Is state gambling a tax on the poor?

[Az]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


The problem is who defines what is healthy and what is not?

Any one food, if eaten alone is unhealthy, especially if one leads a sedentary lifestyle.

What I see is that the food favoured by poorer folks gets labelled unhealthy, while the food wealthy folks can afford gets subsidised. Case in point would be organically grown produce.

Oh that silly ass "what is good" argument - makes no sense whatsoever.

Of course, any food, if eaten alone sucks. The unhealthy ones suck - even if you eat it together with other stuff. It's not that difficult, there are As to "food that poorer folk can afford being taxed" - I see no problem with this. Less healthier food taxed, better food subsidized - seems the right decision - when the good food will be subsidized, it will become available to poorer people, also. Poor people, esp. in the US don't suffer from undernurishment, mostly - they suffer from too much unhealthy food.


Btw, your continuing worry for the poor touches my heart, ben.

I saw the tax that Detroit is considering to put against fast food in Detroit. Somehow it seems wrong to charge more for big macs alone, since that is a tax not levied on other businesses.

There are plenty of taxes that are levied on some bussiness but not on other. Gas is taxed, for example. "unfairly", of course.


So it's pretty simple: tax bad food, subsidize good food, subsidize community sports and gyms.

[Winston]

So it's pretty simple: tax bad food, subsidize good food, subsidize community sports and gyms.

Why not make it even "simpler": tax the bad people, subsidize the good people. And only spend the money on good things.

Or is that a little naïve perhaps?

[Az]

Why not make it even "simpler": tax the bad people, subsidize the good people. And only spend the money on good things.

Or is that a little naïve perhaps?

Oh, winston, you're so funny!

Are you saying that it's as easy to judge about good people as it is about healthy food?

[Winston]

No, but I do object to other people wanting to influence my behaviour through taxation. And I also take issue with you inherent assumption that the "authorities" will have an easy time determining what's good and what's bad. Or that they always make decisions on revenue and spending out of some mysterious sense of what is for the common good.

[Az]

No, but I do object to other people wanting to influence my behaviour through taxation.

Well, whatever then. We can't agree on the basics. I think there's nothing wrong with that.

And I also take issue with you inherent assumption that the "authorities" will have an easy time determining what's good and what's bad.

why inherent? It's one of those things that the government does know better. just like with drugs. are you pro legalization of everything, winston? *whistles*

Or that they always make decisions on revenue and spending out of some mysterious sense of what is for the common good.

Did I say that? I said that better them than a private tycoon, and at times, better them than the person.

Government regulates substances and behavior- It's a good thing.

[Winston]

That's the beauty of being able to veiw some issues in a pragmatic way. In the case of drugs, most of which are several orders of magnitude more damaging than your ordinary cupboard contents, I personally do trust the lawmakers to have made the right call.

But I also want to say that keeping drugs banned is not a life or death issue to me, so to speak. Opposing frivolous government intervention in general however, is.

[Az]

"pragmatic" in this case is a code word for "inconsistent". Pragmatism means that you pick your battles, this is inconsistency in the best case, and hypocricy in the worst. Of course, you think that drugs are damaging ( AND I AGREE! ), so you "trust the lawmake, and the governmentr", in this case... but the same arguments you've thumped so violently, personal responsibility and all that other stuff, work just as well here.

It's the basic conservative fallacy.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
One should also remember that when you buy a lottery ticket, you get to have fun fantasizing about what you'd do with all that money.

Yup and thats worth a buck to me . . .

I buy a lottery ticket every now and again just for the fantasy. I KNOW the math.

My brother in law got 5 of 6 numbers right on the 649 (winning just over a thousand dollars IIRC). It seemed "so close" but even if someone has the first 5 numbers, your chances of winning the jackpot are still only one in 44.

[Winston]

Heh, that reminds me of Homer Simpson checking his ticket during the live drawing on TV.

-14...
-D'oh!
-8...
-D'oh!
-26...
-D'oh!
-19...
-Woohoo!

[pchang]

Originally posted by Flubber


Yup and thats worth a buck to me . . .

Or in your case, a Loonie. Hmmm, is the name just a coincidence????

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Nutritional dieticians, duh! Maybe if you religionistas weren't so anti-science this would have been a really easy question for you.

nice one, Che

[Japher]

state gambling is a tax on the stupid, and stupid ppl are generally poor... and a greater majority of poor ppl are minorities because of the oppression laid on by the man...

thus the state lottery is racist

[DAVOUT]

I have always been astonished by the fact that the same 10 millions people who are scandalized by a child inheriting 10 millions$, are willing to pay 1$ each for one of them to receive a fortune amounting to 10 millions$.

[Az]

your posts doesn't make any sense, DAVOUT.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by pchang


Or in your case, a Loonie. Hmmm, is the name just a coincidence????

naw cause just like a bird it has been SOARING against the US greenback