Fat Tax on the Obese?

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

The issue which I am approaching here is a sticky one, as it has people passionately invested on both sides. The issue is that of obesity. It occurs to me that there is more than one consideration here.
One is that obesity is unhealthy and generally undesirable and should not be encouraged in society. The other is that there are - and I've known - many obese people who are beautiful human beings, and they should be seen and respected for what they are inside.
At the nursing home where I am doing my training, most workers are women. Some of them are attractive and some of them are overweight, in some cases seriously overweight; but they all without exception are wonderful people. They are kind, caring, compassionate, generous and good at what they do.
When I was writing on the Internet that obesity was undesirable, I was described as heartless and soulless. I don't think there is anyone in their right mind who would refer to me now as heartless and soulless. The problem is as follows. I have known - and loved - several women who were beautiful physically and had good hearts, who got maliciously attacked by women who were both mean and fat. Because I loved them, their concerns became my concerns. And because I loved them, their enemies became my enemies.
There are many unattractive women who maliciously abuse the attractive women, even to the point of claiming that attractive women cannot be good human beings. Any number of women I've loved are proof to the contrary. Really, I do not see why there is going to be a correlation between looks and personal goodness at all. Some women will be physically attractive and good human beings; some women will be physically attractive and bad human beings; some women will be physically unattractive and good human beings; and some women will be physically unattractive and bad human beings.
The monstrosity we have seen, in case of political correctness, is women who are unattractive and bad human beings claiming to speak for all women and bullying their betters out of both their beauty and personal goodness. I think I am far from the only person who says that these women do not deserve to speak for one half of humankind or to carry the banner of progressive element in society. Groups in society should be represented by their best, not their worst, elements; and this is most certainly the case for women.
Both attractive women and unattractive women are capable of being good people. The unattractive women should not be seen only for their appearance; but neither should the beautiful women be portrayed as incapable of having good personal qualities. People should be seen for the totality of what they are. And this will result in reward for both outer and inner beauty, encouraging people to develop both.

After having a fat woman who was very evil, and now having a chubby girlfriend who's the most wonderful person, I think this correlation doesn't exist.

We should anyway have fat people pay a fat tax. People who are fit should be rewarded just as non-smokers are. By the way, smokers can be wonderful people but they are being discriminated everywhere.

Sedentary life kills. Ask what Jesus would do. I don't think he likes the obese.


----------------------------------------------------------------

"The jungle has never been this much fun!"

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nffbCR_uCZ6znjf3gLiFRXSAoLzhWtoZ6U4S7Y37aKc/edit?usp=sharing

[Free Spirit, Chief of Quixotic Enterprises]

On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:22:00 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher

The issue which I am approaching here is a sticky one, as it has people passionately invested on both sides. The issue is that of obesity. It occurs to me that there is more than one consideration here.
One is that obesity is unhealthy and generally undesirable and should not be encouraged in society. The other is that there are - and I've known - many obese people who are beautiful human beings, and they should be seen and respected for what they are inside.
At the nursing home where I am doing my training, most workers are women. Some of them are attractive and some of them are overweight, in some cases seriously overweight; but they all without exception are wonderful people. They are kind, caring, compassionate, generous and good at what they do.
When I was writing on the Internet that obesity was undesirable, I was described as heartless and soulless. I don't think there is anyone in their right mind who would refer to me now as heartless and soulless. The problem is as follows. I have known - and loved - several women who were beautiful physically and had good hearts, who got maliciously attacked by women who were both mean and fat. Because I loved them, their concerns became my concerns. And because I loved them, their enemies became my enemies.
There are many unattractive women who maliciously abuse the attractive women, even to the point of claiming that attractive women cannot be good human beings. Any number of women I've loved are proof to the contrary. Really, I do not see why there is going to be a correlation between looks and personal goodness at all. Some women will be physically attractive and good human beings; some women will be physically attractive and bad human beings; some women will be physically unattractive and good human beings; and some women will be physically unattractive and bad human beings.
The monstrosity we have seen, in case of political correctness, is women who are unattractive and bad human beings claiming to speak for all women and bullying their betters out of both their beauty and personal goodness. I think I am far from the only person who says that these women do not deserve to speak for one half of humankind or to carry the banner of progressive element in society. Groups in society should be represented by their best, not their worst, elements; and this is most certainly the case for women.
Both attractive women and unattractive women are capable of being good people. The unattractive women should not be seen only for their appearance; but neither should the beautiful women be portrayed as incapable of having good personal qualities. People should be seen for the totality of what they are. And this will result in reward for both outer and inner beauty, encouraging people to develop both.

