Games Tax To Fund Obesity Prevention?

Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to an AP/Yahoo story discussing a New York State proposal to tax videogames, and use the money to prevent obesity. According to the article, "..the 1 percent tax hike proposed by Assemblyman Felix Ortiz would apply to junk food, video games and television commercials, which Ortiz blames on New York's growing obesity problem. Ortiz, a Democrat, did not rule out proposing tax increases on other things that he believes contribute to obesity." Fortunately, the proposal is believed to have a "slim chance" of passing into law.

Comments

wtf?

[baloogan]

Games do not make one fat
Make no sence these yoda speakers do

Re:wtf?

[orangesquid]

So where will this tax go, exactly? State-sponsored exercise programs for gamers?

How will they determine who gets admitted? A short vocabulary quiz with things like "frag", "gg", "lag", "bfg" ?

Also, wouldn't this be burning bad karma and burning fat at the same time?

As if that's where the money would go

[Kris_J]

Has anyone got any example of a tax where the money was supposed to have a predefined definition and it actually went there, rather than just into the general pool to be spent on junkets and million dollar superannuation?

Re:As if that's where the money would go

[Synic]

Case in point: gas tax in California is supposed to be earmarked for paying CalTrans to improve roadways and freeways. How much roadwork can you actually see going on in your area? While I know there is activity going on, I'm quite sure that not all of the gas tax money is going where it is claimed to be going.

Re:As if that's where the money would go

[Kris_J]

definition==destination, but y'all seem to have coped :)

Re:As if that's where the money would go

[nexex]

the tobacco lawsuit...it was for the children but the money just went into states' general funds to pay for pork...

if cigarettes pose such a danger to society, why are they legal? politicans would rather siphon more and more taxes from them rather than banning them...which would do more to achieve what they say their goal is, to improve health

Re:As if that's where the money would go

[Otter]

Has anyone got any example of a tax where the money was supposed to have a predefined definition and it actually went there, rather than just into the general pool to be spent on junkets and million dollar superannuation?

For the most part, hunting and fishing license revenues do go to the fish and wildlife management departments they're supposed to support.

I entirely agree with your larger point, though.

Re:That's a reach

[illuvata]

it even says in the /. summary that he also plans to tax fast food

Yes, but....

[ActiveSX]

"slim chance"

"Slim"? Isn't that what they're hoping for?

I live in NY

[phantomlord]

In a state facing a $12 billion deficit, don't the lawmakers have a responsibility to balance the budget rather than create new ways to spend money? The legislature is already adding new taxes left and right to try to cover the deficit, but I have a much more novel approach taken from my own life. When you don't make enough money to pay the bills, quit wasting money. That's right... cut spending on frivilous stuff, even if it means pissing someone off. Pay your critical expenses and cut the fluff.

Of course, that wouldn't ever fly. Once a program is created, it can never be terminated lest someone get mad that their pet project or special entitlement evaporate. Let's just waste more money since we can always rob the people^W^W^Wraise taxes^Wour income by force^W^Wlater.

Re:I live in NY

[phantomlord]

1) correlation != causation
2) the person is [gasp] responsible for themself, the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for his heart attack (remember, the price of freedom is responsibility. The US wasn't meant to be a nanny state)
3) is this going to go to obesity the way lottery funds "go" to education and the tobacco settlement "goes" to public health? ie, the general fund?
4) When your budget is $92 billion and you only can bring in $80 billion, is it wise to start new programs when you should be cutting back to make ends meet? Would you rather fund some unproven BS program that has no merit or keep more teachers in schools?

I hear there's a rumor that (television|computers|books|board games|low fat foods|model railroads|phones|whatever) contribute to making people obese. Let's tax all of them so we can promote our righteous values on everyone. I also hear that (rock climbing|football|martial arts|working|etc) can contribute to medical expenses, so we should tax them too.

Where do the taxes end? Where does everyone else's right to interfere in my lifestyle end? Would you support a proposal on a tax to fund the "re-education of homosexuals into heterosexuals" because of the AIDS epidemic? I'd think AIDS is more costly and life threatening than obesity. Don't you see how silly it is to have some bureaucrat hundreds of miles away dictating what's right for me? No matter what you do or don't do, you're going to incur health costs and you're going to die. Why, then, should I have the right to legislate your life to protect you from yourself?

Quite the opposite...

[Dr. Photo]

Fortunately, the proposal is believed to have a "slim chance" of passing into law.

Nonsense. It's clearly a fat chance.

What a great idea, just underutilized...

[ctucker]

How about we tax law schools, law firms, political parties and bribes^H^H^H^H^H^Hcampaign contributions and use the proceeds to fund educational programs to prevent people from turning into politicians? Tax assholes to prevent them turning into lawyers?
Seems logical to me.

