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?

17810121328

Replies

  • Theoldguy1
    Theoldguy1 Posts: 2,276 Member
    FireOpalCO 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: »

    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.

    Don't know about @tbright1965 but in my smaller city of about 150,000 the 60 passenger buses drive around with 5 or fewer people. The only route that seems to have fuller buses is a shuttle around the university campus (the students have to buy an unlimited bus pass in their fees). The routes are fairly limited and don't go near nicer neighborhoods. It's not like a big city where affluent individuals use public transit.

    The campus shuttle seems like a travesty to me. I went to this university and there was no shuttle when I attended (except for handicapped students) and the school had the same physical layout (i.e, no large expansion of sq area). Guess what, the students waiting for the bus and playing on their phones are heavier then when we were walking to class.
  • aokoye
    aokoye Posts: 3,495 Member
    edited April 2019
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    FireOpalCO 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: »

    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.

    Don't know about @tbright1965 but in my smaller city of about 150,000 the 60 passenger buses drive around with 5 or fewer people. The only route that seems to have fuller buses is a shuttle around the university campus (the students have to buy an unlimited bus pass in their fees). The routes are fairly limited and don't go near nicer neighborhoods. It's not like a big city where affluent individuals use public transit.

    The campus shuttle seems like a travesty to me. I went to this university and there was no shuttle when I attended (except for handicapped students) and the school had the same physical layout (i.e, no large expansion of sq area). Guess what, the students waiting for the bus and playing on their phones are heavier then when we were walking to class.

    The only busses in my city that aren't ridden extensively are ones that are in areas that have always been upper-middle and upper class with regards to SES (as opposed to the ones that are currently primarily upper-middle/upper class but got that way via gentrification). The public transportation company has responded to this by cutting lines in these areas or cutting the number of busses that serve those lines.

    Daily ridership across the tri-county area that the public transportation system serves apparently averages 310,000 and includes high school and college students (and some middle school students) across buses, light rail, and commuter rail. A few of the colleges/universities have shuttles, but they aren't the sort of shuttles you're referring to. You can't easily walk between the locations that the shuttles go to (would entail hours of walking and in some cases the walking wouldn't be safe due to the lack of sidewalks/shoulders).

    There are a few busses that I ride on a regular basis that don't have a lot of people, but that's primarily an issue of when I take the bus vs the actual route. Part of it is what area of the route I get on and off in. I can pretty easily predict how busy the streetcar I take will be based on where it's at.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,557 Member

    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.

    I'm saying everybody (which includes you) pay the taxes that you say you pay (pass through on goods shipped by road, taxes on motor fuel they actually buy), but you use the road for an additional purpose beyond those related to the taxes you pay.

    I'll try again. Say there is a lake at a dam that the public is allowed to use for various purposes, most of which have a fee or permit price attached to them (fishing, boating, etc.). Let's say you have purchased a day-permit for fishing in the past. Now you want to go and just hike on the trails around the lake and someone suggests you should be paid to do that because of the public benefits that accrue from your getting cardio exercise (which is where this subthread started). Someone says you're already being allowed to get in to the parkland and use it for free for the hiking, because there's no specific fee just to walk on the land, which is overseen and maintained by some kind of staff. You say that because you paid the one-day fishing permit, you've somehow already paid for any operational costs imposed by your hiking, and implicitly support the idea that you should be paid for hiking. But the fishing permit covered the costs related to fishing (e.g., restocking the lake). It doesn't cover costs related to your hiking (someone to do head counts on people in and out, look for stragglers at the end of the day, locate lost or injured hikers, rope off trails that have become dangerous due to erosion, etc.)