After having a fat woman who was very evil, and now having a chubby girlfriend who's the most wonderful person, I think this correlation doesn't exist.
We should anyway have fat people pay a fat tax. People who are fit should be rewarded just as non-smokers are. By the way, smokers can be wonderful people but they are being discriminated everywhere.
Sedentary life kills. Ask what Jesus would do. I don't think he likes the obese.

...what we really need is a tax on godbots. Anyone that believes
there's a big daddy in the sky should have to pay a 20% tax to defray
the cost of religious-rehab for those addicted bots who finally decide
they need to kick the habit....yep, that includes nuns !

According to statistics, most obese people are Christian anyway.

Pity the obese don't go to Heaven. Gluttony and laziness are sins.
We have every reason to believe Jesus was fit and frugal.

Unless Jesus was handicapped (there's no reason to believe he was), he would have walked all the Holy Land and perhaps as far as India.

In other words, he would hate fat, lazy people.

[59Fiat600 Rossa]

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
We should anyway have fat people pay a fat tax.

A totalitarian statement there. Who are the 'we' being referred to? To whom should a tax be paid and why?

I am aware of a condition produced by chronic stress that requires more blood sugar (glucose) for a hyperactive brain. In response, people usually eat sweet fatty foods. In order to get extra sugar for the brain, they get extra fat that cannot be used by the muscles without a lot of exercise.

I am skinny. I feed my chronically stressed brain sugar when I can get away with it. Otherwise, my liver creates extra glucose by converting the protein in my muscles into glucose. I look like I've just escaped from a concentration camp, and my idiot doctor says how wonderful it is that I'm not overweight.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Post by 59Fiat600 Rossa

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
We should anyway have fat people pay a fat tax.

A totalitarian statement there. Who are the 'we' being referred to? To whom should a tax be paid and why?
I am aware of a condition produced by chronic stress that requires more blood sugar (glucose) for a hyperactive brain. In response, people usually eat sweet fatty foods. In order to get extra sugar for the brain, they get extra fat that cannot be used by the muscles without a lot of exercise.
I am skinny. I feed my chronically stressed brain sugar when I can get away with it. Otherwise, my liver creates extra glucose by converting the protein in my muscles into glucose. I look like I've just escaped from a concentration camp, and my idiot doctor says how wonderful it is that I'm not overweight.

Well, we are subsidizing the obese while we make smokers pay for their crime. In reality smokers are not that much of a burden because they die quicker.

[59Fiat600 Rossa]

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Well, we are subsidizing the obese while we make smokers pay for their crime.

'We', again? I cannot see smoking as a crime. Smoking used to be the most sophisticated thing you could possibly do, especially in the movies. Look at any interview conducted by Edward R. Murrow on television and you will see the suave journalist at ease in an upholstered chair, surrounded by an enormous cloud of cigarette smoke. Alas, he seems to have been laid low by his 'cancer sticks':

"A chain smoker throughout his life, Murrow was almost never seen without his trademark Camel cigarette. It was reported that he smoked between sixty and sixty-five cigarettes a day, equivalent to roughly three packs. See It Now was the first television program to have a report about the connection between smoking and cancer; Murrow said during the show that "I doubt I could spend a half hour without a cigarette with any comfort or ease." He developed lung cancer and lived for two years after an operation to remove his left lung.

"Murrow died at his home on April 27, 1965, two days after his 57th birthday."