Television HAS To Go First Here

[Babbster]

There's no question in my mind that the biggest cause of sedentary lifestyles in this country is the good old idiot box. And I'm not talking about the people who build televisions because RCA, Toshiba, Zenith, et. al. couldn't care less whether you ever turned on your TV after you purchase it, but rather commercial televison networks which make billions of dollars every year trying as hard as they can to get as many people as possible to watch as much of their programming as possible, preferably while eating a McDonald's hamburger accompanied by a bag of Nacho Cheesier Doritos and a Coke (or a Budweiser - they're not THAT picky).

Re:Television HAS To Go First Here

[Babbster]

My point was that commercials aren't what need this kind of "sin tax" but rather the television networks themselves (perhaps for every 40 minutes of programming) - they're the ones getting the money to RUN the commercials and they're the ones providing the programming where the commercials run. While the commercials might indeed be encouraging unhealthy lifestyles, nobody would watch them if there was no "entertainment" programming. Commercials don't stick people to the couch, CSI does.

Re:Television HAS To Go First Here

[Lars T.]

Better yet: Ban the remote control! Now that would get people moving.

Re:Television HAS To Go First Here

[Ender Ryan]

How bout not? Is a nanny state what we really want to have?

I think I'll continue to decide what I eat and what I do with my own time, thankyouverymuch.

Re:Television HAS To Go First Here

[davidhan]

Fat people existed before the TV was invented. Look at old pictures and paintings.

I wonder if there will be ads in the style of the anti-smoking or anti-drug ads. "This is your ass." (cut to thin person in a thong) "This is your ass on a lifetime of bacon double cheeseburgers!" (cut to sequence of fatter and fatter people in same thong)

Re:Television HAS To Go First Here

[Babbster]

You and the poster above you are absolutely right. Fat people have been around for years and years before fast food, TV, etc. AND we shouldn't be sin taxing all this stuff. I should have been more clear and said "If they feel they have to tax something causing obesity..."

I'm mostly a libertarian at heart and believe that this kind of behavior tax is just a way for "tax-and-spend" folks (I hate to use that term because it gets bandied about too much - it just fits so well) to get additional revenue streams. They put a gloss on it by making it out to be a measure to encourage a healthy lifestyle, but the reality is that they just want more money in the government coffers.

Of course, all that is why I'd rather new taxes (if they simply have to be collected) be levied on those who can best afford it - huge multinational corporations (Disney, Viacom and GE in the cases of the big three networks). Doing otherwise (particularly in the case of a fast food tax) just penalizes people who are in lower income brackets since a lot more people with an income around poverty level eat fast food than do millionaires.

Of course, I would first recomend that everyone in Mr. Ortiz's district get together and talk about the possibility of recalling the guy. He seems pretty out of touch with what state legislatures are supposed to be doing.

More direct approach

[misuba]

How about a tax on foods of which more than 50% of the caloric content is provided by carbohydrates and sugars?

But then, the grain growers have actual lobbyists even at the state level, whereas video game producers couldn't find a domed, white building with hacked in-game radar and a 17" monitor.

Re:More direct approach

[lpontiac]

How about a tax on foods of which more than 50% of the caloric content is provided by carbohydrates and sugars?

Like bread? :)

I think you maybe meant fat instead of carbohydrates... although that's still problematic since iirc whole milk, which is a dietary staple for most and generally healthy in sane quantities, is rather fatty.

Re:More direct approach

[samael]

Yes, like bread.

Go and read about the Atkins diet, or check out the Scientific American article here for more information.

Re:More direct approach

[ealar dlanvuli]

Uh, you mean bread? Sorry, no.

Re:More direct approach

[ealar dlanvuli]

Oh now I see, you want laws passed that will tax people for 20+ years before repeal based on a fad diet.

Brilliance in it's best...

or wait

Re:More direct approach

[recursiv]

Yeah, the atkins diet, because it's totally *not* bullshit!

Maybe you should read more about it.

Re:More direct approach

[mcgroarty]

Yesh. Taxing bread is a little silly.

There may be some small merit to taxing simple carbs (sugar, corn syrup), but not just carbs as a whole.

Re:More direct approach

[Tralfamadorian]

I would say that taxing bread makes more sense than taxing video games. Modern bread is an unhealthy food. Now, if we could tax pasta, and promote eating vegetables, we'd be all set.

Though you are right that simple carbs are even worse.

Of course, I don't support taxing anybody for any of these things.

Re:More direct approach

[Dot.Com.CEO]

There are millions of people who have lost weight and actually LOWERED their chollesterol levels and blood pressure because of that diet. I am one of them. I had been trying to lose weight for years, tried almost everything there is out there and, indeed, Atkins seemed a bit over the top. I mean, a fat-based diet that makes you lose weight?

