Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Taxing for your own good... enough already!
Taxing for your own good... enough already!
The NY Times had a fascinating write up on Clinton's proposed health
care plan. And once again I saw the same old requirement for funding.
Let's tax tobacco more!
Taxing a shrinking group more and more doesn't make for a smart policy.
Yes, we need a healthcare program that works. But time and time again
the only suggested method of paying for it has been to tax tobacco
users, as if the tobacco users are the only people in society that
should pay for the unhealthy lifestyles of everyone.
Well, the problem is that the more you tax this shrinking group, the
more the group shrinks. I guess that would be good news, except it's
hard to fund a realistic program costing billions on the backs of an
ever shrinking pool. That last federal increase on tobacco (prior to
this latest round of talks for funding S-Chip) was in 1999 and was
phased in over a two year period. In just a five-year period from 2000
through 2005, tobacco tax collections rose 45 percent, according to the
Department of Commerce. Not even property taxes have grown that fast,
despite a housing bubble that pushed property taxes up at a historically
rapid pace, starting a nationwide flurry of property tax relief measures
So, let's look at some other culprits to tax that haven't had to pick up
their fair share of the damage that they do to society. Taxes on tobacco
products increased three times faster than alcohol taxes, the other
major "sin tax," from 2000 to 2005. The most likely reason for the
disparity is that a majority of citizens enjoys alcohol while smokers
are a minority, about 20 percent of the population nationwide.
In the last 55 years the Federal tax on alcohol has been raised only
once for beer and wine, and only twice for liquor. On top of that the
taxes are flat rate taxes, not percentage of cost taxes, so over time
the real value of the tax has dropped considerably as it has been eaten
away by inflation. In addition, the federal tax on beer wine and hard
liquor is all different based on the product rather than being based on
the actual alcohol (beer, wine and hard liquor are all taxed at
different rates - beer and wine being taxed at a much lower level).
The known costs of alcohol abuse, drunk driving and underage drinking
are over $185 Billion dollars a year. The income in 2007 from the
federal alcohol tax was less than $18 Billion dollars. The last time the
tax on alcohol was raised was in 1990.
Unlike tobacco tax increases which the lowest 20% of wage earners pay
the highest portion of the taxes in relation to income, the alcohol tax
would actually reverse that and the top 20% of all earners would
actually pay the largest portion of taxes.
In addition, one thing not discussed is the increase in diabetes (what
does this have to do with alcohol... well alcohol becomes sugar, but in
reality this was a not-so-smooth transitional paragraph to another area
for taxation - read on). More than 16 million people in the United
States have diabetes in 2000, about a third more than had the disease in
1990. Increases were reported among all adults, but the most dramatic
increase -- a 70 percent jump -- was seen in people aged 30 to 39. Among
those 40 to 49, the rate of diabetes increased by 40 percent, and it was
up 31 percent for those 50 to 59. A study from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that the prevalence of diabetes rose
5% annually since 1990 and shows no signs of slowing or stopping.
Not only does the Federal government not tax sugar, but it provides
subsidies for the industry.
The point here is that there are any number of options available to the
American people that would do what the nanny's want to do, "change bad
behaviors" and also raise money that don't include ever increasing
taxation on an ever shrinking group of people (who have the lowest
incomes and have the least disposable income to afford to carry such an
onerous tax).
Providing every American with access to healthcare is a very good thing.
Ensuring that there is a valid funding mechanism for doing so is
paramount in determining how it can be done. It is time to get past the
demonizing of the tobacco industry and their consumers as the group that
has to carry this burden and address the simple fact that this group can
not carry this burden and provide a viable funding source for such a
program. It insults the intelligence of the people to claim that they can.
Now, the only question remaining is do we continue nanny taxing and go
after alcohol and sugar as the next major revenue source, or do we come
up with another way of funding such a program that is fair and equitable?
The NY Times had a fascinating write up on Clinton's proposed health
care plan. And once again I saw the same old requirement for funding.
Let's tax tobacco more!
Taxing a shrinking group more and more doesn't make for a smart policy.
Yes, we need a healthcare program that works. But time and time again
the only suggested method of paying for it has been to tax tobacco
users, as if the tobacco users are the only people in society that
should pay for the unhealthy lifestyles of everyone.
Well, the problem is that the more you tax this shrinking group, the
more the group shrinks. I guess that would be good news, except it's
hard to fund a realistic program costing billions on the backs of an
ever shrinking pool. That last federal increase on tobacco (prior to
this latest round of talks for funding S-Chip) was in 1999 and was
phased in over a two year period. In just a five-year period from 2000
through 2005, tobacco tax collections rose 45 percent, according to the
Department of Commerce. Not even property taxes have grown that fast,
despite a housing bubble that pushed property taxes up at a historically
rapid pace, starting a nationwide flurry of property tax relief measures
So, let's look at some other culprits to tax that haven't had to pick up
their fair share of the damage that they do to society. Taxes on tobacco
products increased three times faster than alcohol taxes, the other
major "sin tax," from 2000 to 2005. The most likely reason for the
disparity is that a majority of citizens enjoys alcohol while smokers
are a minority, about 20 percent of the population nationwide.
