Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?
Replies
-
Work to eliminate poverty and reduce work week. Most people can't read more than a paragraph of information an absorb all of it. You need to offer very simple information, healthy ready-made food options, cooking class…
Population with a good safety net are usually in better health (look up swedish health vs usa health).
- Encourage business to let their worker choose their schedule. I read a study that showed people that can choose their schedule are more likely to take up a sport or active transportation. In my workplace we have flexible schedule, just need to do 35 hours a week and everyone take a long lunch to go take a walk or go to the pool next door, some people do a yoga class once a week in the building… it makes a big difference on the level of activity.
- Higher minimum wage so you can reduce your hours and can keep same living standard. Especially for enterprise were all profit goes to shareholders…
- Give tax credit to business who do work incentive for participation in exercise program ($, one paid hour to exercise, etc).9 -
But you don't have to eat "health food" to be a healthy weight. You can make better choices at fast food places, dollar stores, and the frozen food section. It's cheaper to drink water out of the tap than buy soda. It's cheaper to eat canned beans and minute rice than to go to McDs. It's a case of putting some thought into it. I have weeks where 90% of my diet is oatmeal, fast food, Lean Cuisines, ramen, and $0.99 bags of frozen veg, I can still hit my calorie goal and macros. And sometimes my only exercise is marching and jogging on the living room floor in front of my TV. It's not optimal, but it works.
^^this^^
Know what the #1 purchase with EBT (used to be called food stamps) is? It's SODA pop. If you want legislation, there's the start -- with more than 40,000,000 people on EBT, restrict it to healthy, whole foods. Think it can't be done? Check out Rain's video on surviving two months in the food desert and most expensive place in the US (Manhattan) on one month's worth of EBT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUZuu3JPzXM
It's about choices. The overwhelming majority of us made the choices that got us into our current states. We can make the choices to get out, or at least head the right direction.
9 -
Know what the #1 purchase with EBT (used to be called food stamps) is? It's SODA pop. If you want legislation, there's the start -- with more than 40,000,000 people on EBT, restrict it to healthy, whole foods. Think it can't be done?
***snipped video***It's about choices. The overwhelming majority of us made the choices that got us into our current states. We can make the choices to get out, or at least head the right direction.
Um. I'm really sorry to break this to you, and I know it's hard to believe when you haven't witnessed it, but at least some of the pop those EBT beneficiaries are buying isn't even consumed - it's dumped out in the parking lot, so the welfare cheat can return the cans for the deposit (as cash) to go buy something else that. Like booze.
I'm VERY STRONGLY in favor of requiring the bottle deposit to be ineligible for EBT. In fact, I don't understand why it isn't, already. Modern POS registers support flagging various categories of merchandise as, for example, age-restricted. It seems trivial to restrict a bottle deposit that already rings up as a separate change to not be allowed on EBT.
12 -
All those people claiming to be libertatian are suddenly all fine targeting poor people with punitive mesure for buying treats or finding a work around ot get cash (wow, so much cash.. a few dollars at most)... I'm disgusted.
People are underestimating the role of "unhealhty" (read high calorie and fat content = efficient) food in poorer people life. It's an antidepressant. It's often THE ONLY treat you will ever get. It makes your brain happy when you have to skip meal often and send you in vicious circle.
Fast food is fast, no planning (information + shopping list), no shopping, no prepping, no cooking, no cleaning dishes. If you work a hard physical job (like under educated people often do) or long hours (like poor people often do, 2 or 3 part time job), the choice is easy.
Can't poor people never lose weight OF COURSE NOT. I was poor but I was freaking LUCKY to be smartish and have access to higher education, ability to understand nutritional information, etc.
But for us, pizza night or mcdonald lunch were amazing treat.
We need more to support mental health. Just like we found out addict need MORE social interaction to kick their habit, obese person need HELP and SUPPORT...
http://theconversation.com/do-poor-people-eat-more-junk-food-than-wealthier-americans-79154
"We found that people who said they checked ingredients before eating new foods had lower fast-food intake. This suggests that making it easier for Americans to learn what is in their food could help sway consumers away from fast food and toward healthier eating options.
