Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Games Tax To Fund Obesity Prevention?

Posted by simoniker on Wed Jun 11, 2003 11:57 PM
from the fat-tax-lacks-backers dept.
Entertainment Games
Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to an AP/Yahoo story discussing a New York State proposal to tax videogames, and use the money to prevent obesity. According to the article, "..the 1 percent tax hike proposed by Assemblyman Felix Ortiz would apply to junk food, video games and television commercials, which Ortiz blames on New York's growing obesity problem. Ortiz, a Democrat, did not rule out proposing tax increases on other things that he believes contribute to obesity." Fortunately, the proposal is believed to have a "slim chance" of passing into law.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Games Tax To Fund Obesity Prevention? 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Games do not make one fat
    Make no sence these yoda speakers do
    • So where will this tax go, exactly? State-sponsored exercise programs for gamers?

      How will they determine who gets admitted? A short vocabulary quiz with things like "frag", "gg", "lag", "bfg" ?

      Also, wouldn't this be burning bad karma and burning fat at the same time?

  • As if that's where the money would go (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kris_J (10111) on Thursday June 12 2003, @12:04AM (#6178727) Journal
    Has anyone got any example of a tax where the money was supposed to have a predefined definition and it actually went there, rather than just into the general pool to be spent on junkets and million dollar superannuation?
    • Has anyone got any example of a tax where the money was supposed to have a predefined definition and it actually went there, rather than just into the general pool to be spent on junkets and million dollar superannuation?

      For the most part, hunting and fishing license revenues do go to the fish and wildlife management departments they're supposed to support.

      I entirely agree with your larger point, though.

      • the tobacco lawsuit...it was for the children but the money just went into states' general funds to pay for pork...

        if cigarettes pose such a danger to society, why are they legal? politicans would rather siphon more and more taxes from them rather than banning them...which would do more to achieve what they say their goal is, to improve health

  • Yes, but.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by ActiveSX (301342) on Thursday June 12 2003, @12:13AM (#6178763) Homepage
    "slim chance"

    "Slim"? Isn't that what they're hoping for?

  • I live in NY (Score:4, Insightful)

    by phantomlord (38815) <phantoml.rochester@rr@com> on Thursday June 12 2003, @12:13AM (#6178765) Journal
    In a state facing a $12 billion deficit, don't the lawmakers have a responsibility to balance the budget rather than create new ways to spend money? The legislature is already adding new taxes left and right to try to cover the deficit, but I have a much more novel approach taken from my own life. When you don't make enough money to pay the bills, quit wasting money. That's right... cut spending on frivilous stuff, even if it means pissing someone off. Pay your critical expenses and cut the fluff.

    Of course, that wouldn't ever fly. Once a program is created, it can never be terminated lest someone get mad that their pet project or special entitlement evaporate. Let's just waste more money since we can always rob the people^W^W^Wraise taxes^Wour income by force^W^Wlater.

      • 1) correlation != causation
        2) the person is [gasp] responsible for themself, the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for his heart attack (remember, the price of freedom is responsibility. The US wasn't meant to be a nanny state)
        3) is this going to go to obesity the way lottery funds "go" to education and the tobacco settlement "goes" to public health? ie, the general fund?
        4) When your budget is $92 billion and you only can bring in $80 billion, is it wise to start new programs when you should be cutting bac
  • Fortunately, the proposal is believed to have a "slim chance" of passing into law.

    Nonsense. It's clearly a fat chance.
  • How about we tax law schools, law firms, political parties and bribes^H^H^H^H^H^Hcampaign contributions and use the proceeds to fund educational programs to prevent people from turning into politicians? Tax assholes to prevent them turning into lawyers?
    Seems logical to me.

  • Television HAS To Go First Here (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Babbster (107076) <aaronbabb&gmail,com> on Thursday June 12 2003, @12:34AM (#6178859) Homepage
    There's no question in my mind that the biggest cause of sedentary lifestyles in this country is the good old idiot box. And I'm not talking about the people who build televisions because RCA, Toshiba, Zenith, et. al. couldn't care less whether you ever turned on your TV after you purchase it, but rather commercial televison networks which make billions of dollars every year trying as hard as they can to get as many people as possible to watch as much of their programming as possible, preferably while eating a McDonald's hamburger accompanied by a bag of Nacho Cheesier Doritos and a Coke (or a Budweiser - they're not THAT picky).
    • Better yet: Ban the remote control! Now that would get people moving.
    • How bout not? Is a nanny state what we really want to have?

      I think I'll continue to decide what I eat and what I do with my own time, thankyouverymuch.

      • My point was that commercials aren't what need this kind of "sin tax" but rather the television networks themselves (perhaps for every 40 minutes of programming) - they're the ones getting the money to RUN the commercials and they're the ones providing the programming where the commercials run. While the commercials might indeed be encouraging unhealthy lifestyles, nobody would watch them if there was no "entertainment" programming. Commercials don't stick people to the couch, CSI does.

  • More direct approach (Score:4, Insightful)

    by misuba (139520) on Thursday June 12 2003, @12:34AM (#6178862) Homepage
    How about a tax on foods of which more than 50% of the caloric content is provided by carbohydrates and sugars?