You can throw all the analysis articles you find on the web on why Atkins does not work. They are mostly written by hapless individuals who cannot accept the main fact: done properly, Atkins not only works, it is the only diet that provides you with the know-how to keep the weight down. The lipolysis stage, which most such analysis seem to be obsessed upon is but the first stage of the diet and is there to switch your metabolism.

I, in fact, have more than a stupid article to base my belief that Atkins works. I have done it under proper medical supervision. I have lost 40 lbs, gained muscle mass and lowered my cholesterol levels and blood pressure. I have not eaten a slice of bread for 4 months now and I don't feel the need for it. I advise Atkins to everyone who has a weight problem and no preconceptions.

The only thing I found annoying about Atkins is the whole "motivation" angle and the super-annoying promotional web site but I guess some people might appreciate it...

Re:More direct approach

[ichimunki]

The studies show that there is significant short-term success with the Atkins diet when compared against more traditional diets, however, they also seem to show that long-term there is no real difference. I suspect any diet that relies on anything other than simply trying to eat smaller portions of generally healthier foods (like fruits, vegetables, lean meats, non-meat proteins like beans, whole grains, etc). Of course, I've never had a serious weight problem and if I have to pay a Democratic-inspired "fat tax" on video games because they're supposedly making me fat, I'm going to start voting for the meanest, nastiest Republicans I can find just to get my passive-aggressive frustrations out. If anything, excessive gaming has caused me to eat less over the years because it's very difficult to eat and play games at the same time.

As for cholesterol and blood pressure, everything I've read indicates that what you eat is not nearly as important as getting enough exercise.

Re:More direct approach

[hlh_nospam]

How about a tax on foods of which more than 50% of the caloric content is provided by carbohydrates and sugars?

Ah, somebody who actually understands the primary cause of obesity. Problem is, the lawmakers in question don't, and they are just following the popular low-fat superstition, proposed and preached mainly by diet-guru-wannabes with MDs, some of whom have discovered one or two things that actually appear to work, and immediately concluded that they have all of the answers. Some of them (notably Ornish) either didn't understand the question, or answered the wrong one.

I would like to point out some interesting facts:

1) I have personally lost over 100 lbs on a high-fat diet (around 55% calories from fat at this point), and kept it off for 3 years now. In addition to the weight loss, I experienced several other major health improvements, most of which occurred within a few weeks of the time I started restricting the sugar and starch in my diet, and long before I actually lost a substantial amount of weight. I initially gained most of the excess weight following a low-fat diet.

2) I have personally surveyed several hundred 'studies', and have found that most, if not all, 'studies' in nutrition have essentially nothing to do with science. They appear to follow the general pattern of a) form a conclusion, b) do some 'research', c) toss out any data that doesn't reinforce the conclusion, d) get the 'research' reviewed by other folks that have already accepted the conclusion, and e) get published in some mutual-admiration-society journal. Even if some of the data in part c is included, the conclusion is published intact, and most MDs will read only the abstract anyway, and will never realize that the data either does not support, or may even contradict, the conclusion.

3) All of the evidence that I have found (anecdotal and otherwise) indicates that one of the most important keys to a long and healthy life (other than safety items like wearing your seatbelt and not operating heavy machinery under the influence of mood-altering drugs) is to reduce the body's need for insulin. There are three (approximately equally important) factors involved, namely, diet, sleep, and exercise.

4) So far, I have not been able to locate any 'study' where carbohydrate consumption was reduced which did not result in multiple health improvements, even in those 'studies' where the resulting health improvements were attributed to other causes. My favorite example of a study falling into the latter category can be found here. BTW, I read this study when it first came out, and the phrase "and sugar" was added to the abstract only after the 'researchers' got some rather nasty public feedback concerning the fact that they had not proven their case (both of the 'researchers' involved in this circus are so-called "ethical vegetarians", which only shows that being an "ethical vegetarian" is a serious impediment to doing real science). Note that the title was not changed.

5) Since the nanny-state not only has no clue whatever about what constitutes a good diet, but also is not really concerned with my health, I strongly prefer that they quit trying to tell me what I should eat. That is not a legitimate function of government. I have already conclusively demonstrated that I can do a better job of maintaining my health than they can, anyway.

Re:More direct approach

[samael]

The New England Journal of Medicine recently published studies showing thayt it worked fantastically well for lowering cholestorol levels and suchlike.

It seems to work well for lots of people losing weight as well. I've certainly lost weight on it.

Re:More direct approach

[lpontiac]

I know about the Atkins diet. (Disclaimer: My employer is in the weight loss field. I am, however, a programmer, not a dietician, and anything I state hear is certainly not endorsed by them..)

