Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-05-2013, 04:43 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
If I were you I'd ignore him, and any of his future threads. If history is an indication even sensible threads turn to shit when this guy is involved.

His last few posts have been absolute garbage. Must be off his meds.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2013, 11:19 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(18-05-2013 04:35 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(18-05-2013 12:06 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  I'm honestly wondering if you've read anything I've written, IandI. And if you have, I wonder why you haven't comprehended it. And I don't mean that as an insult.

The two things you just said to me, I agree with wholeheartedly... save the use of the oxymoron "capitalist government".

Yes... the people who run the state use violence to inflict their will on people in other nations and they extract resources from those nations and hand them over to their friends in the private sector.

Yes... the people who run the state and the people they collude with are one in the same group of people. They're called sociopath, although many of them display a very high number of traits for psychopathy, as well.

However, fascism (what you describe as capitalism) and capitalism as concepts and in practice, are mutually exclusive. When the people who run the state hand over resources to their friends in private enterprise... that isn't capitalism, it's fascism.

One more time... capitalism is me selling you a lawn mower that you want or, you buying a can of soda that you want. Those transactions involve private money being voluntarily exchanged for goods or services and they result in private profits.

Fascism is the state taking your money against your will (or borrowing, printing or otherwise stealing) and handing it over to the private sector. That's public money going to private profits.

Those things are not the same. The people involved in the latter are of the same primitive psychoclasses but what they are doing is not capitalism any more than what a rapist does could be called love making.

I don't think you can read your own posts....and I don't mean that in an offensive way. You agree that government officials do corporate bidding and government officials often come from the corporate sector, yet somehow believe these two are separate? What kind of mental gymnastics is required to believe that two things are different and the same at the same time?

Show me how large of a post continually quoting people can get and provide evidence of any major governmental organization being separate from the corporate sector.

People aren't things and concepts aren't people. Yes, government officials and private business owners do collude. I don't deny that. In fact, I've argued that government officials are a part of the problem against myriad statists who only vilify the business owners' part in the equation and I've argued that for years.

The people involved are not the concepts "government" and "capitalism", they are people... whom I have identified as similar.

You have a serious problem with separating human beings from the labels you apply to them. That's where our conflict begins and until you can see a human being as a human being rather than as a label, we will continue to have this problem.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bbeljefe's post
19-05-2013, 01:05 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
Quote:I do find it incredulous in the UK that you can go into a shop and buy a small tin of an energy drink for 35 pence, yet simple water can cost up to £1. Given a choice I'm sure most children would want to have the sweet energy drink (and probably a few adults as well)
Damn, bemore. I'm in the US and here it's often $2.50 for an energy drink (sometimes more, sometimes less) and $1.50 for a water (often more). Which is still too fucking much for water.

Quote:don't make the shit that makes you fat and gives you diabetes.
how in the hell do you get rid of sugar, though? As other have said, taxing doesn't get rid of a thing, it just makes people complain about the prices more.

I don't think the problem is sugar, I think the problem with obesity is more complex than that (at the very least, you need to add in being sedentary. Should you also tax people for having sedentary jobs?)

The result is that sugar (more often, HFCS) is in most everything is because it's cheap and people like it. Until you find an alternative that is healthier, tastier AND cheaper, I think we're stuck with having sugar/corn syrup everywhere.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2013, 01:13 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(19-05-2013 01:05 PM)amyb Wrote:  
Quote:I do find it incredulous in the UK that you can go into a shop and buy a small tin of an energy drink for 35 pence, yet simple water can cost up to £1. Given a choice I'm sure most children would want to have the sweet energy drink (and probably a few adults as well)
Damn, bemore. I'm in the US and here it's often $2.50 for an energy drink (sometimes more, sometimes less) and $1.50 for a water (often more). Which is still too fucking much for water.

Quote:don't make the shit that makes you fat and gives you diabetes.
how in the hell do you get rid of sugar, though? As other have said, taxing doesn't get rid of a thing, it just makes people complain about the prices more.

I don't think the problem is sugar, I think the problem with obesity is more complex than that (at the very least, you need to add in being sedentary. Should you also tax people for having sedentary jobs?)

