Dumb tax laws

I read the article you linked. The part that is perhaps most aggravating is that, while the cost of
gastric stapling surgery can be claimed as a deductible medical expense, you could not simply claim
your fitness club expenses, though that is by far the saner and more rational approach to fitness
and weight control. The IRS's logic is that obesity is a "disease," but if you can control it
through exercise, it obviously is not a disease for you. What twaddle. Think how much they might
save on the Medicare payments end if they allowed Americans to deduct fitness club and running
equipment costs over the years.

"TopCounsel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

IRS's logic is that obesity is a "disease," but if you can control it through exercise, it
obviously is not a disease for you. What twaddle. Think how much they might save on the Medicare
payments end if

they

Quoted message said:

allowed Americans to deduct fitness club and running equipment costs over

the

Quoted message said:

years.

You're using logic. You can't do that.

Actually, the logic is, a fitness club deduction would be abused. Also, people who join fitness
clubs will do it regardless of whether they get a deduction or not. The others that join just for
the deduction would not use the facilities, and hence, would not end up any healtier, so there would
be no savings in Medicare anyway.

And before you argue with me, I don't like the system either. I too am annoyed that I can't have a
deduction for being healthy while some fat slob can. I mean, at LEAST they could let you use a
health club membership for Flexibile Spending...

Also, if you can get a doctor to sign off, sometimes you CAN get a health club membership deducted.

JR.

This initiative is stupid, but your idea of people racing for tax breaks, isn't? What a
clueless putz.

(Jtiche) said:

I think most people just aren't willing to put in the work to get fit

Yes... or at least then *think* they aren't willing. In a lot of cases I think it's just an
unwillingness to TRY in the first place. There is also too much of a focus on dieting as the
solution. People think that dieting is easier than exercising... when in fact dieting deprives you
of joy and is usually a very difficult and ineffective way to lose weight. And of couse that just
increases people's defeatist additudes. How often have we heard the story of someone who wanted to
lose weight and tried every diet on the planet without success. They came to the conclusion that it
was just not possible for them to lose weight. They had a 'disease' (another HUGE defeatist additude
promoted by our culture... nothing is your fault anymore...everything is a 'disease'😉. But then one
day, in desperation, they finally gave in and decided to try this exercising thing. Voila!!! An
'overnight', life-changing success. I guess my point is, I think the stumbling block for most people
who WANT to lose weight is making that first step and starting to exercise. People are all too
willing to try the newest bizzare and/or dangerous diet (or pill) but absolutely horrified at the
idea of trying exercise. But once they start and they see quick results and feel better... they get
excited and everything changes. Diets are not exciting and usually make you feel crappy (or in the
case of Atkins... make you smell bad... LOL). One last thought... another mistake a lot of people
making is thinking of exercise as being synonymous with the dreaded gym. They sign up with good
intentions but never go... or they feel self-conscience. It can start with something as simple as
walking that 2K to work or the store or whatever instead of driving.

--
Nova Scotia, Canada

"TopCounsel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

The IRS's logic is that obesity is a "disease,"

It is, to many people. Obesity is often cause by thyroid problems, etc.

The premise that overweight people are so because of sitting on their asses and eating all day is
totally false. Sure, there are fat lazy people out there - but many, especially the ones that are
*very* obese, are that way for real medical problems, not from not exercising.

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org "The most insecure people are the ones you see, putting
other people down constantly."

"Miss Anne Thrope" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This initiative is stupid, but your idea of people racing for tax breaks, isn't? What a
clueless putz.

Then put up a better idea then, stupid.

SwStudio said:

"TopCounsel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

The IRS's logic is that obesity is a "disease,"

It is, to many people. Obesity is often cause by thyroid problems, etc.

From thyrolink.comch5.htmlOpen ↗

"Obesity is very common in this country and is not a thyroid disease. As stated, the weight gain
with hypothyroidism is modest and some patients actually lose weight (apparently too tired to eat).
Most people who are overweight are overweight because they eat more than they need and are not
physically active. Obesity alone, without other symptoms, is almost never due to hypothyroidism.
Hypothyroid patients who are overweight remain overweight after treatment unless they go on a diet
and exercise program to lose weight. "

Quoted message said:

The premise that overweight people are so because of sitting on their asses and eating all day is
totally false.

No. For it to be *totally* false it would have to be impossible to get fat doing the above. Clearly
you *can* get fat doing this. It is false for some fat people.

Quoted message said:

Sure, there are fat lazy people out there - but many, especially the ones that are *very* obese,
are that way for real medical problems, not from not exercising.

I don't know what you're basing this on David. Sure there are *some* fat people who genuinely may be
fat due to hypothyroidism or other conditions but I am aware of no evidence that this is responsible
for the majority of very obese people. There is ample evidence however that lifestyle and diet
rather than disease is the cause of obesity.

Grossly obese people may concurrently suffer from a number of diseases but these are mostly as
a result of obesity rather than its cause. (Hypertension, diabetes, osteoarthritis, heart
disease etc.)

