will have to pay. Ever think that maybe, just maybe, they turn to food and soda because their lives are miserable, poor, sad and....short?

Didn't Daniel Engber have a column recently on why fat people Don't cost us more - because they die, on average, younger than all the thin, insufferable, know-it-alls? Well, if he didn't, one of the Slate writers did, which I cannot locate; don't be a lazy ass - look it up, yourself.

Government and all the food puritans just love the idea of fax taxes and soda taxes, but where the hell are they when it comes to actually improving the dumb, dreary, ongoing, low and high misery that seeps into every crevice of the poor-to-moderate means?

I'll tell you where the bastards are - out shopping at Whole Foods, then carting their fancy ass crap food home to devote massive amounts of time and dedication to cooking it, and/or having their servants doing this. Or, maybe they are calorie restrictors who must devote 70% of their time and resources to eating as little as they can, which means they Aren't poor, just warped.

They're also all out walking in their nice, safe, pretty neighborhoods or going to their expensive gyms or taking vacations where they can para-glide and do whatever the fuck else the well-off and wealthy do when they want to play and have a nice "active" vacation.

We act like fat people are the only ones costing us; what about all the aging boomers who (bright idea!) have suddenly realized that they simply Must have children, no matter how many expensive fertility tests it costs?

My insurance pays for That and a lot else - so does Yours. We pay for all the road-ragers who get in and cause accidents (and get heart-disease because they can't control their tempers). We pay for the young, who unexpectedly get cancer, and the middle-aged and old, who more predictably get it. We pay for knee replacements for non-obese people who simply age out of their human knee bones and shoulder joints. We pay for a shitload of stuff, but, apparently, the only people who are Really costing us and Definitely worthy of punishment are the:

Morbidly Obese.

Well, fuck the government and fuck those who just want to hate on fat people and take away their damn sodas and twinkies. When you can get Alice Waters and her cronies to start dishing up treats for All the poor, All the time, when you can get a private cook and personal trainer for every single overwhelmed, financially stressed parent and every person of little to modest means and they Still stubbornly persist in drinking the nasty sugar-water and eating chemical-laden poison, Then you can tax the bastards.

(Oh, wait, there's also the fact that health industry ceo's, not to mention government whores like Max Baucus are taking shitloads of $$$$, but I guess that's okay; they are rich and we don't target the rich like we do the poor. After all, we can See all the fat people, but we can't see some health-industry prick raking in the bucks. But, oh boy Momma! You can Sure hate on that fat woman w/the hot-fudge sundae!)

In the mean-time, why don't you high-minded types just comfort yourselves w/the fact that an obese poor person probably won't live all that long, and if he or she does, and takes all the health care resources, well, at least they are still serving a valuable purpose:

They make all the rest of the people look like gods of control, even if they Are taking tons of on-the-sly smoking breaks, becoming and staying anorexic, putting their fingers down their throats to purge, shooting up, getting drunk on a regular basis, not wearing seat-belts, driving well above any and every speed-limit, tail-gating, speeding (it's quite common to die in a car accident - or be horribly maimed for life, thus sucking up all the resources), sniffing glue, addicted to porn, gambling and shoplifting and god knows what else.

Because if you do any of that but you are thin, you still get off easier than the poor fat bastard you love to judge. And if you Don't do any of that, and you are in shape, healthy and reasonably content, then you've got a pretty nice life; enjoy it and stop trying to make the rest of us, with sucky lives, feel guilty every time we have a soda - the very same soda you Don't have to drink because you can afford whatever it is that You drink. And if you are a food puritan, just calm the fuck down already; people can't stand you, even if you are thin. You annoy the shit out of everyone you meet, thus causing more misery that only leads to more stress that only leads to more ill health....creep.

I don't have a problem with taxing all sorts of behavior that tends to effect society negatively. Let's tax porn, tax alcohol, tax (and decriminalize) marijuana.

I actually study these types of taxes for a living and they do help (particularly the tobacco taxes). It is true that poor people will probably be effected by these taxes more than wealthy people but the taxes, in practice, tend to be pretty slight (most state soda taxes tend to be a few cents).

Further the revenue raised by these taxes can help pay for programs that poor people benefit from (education, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, TANF).

So, relax. Don't take this personally. The people that think of these ideas do not look at you with disdain or hatred. Quite the contrary. They're trying to help you and help society. It's not healthy to be obese (just like it's not healthy to be an alcoholic or a drug addict or addicted to porn or cigarettes). These taxes are not meant to ban these things, but let's be real, these things do not help individuals and they do not help society.