The result is that sugar (more often, HFCS) is in most everything is because it's cheap and people like it. Until you find an alternative that is healthier, tastier AND cheaper, I think we're stuck with having sugar/corn syrup everywhere.

Lets use tobacco as an example. In the US (sorry not sure if this is the case elsewhere) tobacco is taxed at a rate of something like 600% if a pack of smokes costs $7.50 after taxes the cost before taxes would have been like $1.25. Now these taxes were added to in the '90's and have now become a major source of funding for education. If everyone were to stop buying tobacco products tomorrow the results would be catastrophic. You can't regulate anything with taxes because then the state becomes dependant upon people continuing their habits.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2013, 01:28 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
^Yeah, that too. It's kind of the opposite of the idea that taxing stops people. In my experience, smokers just bitch about the price more. (I worked in a convenience store ten years ago, I know all about the bitching).

I don't like the idea of gov't interfering in that way, personally. And it's also ignoring the fact that, if your goal is to punish fat people (as if sugar were the only cause of obesity..) you're also punishing people who are moderate in their sugar usage. You're punishing little kids whose parents might not be able to afford a birthday cake. Now, some would say that the kids shouldn't be eating sugar. I don't think there is a huge problem with sugar in moderation. I know perfectly healthy people who eat sweets now and again. Sure, maybe it would make some people buy it less, but I still think that (1)it's invasive and the gov't shouldn't do that, and (2)it doesn't help the root problems: the problem is not "sugar exists," but rather, something more like people are getting more sedentary, and also are tending to eat/drink sugary things more often instead of just occasional treats. Sugar is not the only cause of health problems. The way to make people make lifestyle changes is not to piss them off and shame them, but to educate them so they will hopefully make healthier choices. Also, I just don't like the idea of the gov't telling me what I can and cannot drink. Hell, when I was a runner, I'd drink like 3 pepsis a day. In the evening, I'd run and buy a pepsi from a vending machine on my way back home. And I was in better health than most people I knew.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2013, 05:06 PM
Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
So according to you guys, corporations pushing products on people through a billion dollar a year advertising campaigns and playing on human behavior to get people to desire their product......is NOT? Invasive.....but a government coming in to try to curb corporate power IS invasive?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2013, 05:35 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(19-05-2013 05:06 PM)I and I Wrote:  So according to you guys, corporations pushing products on people through a billion dollar a year advertising campaigns and playing on human behavior to get people to desire their product......is NOT? Invasive.....but a government coming in to try to curb corporate power IS invasive?

I was arguing effectiveness not invasiveness. If anything corporate entities are far more invasive. However as a means to an end taxation is not effective.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2013, 05:37 PM
Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(19-05-2013 05:35 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(19-05-2013 05:06 PM)I and I Wrote:  So according to you guys, corporations pushing products on people through a billion dollar a year advertising campaigns and playing on human behavior to get people to desire their product......is NOT? Invasive.....but a government coming in to try to curb corporate power IS invasive?

I was arguing effectiveness not invasiveness. If anything corporate entities are far more invasive. However as a means to an end taxation is not effective.

So what entity do you suggest for curbing corporate invasiveness?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2013, 05:52 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(19-05-2013 05:37 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(19-05-2013 05:35 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I was arguing effectiveness not invasiveness. If anything corporate entities are far more invasive. However as a means to an end taxation is not effective.

So what entity do you suggest for curbing corporate invasiveness?

I'm not entirely sure it can be curbed at this point.

http://www.businessinsider.com/25-corpor...011-6?op=1

We may be at a tipping point in history where government is replaced by corporations. I was going to say something about buying locally but lets be honest thats not really possible to do and live in society as we know it. I'd say the main problem is the difference in participation in government. Huge corporations have 100% participation where as most people don't. Thats not even counting corruption thats just the stuff that is done legally and on the table.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2013, 06:04 PM
Re: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
Neither, I dont drink that poison personally, but denying the people the right to chose what they want to consume is Orwellian. If anything, pushing through mandatory GMO labeling would enable consumers to make an informed decision about what they put in their bodies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: