Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Labour's new head of policy

Is Tony Falkenstein, CEO of Just Water:

We now have two newer addictions - sugar and fat. These are the major cause of Diabetes 2, which is responsible for the biggest percentage increase in our health budget. 

Introducing a tax on them will not only reduce these addictions, but provide funds to handle the increasing cost of them.


The simplest tax to administer is an excise tax on sugar and its related products. 
Why don't we just tax people more for not exercising?  We could microchip each child at birth and monitor their kilojoule usage, and how many calories they've burned.

And the comparison in the article between tobacco and sugar is specious, and ill-founded.  Tobacco is not used in products we need to survive: Food.  It is a luxury - a want - rather than a need.  We don't tax water - unless Falkenstein wants us to.

Taxing people for use of products people need to survive is mental.  Due to that mentalness, I expect Labour to pick it up immediately.

29 comments:

Psycho Milt said...

Whoa - the current govt is taxing food right now, ie there's nothing unusual about Labour in that respect. Also, sugar is most definitely a want, not a need. Tobacco is actually more of a need, because it's addictive.

On the other hand, dietary fat has little to do with type 2 diabetes, so this is yet another dumbass wanting to tax the population on the basis of current fads he happens to believe in - best they stay in opposition for a while.

Barnsley Bill said...

It has more to do with him trying to get the tax payer to buy a warehouse full of water coolers he cannot sell .

Nick K said...

Yeah, yeah, yeah Milt - you are right. This was a bit of a "blurt". But as you say, dietary fat has little to do with type 2 diabetes. I don't agree about sugar; I don't want it. It's not addictive for me.

You should write something on this - it's up your alley (if you know what I mean).

Yep Barnsley, that's what this is about.

CB said...

I think Tony has confused his fats. It is trans fats that are the bad fats - not saturated fat. Saturated fats fill you up, curb appetite and are vital for keeping up levels of vitamins and hormones.

A diet high in saturated fats from avocado, eggs, olive oil, coconut etc is the best there is.

CBS did an item on it recently but can't find it on the net as yet.

CB said...

Here it is:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57328292/singing-the-praises-of-fat/

MacDoctor said...

CB is right about fats. It is the type of fat you eat that is important. There is some evidence that transfats can make diabetes worse.

What our little sugar-taxing friend does not realize is that diabetes type II is brought about be excessive consumption of carbohydrate not just sugar. Almost any CHO that breaks down rapidly to basic sugars will do it- including potatoes , bread, rice and pasta. The problem is that we simply eat too much of these. It has little to do with refined sugars, which most of us still regard as sweets.

Redbaiter said...

Useless Nick. In subscribing to the belief that government does have the right to tax tobacco products in an attempt to change behaviour, you completely undermine your own argument.

That's why you National people, even when you win elections, don't make the required changes.

The bottom line is that you think just like Labour, and only want to fritter around the edges of socialist policy.

John Key's recent widely acclaimed speech was nothing but a boast that he could out-socialize the socialists. And he was right.

"National- doing socialism better."

Taxation should exist only to fund essential government services, and National, if they were worth a pinch of goat shit, would start winding back legislation that confronts this principle.

Like taxes on tobacco.

Of course at the root of this problem is the government "health" services. Once you support this idea that government is responsible for our collective health, you have to support massive levels of government interference in our lives.

You just can't have the former without the latter, and that is the main reason to support privatisation of health care.

Paulus said...

The amount of sugar ina bottle of Coke and similar is frightening. No wonder obesity is rife. After all Coke is cheaper than a bottle of plain water, let alone Milk.
I am a Diabetic so I watch everything I buy for Sugar content.

Anonymous said...

Typical Labour.Tax,tax,tax.
Sugar has been around for a long time with very little problem.
Part of the problem now is we have huge numbers of lazy,indulged over eaters who neither exercise nor care.
Leftists then come along and want to make it a charge on the tax payer.
If these fat f@ckers were paying or contributing directly to their health care they might take some responsibility for their personal problems!
Another problem facing the west is, not as many try to make out, that there is not enough tax revenue ,it's the fact that governments can't control their spending and so keep raising new taxes.

kevin said...

Plenty of sugar in (already well taxed) beer... Tax bread (sugar converter as noted by MacDoc).

Mark Hubbard said...

Unfortunately, Food Nazis seem to be turning themselves into the vanguard of the Big Brother State.

I've blogged a refutation to Falkenstein's proposition, and argument, here. Hope you don't mind the cross-posting.

Nick K said...

Not at all Mark.

Redbaiter - I actually don't subscribe to the belief that the government has the right to tax tobacco. It doesn't have the right to tax anyone, or anything. It has a power to do so via legislation, and a power is not a right. And I'm with you: governments power should be completely watered down, in all areas including health care.

