Twin_Cam wrote: Yea, that seems a little excessive. But the obvious solution is, don't live in a hilariously crowded/dirty/noisy/polluted city.
Not dirty or polluted.
Especially if you factor in the number of people living there. Per capita I bet it's cleaner than Camp Hill, PA. Or Columbus, OH to be fair. :-)
Otto Maddox wrote: Where are all the libertarians now?
Neutralized by drones.
Otto Maddox wrote: They need to make more E36 M3 legal not illegal. Where are all the libertarians now? Do they only protest taxes?
Still here. Like I said, I like the idea that you pay more if you use more, but on principal I still have a problem with it.
The number of libertarians in NYC probably hovers around 0.
dculberson wrote:Twin_Cam wrote: Yea, that seems a little excessive. But the obvious solution is, don't live in a hilariously crowded/dirty/noisy/polluted city.Not dirty or polluted. Especially if you factor in the number of people living there. Per capita I bet it's cleaner than Camp Hill, PA. Or Columbus, OH to be fair. :-)
I have been to Camp Hill... NYC is cleaner
Otto Maddox wrote: They need to make more E36 M3 legal not illegal. Where are all the libertarians now? Do they only protest taxes?
Laws are tricky. Its easier to create them than eliminate them. Recent example so no one bitches about me not finding my legal references. Tere are lists of dumb laws. It is usually easier to amend a law rather than strike it. Kind of goofy, I know, but thats just how they made it. (yes, I know the linked article is about a rule, but similar situation.)
I have to wonder about anyone that thinks the solution to a problem is more government intervention (ie - taxes). What has the government ever done well enough to convince people that they are the best equipped to monitor or control our calorie intake? Social Security? No. Medicare or Medicaid? Nope. Responsible use of our tax dollars in general? Certainly not. Military? Something could be said for the military from a combat training perspective, but from a financial standpoint it isn't run any better than the previously mentioned programs. Think they can run healthcare? Why would anyone think they could do that efficiently? Now before this turns into a left versus right thing, healthcare is just the example that came to mind. When I say government, I mean both sides, not just one. They've proven over and over again that when they get into any area that even remotely infringes on freedom or saving us from ourselves, they do it miserably. What good will outlawing large drinks do? Nothing. They will by two smaller ones, and it will just put more of the customers money in the food chains hands. This, like many other things, would be much better addressed by education, not forced laws.
bravenrace wrote: This, like many other things, would be much better addressed by education, not forced laws.
E's a witch! Burn him!
we still educate people? (not just teaching them read and type their name)
1988RedT2 wrote: E's a witch! Burn him!
You're getting people confused, Red. I'm the witch.
WHY THE HELL ARE WE STANDING FOR THIS KIND OF CONTROL?! What the hell people? What the hell? Seriously... I'm going to start going to people's houses and telling them I'm starting a new campaign that would require them to donate half their paycheck to me. Pretax, of course, so I would actually be saving them money as it would be a charitable contribution, but required by law. I'll leave out mentioning the "required" part. People don't like being "required" to do something. It's all about wording... How many suckers do you think I'd get on my side?
scardeal wrote: Taco Bell was the only restaurant to survive the franchise wars. Now all restaurants are Taco Bell.
Nice 
1988RedT2 wrote: I'd like to propose a "Fat Tax". The idea is well justified, since fat people have more health problems and place a greater load on the healthcare system. Along with your SSN, birthdate, and address, you will be required to keep height and current weight on file with the IRS. Your federal income tax will be greater or less than the base amount, depending on your variance from the established ideal weight for your age bracket. So there ya go. Incentive to maintain a healthy weight and extra revenue to hold up the fatties' end of the bargain. Clearly a win-win. Social engineering at its finest.
I'm around 5'9, 215lbs and 2 months and some change away from 30. Would you consider me overweight or obese?
In reply to DuctTape&Bondo:
Can't go on height and weight alone. What is your body fat percentage?
Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to DuctTape&Bondo: Can't go on height and weight alone. What is your body fat percentage?
Oh crap, if laws start using BMI we're all screwed. The BMI charts are so unrealistic it isn't even funny. 75% of my boot camp graduating class was "obese" on BMI charts but they could march with packs for days, rescue drowning idiots, and pop out pushups like nobody's business.
In reply to Javelin:
Yeah, by BMI, DT&B is obese. In real life? Who knows?
My fiance is a fan of the nanny state, at least on a smaller scale. She once cut herself on a knife while unloading the dishwasher, and tried to tell the that from now on, we were to hand wash all knives to keep this from happening. I suggested that she just be more careful. She didn't find it amusing.
Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to DuctTape&Bondo: Can't go on height and weight alone. What is your body fat percentage?
That's my point exactly. 1988RedT2 proposed it be based on height / weight and age. I can see where he's coming from about a fat tax like a cigarette tax, but the question would be the method of determining obese or unhealthy is not as simple as do you smoke or not.
I've been worked up by the "know your health" clinics they do at work every year, they label me as obese whereas my coworker who eats terribly, doesn't work out, smokes and drinks is labelled as healthy.
Um. Just to be clear, I'm totally against any laws that seek to insert the nose of govt into the butts of citizens. So my proposal was just an exercise. I wanted to see who would deride it as the nonsense that it is, and who would actually defend it or something similar.
mad_machine wrote: And people claim that California is the messed up state....
nah, we just have one messed up on the west coast, one in the middle, and one on the east coast.....
Cali, Illinois, and NY......not shockingly, those states are almost completely ruled by their largest city. I see a problem here.
1988RedT2 wrote: Um. Just to be clear, I'm totally against any laws that seek to insert the nose of govt into the butts of citizens. So my proposal was just an exercise. I wanted to see who would deride it as the nonsense that it is, and who would actually defend it or something similar.
So would you say your proposal was ... modest? Or otherwise along a non-proud vein?
;-)
yamaha wrote:mad_machine wrote: And people claim that California is the messed up state....nah, we just have one messed up on the west coast, one in the middle, and one on the east coast..... Cali, Illinois, and NY......not shockingly, those states are almost completely ruled by their largest city. I see a problem here.
I disagree with that. Illinois on its own comes up with some crazy ass E36 M3 without Chicago influence.
If you want to say "Cook County is almost completely ruled by it's largest city", then yes, you would be correct.
Remember, Arnie at his Mr Olympia days peak would be considered obese under current rules.
I'm underweight. Do I get a tax refund?
You'll need to log in to post.