In the old days, people would go around 'bumming' cigarettes. "Hey, buddy, can I bum a cigarette off you?" I used to say that if I smoked cigarettes, which I did not, I would open a pack of Camel cigarettes and leave it out for a week or so until its contents became unbearably strong. I would then carry the pack of Camels in my shirt pocket for the benefit of any moocher who tried to bum a cigarette off me.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Post by 59Fiat600 Rossa

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Well, we are subsidizing the obese while we make smokers pay for their crime.

"A chain smoker throughout his life, Murrow was almost never seen without his trademark Camel cigarette. It was reported that he smoked between sixty and sixty-five cigarettes a day, equivalent to roughly three packs. See It Now was the first television program to have a report about the connection between smoking and cancer; Murrow said during the show that "I doubt I could spend a half hour without a cigarette with any comfort or ease." He developed lung cancer and lived for two years after an operation to remove his left lung.
"Murrow died at his home on April 27, 1965, two days after his 57th birthday."
In the old days, people would go around 'bumming' cigarettes. "Hey, buddy, can I bum a cigarette off you?" I used to say that if I smoked cigarettes, which I did not, I would open a pack of Camel cigarettes and leave it out for a week or so until its contents became unbearably strong. I would then carry the pack of Camels in my shirt pocket for the benefit of any moocher who tried to bum a cigarette off me.

Well, after having quit 18 years ago I have something to say about smoking. Yes, it should be discouraged just like obesity should be discouraged. What I strongly disagree is that they flash a GROSS TV AD AGAINST SMOKING while I'm enjoying a show. The same should be done against two other leading causes of PREVENTABLE DEATHS, namely OBESITY and ROAD ACCIDENTS. That's plain hypocrisy that they pick on the smokers out of all idiots in this world. Actually our daily driving contributes more to the poisoning of the environment than any smoker can. Their lungs are theirs, but the Earth is a common habitat for us all.

Another aspect I want to comment on is that smokers find that a healthy lifestyle is hardly welcomed in our car-addicted society. You quit, you gain weight and you die. Or you quit, you ride a bike and they run you over.

I have this conflict in my life. Riding a bike and walking are not welcomed in the capitalist jungle. Puffing away while watching the world go down is tempting.

[59Fiat600 Rossa]

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Well, after having quit 18 years ago I have something to say about
smoking.

That is commendable. That was an intelligent thing to do, to begin with. And it is a sign of character that you were able to quit such an addictive habit. That is an accomplishment that you should rightfully be proud of.

It seems ironic, but as I recall, medical doctors seemed less likely to quit smoking than other people.

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
What I strongly disagree is that they flash a GROSS TV AD AGAINST SMOKING
while I'm enjoying a show.

I hate that. It's the damned government. These are
'public service' announcements.

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
I have this conflict in my life. Riding a bike and walking are not
welcomed in the capitalist jungle.

Consumerism is what is being promoted. I resent being referred to as a consumer. There are even consumerist bicycles now, believe it or not. People ride around on very expensive racing machines wearing hideous, but expensive, racing attire. They wear expensive racing helmets for safety -- as they ride through red traffic lights and stop signs.

I prefer walking, when possible. It affords the greatest freedom. There is no machine to be misplaced or stolen.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Can the obese pay the tax with fat sucked out by liposuction paid for by the government?
Wakalukong

The question is what Hitler would have done with the obese. They are not good for wars. Stalin would have consider them part of the bourgeoisie. No place for them in the revolution.

We should give them a second chance. After all they have all those spare calories to weather revolutionary frugality. That's right, the revolution should be frugal.

I already gave up diet Coke in preparation for it. That was my last addiction.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Post by 59Fiat600 Rossa

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
I have this conflict in my life. Riding a bike and walking are not
welcomed in the capitalist jungle.

Consumerism is what is being promoted. I resent being referred to as a consumer. There are even consumerist bicycles now, believe it or not. People ride around on very expensive racing machines wearing hideous, but expensive, racing attire. They wear expensive racing helmets for safety -- as they ride through red traffic lights and stop signs.
I prefer walking, when possible. It affords the greatest freedom. There is no machine to be misplaced or stolen.

