The nanny-staters are wishin’ and hopin’ they can continue to use the tax code to control what you and I eat. From the Daily Tar Heel comes these comments from one of the most liberal state legislators in the General Assembly — Sen. Ellie Kinnaird (D-Orange) — about the prospect of hiking taxes on sodas and sweets. (emphasis is mine)
North Carolina legislators also agree with the approach of taxing soft drinks and sweets and have already implemented a tax on these items.
“It’s a great approach. We’ve already put a tax on soft drinks and sweets, and we’ve seen some change because of it,” said Sen. Eleanor Kinnaird, D-Orange.
However, the concerns of unhappy constituents has hindered the decision making process of legislators.
“I think it’s a great idea, but it would have a tremendous outbreak in riots,” Kinnaird said. “It’s a matter of where is the line drawn for controlling, or trying to control, what people eat.”
Kinnaird said that even though public opinion would be negative, the motives behind this action are positive.
“It’s a great approach, but it would be extremely difficult to get passed,” Kinnaird said. “I think we would see huge problems with the public, but the intentions are good.”
In other words, if she could get another tax hike passed, she wouldn’t hesitate to do it.
It doesn’t take a Ph.D. to understand that when we consume more calories than we use, we will gain weight. Some of us will take steps to mitigate the gain and others won’t. That is simply human nature. But rather than impose a higher price on everyone, let’s instead focus on those who actually do expose themselves to higher risk for weight-associated problems. They should pay higher insurance premiums that reflect their higher risk.
I’ll decide for myself what I eat and how much I exercise. In a free country, people have the right to make their own choices — even those that are irresponsible — as long as they don’t hurt someone else in the process. But they also can’t expect everyone else to pay for their ill-advised decisions.
By the way, notice how the writer characterizes the relationship between those pesky “unhappy” constituents who have “hindered” the fine work of legislators who, after all, just want to help us.
However, the concerns of unhappy constituents has hindered the decision making process of legislators.