Tim

--
Remove the obvious to reply by email. Please support rheumatoid arthritis research! Visit
justgiving.comspeysideOpen ↗ or justgiving.comspeysideOpen ↗ if you're a UK
tax payer.

TenKMan said:

Here is an article whose premise sounds stupid to me. I once advocated on this group a tax break
for those who could demonstrate a healthy lifestyle such as those that could break ~45 min. in a
10k on an age and gender adjusted scale.

I have advocated something similiar. The problem with using 10K performance is
(a) The number of people that run something like this is statistically insignificant compared to the
size of the US population; and (b) Those geneticly gifted have a decided advantage. But the cost
of health care in the US is a major issue: It is presently the #2 most important political issue
(after jobs) according to the opinion polls; One cost estimate of the Bush prescription drug
plan that I've seen--just drugs, now--puts the total cost at $500 BILLION.

It seems to me that if elective surgery for someone without the personal responsibility to control
their own weight merits a tax deduction, then those of us who belong to health clubs and athletic
clubs (not just running, but also swimming, cycling, basketball leagues...) also merit a tax
deduction; In my mind, this is just simple equity.

Also, I think we should have some discrimination based on BMI status, at least as far as the cost
of health care (including the part underwritten by the taxpayers) is concerned. You are not
required to diet or work out. But you get an annual physical. If your BMI value puts you in the
"overweight" class
(a.a., BMI > 25), you pay more; If your BMI puts you in the "obese" class (BMI

Quoted message said:

30), you pay a LOT more, which reflects YOUR costs to society that are

presently being underwritten by people with more personal responsibility than you.

Lyndon

"Speed Kills...It kills those that don't have it!" --US Olympic Track Coach Brooks Johnson

"JR" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"TopCounsel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:20040302011629.06673.00000759@mb-
m25.aol.com...

Quoted message said:

IRS's logic is that obesity is a "disease," but if you can control it through exercise, it
obviously is not a disease for you.

What

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

twaddle. Think how much they might save on the Medicare payments end if

they

Quoted message said:

allowed Americans to deduct fitness club and running equipment costs

over

Quoted message said:

the

Quoted message said:

years.

You're using logic. You can't do that.

Actually, the logic is, a fitness club deduction would be abused. Also, people who join fitness
clubs will do it regardless of whether they get a deduction or not. The others that join just for
the deduction would not

use

Quoted message said:

the facilities, and hence, would not end up any healtier, so there would

be

Quoted message said:

no savings in Medicare anyway.

It has been said that that which you subsidize (through tax deductions) you will get more of, but I
doubt anyone would join a fitness club "just for the deduction". If that were the logic then people
would now be getting their stomach stapled "just for the deduction". There is still considerable
cost to the individual for having this procedure performed.

A fitness club deduction would most likely influence the decision of those "on the fence" about
joining. It is not likely to get a couch potato into the gym because there would still be an
expense. That's like buying a $100 screen door for your submarine because there was a $30 rebate
(AGI reduction).

Mike

As exampled by some of the replies to the OP the economic illiteracy of the American public always
amuses me, but never surprises me. Tax policy always works at the margin. Tax more of something and
you get less of it. Tax less of something (read "tax credits", "tax deductions"😉 and you get more of
it. Predicting the exact amount of the increase/decrease may be problematic, but the general
principle is inviolable. Prediction in the specific case, of course is impossible, but
economics never claims or attempts to address that, whereas sociology and psychology do.
Despite the ad hominem arguments to the contrary, nothing the OP said was controversial or in
error with regard to economics. My general observation is that runners are more educated than
the general public, but doesn't anyone here take Econ 101 anymore?

"TenKMan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Here is an article whose premise sounds stupid to me. I once advocated on this group a tax break
for those who could demonstrate a healthy lifestyle such as those that could break ~45 min. in a
10k on an age and gender adjusted scale. Here we see a tax break for those that get their stomach
stapled or some other drastic weight loss surgery.

usatoday.com2004 03 01 weightloss x.htmOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

My general observation is that runners are more educated than the general public, but doesn't
anyone here take Econ 101 anymore?

The only poster that took issue with the economic principle is not a runner, but an anti-runner (a
troll -- Miss Anne Thrope). Otherwise, as I read this thread, the others seem to agree on the
basic effect of tax breaks, but definitely do disagree as to whether such initiatives are good
public policy.

It couldn't be BMI. When I used to swim in high school I was technically
overweight, even though I was a well conditioned athlete. All the muscle
made my BMI shoot up.
"TopCounsel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then put up a better idea then, stupid.

How about a "Fat Tax?" You pay by the pound (or by something more

scientific

Quoted message said:

such as BMI, etc.)? This would give everyone a VERY direct incentive to

slim

Quoted message said:

down. Since obesity is very related to the costs of care for diabetes,

heart

Quoted message said:

disease, etc., there is a very rational purpose for the tax -- to fund the additional Medicare
expense such people are likely to cause the treasury

to

Quoted message said:

incur.

Mind you, I'm not really advocating such a thing. But discussing it

brings

Quoted message said:

home some very real points.

