Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Should junk food be taxed?
Replies
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »This whole thread just makes me weep for America.
Care to expand upon that, or was it intentionally vague?1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »This whole thread just makes me weep for America.
Care to expand upon that, or was it intentionally vague?
He's, too sexy for this thread....1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »This whole thread just makes me weep for America.
Me too.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »This whole thread just makes me weep for America.
Care to expand upon that, or was it intentionally vague?
I'm too weepy to talk about it.3 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »This whole thread just makes me weep for America.
Care to expand upon that, or was it intentionally vague?
He's, too sexy for this thread....
1 -
When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
9 -
for fricken sakes. doesn't the government get enough of your money? sheesh.4
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »The whole idea of "hidden" sugar in things like ketchup baffles me. There is sugar in ketchup. It's part of the recipe. It's an ingredient. If you don't know there's sugar in ketchup, then it's your ignorance of how to make ketchup that's too blame, not the hidden sugars. And not that i expect everyone to know how to make ketchup, but the fact that we no longer need to make our own and can conveniently buy it from the store doesn't make its ingredients suddenly nefarious.
I originally used the term "hidden sugar" in this context:
How about taxing based on added sugars? Would get the main items that any third grader would classify as junk food like pop, candy, cookies, etc. Might also get manufacturers to reduce the amount of "hidden" sugars in things like ketchup, sauces, etc.
Agree anyone can find the sugar in an item by looking at the ingredient list (that is why I put "hidden" in the quotation marks). However, most don't and consumers can get much additional sugar (calories) in the diet from things that many would not expect to have sugar.
Also, I'm not sure people can taste the "hidden sugars" in many item. Many people have grown up eating foods that have extra sugar added in the processing and don't "taste" the sugar since they've never had the food without it.
While I get your point, I don't see what more could be done. Well, short of forcing companies to change their labeling to big black boxes with white letters that say "all the sugar!! Diabeetus!! Do not eat unless you want the beetus!!", which would be completely false, and still probably wouldn't dissuade most who eat these things.
The information is clearly on the label. If consumers practice willful ignorance, or just don't care, there's nothing you can do about it.
A label with Paula Deen's photo required on all items with any added sugar?
Hmmm, maybe. Though, if the crap they put on cigarette packs in some places didn't work, I doubt that will either. Though admittedly, Paula Deen's face is almost as horrifying as a lung tumor.
Interesting, but there is a different drive to these things. Smokers who are addicted are trying to fuel a very specific (nicotine) addiction. On the other hand, people who are hungry buying food could probably fulfill that hunger with any one of a variety of foods. Now we all know that product packaging is designed for specific marketing purposes. This is evident in colors used on packages, shapes and lines, and even mascots (Tony the Tiger, the Trix rabbit) and celebrities (whichever athlete is currently on Wheaties). I believe putting Paula Deen's image on a food item would promote that food item to a particular audience just as putting <insert athlete name here> promotes Wheaties to a particular audience.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »The whole idea of "hidden" sugar in things like ketchup baffles me. There is sugar in ketchup. It's part of the recipe. It's an ingredient. If you don't know there's sugar in ketchup, then it's your ignorance of how to make ketchup that's too blame, not the hidden sugars. And not that i expect everyone to know how to make ketchup, but the fact that we no longer need to make our own and can conveniently buy it from the store doesn't make its ingredients suddenly nefarious.
I originally used the term "hidden sugar" in this context:
How about taxing based on added sugars? Would get the main items that any third grader would classify as junk food like pop, candy, cookies, etc. Might also get manufacturers to reduce the amount of "hidden" sugars in things like ketchup, sauces, etc.
Agree anyone can find the sugar in an item by looking at the ingredient list (that is why I put "hidden" in the quotation marks). However, most don't and consumers can get much additional sugar (calories) in the diet from things that many would not expect to have sugar.
Also, I'm not sure people can taste the "hidden sugars" in many item. Many people have grown up eating foods that have extra sugar added in the processing and don't "taste" the sugar since they've never had the food without it.
While I get your point, I don't see what more could be done. Well, short of forcing companies to change their labeling to big black boxes with white letters that say "all the sugar!! Diabeetus!! Do not eat unless you want the beetus!!", which would be completely false, and still probably wouldn't dissuade most who eat these things.
The information is clearly on the label. If consumers practice willful ignorance, or just don't care, there's nothing you can do about it.
A label with Paula Deen's photo required on all items with any added sugar?
Hmmm, maybe. Though, if the crap they put on cigarette packs in some places didn't work, I doubt that will either. Though admittedly, Paula Deen's face is almost as horrifying as a lung tumor.
Interesting, but there is a different drive to these things. Smokers who are addicted are trying to fuel a very specific (nicotine) addiction. On the other hand, people who are hungry buying food could probably fulfill that hunger with any one of a variety of foods. Now we all know that product packaging is designed for specific marketing purposes. This is evident in colors used on packages, shapes and lines, and even mascots (Tony the Tiger, the Trix rabbit) and celebrities (whichever athlete is currently on Wheaties). I believe putting Paula Deen's image on a food item would promote that food item to a particular audience just as putting <insert athlete name here> promotes Wheaties to a particular audience.
The Paula Deen thing was a joke, because diabeetus. Plus I was under the impression this thread was a place where ridiculously unrealistic suggestions were being put forward, like trying to legally classify junk food and tax it. Paula Deen was my contribution... My bad.6 -
mskessler89 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »The whole idea of "hidden" sugar in things like ketchup baffles me. There is sugar in ketchup. It's part of the recipe. It's an ingredient. If you don't know there's sugar in ketchup, then it's your ignorance of how to make ketchup that's too blame, not the hidden sugars. And not that i expect everyone to know how to make ketchup, but the fact that we no longer need to make our own and can conveniently buy it from the store doesn't make its ingredients suddenly nefarious.