  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,843 Member
    I'll try again. Say there is a lake at a dam that the public is allowed to use for various purposes, most of which have a fee or permit price attached to them (fishing, boating, etc.). Let's say you have purchased a day-permit for fishing in the past. Now you want to go and just hike on the trails around the lake and someone suggests you should be paid to do that because of the public benefits that accrue from your getting cardio exercise (which is where this subthread started). Someone says you're already being allowed to get in to the parkland and use it for free for the hiking, because there's no specific fee just to walk on the land, which is overseen and maintained by some kind of staff. You say that because you paid the one-day fishing permit, you've somehow already paid for any operational costs imposed by your hiking, and implicitly support the idea that you should be paid for hiking. But the fishing permit covered the costs related to fishing (e.g., restocking the lake). It doesn't cover costs related to your hiking (someone to do head counts on people in and out, look for stragglers at the end of the day, locate lost or injured hikers, rope off trails that have become dangerous due to erosion, etc.)

    Does the lake receive no tax funded maintenance money - it totally is able to be run by the user fees for the various activities?
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,557 Member
    heybales wrote: »
    I'll try again. Say there is a lake at a dam that the public is allowed to use for various purposes, most of which have a fee or permit price attached to them (fishing, boating, etc.). Let's say you have purchased a day-permit for fishing in the past. Now you want to go and just hike on the trails around the lake and someone suggests you should be paid to do that because of the public benefits that accrue from your getting cardio exercise (which is where this subthread started). Someone says you're already being allowed to get in to the parkland and use it for free for the hiking, because there's no specific fee just to walk on the land, which is overseen and maintained by some kind of staff. You say that because you paid the one-day fishing permit, you've somehow already paid for any operational costs imposed by your hiking, and implicitly support the idea that you should be paid for hiking. But the fishing permit covered the costs related to fishing (e.g., restocking the lake). It doesn't cover costs related to your hiking (someone to do head counts on people in and out, look for stragglers at the end of the day, locate lost or injured hikers, rope off trails that have become dangerous due to erosion, etc.)

    Does the lake receive no tax funded maintenance money - it totally is able to be run by the user fees for the various activities?

    How is that relevant? If X% of costs are funded by user fees x1, x2, and x3, and someone says they should get an incentive payment for some fourth use that is already being subsidized by the other user fees and whatever general use taxes are allocated to it, how does the fact that they are paying taxes the same as everyone else and paying whatever user fees they incur like everybody else somehow eradicate the fact that the use they want to get an incentive payment for is already being subsidized?
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,843 Member
    heybales wrote: »
    I'll try again. Say there is a lake at a dam that the public is allowed to use for various purposes, most of which have a fee or permit price attached to them (fishing, boating, etc.). Let's say you have purchased a day-permit for fishing in the past. Now you want to go and just hike on the trails around the lake and someone suggests you should be paid to do that because of the public benefits that accrue from your getting cardio exercise (which is where this subthread started). Someone says you're already being allowed to get in to the parkland and use it for free for the hiking, because there's no specific fee just to walk on the land, which is overseen and maintained by some kind of staff. You say that because you paid the one-day fishing permit, you've somehow already paid for any operational costs imposed by your hiking, and implicitly support the idea that you should be paid for hiking. But the fishing permit covered the costs related to fishing (e.g., restocking the lake). It doesn't cover costs related to your hiking (someone to do head counts on people in and out, look for stragglers at the end of the day, locate lost or injured hikers, rope off trails that have become dangerous due to erosion, etc.)

    Does the lake receive no tax funded maintenance money - it totally is able to be run by the user fees for the various activities?

    How is that relevant? If X% of costs are funded by user fees x1, x2, and x3, and someone says they should get an incentive payment for some fourth use that is already being subsidized by the other user fees and whatever general use taxes are allocated to it, how does the fact that they are paying taxes the same as everyone else and paying whatever user fees they incur like everybody else somehow eradicate the fact that the use they want to get an incentive payment for is already being subsidized?

    Agreed for being paid to be hiking. As relevant to this sub-thread.

