Absolutely, I think that the folks in the government are just the people to make these sorts of decisions. Here are my suggestions:

Ban alcohol for people up to, say, 21 years old; their brain cells are still growing, don't you know.

For cigarettes (and tobacco generally), maybe just up to 18. Their lungs are grown by then, and they won't get cancer until they're my age; we old people should be able to do what we want.

Although even we shouldn't be able to use cannabis cigarettes, of course! I heard that makes people act wacky, and that's no good for anybody.

Thank goodness we have the government to keep us safe from ourselves! It's logical, it's consistent, and it's what a free country is all about.

Your tax idea is good too. Even when alcohol and tobacco are legal, they should be subject to some sort of ‘sin’ tax. The government can use that money to buy ads telling people not to use alcohol and tobacco -- not too effective, of course, or they'll run out of money!

You have opened a can of worms here. I have no problem with paying higher premiums for being a smoker. I have no problems with taxes on cigarettes to pay for related health issues. I do have a problem with the government telling me I can't smoke. I have a problem with the government telling me what I can or can't eat. I am quite fit and not at all overweight. (6'1" 180lbs) The next thing you will tell me is I can't drink beer (which is also taxed). I wouldn't mind a fat tax on goods that make you fat. I am a fair tax advocate. I believe drugs should be legalized anyway. Tax them too. Insurance companies already give discounts on workers comp insurance to employers who drug test. I think you should hvae to pass a drug test to recieve government funds. Almost all government employees are subject to drug testing in the US and those are tax dollars right?
I also advocate that the drug standards remain in place. Before getting hired an employer can stat the terms of employment are that you may not have drugs in your system. They say that for alcohol too. Same principle. If you do not like the terms of employment don't work there.

Tell you what how about lets get rid of the first ammendment. Someone might say something that will change the mind of another. Or what if someone says something that offends someone? Shouldn't that be illegal too? What if fat is politicly incorrect. It might be all together wrong. They might just be big boned. You hurt their feelings. What is the cut off for being fat? Shouldn't we all be forced to exercise?

Tailboarder: +2

Lets bail out AIG or auto makers. The cash for clunkers idea was great too.
My point is taxes are not the answer. Throwing money at a problem doesn't work. I have an idea let people be responsible for their choices and actions. If AIG screws up let them fail. Has the bailout helped the economy the way the goverment said it would? Politicians are in it for themselves. Thats why the health care reform crap says that senators keep what they have and the general public gets something else. Why can't they sit in the same clinics and get the same treatment your family will be subject to?

There are two problems with the idea of a "fat tax".

1. It wouldn't work. Here in the UK, we tax so many things to force people not to indulge in them, alcohol, tobacco and petrol to name three. The only real affect they have is that people spend more money on them.

2. It is fundamentally immoral. The government's monopoly on legal coercive force is not there so that it can tell me how to lead my life, it is there so that it can protect me from others who might wish to in some way commit crime against me. It doesn't exist to infringe on my liberties, but to protect them.

It would be better if they found away to lower cost of foods that are good for you as well as increasing the cost of empty caleries. Such as fresh fruit, vegies, and leaner meats.

The simple fact here is there is no easy way to mass produce produce. The things that are so bad and full of fat are made from waste products ie. oil and lard. Thus far less expensive and appeal to mass production lines and much longer shelf lives.

Yes but much of the fresh food goes to waste due to spoilage. The use of gamma ray sterlization and other treatments would extend selflife there by lower cost.

tailboarder, it isn't really cheaper to live unhealthily, providing your willing to spend the time cooking. The added bonus is that you get nicer food.

Ban fast food until age 18. :)

The Happy Meal doesn't make the kids happy. It makes them FAT!

@ warsprite

>It would be better if they found away to lower cost of foods that are good for you as well as increasing the cost of empty caleries

It would be very easy to do this; stop subsidising foods that are bad for you that contain empty calories.

Over a third of government agriculture subsidies in the U.S. go to feed grains, essentially a subsidy of meat (also eggs and milk; and there's an additional subsidy for milk). There are also subsidies for sugar and (of course) tobacco. None go to fruits and vegetables eaten by humans.

There is something to be said for protecting the public health though, don't you think?

I think a tax is a good idea. Not a ban. Sure you don't want to take away people's liberties, you just want them to have to give something in exchange for an irresponsible habit. If that's tax dollars, I'm for it. It would be good for me personally, and everyone else. If fast food was twice as expensive... would I really eat it?