Another finding was that working more hours raises fast-food consumption, regardless of income level. People eat it because it’s fast and convenient. This suggests policies that make nutritious foods more readily available, quickly, could help offset the lure of fast food. For example, reducing the red tape for approving food trucks that serve meals containing fresh fruits and vegetables could promote healthier, convenient eating."
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-singh-food-deserts-nutritional-disparities-20180207-story.html
"Why do poor Americans eat so unhealthfully? Because junk food is the only indulgence they can afford"
https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2016/dec/13/mental-illness-and-poverty-you-cant-tackle-one-without-the-other
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/the-true-connection-between-class-and-obesity-isnt-what-you-probably-think/2018/07/19/8d3a61e4-8ac8-11e8-a345-a1bf7847b375_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.18e892b9c02c16 -
autumnblade75 wrote: »
Um. I'm really sorry to break this to you, and I know it's hard to believe when you haven't witnessed it, but at least some of the pop those EBT beneficiaries are buying isn't even consumed - it's dumped out in the parking lot, so the welfare cheat can return the cans for the deposit (as cash) to go buy something else that. Like booze.
I'm VERY STRONGLY in favor of requiring the bottle deposit to be ineligible for EBT. In fact, I don't understand why it isn't, already. Modern POS registers support flagging various categories of merchandise as, for example, age-restricted. It seems trivial to restrict a bottle deposit that already rings up as a separate change to not be allowed on EBT.
You have a source for this claim? Because that's a hell of a charge to toss out as fact.
First, let me address something from this and the previous post. The program you are referencing is called SNAP. EBT is a card that is issued to people receiving government benefits. Multiple benefit programs get loaded onto the same card, so you the witness, have no idea which program they are using. You don't know if they have SNAP, refugee assistance funds, TANF, or something else entirely from either a state or federal agency.
Second, how would any store know that the bottle returned was purchased with SNAP funds? People I know who have used SNAP or WIC definitely spent their own money on food in addition to their benefits. Why would we treat people differently because they get benefits?
"Hmm, you are bringing back soda cans. Clearly you are a DRUNK."
"No *kitten*, the family had a birthday party for our 12 year old. Kindly *kitten* off."
16 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »BuiltLikeAPeep wrote: »I think health insurance companies should be made to offer free or discounted gym memberships. My husband is on disability, so he gets free Medicare, which offers free gym memberships. However, I am paying through the nose for health insurance at work just for myself, and the only weight loss they pay for is either prescription pills, which I am scared of because most turn out to be dangerous for your heart, or gastric bypass, which, by the time I lose the required weight they make you lose to "prove" you're serious, I will not need. It makes no sense to me. I know that gastric bypass is by no means the "easy" way out, but it seems that my insurance company is only willing to pay for "quick" fixes.
And the $x a month for membership is included in your premium. Ain't nothing free.
Just buy the membership of you want it. A
@Theoldguy1 Apparently you missed the part where I said it covers pills and gastric bypass, and you must have missed the part where I said I don't want pills and I would not be eligible for the bypass. I'm paying premiums so that other people have the right to those options, so why shouldn't they pay for me to have the right to go to a gym and work out to lose it? Whether you know it or not, EVERYBODY pays for whatever is covered- it's not like I can call them and say "I don't want pills or a bypass, please give me a discount on my premium." Or "please add a gym membership to my policy and adjust my premiums accordingly. "
Where's the eyeroll button on this thing?5 -
It's sad when expecting people to make good choices is called targeting.
I take exception with your characterization that people are being targeted. I said let people bear the responsibility of their choices. No one else is targeting them. If they are targeted by a system that holds decision makers responsible for the consequences of their decisions, they targeted themselves.
I contend that if anything, the rest of us are weary of being targets for taking on the burden of circumstances shifted from the decision makers to others who are taxed to pay for the consequences, but have no say in the choices.VeroniqueBoilard wrote: »All those people claiming to be libertatian are suddenly all fine targeting poor people with punitive mesure for buying treats or finding a work around ot get cash (wow, so much cash.. a few dollars at most)... I'm disgusted.
People are underestimating the role of "unhealhty" (read high calorie and fat content = efficient) food in poorer people life. It's an antidepressant. It's often THE ONLY treat you will ever get. It makes your brain happy when you have to skip meal often and send you in vicious circle.
Fast food is fast, no planning (information + shopping list), no shopping, no prepping, no cooking, no cleaning dishes. If you work a hard physical job (like under educated people often do) or long hours (like poor people often do, 2 or 3 part time job), the choice is easy.
Can't poor people never lose weight OF COURSE NOT. I was poor but I was freaking LUCKY to be smartish and have access to higher education, ability to understand nutritional information, etc.
But for us, pizza night or mcdonald lunch were amazing treat.
We need more to support mental health. Just like we found out addict need MORE social interaction to kick their habit, obese person need HELP and SUPPORT...
http://theconversation.com/do-poor-people-eat-more-junk-food-than-wealthier-americans-79154
"We found that people who said they checked ingredients before eating new foods had lower fast-food intake. This suggests that making it easier for Americans to learn what is in their food could help sway consumers away from fast food and toward healthier eating options.
Another finding was that working more hours raises fast-food consumption, regardless of income level. People eat it because it’s fast and convenient. This suggests policies that make nutritious foods more readily available, quickly, could help offset the lure of fast food. For example, reducing the red tape for approving food trucks that serve meals containing fresh fruits and vegetables could promote healthier, convenient eating."
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-singh-food-deserts-nutritional-disparities-20180207-story.html
"Why do poor Americans eat so unhealthfully? Because junk food is the only indulgence they can afford"
https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2016/dec/13/mental-illness-and-poverty-you-cant-tackle-one-without-the-other
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/the-true-connection-between-class-and-obesity-isnt-what-you-probably-think/2018/07/19/8d3a61e4-8ac8-11e8-a345-a1bf7847b375_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.18e892b9c02c
13 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »
You use the road when you're on your bike, and taxes on motor fuels support the building and maintenance of roads. Why should other people have to pay higher gas taxes to pay for your use of the roads?
Are we sure motor fuel taxes cover the costs of the roads?
Do other taxes also go into the fund?
Don't I pay the motor fuel taxes of the trucks that deliver food and bicycles to the stores where I shop?
It is highly unlikely a cyclist doesn't pay taxes and hasn't paid the motor fuels taxes passed on in the costs of shipping goods and services to his home or the stores where he shops.
Even if he doesn't own a motor vehicle.
If you really want to complain about something, address the shortfall between what is charged to ride public transit and what it costs to run such a system.
In my locale, fares pay about 20% of the costs to run the system. The other 80% is paid by taxpayers. I don't think 80% of them use the buses and light rail.
5 -
FireOpalCO wrote: »autumnblade75 wrote: »
Um. I'm really sorry to break this to you, and I know it's hard to believe when you haven't witnessed it, but at least some of the pop those EBT beneficiaries are buying isn't even consumed - it's dumped out in the parking lot, so the welfare cheat can return the cans for the deposit (as cash) to go buy something else that. Like booze.
I'm VERY STRONGLY in favor of requiring the bottle deposit to be ineligible for EBT. In fact, I don't understand why it isn't, already. Modern POS registers support flagging various categories of merchandise as, for example, age-restricted. It seems trivial to restrict a bottle deposit that already rings up as a separate change to not be allowed on EBT.
You have a source for this claim? Because that's a hell of a charge to toss out as fact.
First, let me address something from this and the previous post. The program you are referencing is called SNAP. EBT is a card that is issued to people receiving government benefits. Multiple benefit programs get loaded onto the same card, so you the witness, have no idea which program they are using. You don't know if they have SNAP, refugee assistance funds, TANF, or something else entirely from either a state or federal agency.
Second, how would any store know that the bottle returned was purchased with SNAP funds? People I know who have used SNAP or WIC definitely spent their own money on food in addition to their benefits. Why would we treat people differently because they get benefits?
"Hmm, you are bringing back soda cans. Clearly you are a DRUNK."
"No *kitten*, the family had a birthday party for our 12 year old. Kindly *kitten* off."
No - I have no proof that kid in the parking lot paid for those cases of Mountain Dew with EBT or SNAP. But I couldn't think of any good reason for him to be dumping them down the sewer. So I asked.
