• Peacepath
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    22 hours ago

    It is a good way to tax the poors while pretending it is ethical and for public health… May the poors would be healthier if they have less money?

    • late_pessimistic@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Taxing sugar is protecting the poor people’s wallets long-term from having to buy Ozempic, surgeries, sneakers for jogging, and fitness trackers.

      That’s the real way wealth gets transfered from the bottom to the top - by selling poison AND the treatment for it.

      • Peacepath
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Now that you say it, it truely works. And look, for tabaco, before the poors were smoking and dieing of the consequences of it while evil rich were getting rich by selling them poison. And so it was the richs’fault!

        Thanks to taxes, poors keep smoking and they still die of it, and rich seller still make money out of it. But now the fault is on the poors who are smokers…

        Also, I would like to suggest heavy high taxe on sugar and sweet products so that blackmarket could keep growing. And since we now buy cigarets from illegal drug dealers, why not also buy from them our candies and sodas? It gives back some money to (the richest one of the) poor neighbohoods without direct intervention in the economy.

        Education and program for healthy behaviour accessible even for poors would be so wrong: the richest would make less money and pass for the bad guys…

    • thisNotMyName
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Starved poors mean less poors so everyone will be richer. Easy how that works isn’t it?