I'm glad we agree on this.

Redbaiter said...

What you need Mark Hubbard is for some member of the government to come and take you away in the dead of night, and beat you, and put you in a cattle truck and ship you to a gulag, and then to starve you and later to gas you and then incinerate your body in a large oven, and then you might fully understand what the Nazi's really were.

Your delusional ranting on this issue is the work of a mad man.

Leaving aside the absurdity of the comparison, you do not even address the real issue which is not the derelict political cult of National Socialism, but in fact cultural Marxism, a modern political movement that you are happy on other occasions to enthusiastically promote.

No wonder you've brought every political party you've ever been involved with to utter ruin.

Moron.

James said...

Oh Red...is that your usual BS claim that Libertarians like PC etc are "always banging on about Gays"?

I challenge you to find one post by a libertarian that supports "so called "gay rights"....you won't find it.

Contrary to the left Libs know that there are only human rights...applicable to all members of the human race and not to any specific subset within it.

Shane Ponting said...

Since we are talking inside of the socialist utopia we pretend to be living in...why not go inverse and *subsidise* protein.


I'm kidding of course because I hate big government, but if you were to tinker I'd prefer to have more protein for my hard earned buck which already buys as much protein in various forms (including powdered) as the budget will allow.

Anonymous said...

Don't confuse natural sugar as found in fruit with the corn syrup used in most packaged foods. They are different beasts. Any tax needs to be on processed foods alone. I suspect fat is not the problem that carbs are.

I think we should just let fat junk food eating people alone and make medical care user pay. That will sort things eventually.

Mark Hubbard said...

I see Red's comprehension is as bad as ever. My piece says, Red, that an ethic which believes it appropriate for the State to control an individual's lifestyle, right down to what they eat, is the ethic that ultimately leads to totalitarianism, not to a free classical liberalism.

Plus that was one small part of the piece, and was so I could eschew 'Godwin' to another use for the purpose of literariness :)

Look up 'context' in a dictionary. Oh, nah: just stay bigoted, you wouldn't be comfortable with anything else. I realise it was probably just your disappointment at me not using the word gay in any of my post.

Mark Hubbard said...

Um, more context on my piece for Red. I invoked concentration camps as a deliberate Godwin, to emphasise I had created a new Godwin, being any argument for a tax that rests on 'but they do it in this other country', loses by default. The tax must be justified solely on its own merit. Falkenstein also did this, but I refuted his premises there, as well, that is, taxes must only be to fund legitimate govt. activities, not to influence lifestyle choices, as that is the State then inappropriately meddling in the lives of individuals. It was after that stage, and my refutation, that Falkenstein then ended with the 'but Denmark did it' as his final rationale, which I've turned into the Godwin, as it should be.

There, how's that? It just went a little above your head, that's all.

Redbaiter said...

What you think it leads to is not really so important. Such predictions can be made by anyone and could all be different.

It is what it is today that matters, and that is that Falkenstein's suggestions are just the natural extension of the culturally Marxist ideas that have been introduced to school children over the last few decades by a dysfunctional and politically controlled education system.

The idea that government exists to "keep us safe", and that in that purpose it can pursue any idea that is promoted as being "for the greater good".

This idea is coupled with the proposal that everything that existed before in our culture was faulty and needs fixing.

Your ranting Mark is not anything even the least taxing to anyone's comprehension.

Rather, the problem is that your diagnosis of the problem is completely detached from reality. Its off target drivel that is symptomatic of brainwashing and an inability to analyze.

Its not a matter of context either. Your post on SOLO was just mindless by rote reactionary doggerel that is decades out of its time.

Ayn Rand never saw the political problems that besiege us today and wrote nothing helpful to solving them. (AFAIK there is not one reference to Cultural Marxism in any of her writings.)

Libertarians therefore are unable to understand what is happening today, and as a result are impotent in terms of changing our political situation.

Especially those Libz so deeply indoctrinated as yourself.

Your off target, dated and blinkered approach to the subject problem demonstrates this well enough.

Mark Hubbard said...

Everything in that reply is ad hominem, Red. Let's try again, from the top of my post, given the concentration camp analogy is explained and was a minor incidental, so just my substantive argument, what's wrong with it?

Name an exact statement or premise I've made, then tell me exactly what's wrong with it? We'll start there (though I'm busy, so my replies will be irregular). Better yet, join SOLO, and we'll do it there, on my thread ... or is putting your name to your convictions a problem?

Redbaiter said...

"Everything in that reply is ad hominem, Red."

You seriously suggest that I should debate with someone who makes such sweeping and inaccurate statements as this?

FFS, you're so mentally crippled its painfully evident I shouldn't have wasted the time I have so far.

As for SOLO, I need that fruit farm like I need a hole in the head.

