‘Fat tax’ Would Not Translate to US

DAILYTARGUM.com ^ | Tuesday, October 4, 2011 12:00 am | By The Daily Targum

[fight_truth_decay]

Americans are familiar with the high taxes on items such as cigarettes and alcohol — conversationally referred to as “vice taxes.” Taxes of this type serve a twofold purpose. On one hand, they raise revenue for the state, like any other tax. On the other, they attempt to deter the abuse of such substances, which are or can be dangerous to the body. Denmark levied a similar new tax on saturated fats on Saturday, which the country hopes will bring in revenue and make unhealthy foods a less attractive item to consumers. The tax is 16 kroner — which translates to $3 U.S. — per kilogram of saturated fat in a given product. It’s an interesting idea, and we can see where they’re coming from, but such a tax would probably never work here in America.

[fight_truth_decay]

[2010]Here’s how THE OBAMA FAIR TAX PLAN would work: the federal form 1040 for 2011 would require taxpayers to list the weight of each dependent in the home at the time of filing. [...and you can't lie to the feds!] Tax would be calculated at one dollar per pound for each taxpayer. Tax would then be submitted as a separate check to the US Treasury with the designation “fat tax.”
[ok ha ha, it's a joke, but under this President, anything can happen..]

If you are rich and fat then it' s a double dipper for you, and I don't mean ice cream.

[microgood]

Taxes of this type serve a twofold purpose. On one hand, they raise revenue for the state, like any other tax. On the other, they attempt to deter the abuse of such substances, which are or can be dangerous to the body.

Baloney. The only purpose they serve is raising revenue for the state. The state does not care about the health of its citizens.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

I think that a “government employee tax” is more to the point.

If someone is employed by the government in an other that “working” role, like the military, or maybe the Post Office, they should be charged an extra 15% for “contributing to excess government”, “for the health of the country.”

In turn, this added 15% goes directly to whoever provides them a good or service, tax-free, because it is, in effect, a “rebate” to the extra added costs of excessive government to them as a person.

Now, some argument could be made that a sliding scale is needed, so that a lower level bureaucrat would only have to pay the basic 15%, but say a congressman would have to pay as much as 200% the listed price for the public.

And they can only pay for their debts with legal tender, not electronic money, credit or debit, so they can’t just “charge it”, and later refuse to pay, which is their terrible habit.

[fight_truth_decay]

http://www.taxgirl.com/obama-administration-takes-heat-for-planned-fat-tax/
“JOKE” source [lost in posting]

[fight_truth_decay]

I’d vote for you, as I like how you think; however your name is too long for voters to remember.. :)

[maine-iac7]

Shhh - don't let this story reach Madam Fat A*s.

What with her obsession on controlling what we eat and his on anyway to squeeze more taxes out of us = this would be right up their alley.

Finally, something they could do together.

[GeronL]

Half the PO doesn’t work either apparently.

[Billthedrill]

Taxes of this type serve a twofold purpose. On one hand, they raise revenue for the state, like any other tax. On the other, they attempt to deter the abuse of such substances...

The author really ought to take a class in beginning economics. That "twofold purpose" is, in fact two entirely opposing objectives. Taxes intending to modify behavior will, if they are successful, result in a decreasing revenue to the state. Taxes intending to raise revenue for the state will, if they are intended to be successful, not discourage the activity being taxed. Taxes enacted for both purposes will fail at both.

What happens in the real world is that the state gets accustomed to the revenue, the tax does succeed in changing behavior, and the state ends up running a deficit when committed spending is not matched by revenue, and ends up addressing it by taxing something else. It's idiocy.

There is, as well, that bizarre manifestation of liberal psychology that is essentially "tax anyone who isn't like me." Or, more accurately, "tax anyone who isn't like I imagine myself." It's the only explanation I can summon up for such grotesqueries as Oprah (net worth $80 million) or Michael Moore (net worth $50 million) complaining that the wealthy are greedy and exploitative. They don't see themselves that way although they are, hence it doesn't apply to them. These are not rational people.

[RetiredTexasVet]

Don’t bet on it. Bloomberg of NYC will probably jump right on it. Of course there will be exemptions for political palm grease, pork for his political and Wall Street buddies, and hair grease for his union buddies.

[Impy]

There would be rioting. Food is expensive enough.