You can only walk so long in the sprawl when it's hot, say half an hour, provided you take the right attire like hat and flip flops.

A bicycle takes you comfortably way beyond walking. It's your beast of burden if you carry baskets and bags. It's what you do when a donkey is not practical. The option is to ride a bus, which is expensive and unreliable.

That's what I'm doing today.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Post by 59Fiat600 Rossa

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
What I strongly disagree is that they flash a GROSS TV AD AGAINST SMOKING
while I'm enjoying a show.

I hate that. It's the damned government. These are
'public service' announcements.

I have to something to tell "Tobacco Free Florida"...

"Fuck you!"

[59Fiat600 Rossa]

Why did the CDC hire an ad agency to produce the Terrie anti-smoking ad? Every ad produced by such agencies is pure propaganda that is completely fictional. The Terrie ad smells like a lie to me.

"Frieden argues that the ads are extremely cost-effective -- spending about $50 million a year to save potentially tens of thousands of lives.

"We're trying to figure out how to have more impact with less resources," he said.

The ads direct people to call 1-800-QUIT-NOW. PlowShare Group, of Stamford, Conn., is again the advertising company that put the ads together.

Online:

CDC campaign: http://www.cdc.gov/tips

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
http://youtu.be/_0Lw_kqGyNw
I have to something to tell "Tobacco Free Florida"...
"Fuck you!"

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher

Post by 59Fiat600 Rossa

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
What I strongly disagree is that they flash a GROSS TV AD AGAINST SMOKING
while I'm enjoying a show.

I hate that. It's the damned government. These are
'public service' announcements.

http://youtu.be/_0Lw_kqGyNw
I have to something to tell "Tobacco Free Florida"...
"Fuck you!"

Well, I have a better idea than cursing at them. Tobacco Free Florida is grossing out people and that's very, very cruel.

Why don't they start shooting at smokers? I want the system to acknowledge that they don't like smokers, pedestrians or cyclists. They should launch all out war.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Post by 59Fiat600 Rossa
Why did the CDC hire an ad agency to produce the Terrie anti-smoking ad? Every ad produced by such agencies is pure propaganda that is completely fictional. The Terrie ad smells like a lie to me.
"Frieden argues that the ads are extremely cost-effective -- spending about $50 million a year to save potentially tens of thousands of lives.
"We're trying to figure out how to have more impact with less resources," he said.
The ads direct people to call 1-800-QUIT-NOW. PlowShare Group, of Stamford, Conn., is again the advertising company that put the ads together.
CDC campaign: http://www.cdc.gov/tips

They pick on a "sacrificial lamb" (the smoker, the drunk) and hammer it in. Perhaps it's a distraction from the larger issues. They may as well show dismembered bodies, product of accidents and war. Yes, drunks do cause accidents, but SUVs can kill a whole family in an accident. How about charging against the reckless use of the phone while driving? Some campaigning against texting is going on, but it lacks the punch of the anti-tobacco war.

And then war. Imagine a peace organization starts showing bloody bodies of children product of the war in Iraq? Taboo, right?

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

The greedy morons in government here in New Zealand are now thinking
about introducing a Salt Tax on foods containing salt. :-\
So thanks to the money tax-payers already give the government being
wasted on useless overseas trips, expensive new cars, and all their
other perks (including free air travel for *life*), they now expect
people to pay a sales tax, sugar tax, a salt tax, and (via costs passed
on in increased pricing) the farmer's animal fart tax, plus all the
other taxes (e.g. petrol tax which is then increased by having to pay
sales tax on it!!).

They'll get your money one way or another. The question is if the right way has some marginal positive effect or not.

Do you agree smokers should be taxed out of existence?

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher

The greedy morons in government here in New Zealand are now thinking
about introducing a Salt Tax on foods containing salt. :-\
So thanks to the money tax-payers already give the government being
wasted on useless overseas trips, expensive new cars, and all their
other perks (including free air travel for *life*), they now expect
people to pay a sales tax, sugar tax, a salt tax, and (via costs passed
on in increased pricing) the farmer's animal fart tax, plus all the
other taxes (e.g. petrol tax which is then increased by having to pay
sales tax on it!!).