I don't object to the purchase of the pop with government funds. I don't think it's the best use, but I'm not trying to police what they're buying. Neither of those programs are intended to be the sole grocery fund for a family. Charging cash for just the deposit portion of the purchase would indeed stop that particular abuse. Yeah, that's a whole $1.20 for that 12-pack of Coke - or 10 cents for a 2-liter.
Or do away with deposit laws. I'm cool with that, too. But I'm not cool with abuse of the system. Sorry 'bout that. No, actually, I'm not. Sorry, not sorry.5 -
tbright1965 wrote: »
In my locale, fares pay about 20% of the costs to run the system. The other 80% is paid by taxpayers. I don't think 80% of them use the buses and light rail.
But they do benefit from the reduced traffic congestion from other people using lightrail and buses. Plus the draw to potential employers considering setting up shop in that city/state.
8 -
VeroniqueBoilard wrote: »All those people claiming to be libertatian are suddenly all fine targeting poor people with punitive mesure for buying treats or finding a work around ot get cash (wow, so much cash.. a few dollars at most)... I'm disgusted.
People are underestimating the role of "unhealhty" (read high calorie and fat content = efficient) food in poorer people life. It's an antidepressant. It's often THE ONLY treat you will ever get. It makes your brain happy when you have to skip meal often and send you in vicious circle.
Fast food is fast, no planning (information + shopping list), no shopping, no prepping, no cooking, no cleaning dishes. If you work a hard physical job (like under educated people often do) or long hours (like poor people often do, 2 or 3 part time job), the choice is easy.
Can't poor people never lose weight OF COURSE NOT. I was poor but I was freaking LUCKY to be smartish and have access to higher education, ability to understand nutritional information, etc.
But for us, pizza night or mcdonald lunch were amazing treat.
We need more to support mental health. Just like we found out addict need MORE social interaction to kick their habit, obese person need HELP and SUPPORT...
http://theconversation.com/do-poor-people-eat-more-junk-food-than-wealthier-americans-79154
"We found that people who said they checked ingredients before eating new foods had lower fast-food intake. This suggests that making it easier for Americans to learn what is in their food could help sway consumers away from fast food and toward healthier eating options.
Another finding was that working more hours raises fast-food consumption, regardless of income level. People eat it because it’s fast and convenient. This suggests policies that make nutritious foods more readily available, quickly, could help offset the lure of fast food. For example, reducing the red tape for approving food trucks that serve meals containing fresh fruits and vegetables could promote healthier, convenient eating."
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-singh-food-deserts-nutritional-disparities-20180207-story.html
"Why do poor Americans eat so unhealthfully? Because junk food is the only indulgence they can afford"
https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2016/dec/13/mental-illness-and-poverty-you-cant-tackle-one-without-the-other
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/the-true-connection-between-class-and-obesity-isnt-what-you-probably-think/2018/07/19/8d3a61e4-8ac8-11e8-a345-a1bf7847b375_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.18e892b9c02c
Thank you. It's true. College educated libs routinely grandstand that "poor" people are overweight and choose fast food because they don't "understand" the importance of making healthier food choices. Or the "underprivileged" don't "understand" cause and effect, i.e., too much low cost, delicious food = fatness. Wrong. Condescendingly wrong to be exact. Thank you for clarifying.
9 -
VeroniqueBoilard wrote: »Work to eliminate poverty and reduce work week. Most people can't read more than a paragraph of information an absorb all of it. You need to offer very simple information, healthy ready-made food options, cooking class…
Population with a good safety net are usually in better health (look up swedish health vs usa health).
- Encourage business to let their worker choose their schedule. I read a study that showed people that can choose their schedule are more likely to take up a sport or active transportation. In my workplace we have flexible schedule, just need to do 35 hours a week and everyone take a long lunch to go take a walk or go to the pool next door, some people do a yoga class once a week in the building… it makes a big difference on the level of activity.
- Higher minimum wage so you can reduce your hours and can keep same living standard. Especially for enterprise were all profit goes to shareholders…
- Give tax credit to business who do work incentive for participation in exercise program ($, one paid hour to exercise, etc).
Just curious in your scenario who pays for the more for less i.e., fewer working hours and higher wage so employees keep same standard of living?8 -
FireOpalCO wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
In my locale, fares pay about 20% of the costs to run the system. The other 80% is paid by taxpayers. I don't think 80% of them use the buses and light rail.