    Just thought you had a good example regarding what appears to be other sub-thread regarding the walker being charged at all. For the aspect of some of the uses being covered by general tax payer $ for which walker already paid in directly or indirectly through taxes - just not direct payment to the park owner (gov't?).
  • DanyellMcGinnis
    DanyellMcGinnis Posts: 315 Member
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    Speaking of calorie disclosure, there is NO POINT in putting 'nutritional values per 100g' information on a snack pack that is clearly not 100g, and not telling me how big the snack pack is, I'm looking at you Starbucks.

    (You can find the information on the website, but why not on the pack?!)

    Ultimately, though, I don't think there's much you can do to legislate people's choices. You can only legislate to make some choices easier, or to make the choices more informed.

    I see that in European products (which I get in snack subscription boxes) all the time. I don't find it useful either. I even saw it on a spice jar being sold on Amazon once. People were oohing and aahing over the 100% of vitamin C in some red pepper flakes and I'm like "do you know how many jars you would have to eat to get all that vitamin C?"
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 26,929 Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    Lenpayasa 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.

    Where I live (mid-Michigan) farm trucks come from the urban areas out to other areas to sell produce to outlying communities, from urban farms in Detroit and Flint. In part, this is a side effect of the depopulation of those urban areas with the decline of the auto industry (as well as other population-reducing pressures that create cheap urban land, or cheap buildings available for indoor food culture).

    Not a huge force yet, but growing . . . and little backwards from what you're perceiving, eh?

    Good stuff they grow, too. :)
  • hlr1987
    hlr1987 Posts: 148 Member
    UK based and relevant to me would be elimination of multi-portion snacks, and a complete revision of the working hours of the week for fewer hours . So much of the year is spent going to work in the dark, coming home in the dark so to be able to fit exercise in (naturally active time, not "going to the gym" exercise) you have to either have an active job or use your lunch time. Plenty of people work longer hours than I do, but I find 7.5hours stuck at a desk really frustrating.
  • Theoldguy1
    Theoldguy1 Posts: 2,276 Member
    hlr1987 wrote: »
    UK based and relevant to me would be elimination of multi-portion snacks, and a complete revision of the working hours of the week for fewer hours . So much of the year is spent going to work in the dark, coming home in the dark so to be able to fit exercise in (naturally active time, not "going to the gym" exercise) you have to either have an active job or use your lunch time. Plenty of people work longer hours than I do, but I find 7.5hours stuck at a desk really frustrating.

    Just curious do you expect less pay for less work? If that's the case, at least in the US you can get part time work.
  • queenoscots
    queenoscots Posts: 44 Member
    I LOVE restaurants that include calorie counts on their menus. More need to provide that info.
  • ceiswyn
    ceiswyn Posts: 2,241 Member
    The more the USA government has gotten involved on telling people how the eat the fatter people have become it seems to me.

    ...other way around...
  • Theoldguy1
    Theoldguy1 Posts: 2,276 Member
    The more the USA government has gotten involved on telling people how the eat the fatter people have become it seems to me.

    I disagree. If people followed the Dietary Guidelines for Americans the overweight/obesity level would be significantly lower.

    https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/
  • h7463
    h7463 Posts: 626 Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    The more the USA government has gotten involved on telling people how the eat the fatter people have become it seems to me.

    I disagree. If people followed the Dietary Guidelines for Americans the overweight/obesity level would be significantly lower.

    https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/

    The problem is, 'people' do not follow any reasonable guidelines these days, they follow 'Instagram influencers'.... My question at this point would be, do they lack education on health issues, or do they lack education in general, to take advise from some online sensation...?
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,843 Member
    h7463 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    The more the USA government has gotten involved on telling people how the eat the fatter people have become it seems to me.

    I disagree. If people followed the Dietary Guidelines for Americans the overweight/obesity level would be significantly lower.

    https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/

    The problem is, 'people' do not follow any reasonable guidelines these days, they follow 'Instagram influencers'.... My question at this point would be, do they lack education on health issues, or do they lack education in general, to take advise from some online sensation...?

    Critical thinking in general, and desiring an "easy" way to get info.

    How many people re-ask something to get an answer from who knows who, rather than a simple search that then requires a tad bit of work to confirm source is good.