In the last 55 years the Federal tax on alcohol has been raised only
once for beer and wine, and only twice for liquor. On top of that the
taxes are flat rate taxes, not percentage of cost taxes, so over time
the real value of the tax has dropped considerably as it has been eaten
away by inflation. In addition, the federal tax on beer wine and hard
liquor is all different based on the product rather than being based on
the actual alcohol (beer, wine and hard liquor are all taxed at
different rates - beer and wine being taxed at a much lower level).
The known costs of alcohol abuse, drunk driving and underage drinking
are over $185 Billion dollars a year. The income in 2007 from the
federal alcohol tax was less than $18 Billion dollars. The last time the
tax on alcohol was raised was in 1990.
Unlike tobacco tax increases which the lowest 20% of wage earners pay
the highest portion of the taxes in relation to income, the alcohol tax
would actually reverse that and the top 20% of all earners would
actually pay the largest portion of taxes.
In addition, one thing not discussed is the increase in diabetes (what
does this have to do with alcohol... well alcohol becomes sugar, but in
reality this was a not-so-smooth transitional paragraph to another area
for taxation - read on). More than 16 million people in the United
States have diabetes in 2000, about a third more than had the disease in
1990. Increases were reported among all adults, but the most dramatic
increase -- a 70 percent jump -- was seen in people aged 30 to 39. Among
those 40 to 49, the rate of diabetes increased by 40 percent, and it was
up 31 percent for those 50 to 59. A study from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that the prevalence of diabetes rose
5% annually since 1990 and shows no signs of slowing or stopping.
Not only does the Federal government not tax sugar, but it provides
subsidies for the industry.
The point here is that there are any number of options available to the
American people that would do what the nanny's want to do, "change bad
behaviors" and also raise money that don't include ever increasing
taxation on an ever shrinking group of people (who have the lowest
incomes and have the least disposable income to afford to carry such an
onerous tax).
Providing every American with access to healthcare is a very good thing.
Ensuring that there is a valid funding mechanism for doing so is
paramount in determining how it can be done. It is time to get past the
demonizing of the tobacco industry and their consumers as the group that
has to carry this burden and address the simple fact that this group can
not carry this burden and provide a viable funding source for such a
program. It insults the intelligence of the people to claim that they can.
Now, the only question remaining is do we continue nanny taxing and go
after alcohol and sugar as the next major revenue source, or do we come
up with another way of funding such a program that is fair and equitable?
Re: Taxing for your own good... enough already!
"met00" <met00cigar@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:tlvJj.429$4O1.318@trnddc03...
> The NY Times had a fascinating write up on Clinton's proposed health care
> plan. And once again I saw the same old requirement for funding. Let's tax
> tobacco more!
>
> Taxing a shrinking group more and more doesn't make for a smart policy.
>
> Yes, we need a healthcare program that works. But time and time again the
> only suggested method of paying for it has been to tax tobacco users, as
> if the tobacco users are the only people in society that should pay for
> the unhealthy lifestyles of everyone.
>
> Well, the problem is that the more you tax this shrinking group, the more
> the group shrinks. I guess that would be good news, except it's hard to
> fund a realistic program costing billions on the backs of an ever
> shrinking pool. That last federal increase on tobacco (prior to this
> latest round of talks for funding S-Chip) was in 1999 and was phased in
> over a two year period. In just a five-year period from 2000 through 2005,
> tobacco tax collections rose 45 percent, according to the Department of
> Commerce. Not even property taxes have grown that fast, despite a housing
> bubble that pushed property taxes up at a historically rapid pace,
> starting a nationwide flurry of property tax relief measures
>
> So, let's look at some other culprits to tax that haven't had to pick up
> their fair share of the damage that they do to society. Taxes on tobacco
> products increased three times faster than alcohol taxes, the other major
> "sin tax," from 2000 to 2005. The most likely reason for the disparity is
> that a majority of citizens enjoys alcohol while smokers are a minority,
> about 20 percent of the population nationwide.
>
> In the last 55 years the Federal tax on alcohol has been raised only once
> for beer and wine, and only twice for liquor. On top of that the taxes are
> flat rate taxes, not percentage of cost taxes, so over time the real value
> of the tax has dropped considerably as it has been eaten away by
> inflation. In addition, the federal tax on beer wine and hard liquor is
> all different based on the product rather than being based on the actual
> alcohol (beer, wine and hard liquor are all taxed at different rates -
> beer and wine being taxed at a much lower level).
>
> The known costs of alcohol abuse, drunk driving and underage drinking are
> over $185 Billion dollars a year. The income in 2007 from the federal
> alcohol tax was less than $18 Billion dollars. The last time the tax on
> alcohol was raised was in 1990.
>
> Unlike tobacco tax increases which the lowest 20% of wage earners pay the
> highest portion of the taxes in relation to income, the alcohol tax would
> actually reverse that and the top 20% of all earners would actually pay
> the largest portion of taxes.
>
> In addition, one thing not discussed is the increase in diabetes (what
> does this have to do with alcohol... well alcohol becomes sugar, but in
> reality this was a not-so-smooth transitional paragraph to another area
> for taxation - read on). More than 16 million people in the United States
> have diabetes in 2000, about a third more than had the disease in 1990.