If we can make them slightly more expensive so people will do them just a bit less AND we can raise much needed revenue in the process, what's the big deal?

Bitter, party of one.

Listen, Tubbs (Great name, btw), the big deal is that poor people are more affected, and even if, to you, this is no big deal, are you poor? Can you say it truly won't matter.

At issue is the fact of: where does it end? You say these things you'd gladly tax are "negative" to society; I say the argument can also be made that they are positive, too. They alleviate pain, esp. in moderation, they provide pleasure and so: they are good for you if by good I mean: positive and life affirming.

Yes, even soda. A nice, frosty can of soda on a hot day can be a blessing.

Which leads me to all the food puritans. Why should they get to decide how we eat? Because that's what this is about, it's not just trying to get some extra $$$ for good programs.

If we wanted that, I daresay, govt. could find lots of pork to cut (start right at home) and need not tax soda.

Also, where does it end? What's next, butter? Apparently, you'd be happier than a pig in shite to tax that, too. Maybe we should tax Anything that affords us a guilty pleasure or 2.

Listen, you seem like a nice person and you make good points, but I am still annoyed-to-angry over all this. I don't like soda overmuch, but I think we should stay the hell away from taxing FOOD. They are trying to say it's Not food - well, then neither is that goddam Weight Watchers frozen crap.

Slippery slopes, slippery slope. If we want to help the poor and the fat, let's leave their food alone, even if it makes us shudder w/revulsion and disdain.

There's got to be a better way to get $$$$. I'm sure there is.

My username is tubbs based on the character from Miami Vice.

Again, state soda taxes tend to be pennies:

"Gov. Paterson, as part of a $121 billion budget to be unveiled Tuesday, will propose an "obesity tax" of about 15% on nondiet drinks.

This means a Diet Coke might sell for a $1 - even as the same size bottle of its calorie-rich alter ego would go for $1.15."

I don't really buy into the "where will it end" argument because that argument is a logical fallacy.

Your argument about their benefit is fine, but no one is talking about banning soda completely, so it's not like you can't have your life affirming Coca Cola, it'll just cost $.15 more.

If they raised the price of your soda by 15 cents and they didn't tell you it was an "obesity tax" you wouldn't flinch. It wouldn't bother you at all. But the fact that someone devised this tax for specific (beneficial) reasons sends people into hysterics.

To sum up, the tax is tiny; if in addition to raising much needed revenue it also makes people a tiny bit less ginormous, then what's the problem? I know you and many others want to be free to put anything you want into your respective orifices, AND YOU ARE. This tax would not prevent anyone from drinking soda or eating whatever. I'm pretty sure even the poorest people in our society can afford a few more cents per soda because it happens all the time. Your local grocery store changes its prices all the time. You routinely buy soda from 7-11 as opposed to SuperFresh even though you know (or maybe you don't) that the soda at 7-11 is a few cents more expensive.

Well, the username is just so so so perfect for this discussion.

I know it would be pennies; I saw that silly/funny Stephen Colbert skit, too!

Well, why do you think people clip coupons for, Tubbs? Pennies. Apparently, pennies can add up, or so I've heard, and, of course, we are not in great times, economically speaking.

Of course, a person can save by just not buying soda, but many people enjoy it, so that's not for us to say. I don't think kids should drink it, but sweet juices aren't much better - are we to enforce water on the entire populace? No, of course, not, let's just tax the soda, and cross our fingers that the obesity epidemic will just vanish into thin air.

Here's an idea: why don't we get the fuck out of Iraq? That's probably expensive, being over there. It certainly has been, so far.

As for slippery slopes, they do exist, your wikipedia entry to the contrary. Can you say that butter and cake won't be taxed, at some point? Or, maybe nice, juicy steaks?

Oh, I'm all for making everyone less "ginormous", as you so elegantly put it (but, No, I can see that no one is trying to hate on fat people). Too bad it's not only extremely hard to diet, but extremely extremely difficult to keep the weight off; hence gastric bypass, with all it's difficulties.

Fine, fine tax the hell out of soda if it helps. I just think a lot of judgement is behind this that might be better directed at the True fat cats - the ones in government and the health industries.

You have your vision of better living through taxes, and I am not anti-tax or anti-trying to help people, especially poor people.

I Do hate calling it a fat tax, sin tax or obesity tax. Call it a shit-food tax. How's that?

I missed the Colbert skit, I know about this issue because it's part of what I do for a living.