A bunch of mutually masturbating narcissists locked into the ideas of a Russian exile with a political perspective born from what happened in Soviet Russia in the early part of the 1900s, and therefore unable to offer any solutions in the modern political context.

Thanks but no thanks.

Mark Hubbard said...

FFS, you're so mentally crippled its painfully evident I shouldn't have wasted the time I have so far.

As for SOLO, I need that fruit farm like I need a hole in the head.

A bunch of mutually masturbating narcissists


Must be a new marketing technique I've not come across. You're intending to win people rationally over to your bigoted, vomit swilling point of view how, exactly?

I dare you, SOLO debate is very high calibre, give it a go. Put your true name up, own your ideas, debate rationally, passionately, but leave all the macho, posing, BS venom out. I look forward to it.

Judge Holden said...

Russell's great delusion is in the iron-clad belief that the force of his abuse wins people over, rather than convinces them that he's a psychotic retard whose very promotion of a cause sullies it.

Redbaiter said...

"Must be a new marketing technique I've not come across."

How does it compare with calling people Nazis?

You think you will change Falkenstein's opinions that way?

He probably hates the Nazis as much as you do.

Which fact proves that you are wrong about the issue.

It is not that Falkenstein seeks power, its that he seeks to do good for the collective and sees government as the primary means of doing this.

(leaving aside the allegations of cronyism)

And he does not think this way because he has the same mindset as Stalinists or Nazis, but because he is a victim of the Frankfurt school, and of critical theory, and of cultural Marxism.

All totally different ideologies to anything ever experienced by Ayn Rand.

These political perspectives are not at all addressed in the doctrinal manuscripts that you base your arguments on.

In following Rand's ideas, you are out of touch and blinkered and you have no solutions to the deficiencies that exist in our modern day political systems.

The evidence to support this assertion is in the way you attacked this problem.

Your SOLO article will do nothing to alter the thinking that is at the root of our present unpleasant political circumstances, because it does not address the real issue.

Libertarians, as long as they seek to impose a political perspective that is so out of touch with modern day politics, will not be any help in changing the status quo, and your Solo post with its extravagant over the top rhetoric will have absolutely no impact on Falkenstein's thinking.

Mark Hubbard said...

Now we're getting somewhere.

I'm not trying to change Falkenstein's thinking. If he thinks it appropriate to use tax to change eating habits, then he's way beyond where I can reach him with thoughts, premises, and principles of freedom. I wrote that for all those who felt rightfully outraged, but might not be able to put into words, or understand fully, why they were so mad.


And he does not think this way because he has the same mindset as Stalinists or Nazis, but because he is a victim of the Frankfurt school, and of critical theory, and of cultural Marxism.


I've not dispute with that at all. Except cultural Marxism, socialists, communists, fascist, et al, the measure I use is simply those philosophy in which the individual that is subservient to the State and must be sacrificed to the needs of total strangers, and those philosophies which seek to protect that smallest minority, the individual, such as Objectivism (libertarianism is a political movement, not a philosophy).


Libertarians, as long as they seek to impose a political perspective that is so out of touch with modern day politics


You keep saying I'm out of touch as if the premises that surround freedom are some type of fashion: they're not, they're unchanging philosophic and from philosophy, economic principles. Limited government, non-initiation of force, written constitution, laissez faire, sound money, et al.

So, now where are we?

Your go ... though I'm off to BBQ a rabbit, so catch you tomorrow.

Mark Hubbard said...

Sorry, I'm in a hurry, the below had so many typos I'll correct ...


I've no dispute with that at all. Except cultural Marxism, socialists, communists, fascist, et al, the measure I use is simply those philosophies in which the individual is subservient to the State and must be sacrificed to the needs of total strangers, and those philosophies which seek to protect that smallest minority, the individual, such as Objectivism (libertarianism is a political movement, not a philosophy).

Judge Holden said...

"your Solo post with its extravagant over the top rhetoric..."

Yes, you will never see Russell engage in OTT rhetoric. Never! He's always measured and logical, you knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, mastabatory, delusional, ranting, retarded, moronic madman.

Psycho Milt said...

Ayn Rand never saw the political problems that besiege us today and wrote nothing helpful to solving them. (AFAIK there is not one reference to Cultural Marxism in any of her writings.)

How about that? Of all the reasons I've thought Ayn Rand was crap over the decades, "not one reference to Cultural Marxism" wasn't even on the list. Well, you learn something new every day...

Mark Hubbard said...

Red says that Rand and works like Atlas Shrugged are out of touch. Hell, as Milt says, they don't even mention cultural Marxism.

Funny thing is, though, Wesley Mouch, a character from Atlas Shrugged, seems right at home on Bernard Hickey's site. Indeed, he's looking like he's holding back compared to some of the posters ;)