PHIT bill

[tele]

https://gearjunkie.com/phit-act-sports-fitness-equipment-tax-deduction

Finally legislation that makes sense. :banana:

[fa63]

Unnecessary... Those that have the money to buy fitness gear, who typically don't need tax breaks to begin with, get another tax write-off.

[old fat man]

Unnecessary... Those that have the money to buy fitness gear, who typically don't need tax breaks to begin with, get another tax write-off.

Agreed. Don't give incentives to the (already) healthy. Make it harder on those that enable or contribute to poor health. Tobacco companies, soda makers, fast food joints, etc.

[kevinvc]

Tax deductions do nothing for the poor, absolutely nothing. There is a correlation between low income and obesity, which the sponsor of this bill claims to want to address. This seems like an ineffective way to do that.

In reality, it is a subsidy for middle and upper class folks' hobbies, which is why I can see it having some level of bi-partisan support. Over 50% of congress-critters are millionaires. This is a convenient way for them to pad their own pockets while pretending to help others.

Yes, it would benefit me. No, I don't think it is good legislation.

[dustyrider]

Tax deductions would be nice, but I ain't joining a gym even if they kick me a cool grand a year. The only $250 exercise devise I own takes me to the bar and back. Guess I could always use another one of those!

[brockd15]

I'm of two minds about this.

For those who are against it, I can see where you're coming from and your reasoning.

But then I'm not sure that I agree with it.

From the CDC site on the topic I see these headings:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db50.pdf

"Among men, obesity prevalence is generally similar at
all income levels, with a tendency to be slightly higher at
higher income levels."

"Among women, obesity prevalence increases as income decreases."

"Most obese adults are not low income (below 130% of the poverty level)."

"Between 1988–1994 and 2007–2008 the prevalence of obesity among adults
increased at all income levels."

"Between 1988–1994 and 2007–2008 the prevalence of obesity among adults
at all levels of education increased."

The same report shows that 85% of obese men and 76% of obese women are above the low income threshold. What you can't tell from it what percentage of each group falls into an income level where the standard deduction isn't taken and a deduction like this would be, which would be helpful.

Based on what I'm seeing, low-income people don't have a monopoly on obesity so it seems to me that saying something shouldn't be done on the basis that it will benefit people that are not "poor" is not a good reason when it may actually benefit the health of those people that may use the tax deduction. If the goal is to encourage healthier habits to reduce obesity in general, then to aim it where it may have the most impact would make sense. And it seems that the obesity problem is not mostly with low-income people so to focus it there would reduce the overall effectiveness.

[fa63]

What one eats has more to do with obesity than lack of exercise. Should government subsidize fruits and veggies as well?

I appreciate that they are trying to do something, but subsidies are not the solution in this case.

[kevinvc]

From the CDC site on the topic I see these headings:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db50.pdf


Interesting, I was looking at an article that found a correlation: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160108083736.htm

I trust the CDC, so you may very well be correct. Regardless, I stand by my previous statement that tax credits benefit middle to upper income earners and do nothing for the poor. Regardless of intention, this legislation would still benefit those who have less need.

[brockd15]

Interesting, I was looking at an article that found a correlation: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160108083736.htm

I trust the CDC, so you may very well be correct. Regardless, I stand by my previous statement that tax credits benefit middle to upper income earners and do nothing for the poor. Regardless of intention, this legislation would still benefit those who have less need.

I agree about deductions/credits and who benefits from them, I'm just not sure that's the criteria that should be used to determine if it should be implemented or not. In general, I don't like the idea of the government using taxes as a way to manipulate people into the behavior they want, but that's going off on a tangent.