Junk food taxes and human nutrition pellets...

[dank]

There's an idea being promoted by nutritionists and others to engineer a
healthier society by taxing unhealthy food ingredients like fat, sugar,
and salt to price them out of the reach of poor people who consume too
much of them and suffer poor health as a result. The fat tax revenues
would be used to subsidize healthy foods, with the intent being to
"encourage" uneducated peasants to make the correct food choices by
pricing junk food out of their reach. The end result of this idea will
be to coerce most of a nation's population to consume nutritionally-
balanced human nutrition pellets, with perhaps an extra ration of canned
nutrition glop for holidays.

Though fatty, sugary foods are bad for everyone, there is no effort to
actually OUTLAW these ingredients because that would deprive the elite
of their capuccinos with extra whipped cream, fancy imported cheeses,
even pizza and Cheetos when they're feeling ghetto. There is no problem
with nutritionists and social engineers stuffing their faces with these
particular foods, all they are asking is that these things be made
prohibitively expensive for everyone making less money than themselves.

Sweden has a law that sets traffic fines based on the driver's income.
It was seen as unfair to set a fine for speeding that the wealthy
could afford to pay repeatedly, so it was decided that the fine should
be a percentage of one's annual income. A poor person would pay $100
for speeding while a rich person would pay $10,000 because he earns so
much more. To be fair, a fat tax should also be levied according to
income. If the intent is to discourage unhealthy dietary choices by
making those choices too expensive to regularly consume, then
nutritionists, social engineers, and government officials who promote
this idea should be willing to apply it to themselves and pay a
proportionately higher tax to be fair, so that fatty junk food is just
as unaffordable for the elite as it is for the proles.


=====================================================================
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
-- Animal Farm
=====================================================================

[Frank Arthur]

Nah. It is better for people to be obese and have poor nutrition than
ANY effort to change the status quo! Right on! Oink,Oink!

Post by dank
There's an idea being promoted by nutritionists and others to
engineer a
healthier society by taxing unhealthy food ingredients like fat, sugar,
and salt to price them out of the reach of poor people who consume too
much of them and suffer poor health as a result. The fat tax
revenues
would be used to subsidize healthy foods, with the intent being to
"encourage" uneducated peasants to make the correct food choices by
pricing junk food out of their reach. The end result of this idea will
be to coerce most of a nation's population to consume nutritionally-
balanced human nutrition pellets, with perhaps an extra ration of canned
nutrition glop for holidays.
Though fatty, sugary foods are bad for everyone, there is no effort to
actually OUTLAW these ingredients because that would deprive the elite
of their capuccinos with extra whipped cream, fancy imported
cheeses,
even pizza and Cheetos when they're feeling ghetto. There is no problem
with nutritionists and social engineers stuffing their faces with these
particular foods, all they are asking is that these things be made
prohibitively expensive for everyone making less money than
themselves.
Sweden has a law that sets traffic fines based on the driver's
income.
It was seen as unfair to set a fine for speeding that the wealthy
could afford to pay repeatedly, so it was decided that the fine should
be a percentage of one's annual income. A poor person would pay $100
for speeding while a rich person would pay $10,000 because he earns so
much more. To be fair, a fat tax should also be levied according to
income. If the intent is to discourage unhealthy dietary choices by
making those choices too expensive to regularly consume, then
nutritionists, social engineers, and government officials who
promote
this idea should be willing to apply it to themselves and pay a
proportionately higher tax to be fair, so that fatty junk food is just
as unaffordable for the elite as it is for the proles.
=====================================================================
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than
others."
-- Animal Farm
=====================================================================

[Al Nakba]

Post by Frank Arthur
Nah. It is better for people to be obese and have poor nutrition than
ANY effort to change the status quo! Right on! Oink,Oink!

