Thursday, March 23, 2006

Post hoc ergo proctor hoc

Dust my Broom weighs in on the absurd fat tax push and the even more absurd Pat Martin.

What do you think? Can we social engineer smarter, healthier people through taxes on everything deemed "bad for you"?

5 comments:

Larry borsato said...

People eat junk food either because they enjoy it or because they find it cheaper than eating healthy food.

So by taxing it we either force people to pay more for their enjoyment, or we make it the same expensive price as healthy food, at which point I expect some people would still choose it because they prefer it.

Taxing junk food is a poor way to make people change the way they act.

Scott Hennig said...

Why, why, why do they keep thinking this is a good idea?

The bottom line is that generally speaking poor people eat fattier foods because fatty foods are cheaper.

Making fatty foods more expensive will only make poor people eat less, not healthier.

Plus it would be impossible to administer.

http://www.taxpayer.com/main/news.php?news_id=2164

Anonymous said...

It is interesting that you choose to post from Dust my Broom. This person states on their site that this phrase is one that originates wtih the delta blues. They further state that it means to leave. In fact, it means to masturbate, and that is what this site seems to be all about - mental masturbation.

David MacLean said...

I think it's great.

Adam Taylor said...

Maybe the fat tax isn't such a bad idea.

I mean, its worked for cigarettes and booze right? No one smokes or drinks in this country...

4.5/5 on sarcasm meter.

CTF You Tube Channel

Canadian Taxpayers Federation's Fan Box