But they do benefit from the reduced traffic congestion from other people using lightrail and buses. Plus the draw to potential employers considering setting up shop in that city/state.
In my community fares pay 10% of the cost of operating the bus system. The 60 passenger buses with 3 riders take up more space then if each passenger drove their own car.3 -
tbright1965 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »
You use the road when you're on your bike, and taxes on motor fuels support the building and maintenance of roads. Why should other people have to pay higher gas taxes to pay for your use of the roads?
Are we sure motor fuel taxes cover the costs of the roads?
Do other taxes also go into the fund?
Don't I pay the motor fuel taxes of the trucks that deliver food and bicycles to the stores where I shop?
It is highly unlikely a cyclist doesn't pay taxes and hasn't paid the motor fuels taxes passed on in the costs of shipping goods and services to his home or the stores where he shops.
Yes, but everybody pays those. It doesn't make up for the taxes you don't pay to say you pay these other taxes that everyone else pays.1 -
What taxes does the cyclist not pay? I'm sorry, I've apparently lost track of the discussion.1
-
-
What taxes does the cyclist not pay? I'm sorry, I've apparently lost track of the discussion.
The discussion started when someone suggested a tax credit for bike commuting. It was then pointed out that motor fuel taxes (user fees) pay the majority of the cost of roads
Should a cyclist at this point pay a use tax since the are contributing via other taxes IMO probably not. Should there be a tax credit that would be impossible to administer IMO definitely not.
2 -
autumnblade75 wrote: »
Never mind that @NorthCascades has a car...the most Northwest of cars, a Subaru
1 -
Farmers markets in the hood where people could use their food vouchers instead of those "you buy, we fry" places. These unhealthy places are classified as "Convenience stores" by government and so they accept food subsidy cards (foodstamps). People then pay $1 to have the food fried for them on site, so it's really a fast-food restaurant.1
-
Farmers markets in the hood where people could use their food vouchers instead of those "you buy, we fry" places. These unhealthy places are classified as "Convenience stores" by government and so they accept food subsidy cards (foodstamps). People then pay $1 to have the food fried for them on site, so it's really a fast-food restaurant.
How are you going to get producers to go to the hood when in most cases it is further from their farm than other parts of an urban area where they could sell their products. Plus a higher level (real or percieved) of danger.4 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Farmers markets in the hood where people could use their food vouchers instead of those "you buy, we fry" places. These unhealthy places are classified as "Convenience stores" by government and so they accept food subsidy cards (foodstamps). People then pay $1 to have the food fried for them on site, so it's really a fast-food restaurant.
How are you going to get producers to go to the hood when in most cases it is further from their farm than other parts of an urban area where they could sell their products. Plus a higher level (real or percieved) of danger.
Well perceived danger is just that, perceived. In terms of getting producers out to areas that are low income, that difficulty is going to be very much based on location. There are multiple thriving farmers markets in parts of the Portland metro area that are lower income. If anything it's actually significantly easier for farmers/producers to get to these places because there's less traffic than downtown and the parking is significantly better than in most of the middle to upper class areas.
There are a number of farmers markets in Oregon that take SNAP benefits (EBT falls into this). The ones that do match it, typically up to $5 or $10.2 -
What is the benefit of mostly empty buses and trains?
If employers are benefiting, send them the bill.
I just find it laughable that people complain about the 50-100 miles I might ride my bike over the course of a week, all 240# of me and my bike, suggesting that the 50k miles per year the four 1.5-2 ton vehicles in my household drive, burning motor fuels doesn't pay enough for the riding I do during the summer.
Not to mention the various taxes for tags, maintenance and repair items, as well as the taxes paid when the vehicles were purchased, and so on.
And as I said, even a cyclist that doesn't own a car will pay motor fuel taxes that are rolled into the prices of the goods and services he buys.FireOpalCO wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
In my locale, fares pay about 20% of the costs to run the system. The other 80% is paid by taxpayers. I don't think 80% of them use the buses and light rail.
But they do benefit from the reduced traffic congestion from other people using lightrail and buses. Plus the draw to potential employers considering setting up shop in that city/state.