Basically, the Atkins diet puts your body into a kind of shock which causes it to shed wait. It certainly seems to work for some people, however it's not the healthiest way to lose weight, and it certainly isn't the healthiest way for people who are already a healthy weight to maintain (rather than gain) weight.

Also, my understanding of the Atkins diet is that you need to cut out ALL your carbs (well, keep it to an absolutely negligible level) for ketosis to kick in, which is what causes the dramatic weight loss. To not reduce, but actually ELIMINATE carbs, you'd need a tax on stuff with ANY carb in it (not 50%) and it'd need to be a hundred dollar tax to stop people from eating so much as a sandwich per day.

Re:More direct approach

[samael]

I'm on The High Proten Diet (as the book is called) and that restricts me to 40g of carbs a day.

This has helped enormously with my cravings (they basically stopped 2 days after I started the diet) and I no longer feel like I'm on a cycle of ups and downs.

Re:More direct approach

[Hard_Code]

Weight loss diet != healthy lifestyle

While the Atkins diet might slim you down fast, the real test is whether this can be maintained as a healthy lifestyle. Eat steak and eggs and fat all the time on the Atkins diet and come back 20 years later and see whether you are net more healthy or less healthy than someone on another diet (e.g. Ornish).

For short term weight loss for people with *immediately* harmful lifestyles (e.g. obese people with severe risk of cardiovascular disease, heartattack, etc.), it may turn out to be safer to go on the Atkins diet and damn the consequences than to NOT go on the Atkins diet and, say, die of a heart attack.

Only time will tell whether it is maintainable, but it is certainly not a "natural" diet (cavemen would NOT be eating so much meat...meat was very hard to obtain relative to other food sources).

Re:More direct approach

[jafuser]

This is an excellent post. I've had some experience with low-carb diets as well, and their effect can be quite remarkable. The key is to find a balance which you can sustain for the long term...

I think the best balance seems to be doing some kind of activity after indulging in high-carb foods, so that the starches are used up instead of stored away...

I find it too difficult to avoid high carb foods altogether, as they are *everywhere*, so I find that this is a good method to keep the pounds off without going having any crazy limitations on what I can eat...

Re:More direct approach

[hlh_nospam]

come back 20 years later and see whether you are net more healthy or less healthy than someone on another diet (e.g. Ornish).

All Ornish 'proved' was that exersize is so good for you that it even reverses some of the damage done to your body by a very-low-fat diet. Read his 'studies', and you will learn that he had a very loose grasp of scientific method.

So far, I have yet to locate any research in which carbohydrate was reduced, and there were no health improvements, even in 'studies' where the health improvements were assumed to be from some other cause (I posted an example elsewhere in this thread).

So far, I have yet to locate any research that demonstrated any problems with a high-fat diet that could not be directly attributed to excessive carbohydrate consumption, or excessive trans-fat consumption, or both. My own experience confirms that. 4 years into low-carb/high-fat, and my blood lipids and blood pressure are much better than they were when I started -- and continue to improve. Not to mention that my bg is now constant around 90. Or that the pain in my hands never came back.

OTOH, there is no evidence that a long-term low-fat diet is healthy, and a substantial body of evidence that it is not.

cavemen would NOT be eating so much meat...

Next time you are in the wilderness with only a rock and a sharp stick, and no other technology, be sure to make a list of all the high-carb goodies that are available. Better yet, look up the research of Dr. Loren Cordain before you venture out. The paleo diet was almost all meat, eggs, and insects, with a bit of seasonal fruits (and paleo fruits did not have several generations of selective cultivation for high sugar content). In fact paleo humans were responsible for some large-scale mammalian extinctions, which in turn lead to the agricultural 'revolution' and the subsequent shortening of the maximum lifespan.

How about a tax on /. subscriptions?

[njchick]

Just imagine how much time it takes to get an FP! That would certainly contribute to obesity.

Easier solution

[flatface]

Promote DDR.

Re:Easier solution

[Hard_Code]

"Promote DDR."

Yeah! Deutsche Demokratische Republik! Go East Germany!

uh..

Anyone else notice the funny error?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>television commercials, which Ortiz blames on New York's growing obesity problem

It doesn't say "blames for", it says "blames on".

That's interesting. Isn't it scary to think that New York's obesity problem is causing television commercials?

Causing junk food and video games is one thing, but television commercials? That's an incentive for a diet.