    But then, the grain growers have actual lobbyists even at the state level, whereas video game producers couldn't find a domed, white building with hacked in-game radar and a 17" monitor.
    • How about a tax on foods of which more than 50% of the caloric content is provided by carbohydrates and sugars?

      Like bread? :)

      I think you maybe meant fat instead of carbohydrates... although that's still problematic since iirc whole milk, which is a dietary staple for most and generally healthy in sane quantities, is rather fatty.

      • Yes, like bread.

        Go and read about the Atkins diet, or check out the Scientific American article here [sciam.com] for more information.
        • Yeah, the atkins diet, because it's totally *not [reason.com]* bullshit!

          Maybe you should read more about it.
          • There are millions of people who have lost weight and actually LOWERED their chollesterol levels and blood pressure because of that diet. I am one of them. I had been trying to lose weight for years, tried almost everything there is out there and, indeed, Atkins seemed a bit over the top. I mean, a fat-based diet that makes you lose weight?

            You can throw all the analysis articles you find on the web on why Atkins does not work. They are mostly written by hapless individuals who cannot accept the main fact:

            • Weight loss diet != healthy lifestyle

              While the Atkins diet might slim you down fast, the real test is whether this can be maintained as a healthy lifestyle. Eat steak and eggs and fat all the time on the Atkins diet and come back 20 years later and see whether you are net more healthy or less healthy than someone on another diet (e.g. Ornish).

              For short term weight loss for people with *immediately* harmful lifestyles (e.g. obese people with severe risk of cardiovascular disease, heartattack, etc.), it ma
          • The New England Journal of Medicine recently published studies showing thayt it worked fantastically well for lowering cholestorol levels and suchlike.

            It seems to work well for lots of people losing weight as well. I've certainly lost weight on it.
        • I know about the Atkins diet. (Disclaimer: My employer is in the weight loss field. I am, however, a programmer, not a dietician, and anything I state hear is certainly not endorsed by them..)

          Basically, the Atkins diet puts your body into a kind of shock which causes it to shed wait. It certainly seems to work for some people, however it's not the healthiest way to lose weight, and it certainly isn't the healthiest way for people who are already a healthy weight to maintain (rather than gain) weight.

          Also,
          • I'm on The High Proten Diet (as the book is called) and that restricts me to 40g of carbs a day.

            This has helped enormously with my cravings (they basically stopped 2 days after I started the diet) and I no longer feel like I'm on a cycle of ups and downs.
    • How about a tax on foods of which more than 50% of the caloric content is provided by carbohydrates and sugars?

      Ah, somebody who actually understands the primary cause of obesity. Problem is, the lawmakers in question don't, and they are just following the popular low-fat superstition, proposed and preached mainly by diet-guru-wannabes with MDs, some of whom have discovered one or two things that actually appear to work, and immediately concluded that they have all of the answers. Some of them (notably
      • This is an excellent post. I've had some experience with low-carb diets as well, and their effect can be quite remarkable. The key is to find a balance which you can sustain for the long term...

        I think the best balance seems to be doing some kind of activity after indulging in high-carb foods, so that the starches are used up instead of stored away...

        I find it too difficult to avoid high carb foods altogether, as they are *everywhere*, so I find that this is a good method to keep the pounds off without

  • How about a tax on /. subscriptions? (Score:4, Funny)

    by njchick (611256) on Thursday June 12 2003, @12:57AM (#6178991) Journal
    Just imagine how much time it takes to get an FP! That would certainly contribute to obesity.

  • Easier solution (Score:5, Funny)

    by flatface (611167) * <flatface @ g m a i l.com> on Thursday June 12 2003, @01:02AM (#6179020)
    Promote DDR.
  • >television commercials, which Ortiz blames on New York's growing obesity problem

    It doesn't say "blames for", it says "blames on".

    That's interesting. Isn't it scary to think that New York's obesity problem is causing television commercials?

    Causing junk food and video games is one thing, but television commercials? That's an incentive for a diet.
  • And a special tax on Barnes and Noble, since the rise in obesity clearly corresponds to the growth of their chain.

    And while we're at it, how about a red wine exemption from the state liquor tax, since the health benefits [cnn.com] of moderate consumption have been long known.

  • Write to him. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Web site [state.ny.us]

    Assemblyman Felix Ortiz
    404 55th Street
    Brooklyn, NY 11220

    Advice from a skinny person to fat people:

    The solution to overcoming obesity is very, very simple: STOP EATING SO MUCH. Put down that cheeseburger, lard-ass. I have no sympathy for you. Eating makes you larger. It's that simple.

    (1) See a doctor. Follow his advice, not mine - I am not a doctor and am not going to be in any way responsible if you die after following my instructions.

    (2) Eat moderately sized healthy meals, 3 times a day. Lots

  • Better ways to combat obesity (Score:4, Funny)

    by erroneous (158367) on Thursday June 12 2003, @03:49AM (#6179771) Homepage
    ... such as not having sex with fat people.
  • If Ortiz were a Republican, we'd be hearing the whole "damn Republicans - the source of all our ills!" screams.