> Increases were reported among all adults, but the most dramatic
> increase -- a 70 percent jump -- was seen in people aged 30 to 39. Among
> those 40 to 49, the rate of diabetes increased by 40 percent, and it was
> up 31 percent for those 50 to 59. A study from the Centers for Disease
> Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that the prevalence of diabetes rose 5%
> annually since 1990 and shows no signs of slowing or stopping.
>
> Not only does the Federal government not tax sugar, but it provides
> subsidies for the industry.
>
> The point here is that there are any number of options available to the
> American people that would do what the nanny's want to do, "change bad
> behaviors" and also raise money that don't include ever increasing
> taxation on an ever shrinking group of people (who have the lowest incomes
> and have the least disposable income to afford to carry such an onerous
> tax).
>
> Providing every American with access to healthcare is a very good thing.
> Ensuring that there is a valid funding mechanism for doing so is paramount
> in determining how it can be done. It is time to get past the demonizing
> of the tobacco industry and their consumers as the group that has to carry
> this burden and address the simple fact that this group can not carry this
> burden and provide a viable funding source for such a program. It insults
> the intelligence of the people to claim that they can.
>
> Now, the only question remaining is do we continue nanny taxing and go
> after alcohol and sugar as the next major revenue source, or do we come up
> with another way of funding such a program that is fair and equitable?
Alcohol does not become a sugar. Alcohol is immediately metabolized in the
liver. In fact small doses of alcohol act as super insulin, they provide a
very quick entry for glucose into cells. This is why if you drink and do
not eat you get dizzy from low blood sugar. For some diabetics, a couple of
small drinks, such as red wine, taken with a meal can help keep glucose from
spiking afterwards. Alcohol also compromises the liver's ability to release
stored glycogen which is why diabetics who drink too much alcohol get
dangerously low blood sugar levels especially if they inject insulin. What
alcohol can do is to cause pancreatic inflammation. This makes for reduced
insulin production. Chronic pancreatic inflammation can permanently damage
the pancreas and make for a pre-diabetic condition. And not only does raw
sugar cause insulin spikes which lead to insuklin resistance, but a high
carb diet does this as well because carbs are immediatly converted to
glucose in the small intestin and stomach. Higher glycemic index carbs are
worse, this includes white bread and pasta and anything else made with
flour.
But yes, alcohol needs to be taxed more. Smokers are just a handy target.
Paul
"met00" <met00cigar@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:tlvJj.429$4O1.318@trnddc03...
> The NY Times had a fascinating write up on Clinton's proposed health care
> plan. And once again I saw the same old requirement for funding. Let's tax
> tobacco more!
>
> Taxing a shrinking group more and more doesn't make for a smart policy.
>
> Yes, we need a healthcare program that works. But time and time again the
> only suggested method of paying for it has been to tax tobacco users, as
> if the tobacco users are the only people in society that should pay for
> the unhealthy lifestyles of everyone.
>
> Well, the problem is that the more you tax this shrinking group, the more
> the group shrinks. I guess that would be good news, except it's hard to
> fund a realistic program costing billions on the backs of an ever
> shrinking pool. That last federal increase on tobacco (prior to this
> latest round of talks for funding S-Chip) was in 1999 and was phased in
> over a two year period. In just a five-year period from 2000 through 2005,
> tobacco tax collections rose 45 percent, according to the Department of
> Commerce. Not even property taxes have grown that fast, despite a housing
> bubble that pushed property taxes up at a historically rapid pace,
> starting a nationwide flurry of property tax relief measures
>
> So, let's look at some other culprits to tax that haven't had to pick up
> their fair share of the damage that they do to society. Taxes on tobacco
> products increased three times faster than alcohol taxes, the other major
> "sin tax," from 2000 to 2005. The most likely reason for the disparity is
> that a majority of citizens enjoys alcohol while smokers are a minority,
> about 20 percent of the population nationwide.
>
> In the last 55 years the Federal tax on alcohol has been raised only once
> for beer and wine, and only twice for liquor. On top of that the taxes are
> flat rate taxes, not percentage of cost taxes, so over time the real value
> of the tax has dropped considerably as it has been eaten away by
> inflation. In addition, the federal tax on beer wine and hard liquor is
> all different based on the product rather than being based on the actual
> alcohol (beer, wine and hard liquor are all taxed at different rates -
> beer and wine being taxed at a much lower level).
>
> The known costs of alcohol abuse, drunk driving and underage drinking are
> over $185 Billion dollars a year. The income in 2007 from the federal
> alcohol tax was less than $18 Billion dollars. The last time the tax on
> alcohol was raised was in 1990.
>
> Unlike tobacco tax increases which the lowest 20% of wage earners pay the
> highest portion of the taxes in relation to income, the alcohol tax would
> actually reverse that and the top 20% of all earners would actually pay
> the largest portion of taxes.
>
> In addition, one thing not discussed is the increase in diabetes (what
> does this have to do with alcohol... well alcohol becomes sugar, but in
> reality this was a not-so-smooth transitional paragraph to another area
> for taxation - read on). More than 16 million people in the United States
> have diabetes in 2000, about a third more than had the disease in 1990.