Actually, what would happen is I bet the fast food companies would be afraid of going under so they would figure out a way of making cheap food that isn't bad for you. Everyone wins. Companies are finally forced to consider the public good, or go out of business. Or you can just open a specialty shop where you sell all unhealthy food and people go there on special occasions. Nothing wrong with that, that's the way it should be.

"There is something to be said for protecting the public health though, don't you think?"-Thucydides

Not sure who that's addressed to, but no.

Firstly, stop calling this damned thing a tax. It isn't, its a fine for going against an unwritten law. It exists not to raise revenue, but to punish a certain behaviour. Raising revenue would be a side effect. The same applies for "green taxes", alcohol duties etc.

Secondly, the evidence of alcohol, green taxes, tobacco etc. is that it doesn't significantly reduce consumption.

Thirdly, it is restricting my liberty. It is arbitrarily reducing my capability to make a particular choice. It is equivalent to putting a toll on walking down certain pavements and claiming that I'm not restricted from walking down them. An outright ban and a tax is a matter of scale. A tax of 100% (to double, as you suggest Thuc) may restrict me (actually, more likely, I choose not to buy some other goods). A tax of 100,000% stops me completely. If this policy is to work, then it does so through compulsion, and is as good, or rather bad, as a ban.

Fourthly, it is not the role of government to protect people from themselves. It is the role of government to protect people from direct attack from others. You should have "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" delivered by government, not "health, education and a livelihood". The difference is that government should be protecting the means of success, not providing the end goal. Aiming to achieve that end is the thing that gives meaning to being human.

"Not sure who that's addressed to, but no."

*If anyone

Thank you Ghost. Half of what I said earlier was sarcastic. One statement "Throwing money at a problem" was not. Money doesn't fix a problem. Like Ghost mentioned earlier, cooking is a great way to solve the problem. It is a persons problem if they are fat, not mine. My money (tax dollars) should not go to some government program for fatties. It shouldn't go to the lazies either (welfare). Over half of the people I run across (A LOT) on disability shouldn't be on it. There are many possibilities for gainful employment. I know some handicapped people that work and should be on disability. These are more the exception than the rule. Just the other day I had a guy asking about disability because he has siezures.
I mean come on really? I think there are more epileptics working than not. Oh the guy was fat. Maybe he should qualify (sarcasm).
My whole point is there are already too many people sitting on the couch all day watching Springer, eating cheetoos, drinking Kool aid, and complaining about how the man is out to get them. Well if the man would just leave us all alone and let us fail if we screw up then the world would be a better place.
Look out for my rights not limit them. I should be able to breathe fresh air, walk down a public street safely, say what I want, and expect to NOT get screwed by the government.
Why does government want more money than God?
If you add up the money the average person pays in taxes it is often times between 40% and 60%. What are we getting for our money? Where is the actual service? What is my ROI? I bet it is negative...

An email I got a while back from a friend of mine. But it is not funny when you really think about it. That 40%-60% may be low.

How many zeros in a billion???

This is too true to be funny...

The next time you hear a politician use the

word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about

whether you want the 'politicians' spending

YOUR tax money.

A billion is a difficult number to comprehend,

but one advertising agency did a good job of

putting that figure into some perspective in

one of it's releases.

A..

A billion seconds ago it was 1959.

B.

A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.

C.

A billion hours ago our ancestors were

living in the Stone Age.

D.

A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.

E.

A billion dollars ago was only

8 hours and 20 minutes,

at the rate our government

is spending it.

While this thought is still fresh in our brain...

let's take a look at New Orleans ....

It's amazing what you can learn with some simple division.

Louisiana Senator,

Mary Landrieu (D)

is presently asking Congress for

250 BILLION DOLLARS

to rebuild New Orleans .. Interesting number...

what does it mean?

A.

Well... if you are one of the 484,674 residents of New Orleans

(every man, woman, and child)

you each get $516,528.

B.

Or... if you have one of the 188,251 homes in

New Orleans , your home gets $1,329,787.

C..

Or... if you are a family of four...

your family gets $2,066,012.

Imagine, now $700 billion bailing out banks in theUS. That's enough to fund complete medical care for every man, woman and child currently alive in theUS for 11 years!!

50 billion to bail out the auto industry???

Washington , D.C.

&

Ottawa ON.

< HELLO!!! >

Are all your calculators broken??