    This idea is clearly bad. The money, even if 100% of it goes to what it is supposed to (not likely, but hey) would still be unlikely to actually accomplish anything.

    Pointless taxing is not the answer. Ever.

  • Pay me. Serious, go ahead and pay me for the trouble and I'll be thin as a twig in no time... But spend that same money on after school specials and "research programs" and I'll go out of my way to not only get fat myself, but encourage others to do so too.

    Unfortunately, the logical solution to every problem has to step aside so everyone's pet projects can get a piece of the pie. Now
    *there* is an obeseity problem I would love to see cleaned up.
  • That's easy, eat more meat, less carbohydrates, works wonders.
  • American gasoline is extremely cheap compared to europe because of the lack of taxes on fuel. So americans drive far more causing an awful lot of polution.

    Slap on a huge tax increase and you will kill two birds with one stone. More americans who will walk (okay waddle) and it will reduce polution.

      • Thank you! I was just going to say something along those lines.

        The majority of fossil fuel burned in this country is not being burned by the consumer automobile. Fossil fuels are used just about everywhere our economy touches. From the tractor that harvests your food and tills your field, to the trucks that deliver that food. Don't forget how much fossil fuel is used to manufacture your microchips. Electricity is used everywhere, and it's largely fossil fuel-based.

        If the government(s) increased t

  • I found a link to a copy of an old NY Times article (no membership req'd this time) Decline In Physical Fitness Programs [k12.ma.us]. If the article is accurate, the Federal Government must have relaxed its regs on Phys Ed and nutrition requirements at schools. It appears to support the thesis that lack of fitness is bad time management.

    Sounds to me like the real problem is what they eat. Eat more junk food, get more health promotion! Of course, you'll only see the ads while chompin' on your Tater Chips, because t

  • The Onion predicted this (Score:4, Informative)

    by MobyDisk (75490) on Thursday June 12 2003, @06:58AM (#6180428) Homepage
    I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh (yea, so shoot me!) many years back, and he was saying how having a cigarette tax would open up the door to taxation of whatever the government thought was "evil." He did his usual over-extreme exaggeration and talked about a "twinkie" tax and a bunch of other utterly ridiculous taxes. I laughed at how stupid he was, and then one day -- McDonalds was sued for selling fatty foods -- New York proposed a tax on video games for making people fat -- and I became a believer.

    But The Onion said it best here: Hershey's Ordered to Pay Obese Americans $135 Billion [theonion.com]
    • Yes, he told you so. It is utterly ridiculous that people think taxing Bad(TM) things is a good idea. First of all, the taxes never end up going where they're supposed to go, because deficits are the norm and money will always be diverted where it is need the most Right Now. Secondly, everyone definition of what is Bad(TM) is different, so I submit that it is hypocritical to promote "diversity" (a pet word of many Democrats) while at the same time defining what is Bad(TM).

  • yay! Taxes are always the answer! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Mantrid (250133) on Thursday June 12 2003, @07:08AM (#6180467) Journal
    Give me a break, any bloody excuse to add a new tax, and I guess it shouldn't surprise anyone that this is a NY State idea. Enough freaking taxes already! The government already has more than it needs.

    (pictures government officals having money fights with wads of our money)
  • Fine any politician $100,000 for each moronic idea they propose. That way, we can fund all the special programs we want, elminate any budget and trade deficits, pay off the national debt, and have enough left over to feed a third world country.

  • I wrote my assemblyman...and this joker: (Score:3, Insightful)

    by j-turkey (187775) on Thursday June 12 2003, @09:15AM (#6181413) Homepage

    Heh -- I wrote this guy an email, as well as my own NYS assemblyman. I've given up on the formalities of writing political emails and just sorta get to the nasty point (at least, when I'm really pissed off).

    To the honorable assemblyman Felix Oritz,

    I am writing concerning your proposed tax on video games, fat, and commercials to pay for NYS' anti-obesity program.

    I am writing because I am against this proposal, which clearly flies in the face of freedom and choice. This proposed tax hike will alienate every New Yorker who eats fatty foods or plays video game -- as well a many business owners...which is pretty much every New Yorker. Do you really want your name on that tax hike? In this time of financial crisis, for the state, New York's cities, and many of the great state's citizens -- do you think that this program is a good idea? Do you really think that New Yorkers are willing to swing *another* tax hike -- this time on the stuff we really like?

    I can answer this for you in a word: "NO".

    Let's stop this witch hunt now...it will NOT help anyone, and will certainly not help your political career. Even though I'm sure this bill will never pass, I now understand the nature of your political character. Be glad that I'm not your constituent, since you would have just lost my vote. Does this reflect the politics of your party? If so, they've lost my vote too.

    Regards,
    -- Jive-ass Turkey (I changed my name for /. ...duh)

    Well -- the insulting informality of this one may not go too far...but at least someone's doing something.

    --Turkey
  • It takes two hands to hold a video came controller, leaving no free hand to reach for the Doritos. Television watching, however, frees up one hand for the beer AND the other for the chips.
  • Why don't we tax:

    Sofas and recliners
    Cordless phones
    Remote controls
    Large refrigerators
    Drive through windows

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.