> Increases were reported among all adults, but the most dramatic
> increase -- a 70 percent jump -- was seen in people aged 30 to 39. Among
> those 40 to 49, the rate of diabetes increased by 40 percent, and it was
> up 31 percent for those 50 to 59. A study from the Centers for Disease
> Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that the prevalence of diabetes rose 5%
> annually since 1990 and shows no signs of slowing or stopping.
>
> Not only does the Federal government not tax sugar, but it provides
> subsidies for the industry.
>
> The point here is that there are any number of options available to the
> American people that would do what the nanny's want to do, "change bad
> behaviors" and also raise money that don't include ever increasing
> taxation on an ever shrinking group of people (who have the lowest incomes
> and have the least disposable income to afford to carry such an onerous
> tax).
>
> Providing every American with access to healthcare is a very good thing.
> Ensuring that there is a valid funding mechanism for doing so is paramount
> in determining how it can be done. It is time to get past the demonizing
> of the tobacco industry and their consumers as the group that has to carry
> this burden and address the simple fact that this group can not carry this
> burden and provide a viable funding source for such a program. It insults
> the intelligence of the people to claim that they can.
>
> Now, the only question remaining is do we continue nanny taxing and go
> after alcohol and sugar as the next major revenue source, or do we come up
> with another way of funding such a program that is fair and equitable?
Alcohol does not become a sugar. Alcohol is immediately metabolized in the
liver. In fact small doses of alcohol act as super insulin, they provide a
very quick entry for glucose into cells. This is why if you drink and do
not eat you get dizzy from low blood sugar. For some diabetics, a couple of
small drinks, such as red wine, taken with a meal can help keep glucose from
spiking afterwards. Alcohol also compromises the liver's ability to release
stored glycogen which is why diabetics who drink too much alcohol get
dangerously low blood sugar levels especially if they inject insulin. What
alcohol can do is to cause pancreatic inflammation. This makes for reduced
insulin production. Chronic pancreatic inflammation can permanently damage
the pancreas and make for a pre-diabetic condition. And not only does raw
sugar cause insulin spikes which lead to insuklin resistance, but a high
carb diet does this as well because carbs are immediatly converted to
glucose in the small intestin and stomach. Higher glycemic index carbs are
worse, this includes white bread and pasta and anything else made with
flour.
But yes, alcohol needs to be taxed more. Smokers are just a handy target.
Paul
Re: Taxing for your own good... enough already!
On 2008-04-04, Paul M. Cook <pmcook@gte . net > wrote:
>
> Alcohol does not become a sugar. Alcohol is immediately metabolized in the
> liver. In fact small doses of alcohol act as super insulin, they provide a
> very quick entry for glucose into cells. This is why if you drink and do
> not eat you get dizzy from low blood sugar. For some diabetics, a couple of
> small drinks, such as red wine, taken with a meal can help keep glucose from
> spiking afterwards. Alcohol also compromises the liver's ability to release
> stored glycogen which is why diabetics who drink too much alcohol get
> dangerously low blood sugar levels especially if they inject insulin. What
> alcohol can do is to cause pancreatic inflammation. This makes for reduced
> insulin production. Chronic pancreatic inflammation can permanently damage
> the pancreas and make for a pre-diabetic condition. And not only does raw
> sugar cause insulin spikes which lead to insuklin resistance, but a high
> carb diet does this as well because carbs are immediatly converted to
> glucose in the small intestin and stomach. Higher glycemic index carbs are
> worse, this includes white bread and pasta and anything else made with
> flour.
>
> But yes, alcohol needs to be taxed more. Smokers are just a handy target.
While I disagree with any conclusion that ends "x needs to be taxed
more", your description of the body's processing of alcohol was
spot-on. Low carb diets warn of heavy alcohol use mostly because the
liver will process alcohol before anything else, slowing the time it
takes for other processes to occur.
But I don't care. I like it. ;-)
And while I am not for the increase of taxes on anything, I would
favor a change in the tax structure for alcohol to a %age rather than
a flat-rate per type. And if the taxes are going to increase, I would
be in favor of a tax code that stipulkates that the tax rate will be
adjusted annually to account for the cost of alcohol abuse to society.
Have the alcohol tax pay the freight on the damage of alcohol.
If it comes to pass that we are to have a nationalized health plan, I
would much prefer that it be funded with it's own tax. A separate
payroll item that allows the sheeple to see just how much money they
have put themselves in for. Make it a separate fund. Legislate a ban
on borrowing from it, or allowing it to borrow from the general fund
for more than one year (any loan taken by the fund this year to pay
for spikes in costs MUST be paid back next year). And if the plan is
as wonderful as the left seems to predict that it will be, this
separate taxation will also allow them to rub it in the right's face.
"Look at how efficient it is". I don't expect that to actually
happen, of course, but hey, you guys seem to think it will...
