Smoking

Forum for general discussion of Peak Oil / Oil depletion; also covering related subjects

Moderator: Peak Moderation

woodburner
Posts: 4124
Joined: 06 Apr 2009, 22:45

Post by woodburner »

stevecook172001 wrote: Give me a ******* break!
Good idea, take a break (a couple of weeks seems to suit many people, but I don't have holidays so I don't know).
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 14287
Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

The next tax should be on sugar and high fructose corn syrup. Both almost a captive market, both bad for the health and both sold in huge quantities so could supply a huge revenue stream.

The government could justify the tax by saying the higher price will help to reduce obesity. As people went over to artificial sweeteners they could be taxed as well.

I think that there was a sugar tax way back when sugar was first bought back here from the Americas.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
woodburner
Posts: 4124
Joined: 06 Apr 2009, 22:45

Post by woodburner »

Taxing sugar would be a good start, but white wheat flour features strongly in the causes of high blood sugar, so maybe a glycemic load tax may catch more.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
JavaScriptDonkey
Posts: 1683
Joined: 02 Jun 2011, 00:12
Location: SE England

Post by JavaScriptDonkey »

biffvernon wrote:Oh yes - the only way they could raise a lot of revenue from cycle tyre taxes would be to ban motor cars. Brilliant scheme JSD.
:roll:

That'll be you extending it to the ridiculous then.

What would happen would be lots of cyclists complaining bitterly about the tax while riding around on bald tyres. Tyre smuggling would be a growth crime.

Meanwhile everyone not affected by the tax would argue for stiffer penalties for avoiders with useful comments such as,

'well they can walk can't they?'

or

'a horse was good enough for my Aunt Ethel and should be damn well good enough for them'.

or even,

'Cyclists are no better today than those fools that used to drive cars. If they want to travel so fast of course they should pay for the damage tyre rubber does to the environment.'

Point (laid bare for the hard of thinking)

People usually only complain about taxes that they pay or that they want other people to pay.
In this case I believe Steve is an exception as he no longer smokes.

Governments on the other hand just tax everything at the highest rate they can get away with in order to buy votes at the next election.
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

JavaScriptDonkey wrote: riding around on bald tyres.
Ah, now that's where you are wrong. I too used to be under the delusion that bald tyres were undesirable on push-bikes but It has been explained to me, by one who knows about bikes and physics, why treadless tyres are all the rage these days.
User avatar
RenewableCandy
Posts: 12777
Joined: 12 Sep 2007, 12:13
Location: York

Post by RenewableCandy »

Someone would develop a non-rubber, non-inflatable, covering for wheel rims that isn't actually a tyre, though.
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
Stories
The Price of Time
JavaScriptDonkey
Posts: 1683
Joined: 02 Jun 2011, 00:12
Location: SE England

Post by JavaScriptDonkey »

biffvernon wrote:
JavaScriptDonkey wrote: riding around on bald tyres.
Ah, now that's where you are wrong. I too used to be under the delusion that bald tyres were undesirable on push-bikes but It has been explained to me, by one who knows about bikes and physics, why treadless tyres are all the rage these days.
They are not bald. They are designed to be tread-less. Bald tyres have worn away the tread and are now dangerously thin.

It's surprising just how much noise even a bicycle tyre makes when it explodes.
hodson2k9
Posts: 546
Joined: 21 Dec 2011, 13:13
Location: telford west midlands

Post by hodson2k9 »

WHO wrote:Tobacco kills nearly 6 million people each year. More than five million of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco use while more than 600 000 are the result of non-smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs339/en/
6 million a year! Even Hitler didn't manage that rate.

Anyway, you get my drift?
6 million a year is nothing really, when compared to the 35million a year caused by refined sugar. That makes sugar nearly 7 times more dangerous!

Off topic, i know but hey ho.

However, agreed with the smoking ban i dont want me or my kids exposed to health damaging toxins!
"Unfortunately, the Fed can't print oil"
---Ben Bernake (2011)
hodson2k9
Posts: 546
Joined: 21 Dec 2011, 13:13
Location: telford west midlands

Post by hodson2k9 »

kenneal - lagger wrote:The next tax should be on sugar and high fructose corn syrup. Both almost a captive market, both bad for the health and both sold in huge quantities so could supply a huge revenue stream.

The government could justify the tax by saying the higher price will help to reduce obesity. As people went over to artificial sweeteners they could be taxed as well.

I think that there was a sugar tax way back when sugar was first bought back here from the Americas.
Agree with the tax but there should also be an age limit on the stuff.

And as for artificial sweetners well there just as dangerous and in the case of aspartame probably more dangerous and they will not help the obesity rate as aspartame (the most used) has been proven too cause weight gain! ... so much for DIET coke lol.
"Unfortunately, the Fed can't print oil"
---Ben Bernake (2011)
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

hodson2k9 wrote: 6 million a year is nothing really, when compared to the 35million a year caused by refined sugar. That makes sugar nearly 7 times more dangerous!
Now there's an entertaining misuse of statistics.
Little John

Post by Little John »

biffvernon wrote:
hodson2k9 wrote: 6 million a year is nothing really, when compared to the 35million a year caused by refined sugar. That makes sugar nearly 7 times more dangerous!
Now there's an entertaining misuse of statistics.
Why is it a misuse?
User avatar
powerbilston
Posts: 8
Joined: 09 Oct 2013, 11:33

Post by powerbilston »

biffvernon wrote:
stevecook172001 wrote: The revenue from smoking taxes far outweighs the health costs of smoking.

Probably pensions for people who no longer died of smoke.
yup!
Post Reply