Tax the parents

[KU_Fletch]

Seriously, tax the fricken parents. Make your kids go to the docotor for a checkup every year. If your kid comes back overweight, you pay a few more dollars. I gaurantee you that obesity in this country would start to drop if we forced parents to start acting like parents. Sign your kid up for a freaking soccer team or something. It's amazing how much weight little Johnny will lose if he has to go run around during practice and games a few times a week. Get your kids to eat pasta, salads, fruit. God forbid they might not like that you're making them live a healthy lifestyle. You can either have slightly discontent but healthy kids that'll have long, full lives and forget why they're mad at you quickly, or you can have lardass children that love you to death as a parent for no good reason, but will never get out of the house and will die of a heart attack before you ever croak.

But wait, we don't want to force parents to be grown ups. Screw that. Let's have all the adults keep acting like children. Point and blame other people for all the problems with your kids. Ignore reality. Act like a bratty 10 year old with legislative powers. Grow up adults, and start acting like one.

Re:Tax the parents

[Tralfamadorian]

Yeah, the solution is to tax people. Good plan!

Re:That's a reach

[skinfitz]

Video games cause obesity, so we'll tax them? Give me a break. I can think of a few other things have a much more direct effect on a persons body weight. Like, I dunno, food for example? I think it could be proven that the more food you eat, the more likely you are to be obese. Especially fast food.. why not tax that?

Believe it or not, something similar has recently been proposed in the UK. The BBC has recently reported that it is proposed that fatty foods should be taxed in the UK.

I was wondering recently if taxing things to artificially increase the price actually discourages people from wanting them. Cigarettes for example - I don't smoke and I dont know about the US but in the UK they are expensive however does making something more difficult to get hold of decrease the desire to aquire it or increase it? If cigarettes were free, would kids start to smoke? I believe that increasing the price has the reverse effect - kids want it more; the worst part - how do they get the money? Some will turn to petty crime. People do not stop wanting things because they are expensive, however only honest people will accept they can't afford things and leave it at that.

That's what you get...

[Dreetje]

for calling games PHAT!

Tax B&N

[jayrtfm]

And a special tax on Barnes and Noble, since the rise in obesity clearly corresponds to the growth of their chain.

And while we're at it, how about a red wine exemption from the state liquor tax, since the health benefits of moderate consumption have been long known.

Write to him.

[Anonymous Coward]

Web site

Assemblyman Felix Ortiz
404 55th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11220

Advice from a skinny person to fat people:

The solution to overcoming obesity is very, very simple: STOP EATING SO MUCH. Put down that cheeseburger, lard-ass. I have no sympathy for you. Eating makes you larger. It's that simple.

(1) See a doctor. Follow his advice, not mine - I am not a doctor and am not going to be in any way responsible if you die after following my instructions.

(2) Eat moderately sized healthy meals, 3 times a day. Lots of vegetables.

(3) Don't eat between meals. I mean it. Put down that donut. No chips for you. If you must snack, no more than twice a day - and eat fruit instead of crap.

(4) If the grease on your food turns your napkin transparent - don't eat it. It's bad for you. Delivery pizza is not a health food, neither are 50% of the foods in the frozen section of your supermarket.

(5) The simplest foods tend to be the most healthy - and easy to prepare. eg: fruit, meat (grilled), rice.

(6) Exercise. Go for a walk. Take the stairs. I'm not saying go for a 4-mile run just yet (I think it's enjoyable, but you will probably die if you're super-fat). Baby steps. Or horrible huge lurching, waddling steps in your case.

If you don't follow the above and die as a result of being fat - I could not care less. Get the hell out of the gene pool.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand:

This "game tax" is a laughable excuse for raising government money. I'm amazed at the lengths that politicians will go to when they want to weasel some extra money out of the populace without admitting to it. So they pick on those they consider a minority - enough to raise the money they want, but not enough to piss off their core block of voters. All under the guise of "helping" the consumer.

They tax you when you earn it, tax you when you spend it. Personal grudges against certain segments of the media are not exactly professional. First games but then what? A special tax on movies? Television? Books? All are equally likely to make someone sit down for a bit.

New Tax

[Rutje]

Excellent idea! Also let's tax McDonalds for the same reason, let's tax cars for the same reason, let's tax sport because sproting can injure you, let's tax politicians because they give you headaches...
TAX IT ALL!!!

Better ways to combat obesity

[erroneous]

... such as not having sex with fat people.

Re:Better ways to combat obesity

[Tralfamadorian]

This was moderated as 'funny', but it's the best idea that's been posted!

Re:Better ways to combat obesity

[Fished]

As a fat person, let me just say that I've had no complaints from my not-fat wife. Don't knock it till you try it.

Re:Better ways to combat obesity

[erroneous]

"Once you've had Fat you never go back"

- Fat Bastard, Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me

Curious

[AvantLegion]

If Ortiz were a Republican, we'd be hearing the whole "damn Republicans - the source of all our ills!" screams.