--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X
On 2008-04-04, Paul M. Cook <pmcook@gte . net > wrote:
>
> Alcohol does not become a sugar. Alcohol is immediately metabolized in the
> liver. In fact small doses of alcohol act as super insulin, they provide a
> very quick entry for glucose into cells. This is why if you drink and do
> not eat you get dizzy from low blood sugar. For some diabetics, a couple of
> small drinks, such as red wine, taken with a meal can help keep glucose from
> spiking afterwards. Alcohol also compromises the liver's ability to release
> stored glycogen which is why diabetics who drink too much alcohol get
> dangerously low blood sugar levels especially if they inject insulin. What
> alcohol can do is to cause pancreatic inflammation. This makes for reduced
> insulin production. Chronic pancreatic inflammation can permanently damage
> the pancreas and make for a pre-diabetic condition. And not only does raw
> sugar cause insulin spikes which lead to insuklin resistance, but a high
> carb diet does this as well because carbs are immediatly converted to
> glucose in the small intestin and stomach. Higher glycemic index carbs are
> worse, this includes white bread and pasta and anything else made with
> flour.
>
> But yes, alcohol needs to be taxed more. Smokers are just a handy target.
While I disagree with any conclusion that ends "x needs to be taxed
more", your description of the body's processing of alcohol was
spot-on. Low carb diets warn of heavy alcohol use mostly because the
liver will process alcohol before anything else, slowing the time it
takes for other processes to occur.
But I don't care. I like it. ;-)
And while I am not for the increase of taxes on anything, I would
favor a change in the tax structure for alcohol to a %age rather than
a flat-rate per type. And if the taxes are going to increase, I would
be in favor of a tax code that stipulkates that the tax rate will be
adjusted annually to account for the cost of alcohol abuse to society.
Have the alcohol tax pay the freight on the damage of alcohol.
If it comes to pass that we are to have a nationalized health plan, I
would much prefer that it be funded with it's own tax. A separate
payroll item that allows the sheeple to see just how much money they
have put themselves in for. Make it a separate fund. Legislate a ban
on borrowing from it, or allowing it to borrow from the general fund
for more than one year (any loan taken by the fund this year to pay
for spikes in costs MUST be paid back next year). And if the plan is
as wonderful as the left seems to predict that it will be, this
separate taxation will also allow them to rub it in the right's face.
"Look at how efficient it is". I don't expect that to actually
happen, of course, but hey, you guys seem to think it will...
--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X
Re: Taxing for your own good... enough already!
On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:40:24 GMT, "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte . net >
wrote:
>And not only does raw
>sugar cause insulin spikes which lead to insuklin resistance, but a high
>carb diet does this as well because carbs are immediatly converted to
>glucose in the small intestin and stomach. Higher glycemic index carbs are
>worse, this includes white bread and pasta and anything else made with
>flour.
Very true. Nutritionists get this so wrong so many times.
CigarBaron
On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:40:24 GMT, "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte . net >
wrote:
>And not only does raw
>sugar cause insulin spikes which lead to insuklin resistance, but a high
>carb diet does this as well because carbs are immediatly converted to
>glucose in the small intestin and stomach. Higher glycemic index carbs are
>worse, this includes white bread and pasta and anything else made with
>flour.
Very true. Nutritionists get this so wrong so many times.
CigarBaron
Re: Taxing for your own good... enough already!
Marc Schneiderman wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:40:24 GMT, "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte . net >
> wrote:
>
>> And not only does raw
>> sugar cause insulin spikes which lead to insuklin resistance, but a high
>> carb diet does this as well because carbs are immediatly converted to
>> glucose in the small intestin and stomach. Higher glycemic index carbs are
>> worse, this includes white bread and pasta and anything else made with
>> flour.
>
> Very true. Nutritionists get this so wrong so many times.
> CigarBaron
I am against large amounts of refined starches in a diet, but more important
is both the time of day and the accompanying foodstuffs. Complex carbs do not
yield the same result; their effects are further softened by consuming
un-homogenized fats, complex proteins, chewing properly and not drinking water
while eating.
In societies where raw sugar is virtually unknown, the consumption of honey
gives effects similar to a powerful narcotic, but in our culture we have
become desensitized. A similar abuse level can be found in salt intake, and it
is part of a nexus of dietary aberrations that become self sustaining. Salt
need is one of the few instinctive dietary reflexes remaining in humans and a
low sodium intake will make you aware of the deficiency by your unconsciously
reaching for the salt shaker. However, if you have a high sodium intake and
drink sodas, the reflex will go out of control.
JJ
Marc Schneiderman wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:40:24 GMT, "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte . net >
> wrote:
>
>> And not only does raw
>> sugar cause insulin spikes which lead to insuklin resistance, but a high
>> carb diet does this as well because carbs are immediatly converted to
>> glucose in the small intestin and stomach. Higher glycemic index carbs are
>> worse, this includes white bread and pasta and anything else made with
>> flour.
>
> Very true. Nutritionists get this so wrong so many times.
> CigarBaron
I am against large amounts of refined starches in a diet, but more important
is both the time of day and the accompanying foodstuffs. Complex carbs do not
yield the same result; their effects are further softened by consuming
un-homogenized fats, complex proteins, chewing properly and not drinking water
while eating.
In societies where raw sugar is virtually unknown, the consumption of honey
gives effects similar to a powerful narcotic, but in our culture we have
become desensitized. A similar abuse level can be found in salt intake, and it
is part of a nexus of dietary aberrations that become self sustaining. Salt
need is one of the few instinctive dietary reflexes remaining in humans and a
low sodium intake will make you aware of the deficiency by your unconsciously
reaching for the salt shaker. However, if you have a high sodium intake and
drink sodas, the reflex will go out of control.