Accounts Receivable Tax

Building Permit Tax

CDL License Tax

Cigarette Tax

Corporate Income Tax

Dog License Tax

Federal Income Tax , Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)

Fishing License Tax

Food License Tax

Fuel Permit Tax

Gasoline Tax

Hunting License Tax

Inheritance Tax

Inventory Tax

IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)

IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)

Liquor Tax

Luxury Tax

Marriage License Tax

Medicare Tax

Propert y Tax

Real Estate Tax

Service charge taxes

Social Security Tax

Road Usage Tax (Truckers)

Sales Taxes

Recreational Vehicle Tax

School Tax

State Income Tax

State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)

Telephone Federal Excise Tax

Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax upon Tax

Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax

Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax

Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax

Telephone State and Local Tax

Telephone Usage Charge Tax

Utility Tax

Vehicle License Registration Tax

Vehicle Sales Tax

Watercraft Registration Tax

Well Permit Tax

Workers Compensation Tax

Income Tax

Everything Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY???

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago...

and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.

We had absolutely no national debt...

We had the largest middle class in the world..

and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What happened?

Can you spell 'politicians!'

And I still have to

press '1'

for English.

I hope this goes around the

US & CANADA

at least 1 billion times

What the heck happened???

A tax on what people eat isn't constitutional.

That can change. Look at income tax...

I have an idea...
Lets pay off the national debt before coming up with any NEW ways to tax people. Then make an ammendment that forces congress to have a balanced budget. If it doesn't support the population as a whole in the pursuit of life liberty and happiness then you can't pay for that.

How do we get rid of politicians and place people who's interest will be in the common-folk of America? The first step towards victory is always the hardest.

It was also Thomas Jefferson who said periodic revolution was healthy for a country.
Well Ted Kennedy is dead. Thats a start.

I think that forward is a little misrepresentive. Although Im sure you know that.

For one, there were certainly taxes 100 years ago, they just didn't have those names. We werent better off 100 years ago, we were spiralling towards depression and black people were getting lynched. Plus the whole women stayed at home thing doesnt sit very well with me, thats a bit of a step backwards.

But I certainly like it when large numbers are qualified like that, makes it easier to comprehend.

It is a bit misrepresentative. I do not disagree. I just hought it might be appropriate here and is by no means a debate winner. I hate the way the tax payers are exploited and to the extent in which we are. When my business failed I had no bail out nor did I expect one. I think everyone should run a legitimate small business for 3 years before they are allowed to make any judgements about how taxes should pay for anything. Let them deal with the IRS, dpartment of revenue, department of labor, planning and zoneing, county tax commissioner office, lisencing department, get the propor bonding, insurance, fill out 940 &941 forms & make the payments, match FICA, pay unemployment taxes, etc. It takes more time to do all of the government crap than it takes to do your job, marketing, estimates, and such. I may be bitter because I know what it is like to work that long and hard and the sniveling whining ignorant people around say "All you gotta do is..."
Then after bleeding you dry the politicians give those dollars earned through blood sweat and work to some other company that lied and cheated.
THere are volumes of tax code in the US. Why should a business owner need to research any of this crap when his business has nothing to do with that???
I know ALL YOU GOTTA DO IS hire another person to take care of it for you...
Meanwhile you have the guy with no lisence or insurance cutting your throat because his costs are way lower and he doesn't spend his time learning this shit. The consumer in most cases sees a guy in a truck show up with tools to do a job. Hey his price is a fraction of the other guy. Both of their cards say Lisenced bonded & insured. Yeah one is lying & one is not.

@tailborder - i was quite impressed by your e-mail about getting a billion into perspective, but then I thought point A (a billion seconds ago it was 1959) didn't seem right so I did some quick maths. I think a billion seconds ago it was 1977. If your first point wasn't correct I can't trust the rest of your post so I mark it as a fail. Sorry.

Back to the subject of taxing fat people, smokers, drinkers, petrol users etc. The problem with taxing these people is that we encourage them to stop doing the things like eating too much, smoking etc. Whilst that may be good for them, it is not good for us, we need people (other people) to die of so they stop consuming the earth's resources and we get a bigger slice of them. Let people die early if they want to, they are sacrificing themselves for us and we should salute them.

I'm not okay with letting people waste away their lives. I can't see it happening and not do anything to stop it. Although, taxing isn't the solution to stop the consumption.

@ Maniac- Like I said it was an email I had gotten and I do not know what ad agency put that out.
I also refer to TGMs post taxing these things does NOT encourage them to stop.
And your obvious hero Al Gore hasn't stopped. He created carbon credits so he could feel good about his consumption.
I would go into business again if I could sell carbon credits.