They'll get your money one way or another. The question is if the right way
has some marginal positive effect or not.
Do you agree smokers should be taxed out of existence?

Nope. Tobacco companies should simply be made illegal and closed down
immediately ... of course because the Government does get tobacco tax
and sales tax from cigarettes still being sold and income taxes from
the companies, they have no real interest in shutting them down.

The question, the BIG QUESTION, is if we should equally make a move against the junk food industry, such as McDonald's use of a clown and toys to attract kids. If we should protect someone, it would be the kids. Once they are hooked on junk food, they go on their whole life being addicted, and then becoming obese.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher

Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher

The greedy morons in government here in New Zealand are now thinking
about introducing a Salt Tax on foods containing salt. :-\
So thanks to the money tax-payers already give the government being
wasted on useless overseas trips, expensive new cars, and all their
other perks (including free air travel for *life*), they now expect
people to pay a sales tax, sugar tax, a salt tax, and (via costs passed
on in increased pricing) the farmer's animal fart tax, plus all the
other taxes (e.g. petrol tax which is then increased by having to pay
sales tax on it!!).

They'll get your money one way or another. The question is if the right
way has some marginal positive effect or not.
Do you agree smokers should be taxed out of existence?

Nope. Tobacco companies should simply be made illegal and closed down
immediately ... of course because the Government does get tobacco tax
and sales tax from cigarettes still being sold and income taxes from
the companies, they have no real interest in shutting them down.

The question, the BIG QUESTION, is if we should equally make a move against
the junk food industry, such as McDonald's use of a clown and toys to attract
kids. If we should protect someone, it would be the kids. Once they are
hooked on junk food, they go on their whole life being addicted, and then
becoming obese.

Nope, it's a completely different issue.
Smoking kills you ... fullstop. Unless you're very lucky, smoking will
kill you. There's no grey area and no good use for it. It's a poison,
plain and simple.
Eating fast food won't kill you, unless you're moronically stupid
enough to eat it everyday for every meal. Eating it sensibly and in
moderation is perfectly fine. Nanny-state laws to protect the
terminally stupid aren't needed. The so-called "obesity epidemic" isn't
caused by fast food simply being around, it's caused by stupid people.

My son in law who's only 40 years old is sick from obesity and related diseases. It's not obesity itself that kills you, but the onset of diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, etc.

He's got all the diseases above and he's a time bomb. Sedentary life compounds the problem, so we are making our young people sick. Of course, a sick person relies more on the healthcare industry, which is the real beneficiary of our dysfunctional lifestyle.

[High Miles]

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher

The greedy morons in government here in New Zealand are now thinking
about introducing a Salt Tax on foods containing salt. :-\
So thanks to the money tax-payers already give the government being
wasted on useless overseas trips, expensive new cars, and all their
other perks (including free air travel for *life*), they now expect
people to pay a sales tax, sugar tax, a salt tax, and (via costs passed
on in increased pricing) the farmer's animal fart tax, plus all the
other taxes (e.g. petrol tax which is then increased by having to pay
sales tax on it!!).

They'll get your money one way or another. The question is if the right way has some marginal positive effect or not.
Do you agree smokers should be taxed out of existence?

That would be doing them a favor eh ?

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Post by High Miles

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher

The greedy morons in government here in New Zealand are now thinking
about introducing a Salt Tax on foods containing salt. :-\
So thanks to the money tax-payers already give the government being
wasted on useless overseas trips, expensive new cars, and all their
other perks (including free air travel for *life*), they now expect
people to pay a sales tax, sugar tax, a salt tax, and (via costs passed
on in increased pricing) the farmer's animal fart tax, plus all the
other taxes (e.g. petrol tax which is then increased by having to pay
sales tax on it!!).

They'll get your money one way or another. The question is if the right way has some marginal positive effect or not.
Do you agree smokers should be taxed out of existence?

That would be doing them a favor eh ?

They would probably kill to get a cigarette. ;)