Your clipping coupons point is fair. There are people whose family budgets would be effected negatively by a soda tax. But you leap from a few pennies for sugary soda to water. You don't think there's an intermediate point (or ten) between those extremes??? Maybe people buy LESS sugary soda (a 6pack instead of a 12 pack). Maybe people buy diet soda. The point isit's not like we're saying "don't eat!" It's not even like we're saying, don't drink sugary soda. Drink away, just for a slightly higher price (and realize that that higher price is not just going into PepsiCo's pocket, it's going to help pay for other services like school, medicare, and the military).

Like I said before I don't have a problem with applying the same types of taxes to alcohol, marijuana, porn, cigarettes, or anything else that isn't exactly helpful to society (but that people nevertheless enjoy). We can even apply them to cake, butter and big juicy steaks. That doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Of course it doesn't bother you in the slightest because, I sense, you can easily afford the extra pennies, but other people would struggle. This cannot be denied, no matter how little you or Stephen Colbert would be affected.

Who's to say that the extra $$$ from soda taxes will even really benefit us? Maybe it will just be more $$$ for government to screw around with.

Furthermore, it starts out as a small increase and then...? Once you open the door (trying to avoid the slippery slope, here, Tubbs, since I know it bothers you), you invite government in to tax your food and drink. That's going too far for most people even if you are down with it.

In the meantime, health care reform is being fought against so bitterly by the very government officials who have really nice health care that is subsidized by us taxpayers.

Perhaps the rank hypocrisy of it all does not bother you a bit. It Does tend to get on my nerves:

<link>

If diets don't work - and for most they do not - then how are the obese going to benefit from this? Do you really think they will? You know they won't, unless the tax is very high, and even then, weight has been shown to be very reluctant to budge, despite repeated attempts by the afflicted and continual scorn by the assholes of the world.

Mara, You are totally my new hero.

I have been lucky enough to not be "fat" However, I have an intelligent, well educated beautiful and wonderfully nice sister who is morbidly obese. I see the way other people treat her. Let's just say that people can be amazingly cruel to a random strange walking down the street. The funny thing is, her"health" is wonderful. Her blood pressure, blood sugar, and cholesterol are all perfect. However, I am thin but a bit of a stress case. I'm the one who has doctors worried about blood pressure.

Maybe our society's ideas about what "looks" healthy are exactly accurate. I am a scientist and I can't for the life of me figure our how the various weight ranges on the BMI were determined. Also, the data appears to say the people who are "overweight" actually live longer that those who are of "normal weight." Maybe it is time to rethink the BMI.

I can afford the extra pennies, so maybe I'm just out of touch. But I think there's a difference between making healthy food unaffordable and making UNhealthy food unaffordable (not that a tax of pennies makes anything "unaffordable").

It's not like we're talking about taxing vegetables here.

More money for government to "screw around with" suggests to me that you think that we should not give more money to government. I think that's not realistic. We have to pay taxes. I would rather have things that are not helpful to society be taxed than things like my income. At worst, government has more money to "screw around with" which creates more government jobs (or higher government wages) and reduces unemployment.

"it starts out as a small increase and then...? " And then what? You don't have any evidence that there is an "and then", so I'm not going to entertain fantasies. I deal with facts. If you have some concrete evidence that government is going to move directly from soda taxes to something else, then let's hear it. Otherwise, slippery slope logical fallacy.

How are the obese going to benefit? Well, everyone benefits when the deficit is lower. Everyone benefits when alternatives to income tax hikes are considered. And yes, everyone benefits when people eat less junk. Obese people cost more. Complications from obesity cost a lot and it's not as hopeless as you apparently believe. No one HAS to be fat. How many fat people do you see in Ethiopia? How many fat people were there during the potato famine? Not. Too. Many.

When you take in more calories than your body burns off, the extra calories are stored as fat. That's it. You can complain that diets don't work, and that's sort of true. Diets don't work if you don't burn off enough calories to reduce your weight. A soda tax is certainly not meant to be a cure for obesity. But it might help a little. Having a positive attitude that losing weight is indeed possible helps more. A healthy diet and regular exercise helps the most.

What exactly do you have against doing something that will help (in many different ways)?

You have this defeatist attitude like a soda tax won't make me Halle Berry, so eff-it. Diets won't make me Heidi Klum so eff-it. That's just not reality. You CAN lose weight. I went from 220lbs to 165lbs one year because I decided I wanted to (I'm about 185 now and happy there). It is a truism of the human body that less calories and more exercise results in less fat. Just like it's true that we breathe oxygen and need to excrete waste. That's just how the human body works. So, buck up! You don't have to support the soda tax (you don't have to do anything) but realize that there is more to reality than your posts suggest. You CAN lose weight. Anybody can lose weight. And a soda tax might help this country just a tiny bit.

I think it's time to rethink the BMI. Health is not restricted to weight and even fat people can take measures to improve their health, whereas thin people can do unhealthy things, like smoke, binge and purge, drink to excess and so forth, that diminish their health.

At any rate, there is no justification of cruelty toward people who struggle with weight.

Your sister is lucky - and so are you - to have each other. Thanks for your kind words.

Tubbs, you have the arrogance of your success, but what about the something like 95% of people who struggle to take off weight, lose it and then regain it, plus more? That's what science says, not me, but would people get drastic operations like gastric bypass, as the so-called "easy way out" if their Many diet attempts actually Worked?

I'm glad for you, but you're one person. Let's not extrapolate from your success to the countless people who struggle.

"Study after study, Kolata notes, has shown that for most fat people the long-term rewards of dieting are modest at best. Yet as obesity rates have skyrocketed, exhortations to eat right, exercise and shed pounds have gone from loud to shrill."



As for the ethiopia argument, well, talk about illogical. Talk about a fallacy. For starters:

We. Don't. Live. In. Ethiopia.

We live in America, where junk food is everywhere. Where it's damn easy to get fat, and never more so than for the poor.

But yes, I'll concede part of your foolish argument: If you put a gun to someone's head and Make them stay inside until they lost weight, then yes, they'd lose it.

And put it right back on, when "you" a pathological diet boot camp crazy, took your effin gun and vacated their premises for good. Dude, don't even go there. It's absurd to say to fat people: well, skinny people in Africa don't have a weight problem, because They are starving!

Maybe the government should starve people, too?

As for my "starts off as a small increase", it's not an especially great leap to note that small increases can become bigger ones. Regardless, I already made the point convincingly that pennies Do matter for many.

Daniel Endger made a good point about the $5.00 bottle of Pom juice. If someone drinks that and can afford to, the soda tax is small change, plus a fun chance to "send a message" to all the fatties.

As for taxing veggies, well, poor people - truly poor people - can get soda and twinkies at their local crap-market, but not so much good quality fruits and vegetables.

So take the fucking $$, then, and don't waste it on diet programs that won't work or let toads line their pockets - give it to poor communities for better quality food.

I'd gladly pay more for That. Okay? For That I'd pay a lot more, as much as I could.

The link to that quote from Gina Kolata is: <link>

Mara5525:

Tubbs, you have the arrogance of your success, but what about the something like 95% of people who struggle to take off weight, lose it and then regain it, plus more? That's what science says, not me, but would people get drastic operations like gastric bypass, as the so-called "easy way out" if their Many diet attempts actually Worked?

I realize I'm way late to the party, but it's my understanding that gastric bypass functions to make your stomach smaller and give you less intestinal length so your body absorbs less of what you eat. So, would I be wrong to say that it forces you to eat less food? And what you do eat needs to be more nutritious, because you're absorbing so much less of it? I understand that it takes some getting used to the drasticness of the diet, even with the reduced stomach size, is that a reasonable understanding? Ok, and again, I'm only going on what I've seen on the likes of the Discovery Channel about gastric bypass, but couldn't you conceivably skip the surgery and just eat less food, with more nutritional value to what you do eat?

As to the 'arrogance of your success' I like that turn of phrase, it's poetic. But arrogant or otherwise successful people prove it can be done. My husband did a similar thing- dropped 80 pounds. He does have quite a tolerance for skinless chicken breast and broccoli, but for the most part, he just stopped ordering chili burgers with chili fries. His words, not mine. We're far from rich. I do occasionally shop at Whole Foods, and believe it or not, I've bought produce there for a dollar a pound. It's not necessarily more expensive. I also have two kids, so no crazy amount of food prep time around casa alldenwall.

You accuse lots of people of hating on fat people, but dial your own hostility down a notch and it'll stick better. I'm not rich, and I'm no more elitist than most, I suppose. I do get irritated at the turn people have taken lately into the land of it's all someone else's fault- that includes fat natzis and folks who think their caloric intake and output have nothing to do with their weight.

Listen, I can still be a hypocrite and also be correct. So, no need for dialing. I'm not your husband, although I'm glad for him, and I doubt you understand that gastric bypass is an operation that is very dangerous. Nor do I wish to eat like your husband for the rest of my life. I am fine w/how I eat. Weight is hard to budge unless we all eat like your husband, so have him write a book, maybe it will be a big seller, people will try to eat like him, and they will fail. I know you mean, well, though, and I appreciate that. For all others (Trolls): kiss my big, dumpy, cellulite-ridden ass.