This idea is clearly bad. The money, even if 100% of it goes to what it is supposed to (not likely, but hey) would still be unlikely to actually accomplish anything.

Pointless taxing is not the answer. Ever.

Want me to lose weight?

[clambake]

Pay me. Serious, go ahead and pay me for the trouble and I'll be thin as a twig in no time... But spend that same money on after school specials and "research programs" and I'll go out of my way to not only get fat myself, but encourage others to do so too.

Unfortunately, the logical solution to every problem has to step aside so everyone's pet projects can get a piece of the pie. Now
*there* is an obeseity problem I would love to see cleaned up.

No problem, but the money gained must come back

[jago25_98]

Whenever these `we'll tax this to discourage it` stories come out there's never the other side of the revenue flow covered.

If the exact amount of money gained from the tax is spent in a single, easily identifiable, positive way, such as PUTTING GYMS UNDER THE SPOTLIGHT, for being waaaay too expesive, you may get some support.

Obesity prevention?

[DamienMcKenna]

That's easy, eat more meat, less carbohydrates, works wonders.

Why not add a tax on fuel

[SmallFurryCreature]

American gasoline is extremely cheap compared to europe because of the lack of taxes on fuel. So americans drive far more causing an awful lot of polution.

Slap on a huge tax increase and you will kill two birds with one stone. More americans who will walk (okay waddle) and it will reduce polution.

Re:Why not add a tax on fuel

[KMAPSRULE]

THis would probably backfire and people would become even more obese as now all they would do is stay home and watch TV. Seriously, have you ever been to a Government housing complex where the majority of the people have no cars?? There is usually a store within a block or 2 of the Complex so that people really dont have to walk that far and Comparatively speaking the people in these complexes tend to be a lot more obese on average than people living in an area where the majority of people have cars.

The other insidious side affect of "slapping on a huge tax increase" to gasoline is to really hurt the economy...especially businesses that run fleets of vehicles, and it really hurts the average Joe in the rural areas where many people may be commuting long distances to get to work (there is no public transportation system in the sticks--I know first hand I grew up in the sticks).

Taxation is never the answer cause there is no such thing as our Gvmt. "living within their means" especially in NYS

And as for pollution why aren't the car manufactures being given huge incentives to make the 100+mpg engines? and to make the Hybrid cars more affordable?? I would love a hybrid, just cant afford it.

Re:Why not add a tax on fuel

[j-turkey]

Thank you! I was just going to say something along those lines.

The majority of fossil fuel burned in this country is not being burned by the consumer automobile. Fossil fuels are used just about everywhere our economy touches. From the tractor that harvests your food and tills your field, to the trucks that deliver that food. Don't forget how much fossil fuel is used to manufacture your microchips. Electricity is used everywhere, and it's largely fossil fuel-based.

If the government(s) increased tax on gasoline, we'd all get screwed. Prices for everything would haveto skyrocket. More taxes are never a good idea. This country was founded on the principle that people are basically smart, and they have the facilities to do the right thing. Is doesn't make sense to tax us into doing (what someone else thinks is) the right thing.

--Turkey

Perhaps The Lawmakers Didn't Learn In School?

[robbway]

I found a link to a copy of an old NY Times article (no membership req'd this time) Decline In Physical Fitness Programs. If the article is accurate, the Federal Government must have relaxed its regs on Phys Ed and nutrition requirements at schools. It appears to support the thesis that lack of fitness is bad time management.

Sounds to me like the real problem is what they eat. Eat more junk food, get more health promotion! Of course, you'll only see the ads while chompin' on your Tater Chips, because they're on TV.

Like the anti-smoking ads, the funding source of anti-fat ads is suspect. You can't promote a good activity without the presence of the bad one. Currently, if smoking declines, the anti-smoking ads stop, and if they were working before, smoking will increase again. Same thing with a Pork Rinds tax. It's like trying to increase your state's revenue by skimming .1% off of every State Treasury transaction.

WARNING: Excessive food consumption leads to nutritional imbalance, plus you'll be ugly and never get a date. Don't come crying to us on prom night. 10% off your next purchase of Lard Ash Chips with this disclaimer!

The Onion predicted this

[MobyDisk]

I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh (yea, so shoot me!) many years back, and he was saying how having a cigarette tax would open up the door to taxation of whatever the government thought was "evil." He did his usual over-extreme exaggeration and talked about a "twinkie" tax and a bunch of other utterly ridiculous taxes. I laughed at how stupid he was, and then one day -- McDonalds was sued for selling fatty foods -- New York proposed a tax on video games for making people fat -- and I became a believer.

But The Onion said it best here: Hershey's Ordered to Pay Obese Americans $135 Billion

Re:The Onion predicted this

[Ender Ryan]

Yes, he told you so. It is utterly ridiculous that people think taxing Bad(TM) things is a good idea. First of all, the taxes never end up going where they're supposed to go, because deficits are the norm and money will always be diverted where it is need the most Right Now. Secondly, everyone definition of what is Bad(TM) is different, so I submit that it is hypocritical to promote "diversity" (a pet word of many Democrats) while at the same time defining what is Bad(TM).

Re:The Onion predicted this

[scot4875]

First of all, the taxes never end up going where they're supposed to go

You mean, like oil wars and missile defense systems?

--Jeremy

yay! Taxes are always the answer!

[Mantrid]

Give me a break, any bloody excuse to add a new tax, and I guess it shouldn't surprise anyone that this is a NY State idea. Enough freaking taxes already! The government already has more than it needs.

(pictures government officals having money fights with wads of our money)

A better idea...

[jetsfandb]

Fine any politician $100,000 for each moronic idea they propose. That way, we can fund all the special programs we want, elminate any budget and trade deficits, pay off the national debt, and have enough left over to feed a third world country.

I wrote my assemblyman...and this joker:

[j-turkey]

Heh -- I wrote this guy an email, as well as my own NYS assemblyman. I've given up on the formalities of writing political emails and just sorta get to the nasty point (at least, when I'm really pissed off).

To the honorable assemblyman Felix Oritz,

I am writing concerning your proposed tax on video games, fat, and commercials to pay for NYS' anti-obesity program.

I am writing because I am against this proposal, which clearly flies in the face of freedom and choice. This proposed tax hike will alienate every New Yorker who eats fatty foods or plays video game -- as well a many business owners...which is pretty much every New Yorker. Do you really want your name on that tax hike? In this time of financial crisis, for the state, New York's cities, and many of the great state's citizens -- do you think that this program is a good idea? Do you really think that New Yorkers are willing to swing *another* tax hike -- this time on the stuff we really like?

I can answer this for you in a word: "NO".

Let's stop this witch hunt now...it will NOT help anyone, and will certainly not help your political career. Even though I'm sure this bill will never pass, I now understand the nature of your political character. Be glad that I'm not your constituent, since you would have just lost my vote. Does this reflect the politics of your party? If so, they've lost my vote too.

Regards,
-- Jive-ass Turkey (I changed my name for /. ...duh)

Well -- the insulting informality of this one may not go too far...but at least someone's doing something.

--Turkey

It takes two hands

[techstar25]

It takes two hands to hold a video came controller, leaving no free hand to reach for the Doritos. Television watching, however, frees up one hand for the beer AND the other for the chips.

Tax on poor people

[svallarian]

You can't do that...it would be a direct tax on the lowest income families...

For example, most lower income familys around here in Mississippi shop at a store called Sav-A-Lot. This store has better prices on canned goods than wal-mart (they actually take a loss on each can of corn, beans, etc sold), but most of they're other food they sell is EXTREMELY high in saturated fat and calories.

Of course, it's cheap too, and most poor people don't give a damn what they're eating as long as they can get full.

Putting a tax on such items would directly effect the poor...

Steven V.

Re:Tax on poor people

[moncyb]

Ahh...someone who knows the message. Here is a news story about it.

one more reason to get a mod chip

[reklis]

All this REALLY does is encourage these overweight kids to get on the computer more and read about how to solder and install a mod chip

fuck taxes

Re:one more reason to get a mod chip

[reklis]

Come to think of it... do they only tax you IF your fat? All the fat kids will be giving their money to skinny kids and making them go buying their games for them....

Sounds like it's time to get in shape and earn a profit!

Re:That's a reach

[SaturdayNight]

I think it would. Personally, I eat healthy, a lot, but it drives me crazy that I could just grab a Quarter Pounder combo at McD's for 3.99 (CDN), when my salad/sub/diet coke, costs 7 bucks all together. I think that the price of food really would change eating patterns. When it comes to cmoking, those people are addicts, plus the cost is drawn out over a longer period : a pack of smokes lasts what, maybe couple days or something, so they forget how much they paid, and just get irritated at the next time. meanwhile food is very immediate, you're done in about 10 minutes, and you realize you just spent X + tax on junk food, maybe it'll discourage people. Something has to be done, this doesn't seem too bad an idea.

Games a fatboy does not make

[butane_bob2003]

Fat does not make one fat either. What makes people fat is that they are friggin lazy, and consume sugar like its going out of style. Most people dont know what sugar is: Corn, wheat, starches, peanuts, soft drinks (corn syrup), etc. Fatty foods don't really make people fat either. I eat plenty of meat and fatty stuff. So if you think you eat healthy and your diet is mostly grains, your wrong! People are fat because they are taught how to eat with a food pyramid, the base of which is mostly grains. Most common grains usually turn into sugar when they are metabolized. Anyway, thanks for reading at -1(offtopic)

Slim Chance?

[Associate]

Fortunately, the proposal is believed to have a "slim chance" of passing into law.

Are we sure thats not a "Fat Chance?" Funny how two words that are opposites can mean the same thing when tacked on to the front of same word.

other revenue sources

[Washizu]

Why don't we tax:

Sofas and recliners
Cordless phones
Remote controls
Large refrigerators
Drive through windows

How'd this start?

[Zico]

What happen, he get stuck having to share a cab with Jerry Nadler while going to a Democrat event in NYC?

Video games for slimming

[Derkec]

A couple friends of mine who are games are admittedly a bit chunky have really benifitted from the advent of Dance Dance Revolution. It might be the only way some people will get regular exercise. I think in the future we'll see an increasing number of these sorts of games.

It's not that hard...

[hlh_nospam]

I've had some experience with low-carb diets as well, and their effect can be quite remarkable. The key is to find a balance which you can sustain for the long term...

I have found my balance. Been on low-carb for a little over 4 years now, and don't intend to stop, ever. Pretty simple and easy to remember: No sugar, no bread, no potatoes. No processed foods containing sugar, grains, or starch. Fairly easy to follow, too, especially after the pain in my hands suddenly and completely left me... That only leaves, let's see, several dozen different vegetables, several dozen meats, and a few dozen relatively low-carb fruits. Oh, and nuts. Love those nuts. And don't forget the butter, cheese, and cream! Interestingly, my diet is substantially more varied than the SAD. Especially since a principal criticism of the diet is lack of variety.

I've got this really fabulous recipe for pizza (no crust)... Did you know that using heavy whipping cream in your coffee (instead of that non-dairy whitening crap) renders it a completely different beverage (yum!)? Until I got tired of them, I had 'waffles' for breakfast nearly every morning. Today, I had ribeye steak and eggs instead. Yesterday, it was tuna salad and cantaloupe.

I find it amusing that the same people who criticize low-carb as having "lack of variety" eat the same damned thing for breakfast nearly every day of their lives... And the SAD consists of roughly 15 menu items, period. I have had more than 15 different foods in the last 3 days.

I have also found a number of restaurants that will cater to my low-carb preferences, so eating out is not a problem. OTOH, there are a number of places I don't bother with -- such as barbeque joints that put sugar into absolutely everything on the menu, and chinese all-you-can-eats that put cornstarch into everything on the buffet.

I find it too difficult to avoid high carb foods altogether, as they are *everywhere*, so I find that this is a good method to keep the pounds off without going having any crazy limitations on what I can eat...

I have no trouble avoiding sugars and starches in my diet, because the negative effects they have on me are very pronounced. I don't feel particularly deprived, because I am no longer hungry all the damned time, which makes what looks to everyone else like 'willpower' very easy. The problem of 24/7 nonstop disinformation is handled by not watching TV commercials and ignoring the well-meaning fools who solemnly 'inform' me that my kidneys are going to fall out.

Oh, and I located a doctor who actually listens to me, and is low-carb friendly, so I have that base covered, too.

BTW, my favorite author on the subject is Ray Audette. For those of you already familiar with his writing, no, I don't follow the paleo diet, for 2 reasons. First of all, I like dairy products (and coffee) too much to completely give them up, and secondly, the paleo diet just isn't really available anyway, so the best you can do is approximate it.

Once again, ladies and gentlemen, Jack Jr.

[Shanoyu]

Jak Jr. standing for "Just another knee jerk response", or Jack Jr. if you're that sort of person.

Although we cannot define this politican by his traditionally defined political allegiances, it is quickly becomming apparent that a new alliance has formed across party and ideological lines.

By no means can this alliance of Neo-conservatives, "family values" liberals and a host of centrists agree on all things. The only thing they truely agree on is the fact that America requires a return to social and cultural values that are closer to the fifties than the sixties. For many this involves toning down violence in the media, for some this concerns discouraging homosexuality, and apparently for still fewer this involves legislating against what they perceive as the symptoms of our corrupt culture.

The logic of this mindset is clearly apparent in the law. "Video games cause fat, therefore, tax video games to stop fat."

I sincerely hope that people recognize how dangerous this group is to the rights of a majority of Americans.

Advice from a formerly fat person to a skinny one

[hlh_nospam]

You would look a lot less foolish if you didn't make public pronouncements on a topic which you don't understand and with which you have no experience. I could take apart your diet 'advice' point by point, but I'll be brief -- the only point you came even close on was exercise.