|
Obesity Tax? (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
the spending wasn't necessarily wasteful until this crisis.
in any event, bloomberg is excellent at cutting wasteful spending. he doesn't give a , he'll cut an entire city agency to maintain some balance in the budget. the problem with cutting wasteful government spending, however, is that usually means firing workers. In that case, those fired workers are moving from one government payroll to the state's unemployed insurance fund. that doesn't entirely get rid of the problem. it only gets rid of about half the problem for at least 25-30 weeks. (i think the benefits are about 500 a week for twenty something weeks). |
Agreed that it isn't the full answer, but it does help. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
this is the same guy who was proposing putting wind turbines on top of bridges and skyscrapers in NYC |
THE DARING!!! :mad: |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
this is the same guy who was proposing putting wind turbines on top of bridges and skyscrapers in NYC |
is that supposed to be a suggestion that he isn't a wasteful spending cutter? explain how a capital expenditure that is supposed to reduce the need for the city to purchase electricity from quasi public & private companies wasteful spending. once the turbines are established the required expense to maintain them is significant less than the recurring cost of purchasing energy from energy producers. also, the cost will be stable so the city energy costs wouldn't fluctuate depending on whether some guy in saudi arabia blows up his car. the trick is to ensure that:
windturbine installation + maintainence + delivery < current energy expense. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
is that supposed to be a suggestion that he isn't a wasteful spending cutter? explain how a capital expenditure that is supposed to reduce the need for the city to purchase electricity from quasi public & private companies wasteful spending. once the turbines are established the required capital to maintain them is significant less than the recurring cost of purchasing energy from. also, the cost will be stable so the city energy costs wouldn't fluctuate depending on whether some guy in saudi arabia blows up his car. |
Not only that, whatever electricity they don't use, if it ever got past the amount they did use, they could sell it at a profit on the open market. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
is that supposed to be a suggestion that he isn't a wasteful spending cutter? explain how a capital expenditure that is supposed to reduce the need for the city to purchase electricity from quasi public & private companies wasteful spending. once the turbines are established the required expense to maintain them is significant less than the recurring cost of purchasing energy from energy producers. also, the cost will be stable so the city energy costs wouldn't fluctuate depending on whether some guy in saudi arabia blows up his car. the trick is to ensure that:
windturbine installation + maintainence + delivery < current energy expense. |
It sounds good in theory, but like all other good intentioned liberal policies, there are unintended consequences. Bloomberg's own words shortly after his stupid proposal: "There are aesthetic considerations. And no. 2, I have absolutely no idea whether that makes any sense from a scientific, from a practical point of view."
Well, sorry but thre are issues from a scientific point of view. Wind turbulence and the vibrations the buildings would have to endure... and the relatively small amount of wind the turbines would be able to harness in the city would limit the project's feasibility cost-wise. Also, skyscrapers typically are not built to withstand the load of wind turbines if I'm not mistaken. Plus you have to pay for not only the windmill, but a generator and tower as well, plus installation costs and electric wiring. Then, if wind speed goes too high (over 50 mph... not uncommon in NYC), they have to be shut down or they'll fall apart.
Check out Dr. Nina Pierpont's newly published research on what she calls "Wind Turbine Syndrome," based on what she's seen in people living close to wind farms.
| quote: | | Research indicates that low frequency noise and vibrations for people living close to wind turbines can cause sleep disorders, difficulty with equilibrium, headaches, childhood "night terrors" as well as other health problems. |
The whole thing was just political bull to help get popularity from his liberal constituents. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
If you are against this tax, then tell me which of the following statements you disagree with:
1. Government requires not insignificant amounts of money to fund.
2. Government could collect some portion of that money by taxing soft drink consumption
3. Taxing soft drink consumption provides people with an incentive to consume fewer soft drinks
4. There is a causal connection between soft drink consumption and obesity, or the extent thereof, in a non-negligible number of instances.
5. An incentive to consume fewer soft drinks thus provides an incentive to avoid or limit an activity that will causally contribute to obesity in a non-negligible number of instances.
6. That incentive has the potential to affect consumer behavior in at least some instances, and therefore has the potential to reduce the prevalence and/or extent of obesity relative to what they would otherwise be.
7. Obesity imposes a burden on society.
8. Less obesity imposes less of a burden on society.
9. An incentive that has the potential to result in a reduced burden on society is a potentially useful one.
10. A tax that creates a potentially useful incentive is preferable to one that does not.
11. Taxing income does not create a potentially useful incentive.
12. Therefore, taxing soft drink consumption is preferable to an income tax increase that would produce equivalent revenue.
13. Income taxes generating revenue in excess of the potential revenue that this tax may generate would still exist even if we eliminated all inefficient government expenditures.
14. Imposing this tax would thus reduce the necessary amount of income taxation by an amount roughly equal to the revenue of this tax, regardless of the efficiency of government expenditures.
15. Therefore, this tax is a good idea. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| haha... you're an odd bird, Arbiter. Nicely laid out though. All true statements (Jerz the tax guru, can you confirm?). My beef is simply that I don't think the government should make those kinds of personal decisions. It can be a slippery slope |
|
|
| Slylee |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Stupid. Anything can cause obesity if you eat enough of it... |
that's not true. i am like a human garbage disposal and i'm still 5'5 110 lol
it's a genetic disorder and people are born with predispostions to being obese. it's sad really. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
haha... you're an odd bird, Arbiter. Nicely laid out though. All true statements (Jerz the tax guru, can you confirm?). My beef is simply that I don't think the government should make those kinds of personal decisions. It can be a slippery slope |
we have been sliding down that slope for years, look at the taxes on cigarettes and alcohol |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Slylee
that's not true. i am like a human garbage disposal and i'm still 5'5 110 lol
it's a genetic disorder and people are born with predispostions to being obese. it's sad really. |
This is such bull. You may have a slower metabolism, or be more prone to gaining weight more easily than others, but you are not predisposed to being fat. They have not proven that people are predisposed to being fat.
edit//Also, most people who are fat have HORRIBLE diets. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
edit//Also, most people who are fat have HORRIBLE diets. |
no you should see what the beached whale next to me eats. she brings in her lunch and it completely fills one of those plastic grocery bags. one day she brought in an entire cheesecake and sat there and ate it over the course of the day |
|
|
| Slylee |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
This is such bull. You may have a slower metabolism, or be more prone to gaining weight more easily than others, but you are not predisposed to being fat. They have not proven that people are predisposed to being fat. |
can i have proof of that?
and im not trying to be a smart ass, i'm literally curious. i know there have been lots of studies on it and shows (60 min, etc...) trying to prove it. |
|
|
|
|