JJ
Re: Taxing for your own good... enough already!
"Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte . net > wrote in message
news:IuvJj.19$NM.4@trnddc01...
> But yes, alcohol needs to be taxed more. Smokers are just a handy target.
>
> Paul
How about we cut spending and don't tax anything more? A pretty bizarre
concept, isn't it?
"Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte . net > wrote in message
news:IuvJj.19$NM.4@trnddc01...
> But yes, alcohol needs to be taxed more. Smokers are just a handy target.
>
> Paul
How about we cut spending and don't tax anything more? A pretty bizarre
concept, isn't it?
Re: Taxing for your own good... enough already!
Na, couldn't do that. Entitlements bring votes. Imagine what would happen if
millions of people had to actually work and G_d forbid, do without some
things? In the US, poverty is completely avoidable if one would just be
sure to avoid the following three deadly behaviors: First, finish high
school, second, do not have a child out of wedlock and third, do not become
addicted to drugs or alcohol. In the US, if you avoid all three of those
behaviors, your chance of being poor is virtually nil. Break just one and
the odds increase rapidly. Break two and you're toast. Now, think of where
your tax dollars are spent. All most all of the social programs are aimed at
idiots who do one or more of those afore mentioned things.
In the DC area, the drop-out rate is more than 75%! Just where are these
idiots going to find a job? And drugs? Geez, think about how much we spend
on "fighting" drugs? The court costs alone are staggering. I've got a buddy
who insists we need to really ramp up AIDS research spending. Hmm, it seems
to me that if people stop using IV drugs, don't visit whores and keep their
Johnsons out of people's rectums AIDS would pretty much be a non-issue. Then
there's the issue of spending on illegals .....
--
R J Talley
Teacher/James Madison Fellow
"What? Me Worry? Alfred E Newman
Na, couldn't do that. Entitlements bring votes. Imagine what would happen if
millions of people had to actually work and G_d forbid, do without some
things? In the US, poverty is completely avoidable if one would just be
sure to avoid the following three deadly behaviors: First, finish high
school, second, do not have a child out of wedlock and third, do not become
addicted to drugs or alcohol. In the US, if you avoid all three of those
behaviors, your chance of being poor is virtually nil. Break just one and
the odds increase rapidly. Break two and you're toast. Now, think of where
your tax dollars are spent. All most all of the social programs are aimed at
idiots who do one or more of those afore mentioned things.
In the DC area, the drop-out rate is more than 75%! Just where are these
idiots going to find a job? And drugs? Geez, think about how much we spend
on "fighting" drugs? The court costs alone are staggering. I've got a buddy
who insists we need to really ramp up AIDS research spending. Hmm, it seems
to me that if people stop using IV drugs, don't visit whores and keep their
Johnsons out of people's rectums AIDS would pretty much be a non-issue. Then
there's the issue of spending on illegals .....
--
R J Talley
Teacher/James Madison Fellow
"What? Me Worry? Alfred E Newman
Re: Taxing for your own good... enough already!
"R J Talley" <omgb@ca.rr . com > wrote:
>In the US, poverty is completely avoidable if one would just be
>sure to avoid the following three deadly behaviors: First, finish high
>school, second, do not have a child out of wedlock and third, do not become
>addicted to drugs or alcohol. In the US, if you avoid all three of those
>behaviors, your chance of being poor is virtually nil. Break just one and
>the odds increase rapidly. Break two and you're toast.
Brilliance.
"R J Talley" <omgb@ca.rr . com > wrote:
>In the US, poverty is completely avoidable if one would just be
>sure to avoid the following three deadly behaviors: First, finish high
>school, second, do not have a child out of wedlock and third, do not become
>addicted to drugs or alcohol. In the US, if you avoid all three of those
>behaviors, your chance of being poor is virtually nil. Break just one and
>the odds increase rapidly. Break two and you're toast.
Brilliance.
Re: Taxing for your own good... enough already!
"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in message
news:ua8kv3lgut0oectdff2k608rbbf2f62je3@4ax . com ...
> "R J Talley" <omgb@ca.rr . com > wrote:
>
>>In the US, poverty is completely avoidable if one would just be
>>sure to avoid the following three deadly behaviors: First, finish high
>>school, second, do not have a child out of wedlock and third, do not
>>become
>>addicted to drugs or alcohol. In the US, if you avoid all three of those
>>behaviors, your chance of being poor is virtually nil. Break just one and
>>the odds increase rapidly. Break two and you're toast.
>
> Brilliance.
Well they could be smart and be born to somebody else. That would do it. I
mean they really only have themselves to blame. Had they picked better
parents none of this would be a problem.
Paul
"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in message
news:ua8kv3lgut0oectdff2k608rbbf2f62je3@4ax . com ...
> "R J Talley" <omgb@ca.rr . com > wrote:
>
>>In the US, poverty is completely avoidable if one would just be
>>sure to avoid the following three deadly behaviors: First, finish high
>>school, second, do not have a child out of wedlock and third, do not
>>become
>>addicted to drugs or alcohol. In the US, if you avoid all three of those
>>behaviors, your chance of being poor is virtually nil. Break just one and
>>the odds increase rapidly. Break two and you're toast.
