Relatively ancient and inactive
The example was just to give a general idea of what I am talking about when I said (in my very much so earlier post) "innovative means where everyone wins".
Waving innovation at my face isn't a solution. You don't see me waving a flag saying 'Innovative taxes! You can't criticize me, because I said innovative!'. Unless you can give me some
viable,
effective examples of 'innovation', you have no argument. And the only one you've given me so far I've already criticized.
I've said a couple times that my example solution was paid for by people, not the government. Also, it isn't my solution, it's just an example to give a general idea of what I am talking about when I said (in my very much so earlier post) "innovative means where everyone wins".
So... you want pressure-detection in most office stairs, to be paid for by charity (instead of those poor kids in Africa, who wants to give
them money, much better to get singing stairs for people too lazy to eat decently), and this so people use stairs instead of elevators or escalators. I'm sorry, but charity isn't usually a government policy. Your solution wastes precious (and rare) charity money for almost no gain (I get to take the stairs two extra times a day! The solution to obesity!).
Again, it isn't my solution, or my only solution, just an example to help show what I am talking about. Now, I completely agree with the part about generating monetary revenue for the country as a whole. I even said it here (note that "generate revenue" refers to monetary revenue):
If you have other solutions, share them.
So all in all, our views aren't so different. It's just that money being extracted and inserted into the government, and then spit back out won't, on its own, solve the problem of obesity. It can sure help in raising funds to donate to agencies or groups who are seeking innovative and effective means to combat obesity on a physical and psychological plane.
No, giving and taking money from the government won't change anything. But if you change prices at the same time, it will do it. EVEN IF it doesn't work as well as I expect it to, it'll work hell of a lot better than singing stairs (which is your only solution so far), and it'll give the poor a viable source of nutrition apart from greasy burgers.
Also, you can't shift the burden of proof upon me. I've had this happen every now and then in debates where someone tries to shift the burden of proof onto me, when they are the ones who need to back their own claims. "If you think I'm wrong, disprove it!" won't be tolerated as a valid argument. If you make a claim, you are going to be responsible for providing the necessary citations or explanations, not anyone else. I think that watermelons are blue on the inside until you cut into them, prove me wrong if you think I'm incorrect.
Not everything is provable. Sometimes we just have to use logic to figure out the probable results. See, if everyone needed proof that something would work before trying it, nothing new would ever be tried. I'll reiterate my logic, in nice linear format, although I really believe you're just trolling me at this point:
Heavy Taxes on unhealthy food, subsidies on healthy food (especially for poor) ->
People will eat more healthy food, because it costs less. && People will eat less unhealthy food, because it costs more. ->
People will get thinner.->
Obesity rates decrease.
(??? -> Profit!)foRvraelAt the same time:
Taxes on people depending on weight, with proper exemptions with medical problems and all that ->
Families calculate that they could save $300 a month if poor daddy lost some weight. ->
Some daddies will take the heroic job upon themselves and will lose weight. ->
People will get thinner.->
Obesity rates decrease.
Really, you couldn't figure that out?
There is a difference between the government taking the initiative to solve a problem, and people in general participating together collaboratively to solve a common problem. The idea behind the people solving the problem of obesity isn't about the where the money is coming from as much as the psychological and social differences between the two methods. I believe that a large movement, or series of groups, like relay-for-life anti-cancer runs, would be much more effective in combating obesity than if the government were to simply tax unhealthy foods. I also believe a mix of both taxing completely unnecessary foods (like soda), innovative solutions, and mass participation by the general public would be much more effective than the government working alone with just taxes.
Why would people start collaborating to solve a problem that they don't care about? Look at it here: I think that most people on SEN aren't obese, but there's still plenty of people who want no intervention from the government (You don't count, because you still want intervention, just not from the government). This will not get fixed without government intervention, because:
-People are selfish, they don't want to give money to fatties.
-Fatties could solve the problem by themselves if they wanted to.
-Government alone is powerful enough to get a social movement like this going.
Fat people CAN STOP IT. Cancer patients CAN'T STOP IT. AIDS patients CAN'T STOP IT. Why would you donate money for jingly stairs, when people could easily stop stuffing their faces and/or exercise? I would definitely not donate money to people who drain up government money through larger health care expenses, and who COULD DO IT THEMSELVES.
None.