In reply to ultraclyde:
The poor of other countries seem to work it out - rice and beans seems to be a staple. I can make spaghetti with sauce or bean burritos for damn near nothing. And I like it.
And oatmeal for breakfast. I buy it in bulk. It is really cheap and really good.
Rice and beans are a staple in poor countries because they're cheap filler, not food.
aggravator wrote: I have no problem with sin taxes* *only if the funds are used to offset the negatives associated with the sin.
I am an atheist... no sins. It is about damn time we got some tax breaks. berkeleying churches have been living high on the hog, building giant temples out of marble -n- E36 M3 and payin' zip.
In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:
Our church even got expempted from all sales taxes when building a new multi-million dollar building. It doesn't seem fair, but that is the law.
Grizz wrote: Rice and beans are a staple in poor countries because they're cheap filler, not food.
Did you mean to use a sarcasm emoticon? Because I am pretty sure rice and beans are food. Red beans and rice is really good food.
I got to thinking about this after my original post, and one of the things that bothered me others here mentioned...the slippery slope/can of worms this would open. Example? Who decides just what is going to be taxed ? (probably mentioned in the article I DIDN'T read.) What happens if your living is made off of selling what is considered to be fattening? Could/would healthy foods be subsidized to lower their cost to folks? That last one is because as someone here has already pointed out, bad food is very cheap, while healthy food can be...but isn't necessarily expensive. At the very least, cheap food is more convenient, tho under Denmark's system, food sold at convenience stores would now be more expensive.
Otto Maddox wrote:Grizz wrote: Rice and beans are a staple in poor countries because they're cheap filler, not food.Did you mean to use a sarcasm emoticon? Because I am pretty sure rice and beans are food. Red beans and rice is really good food.
No.
I love rice and beans.
France announced they want to ban ketchup because the sugar content makes it unhealthy.
I'm sure that bearnaise, hollandaise and all that mayo on the pomme frites is much better for you 
Everyone is always for this kind of thing until something they love is considered 'unhealthy'. Suddenly the uproar.
Bah, screw the French. Personally I love black beans and yellow rice, must have been those 3 years in Tampa with all the Ricans and Cubans.
Ok, all you fat people, line up and run to work or else
So do we now outlaw obesity...great, there goes over half of our country
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:aggravator wrote: I have no problem with sin taxes* *only if the funds are used to offset the negatives associated with the sin.I am an atheist... no sins. It is about damn time we got some tax breaks. berkeleying churches have been living high on the hog, building giant temples out of marble -n- E36 M3 and payin' zip.
ok what if they called it a moral tax, or dont you have any morals either? 
I do agree with taxing churches too!
Trans_Maro wrote: France announced they want to ban ketchup because the sugar content makes it unhealthy. I'm sure that bearnaise, hollandaise and all that mayo on the pomme frites is much better for you
Ketchup should be banned in general out of principle. If i wanted a dessert sauce made out of tomatos on my meats, i'd check myself into a mental institution. 
Snowdoggie wrote:1988RedT2 wrote: I like it. We as a nation are a bunch of fat pigs. Think of the revenue! Think of the improvement in health! It's a win-win.Yep. We could pay off the deficit with this.
we could, but we wouldn't. We'd squander it on stupid things and we'd end up paying for twinkies for the politicians.
I would agree with it IF:
The money collected from taxing FAT foods was used to reduce the price of HEALTHY foods.
Cheeseburgers get more expensive, asparagus gets cheaper (asparagus is kind of pricy BTW).
It is pretty sad that the most cost effective way to eat is usually food that is really bad for you.
If the kuats and swedes were smart they would lover the prices on "unhealthy" food.
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Ketchup should be banned in general out of principle.
Dude! I totally agree with you there. Ketchup is just another way to force more sugar and salt down our throats.
I firmly believe that making things sweeter doesn't usually make them better (my stance on the miracle whip vs mayo debate) and that is all that ketchup/catsup does.
Can we ban Ranch dressing too? That crap is probably the main culprit responsible for skewing americans taste preferences towards the mega high fat and sodium levels we currently have. Back in 1984 if someone saw you dipping a slice of pizza into ranch dressing they would have regarded you no differently than if you were a three headed alien. Now you order a pizza and they ask not what, but how many dipping sauces you would like! I see commercials on TV where popeyes has changed the shape of its chicken to hold more dip!
Ketchup is just another way to force more sugar and salt down our throats
So, someone from Heinz comes out to your house and makes you eat it? 
aircooled wrote: It is pretty sad that the most cost effective way to eat is usually food that is really bad for you.
Eeeeeh. People keep saying that, but if you don't mind the lack of variety, lots of healthy staples are cheap. Oatmeal, chicken, eggs, and seasonal veggies.
stuart in mn wrote: So, someone from Heinz comes out to your house and makes you eat it?
No they don't need to go door to door. They have marketng campaigns for that.
You have seen the hidden valley ranch commercials with happy looking kids and families that pretty much says your kids will finally eat a vegetable if you drown it in our crap haven't you. Sure it isn't coming to your door and cramming it in your face but it is advertising as a "Teaspoon of sugar to help the medicine go down" solution. They wouldn't use these campaigns if they weren't effective.
Osterkraut wrote:aircooled wrote: It is pretty sad that the most cost effective way to eat is usually food that is really bad for you.Eeeeeh. People keep saying that, but if you don't mind the lack of variety, lots of healthy staples are cheap. Oatmeal, chicken, eggs, and seasonal veggies.
Little Debbies snacks are cheaper by the pound than fresh produce. How can that even happen?
ditchdigger wrote: If I am not mistaken Denmark has a public health plan so since everyones tax dollars are paying the extra amount for the extra care required by the fatties then the fatties should have to pony up a bit extra to "pay their own way". Makes sense to me.
Correct they have fully publicly funded healthcare and are one of the highest taxed peoples in the world. But they are all freakin healthy. I'm surprised any of the fatty foods even sell over there. Aside from the touristy areas in Copenhagen I rarely see fast food restaurants or many other unhealthy options.
Nice place to visit but.....50% tax rate on automobiles, I'd go broke.
I've spent about 8 weeks over there so far this year though.
Osterkraut wrote:aircooled wrote: It is pretty sad that the most cost effective way to eat is usually food that is really bad for you.Eeeeeh. People keep saying that, but if you don't mind the lack of variety, lots of healthy staples are cheap. Oatmeal, chicken, eggs, and seasonal veggies.
I don't think it's a cheap thing as much as it's an easy thing. Lots of foods are cheap. Not all of the cheap, healthy, foods are easy to prepare. It's much easier to nuke a box of trans fats than it is to actually cook a chicken or prepare a meal. Fat and lazy go hand in hand a lot of the time.
Says the fat guy that hates boxed anything but loves well prepared food.
Oh and for the record, the fat smokers pay a healthy premium for health insurance. Then they have the decency to die suddenly from heart attacks and strokes. 
Toyman01 wrote: Oh and for the record, the fat smokers pay a healthypremium
I LOLed
You'll need to log in to post.