>
> Brilliance.
Well they could be smart and be born to somebody else. That would do it. I
mean they really only have themselves to blame. Had they picked better
parents none of this would be a problem.
Paul
Re: Taxing for your own good... enough already!
"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in message
news:ua8kv3lgut0oectdff2k608rbbf2f62je3@4ax . com ...
> "R J Talley" <omgb@ca.rr . com > wrote:
>
>>In the US, poverty is completely avoidable if one would just be
>>sure to avoid the following three deadly behaviors: First, finish high
>>school, second, do not have a child out of wedlock and third, do not
>>become
>>addicted to drugs or alcohol. In the US, if you avoid all three of those
>>behaviors, your chance of being poor is virtually nil. Break just one and
>>the odds increase rapidly. Break two and you're toast.
>
> Brilliance.
(Un)Common sense.
"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in message
news:ua8kv3lgut0oectdff2k608rbbf2f62je3@4ax . com ...
> "R J Talley" <omgb@ca.rr . com > wrote:
>
>>In the US, poverty is completely avoidable if one would just be
>>sure to avoid the following three deadly behaviors: First, finish high
>>school, second, do not have a child out of wedlock and third, do not
>>become
>>addicted to drugs or alcohol. In the US, if you avoid all three of those
>>behaviors, your chance of being poor is virtually nil. Break just one and
>>the odds increase rapidly. Break two and you're toast.
>
> Brilliance.
(Un)Common sense.
Re: Taxing for your own good... enough already!
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in message
news:amwKj.57440$097.42646@newsfe21.lga...
>
> "Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in message
> news:ua8kv3lgut0oectdff2k608rbbf2f62je3@4ax . com ...
>> "R J Talley" <omgb@ca.rr . com > wrote:
>>
>>>In the US, poverty is completely avoidable if one would
>>>just be
>>>sure to avoid the following three deadly behaviors:
>>>First, finish high
>>>school, second, do not have a child out of wedlock and
>>>third, do not become
>>>addicted to drugs or alcohol. In the US, if you avoid all
>>>three of those
>>>behaviors, your chance of being poor is virtually nil.
>>>Break just one and
>>>the odds increase rapidly. Break two and you're toast.
>>
>> Brilliance.
>
> (Un)Common sense.
>
Totally unsuitable for any sort of elected office then ....
(and quite possibly a dangerous subversive)
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in message
news:amwKj.57440$097.42646@newsfe21.lga...
>
> "Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in message
> news:ua8kv3lgut0oectdff2k608rbbf2f62je3@4ax . com ...
>> "R J Talley" <omgb@ca.rr . com > wrote:
>>
>>>In the US, poverty is completely avoidable if one would
>>>just be
>>>sure to avoid the following three deadly behaviors:
>>>First, finish high
>>>school, second, do not have a child out of wedlock and
>>>third, do not become
>>>addicted to drugs or alcohol. In the US, if you avoid all
>>>three of those
>>>behaviors, your chance of being poor is virtually nil.
>>>Break just one and
>>>the odds increase rapidly. Break two and you're toast.
>>
>> Brilliance.
>
> (Un)Common sense.
>
Totally unsuitable for any sort of elected office then ....
(and quite possibly a dangerous subversive)
Re: Taxing for your own good... enough already!
"met00" <met00cigar@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:tlvJj.429$4O1.318@trnddc03...
> The NY Times had a fascinating write up on Clinton's proposed health
> care plan. And once again I saw the same old requirement for funding.
> Let's tax tobacco more!
>
> Taxing a shrinking group more and more doesn't make for a smart policy.
>
> Yes, we need a healthcare program that works. But time and time again
> the only suggested method of paying for it has been to tax tobacco
> users, as if the tobacco users are the only people in society that
> should pay for the unhealthy lifestyles of everyone.
Tax gasoline more. The nannies love to drive their pollution spewing
globally polluting machines to the polls to vote for taxes on smokers.
Hypocrites. Maybe some more people will argue for long over due increases in
mass transit infrastructure.
Tax wolmanized lumber a lot more. It pollutes the global water supply.
Tax fertilizer more. It eutrifies lakes. We need clean water a heck of a lot
more than green lawns.
Tax the hybrid cars more. It costs more in pollution to make the cells
overseas and ship them all the way back here. Plus it feeds the economy of
foreign countries that don't even like us.
Tax the sh*t out of Chinese imports of all kinds. That'll pay for the health
program in no time, and help to level the economic playing field.
I'm sure there are more.........
Mike
"met00" <met00cigar@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:tlvJj.429$4O1.318@trnddc03...
> The NY Times had a fascinating write up on Clinton's proposed health
> care plan. And once again I saw the same old requirement for funding.
> Let's tax tobacco more!
>
> Taxing a shrinking group more and more doesn't make for a smart policy.
>
> Yes, we need a healthcare program that works. But time and time again
> the only suggested method of paying for it has been to tax tobacco
> users, as if the tobacco users are the only people in society that
> should pay for the unhealthy lifestyles of everyone.