0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »
You use the road when you're on your bike, and taxes on motor fuels support the building and maintenance of roads. Why should other people have to pay higher gas taxes to pay for your use of the roads?
Are we sure motor fuel taxes cover the costs of the roads?
Do other taxes also go into the fund?
Don't I pay the motor fuel taxes of the trucks that deliver food and bicycles to the stores where I shop?
It is highly unlikely a cyclist doesn't pay taxes and hasn't paid the motor fuels taxes passed on in the costs of shipping goods and services to his home or the stores where he shops.
Yes, but everybody pays those. It doesn't make up for the taxes you don't pay to say you pay these other taxes that everyone else pays.
And you prove my point, the cyclist HAS paid those taxes, just like everybody else, and has the same rights to the road as a taxpayer as anybody else.
There is no special privilege afforded to the driver because he pays the taxes directly over the cyclist who paid them indirectly through the costs rolled into the goods and services purchased.
So, unlike what was said before, you are now saying the cyclist, like everyone else, pays motor fuel taxes.
Ergo, the cyclist has the same right to the road as anyone else.3 -
tbright1965 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »
You use the road when you're on your bike, and taxes on motor fuels support the building and maintenance of roads. Why should other people have to pay higher gas taxes to pay for your use of the roads?
Are we sure motor fuel taxes cover the costs of the roads?
Do other taxes also go into the fund?
Don't I pay the motor fuel taxes of the trucks that deliver food and bicycles to the stores where I shop?
It is highly unlikely a cyclist doesn't pay taxes and hasn't paid the motor fuels taxes passed on in the costs of shipping goods and services to his home or the stores where he shops.
Yes, but everybody pays those. It doesn't make up for the taxes you don't pay to say you pay these other taxes that everyone else pays.
And you prove my point, the cyclist HAS paid those taxes, just like everybody else, and has the same rights to the road as a taxpayer as anybody else.
There is no special privilege afforded to the driver because he pays the taxes directly over the cyclist who paid them indirectly through the costs rolled into the goods and services purchased.
So, unlike what was said before, you are now saying the cyclist, like everyone else, pays motor fuel taxes.
Ergo, the cyclist has the same right to the road as anyone else.
not proportionate to the benefit received.
ETA: your argument would be like me arguing that if I pay a toll on one road, I should get to drive on all the other roads for free.4 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Farmers markets in the hood where people could use their food vouchers instead of those "you buy, we fry" places. These unhealthy places are classified as "Convenience stores" by government and so they accept food subsidy cards (foodstamps). People then pay $1 to have the food fried for them on site, so it's really a fast-food restaurant.
How are you going to get producers to go to the hood when in most cases it is further from their farm than other parts of an urban area where they could sell their products. Plus a higher level (real or percieved) of danger.
There are already farmers markets in the hood in Chicago, it's not farther from farms than other parts of the city, and they take SNAP (and there's additional benefits if you use SNAP in farmers markets).
List for all IL: https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=441723 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »
You use the road when you're on your bike, and taxes on motor fuels support the building and maintenance of roads. Why should other people have to pay higher gas taxes to pay for your use of the roads?
Are we sure motor fuel taxes cover the costs of the roads?
Do other taxes also go into the fund?
Don't I pay the motor fuel taxes of the trucks that deliver food and bicycles to the stores where I shop?
It is highly unlikely a cyclist doesn't pay taxes and hasn't paid the motor fuels taxes passed on in the costs of shipping goods and services to his home or the stores where he shops.
Yes, but everybody pays those. It doesn't make up for the taxes you don't pay to say you pay these other taxes that everyone else pays.
Are you saying that I don't pay tax, or that everybody pays tax? This is confusing.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »
You use the road when you're on your bike, and taxes on motor fuels support the building and maintenance of roads. Why should other people have to pay higher gas taxes to pay for your use of the roads?
Are we sure motor fuel taxes cover the costs of the roads?
Do other taxes also go into the fund?
Don't I pay the motor fuel taxes of the trucks that deliver food and bicycles to the stores where I shop?
It is highly unlikely a cyclist doesn't pay taxes and hasn't paid the motor fuels taxes passed on in the costs of shipping goods and services to his home or the stores where he shops.