Post by dank
There's an idea being promoted by nutritionists and others to engineer a
healthier society by taxing unhealthy food ingredients like fat, sugar,
and salt to price them out of the reach of poor people who consume too
much of them and suffer poor health as a result.  The fat tax
revenues
would be used to subsidize healthy foods, with the intent being to
"encourage" uneducated peasants to make the correct food choices by
pricing junk food out of their reach.  The end result of this idea
will
be to coerce most of a nation's population to consume nutritionally-
balanced human nutrition pellets, with perhaps an extra ration of canned
nutrition glop for holidays.
Though fatty, sugary foods are bad for everyone, there is no effort to
actually OUTLAW these ingredients because that would deprive the elite
of their capuccinos with extra whipped cream, fancy imported
cheeses,
even pizza and Cheetos when they're feeling ghetto.  There is no
problem
with nutritionists and social engineers stuffing their faces with these
particular foods, all they are asking is that these things be made
prohibitively expensive for everyone making less money than
themselves.
Sweden has a law that sets traffic fines based on the driver's income.
It was seen as unfair to set a fine for speeding that the wealthy
could afford to pay repeatedly, so it was decided that the fine should
be a percentage of one's annual income.  A poor person would pay
$100
for speeding while a rich person would pay $10,000 because he earns so
much more.  To be fair, a fat tax should also be levied according to
income.  If the intent is to discourage unhealthy dietary choices by
making those choices too expensive to regularly consume, then
nutritionists, social engineers, and government officials who promote
this idea should be willing to apply it to themselves and pay a
proportionately higher tax to be fair, so that fatty junk food is just
as unaffordable for the elite as it is for the proles.
=====================================================================
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than
others."
-- Animal Farm
=====================================================================- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

PC Fascist!

[dank]

Frank Arthur wrote...

Post by Frank Arthur
Nah. It is better for people to be obese and have poor nutrition than
ANY effort to change the status quo! Right on! Oink,Oink!

It is even better for EVERYONE to eat a proper diet instead of allowing
the elite to eat whatever they choose while forcing the poor to eat
kibble.

One nutrition commie I read about suggested a 5-cent per gram tax on
sugar, adding $2 to a typical 12oz can of soda. That amounts to about
a quarter hour of wages for a typical service industry worker, but only
a few seconds of wages for government officials and the nutrition nazis
who work for them. All I'm asking is that these policy makers conform
to their policies and force them to pay relatively higher fat and sugar
taxes just like with income taxes. Perhaps the tax should be based on
a percentage of one's monthly rent or mortgage payment, so water and
carrot sticks will be all rich social engineers will be able to afford
to serve at their cocktail parties.


- - - - - - - -


========================================================================
"Somehow it seemed as though the farm had grown richer without making
the animals themselves any richer - except, of course, for the pigs and
the dogs. Perhaps this was partly because there were so many pigs and
so many dogs. It was not that these creatures did not work, after their
fashion. There was, as Squealer was never tired of explaining, endless
work in the supervision and organization of the farm. Much of this work
was of a kind that the other animals were too ignorant to understand.
For example, Squealer told them that the pigs had to expend enormous
labors every day upon mysterious things called 'files,' 'reports,'
'minutes,' and 'memoranda.' These were large sheets of paper which had
to be closely covered with writing, and as soon as they were so covered,
they were burnt in the furnace. This was of the highest importance for
the welfare of the farm, Squealer said. But still, neither pigs nor
dogs produced any food by their own labor; and there were very many of
them, and their appetites were always good."
-- Animal Farm
========================================================================

[Al Nakba]

Post by dank
There's an idea being promoted by nutritionists and others to engineer a
healthier society by taxing unhealthy food ingredients like fat, sugar,
and salt to price them out of the reach of poor people who consume too
much of them and suffer poor health as a result.  The fat tax revenues
would be used to subsidize healthy foods, with the intent being to
"encourage" uneducated peasants to make the correct food choices by
pricing junk food out of their reach.  The end result of this idea will
be to coerce most of a nation's population to consume nutritionally-
balanced human nutrition pellets, with perhaps an extra ration of canned
nutrition glop for holidays.
Though fatty, sugary foods are bad for everyone, there is no effort to
actually OUTLAW these ingredients because that would deprive the elite
of their capuccinos with extra whipped cream, fancy imported cheeses,
even pizza and Cheetos when they're feeling ghetto.  There is no problem
with nutritionists and social engineers stuffing their faces with these
particular foods, all they are asking is that these things be made
prohibitively expensive for everyone making less money than themselves.
Sweden has a law that sets traffic fines based on the driver's income.
It was seen as unfair to set a fine for speeding that the wealthy
could afford to pay repeatedly, so it was decided that the fine should
be a percentage of one's annual income.  A poor person would pay $100
for speeding while a rich person would pay $10,000 because he earns so
much more.  To be fair, a fat tax should also be levied according to
income.  If the intent is to discourage unhealthy dietary choices by
making those choices too expensive to regularly consume, then
nutritionists, social engineers, and government officials who promote
this idea should be willing to apply it to themselves and pay a
proportionately higher tax to be fair, so that fatty junk food is just
as unaffordable for the elite as it is for the proles.
=====================================================================
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
-- Animal Farm
=====================================================================

"Soylent Green is people"..