"SwStudio" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"TopCounsel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

The IRS's logic is that obesity is a "disease,"

It is, to many people. Obesity is often cause by thyroid problems, etc.

The premise that overweight people are so because of sitting on their asses and eating all day is
totally false.

So, like, over the last 10 or 20 years, like, all of the sudden, a whole lot of people caught
this disease?

That's amazing.

Obesity rates are rising. What genetic mutation of human DNA in the last 10 years caused this?

Bingo!

Indeed, it was a thinly disguised diatribe directed at that misanthrope. Not only is he a
pestilence, but it seems in the end he's not too bright as well.

"TopCounsel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:20040302193106.02084.00000806@mb-
m19.aol.com...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My general observation is that runners are more educated than the general public, but
doesn't anyone

here

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

take Econ 101 anymore?

The only poster that took issue with the economic principle is not a

runner,

Quoted message said:

but an anti-runner (a troll -- Miss Anne Thrope). Otherwise, as I read

this

Quoted message said:

thread, the others seem to agree on the basic effect of tax breaks, but definitely do disagree as
to whether such initiatives are good public

policy.

"JR" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

That's amazing.

Obesity rates are rising. What genetic mutation of human DNA in the last

10

Quoted message said:

years caused this?

There's been about 20 people to comment about my wrongness here, so why not be number 21?

...oh, I guess YOU will be! Congrats. Way to go, trooper!

--
David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org "The most insecure people are the ones you see, putting
other people down constantly."

"SwStudio" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"JR" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

That's amazing.

Obesity rates are rising. What genetic mutation of human DNA in the

last

Quoted message said:

10

Quoted message said:

years caused this?

There's been about 20 people to comment about my wrongness here, so why not be number 21?

Well David, by my offline newsreader's count, and google, it looks to me like my comment was
actually the _3rd_ one.

That being said, I could have said nothing, but it really is an important issue. In my opinion, at
least, and it it a nerve.

People sit around and blame their genetics when in the LARGE majority or cases, it's just not so.
Yet, they latch on to a few studies (reputable or not) and use them as an excuse not to improve
their health. And if they used a little logic, they would be able to see (although probably still
ignore) the plain fact that it's not true for them. I mean, heck, if there's no way one can get fit
because they're genetically disposed to be fat, then why bother trying at all, right? ANd that's
wrong, and that's bad. And the IRS is making it worse. Not necessarily for allowing fat people to
deduct the price of their operations, but moreso for not allowing others who are taking care of
themselves to take deductions also.

I know you live in Canada, so that part of it isn't an issue for you, but you certainly are probably
no stranger to your medical system, and how strained it is.

Anyway, I am no stranget to making mistakes on Usenet and feeling the sting of a million comments
back at me. If I annoyed you, I'm sorry.

Jeff.

"TopCounsel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then put up a better idea then, stupid.

How about a "Fat Tax?" You pay by the pound (or by something more

scientific

Quoted message said:

such as BMI, etc.)? This would give everyone a VERY direct incentive to

slim

Quoted message said:

down. Since obesity is very related to the costs of care for diabetes,

heart

Quoted message said:

disease, etc., there is a very rational purpose for the tax -- to fund the additional Medicare
expense such people are likely to cause the treasury

to

Quoted message said:

incur.

Mind you, I'm not really advocating such a thing. But discussing it

brings

Quoted message said:

home some very real points.

I wish people would cease trying to make the tax code even more complicated and using it to tout
whatever pet social project someone thinks is good. I wish politicians (and to a lesser extent the
courts) would stop using the tax code to promote what they think are good for people. Simplify and
reduce the code!

I vaguely remember Econ 101. I have learned far more reading Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams than
anything I learned in a college econ class.

"John Galt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

As exampled by some of the replies to the OP the economic illiteracy of

the

Quoted message said:

American public always amuses me, but never surprises me. Tax policy

always

Quoted message said:

works at the margin. Tax more of something and you get less of it. Tax less of something (read
"tax credits", "tax deductions"😉 and you get more

of

Quoted message said:

it. Predicting the exact amount of the increase/decrease may be problematic, but the general
principle is inviolable. Prediction in the specific case, of course is impossible, but
economics never claims or attempts to address that, whereas sociology and psychology do.
Despite

the

Quoted message said:

ad hominem arguments to the contrary, nothing the OP said was

controversial

Quoted message said:

or in error with regard to economics. My general observation is that runners are more educated
than the general public, but doesn't anyone here take Econ 101 anymore?

"TenKMan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Here is an article whose premise sounds stupid to me. I once advocated on this group a tax break
for those who could demonstrate a healthy lifestyle such as those that could break ~45 min. in a
10k on an age and gender adjusted scale. Here we see a tax break for those that get their
stomach stapled or some other drastic weight loss surgery.

usatoday.com2004 03 01 weightloss x.htmOpen ↗

Why cant people be responsible for themselves rather than have the government do it for them? Thats
one of the few conservative-type positions I agree with.

Anyways, since many people have only catrostrophic health insurance (for example I pay much up the
cost for the first $5K), that is an incentive to be healthy.