Tax gasoline more. The nannies love to drive their pollution spewing
globally polluting machines to the polls to vote for taxes on smokers.
Hypocrites. Maybe some more people will argue for long over due increases in
mass transit infrastructure.
Tax wolmanized lumber a lot more. It pollutes the global water supply.
Tax fertilizer more. It eutrifies lakes. We need clean water a heck of a lot
more than green lawns.
Tax the hybrid cars more. It costs more in pollution to make the cells
overseas and ship them all the way back here. Plus it feeds the economy of
foreign countries that don't even like us.
Tax the sh*t out of Chinese imports of all kinds. That'll pay for the health
program in no time, and help to level the economic playing field.
I'm sure there are more.........
Mike
Re: Taxing for your own good... enough already!
"Mike" <cigarmikeBAND@sbcglobal . net > wrote in message
news:30xJj.149$V14.99@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc . com ...
>
> "met00" <met00cigar@gmail . com > wrote in message
> news:tlvJj.429$4O1.318@trnddc03...
>
>> Yes, we need a healthcare program that works. But time and time again
>> the only suggested method of paying for it has been to tax tobacco
>> users, as if the tobacco users are the only people in society that
>> should pay for the unhealthy lifestyles of everyone.
>
> Tax gasoline more. The nannies love to drive their pollution spewing
> globally polluting machines to the polls to vote for taxes on smokers.
> Hypocrites. Maybe some more people will argue for long over due increases
> in
> mass transit infrastructure.
A goodly percentage of our Federal gas taxes goes to Mass Transit. Thing is,
no matter how much they flush down a toilet, they just can't seem to
increase ridership.
The problem with mass transit is not the infrastructure, it's the very
premises they hold are faulty in a major way.
"Mike" <cigarmikeBAND@sbcglobal . net > wrote in message
news:30xJj.149$V14.99@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc . com ...
>
> "met00" <met00cigar@gmail . com > wrote in message
> news:tlvJj.429$4O1.318@trnddc03...
>
>> Yes, we need a healthcare program that works. But time and time again
>> the only suggested method of paying for it has been to tax tobacco
>> users, as if the tobacco users are the only people in society that
>> should pay for the unhealthy lifestyles of everyone.
>
> Tax gasoline more. The nannies love to drive their pollution spewing
> globally polluting machines to the polls to vote for taxes on smokers.
> Hypocrites. Maybe some more people will argue for long over due increases
> in
> mass transit infrastructure.
A goodly percentage of our Federal gas taxes goes to Mass Transit. Thing is,
no matter how much they flush down a toilet, they just can't seem to
increase ridership.
The problem with mass transit is not the infrastructure, it's the very
premises they hold are faulty in a major way.
Re: Taxing for your own good... enough already!
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in message
news:wWyJj.53376$yk5.1384@newsfe18.lga...
> The problem with mass transit is not the infrastructure, it's the very
> premises they hold are faulty in a major way.
Mass transit can and does work -- if the circumstances are right. You need
a relatively dense urban environment for a start -- commuting by subway
works in New York, but it would never work in Houston or Phoenix. And there
needs to be the political will to accept that mass transit will never be a
profit-making enterprise -- the benefits are indirect and tend not to show
up on a balance sheet.
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in message
news:wWyJj.53376$yk5.1384@newsfe18.lga...
> The problem with mass transit is not the infrastructure, it's the very
> premises they hold are faulty in a major way.
Mass transit can and does work -- if the circumstances are right. You need
a relatively dense urban environment for a start -- commuting by subway
works in New York, but it would never work in Houston or Phoenix. And there
needs to be the political will to accept that mass transit will never be a
profit-making enterprise -- the benefits are indirect and tend not to show
up on a balance sheet.
Re: Taxing for your own good... enough already!
In article <65nvsdF2h610pU1@mid.individual . net >,
"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in message
> news:wWyJj.53376$yk5.1384@newsfe18.lga...
> > The problem with mass transit is not the infrastructure, it's the very
> > premises they hold are faulty in a major way.
> Mass transit can and does work -- if the circumstances are right.
The main circumstance you need is cultural. People don't car pool or
take the bus because they have this notion (something like 98%+ of those
surveyed) that they MIGHT need a car during the day to do some errand or
another.
Oddly, when asked if they'd needed a car any time in the past 2 weeks to
do some errand or another during the work day, more than 80% replied in
the negative.
1 car per person is cultural. We don't need taxes, we need education &
psychology.
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
In article <65nvsdF2h610pU1@mid.individual . net >,
"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in message
> news:wWyJj.53376$yk5.1384@newsfe18.lga...
> > The problem with mass transit is not the infrastructure, it's the very
> > premises they hold are faulty in a major way.
> Mass transit can and does work -- if the circumstances are right.
The main circumstance you need is cultural. People don't car pool or
take the bus because they have this notion (something like 98%+ of those
surveyed) that they MIGHT need a car during the day to do some errand or
another.
Oddly, when asked if they'd needed a car any time in the past 2 weeks to
do some errand or another during the work day, more than 80% replied in
the negative.
1 car per person is cultural. We don't need taxes, we need education &
psychology.
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