Yes, but everybody pays those. It doesn't make up for the taxes you don't pay to say you pay these other taxes that everyone else pays.
And you prove my point, the cyclist HAS paid those taxes, just like everybody else, and has the same rights to the road as a taxpayer as anybody else.
There is no special privilege afforded to the driver because he pays the taxes directly over the cyclist who paid them indirectly through the costs rolled into the goods and services purchased.
So, unlike what was said before, you are now saying the cyclist, like everyone else, pays motor fuel taxes.
Ergo, the cyclist has the same right to the road as anyone else.
not proportionate to the benefit received.
ETA: your argument would be like me arguing that if I pay a toll on one road, I should get to drive on all the other roads for free.
Your argument is like saying if you haven't paid taxes the police and fire fighters shouldn't help you.0 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Farmers markets in the hood where people could use their food vouchers instead of those "you buy, we fry" places. These unhealthy places are classified as "Convenience stores" by government and so they accept food subsidy cards (foodstamps). People then pay $1 to have the food fried for them on site, so it's really a fast-food restaurant.
How are you going to get producers to go to the hood when in most cases it is further from their farm than other parts of an urban area where they could sell their products. Plus a higher level (real or percieved) of danger.
There are already farmers markets in the hood in Chicago, it's not farther from farms than other parts of the city, and they take SNAP (and there's additional benefits if you use SNAP in farmers markets).
List for all IL: https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=44172
I've approached Chicago from all directions that are drivable. I guarantee there are more affluent and safer parts of the metropolitan area that are closer to farms than the hood.
It's great farmers are willing to serve that population though.0 -
tbright1965 wrote: »What is the benefit of mostly empty buses and trains?
If employers are benefiting, send them the bill.
I just find it laughable that people complain about the 50-100 miles I might ride my bike over the course of a week, all 240# of me and my bike, suggesting that the 50k miles per year the four 1.5-2 ton vehicles in my household drive, burning motor fuels doesn't pay enough for the riding I do during the summer.
Not to mention the various taxes for tags, maintenance and repair items, as well as the taxes paid when the vehicles were purchased, and so on.
And as I said, even a cyclist that doesn't own a car will pay motor fuel taxes that are rolled into the prices of the goods and services he buys.FireOpalCO wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
In my locale, fares pay about 20% of the costs to run the system. The other 80% is paid by taxpayers. I don't think 80% of them use the buses and light rail.
But they do benefit from the reduced traffic congestion from other people using lightrail and buses. Plus the draw to potential employers considering setting up shop in that city/state.
Where do you live that trains and buses are mostly empty? During rush hour I drive past the park-n-ride and there are lines of people waiting to get on the bus (when I road it for work I had to stand and sometimes wait for the next one). I see the light rail and it’s also full. The only time I’ve ridden light rail and it was empty was on the weekend.
Our problem here is our light rail doesn’t cover enough territory and there are entire commuter areas that don’t get service. I wish I could take a train to work.3 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Farmers markets in the hood where people could use their food vouchers instead of those "you buy, we fry" places. These unhealthy places are classified as "Convenience stores" by government and so they accept food subsidy cards (foodstamps). People then pay $1 to have the food fried for them on site, so it's really a fast-food restaurant.
How are you going to get producers to go to the hood when in most cases it is further from their farm than other parts of an urban area where they could sell their products. Plus a higher level (real or percieved) of danger.
There are already farmers markets in the hood in Chicago, it's not farther from farms than other parts of the city, and they take SNAP (and there's additional benefits if you use SNAP in farmers markets).
List for all IL: https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=44172
I've approached Chicago from all directions that are drivable. I guarantee there are more affluent and safer parts of the metropolitan area that are closer to farms than the hood.
It's great farmers are willing to serve that population though.
One of the worst areas of Chicago is the far west side. Some of the bad areas on the south side are much closer to Indiana than where I live (on the north side). You can get to farms from Chicago in multiple directions (every side but the lake), so it's not like any one area is particularly closer than anywhere else.
It's pretty common for green markets in the city to have farms from IN, southwestern MI, WI, and other parts of IL.
There are urban farming programs on the southside too: http://growinghomeinc.org/our-farms/
https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-chicago-urban-farming-year-ahead-1222-biz-20161220-story.html4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions