Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    19 May '11 18:53
    http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2011/05/arizona-overweight-fin/

    What do you think? Should fat people be taxed because of their burden on society?

    Coming from Arizona no less...LOL
  2. 19 May '11 18:58 / 1 edit
    How about doing away with the idea of a cradle society and simply allowing people the freedom to suffer the consequences of their actions?
  3. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    19 May '11 19:27
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2011/05/arizona-overweight-fin/

    What do you think? Should fat people be taxed because of their burden on society?

    Coming from Arizona no less...LOL
    Oh absolutely. And it should definitely NOT be a 'flat tax' proportional to their weight. No way. Once you get up into the 350-400 lbs range you should be paying MILLIONS in taxes.

    TAX THE HEAVY!!!!!!
  4. 19 May '11 19:32 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2011/05/arizona-overweight-fin/

    What do you think? Should fat people be taxed because of their burden on society?

    Coming from Arizona no less...LOL
    Since society now has to pay for bad behavoir in terms of medical expenses, why not also tax smokers, alcohol users, drug users, those who drive fast, those who have a high salt dietary intake, those who eat more red meat than fruits and vegetables, those who have more than one sexual partner, those who wish to engage in risky behavoir such as sky diving or scuba diving, those who use tanning beds or those who spend long hours exposed to sun light, and those who choose not to excercise routinely?

    Probably the
    Only other thing I forgot to
    List are those who eat too much
    Ice cream.
    Creating such standards will help
    Engineer a healthier and more productive

    Society.
    To that end we should
    Attend to the business at hand which is
    The collective health of society. In the
    End, we will all be much better off.
  5. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    19 May '11 19:35
    Originally posted by whodey
    Since society now has to pay for bad behavoir in terms of medical expenses, why not also tax smokers, alcohol users, drug users, those who drive fast, those who have a high salt dietary intake, those who eat more red meat than fruits and vegetables, those who have more than one sexual partner, those who wish to engage in risky behavoir such as sky diving or s ...[text shortened]... hose who spend long hours exposed to sun light, and those who choose not to excercise routinely?
    Those who don't seek adequate medical treatment for illness, including mental illness, those who don't read to their children at night, those who don't wear seat belts, those who don't cover their mouth when they cough...
  6. 19 May '11 19:39
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    Those who don't seek adequate medical treatment for illness, including mental illness, those who don't read to their children at night, those who don't wear seat belts, those who don't cover their mouth when they cough...
    Yes of course, however, those without money to pay, which grows every day, will then be reimbursed via government programs, courtesy of the American taxpayer.
  7. 19 May '11 19:40
    How about doing a genetics tax?

    The more problems you are probably going to have, the more you have to pay?

    How about a "someone in your family didn't finish high school" tax? Those people are much more likely to be on public assistance, why not go after the families that produced them?
  8. 19 May '11 19:42 / 7 edits
    Originally posted by Eladar
    How about doing a genetics tax?

    The more problems you are probably going to have, the more you have to pay?

    How about a "someone in your family didn't finish high school" tax? Those people are much more likely to be on public assistance, why not go after the families that produced them?
    Only if its a "progressive" genetics tax. For example, if you come from "old money" the taxation rate will be twofold. If you come from "new money" it will be increased by half as much. However, if you come from no money then the former two will be taxed to make up the difference.

    Loopholes from the genetics tax will include working for Goldman Sachs, GE, or the federal government. All will have total exemption from the taxation. Everyone else must pay unless you are a part of a union. If you are unionized you will have 3/4 exemption status. The last exemption will be for all other corporate entities who will have half the exemption status. However, those working for "big oil" must also do community service in order to receive half exemption status.
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    19 May '11 22:20
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2011/05/arizona-overweight-fin/

    What do you think? Should fat people be taxed because of their burden on society?

    Coming from Arizona no less...LOL
    The OP is a misrepresentation of the proposal. the proposal essentially says "If you refuse to abide by your doctor's advice and you're on government doled healthcare, give us back a tiny percentage of what we spend for you." It's not a "tax" on people for "being fat."
  10. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    19 May '11 23:42 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    The OP is a misrepresentation of the proposal. the proposal essentially says "If you refuse to abide by your doctor's advice and you're on government doled healthcare, give us back a tiny percentage of what we spend for you." It's not a "tax" on people for "being fat."
    It sounds like a financial incentive to do the right thing, like aid money to the third world. And if you don't do the right thing you could suffer a trade embargo...ie your funds get cut....which means at some sweet spot on the curve, with reducing funds, and reduced capacity to buy extra food, your weight will stop increasing and your weight problem will be stabilized.

    GO MARKET FORCES!
  11. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    19 May '11 23:45
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2011/05/arizona-overweight-fin/

    What do you think? Should fat people be taxed because of their burden on society?

    Coming from Arizona no less...LOL
    Upon reflection I'm not actually convinced that, say, a 300-pound American idiot is really more of a burden on society in the long run. They usually die of a stroke or heart attack before they retire, so they don't impact on Social Security or Medicare. Overall, it's senior citizens who tend to have very expensive needs due to medical issues and so on. Has anyone really done the math on this?
  12. 20 May '11 01:30
    I think that there should be incentives to live healthier. In the form of less expensive insurance perhaps.
  13. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    20 May '11 05:08
    Originally posted by badmoon
    I think that there should be incentives to live healthier. In the form of less expensive insurance perhaps.
    And if you have a pre-existing condition, naturally your healthcare should be much more expensive.
  14. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    20 May '11 05:47
    They weigh passengers' luggage before they board a plane. Why not weigh each passenger too?
  15. 20 May '11 06:15 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    Has anyone really done the math on this?
    I believe the math has been done on smokers (who also die young). I forget what the result was, but the calculation was similar to what you suggest ie extra health bills at a young age less savings from early death.