I originally used the term "hidden sugar" in this context:
How about taxing based on added sugars? Would get the main items that any third grader would classify as junk food like pop, candy, cookies, etc. Might also get manufacturers to reduce the amount of "hidden" sugars in things like ketchup, sauces, etc.
Agree anyone can find the sugar in an item by looking at the ingredient list (that is why I put "hidden" in the quotation marks). However, most don't and consumers can get much additional sugar (calories) in the diet from things that many would not expect to have sugar.
Also, I'm not sure people can taste the "hidden sugars" in many item. Many people have grown up eating foods that have extra sugar added in the processing and don't "taste" the sugar since they've never had the food without it.
While I get your point, I don't see what more could be done. Well, short of forcing companies to change their labeling to big black boxes with white letters that say "all the sugar!! Diabeetus!! Do not eat unless you want the beetus!!", which would be completely false, and still probably wouldn't dissuade most who eat these things.
The information is clearly on the label. If consumers practice willful ignorance, or just don't care, there's nothing you can do about it.
A label with Paula Deen's photo required on all items with any added sugar?
Hmmm, maybe. Though, if the crap they put on cigarette packs in some places didn't work, I doubt that will either. Though admittedly, Paula Deen's face is almost as horrifying as a lung tumor.
Interesting, but there is a different drive to these things. Smokers who are addicted are trying to fuel a very specific (nicotine) addiction. On the other hand, people who are hungry buying food could probably fulfill that hunger with any one of a variety of foods. Now we all know that product packaging is designed for specific marketing purposes. This is evident in colors used on packages, shapes and lines, and even mascots (Tony the Tiger, the Trix rabbit) and celebrities (whichever athlete is currently on Wheaties). I believe putting Paula Deen's image on a food item would promote that food item to a particular audience just as putting <insert athlete name here> promotes Wheaties to a particular audience.
The Paula Deen thing was a joke, because diabeetus. Plus I was under the impression this thread was a place where ridiculously unrealistic suggestions were being put forward, like trying to legally classify junk food and tax it. Paula Deen was my contribution... My bad.
If it makes you feel any better, I laughed, and not in a sad trombone way either.1 -
NO. Too much government in our lives already.4
-
When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
Since 2/3 of the US population is overweight, 1/3 is obese and 30% of the population is expected to have diabetes by 2050, it's pretty obvious the typical American doesn't know *kitten* about feeding themselves in an educated manner.
If a tax would help with curtail the current eating habits and/or help fund education/medical care for obesity related issues, I'd say why not.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
Since 2/3 of the US population is overweight, 1/3 is obese and 30% of the population is expected to have diabetes by 2050, it's pretty obvious the typical American doesn't know *kitten* about feeding themselves in an educated manner.
If a tax would help with curtail the current eating habits and/or help fund education/medical care for obesity related issues, I'd say why not.
In my opinion, it won't and it won't. And people continually expecting the government to step in and "help" us take care of ourselves is, in my opinion, a big reason why so many people don't know how to take care of themselves.12 -
Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
Since 2/3 of the US population is overweight, 1/3 is obese and 30% of the population is expected to have diabetes by 2050, it's pretty obvious the typical American doesn't know *kitten* about feeding themselves in an educated manner.
If a tax would help with curtail the current eating habits and/or help fund education/medical care for obesity related issues, I'd say why not.
In my opinion, it won't and it won't. And people continually expecting the government to step in and "help" us take care of ourselves is, in my opinion, a big reason why so many people don't know how to take care of themselves.
Something about roads and intentions comes to mind.3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
Since 2/3 of the US population is overweight, 1/3 is obese and 30% of the population is expected to have diabetes by 2050, it's pretty obvious the typical American doesn't know *kitten* about feeding themselves in an educated manner.
If a tax would help with curtail the current eating habits and/or help fund education/medical care for obesity related issues, I'd say why not.
In my opinion, it won't and it won't. And people continually expecting the government to step in and "help" us take care of ourselves is, in my opinion, a big reason why so many people don't know how to take care of themselves.
So how are you proposing paying for the medical costs of obesity? Remember 50% of healthcare spending is funded by the US government. It's a dollars and cents think for the government to reduce healthcare costs.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
Since 2/3 of the US population is overweight, 1/3 is obese and 30% of the population is expected to have diabetes by 2050, it's pretty obvious the typical American doesn't know *kitten* about feeding themselves in an educated manner.
If a tax would help with curtail the current eating habits and/or help fund education/medical care for obesity related issues, I'd say why not.
In my opinion, it won't and it won't. And people continually expecting the government to step in and "help" us take care of ourselves is, in my opinion, a big reason why so many people don't know how to take care of themselves.
So how are you proposing paying for the medical costs of obesity? Remember 50% of healthcare spending is funded by the US government. It's a dollars and cents think for the government to reduce healthcare costs.
/raises hand
Oh oh, pick me, pick me.
Stop subsidizing people's bad decisions. There, I just solved most of our debt problem in thirty seconds.4 -
The government doesn't fund squat. Taxpayers do. Too bad there are fewer and fewer productive ones due to our burgeoning culture of dependency, driven by those who seek to create dependents to retain and expand their power.6
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
Since 2/3 of the US population is overweight, 1/3 is obese and 30% of the population is expected to have diabetes by 2050, it's pretty obvious the typical American doesn't know *kitten* about feeding themselves in an educated manner.
If a tax would help with curtail the current eating habits and/or help fund education/medical care for obesity related issues, I'd say why not.
In my opinion, it won't and it won't. And people continually expecting the government to step in and "help" us take care of ourselves is, in my opinion, a big reason why so many people don't know how to take care of themselves.
So how are you proposing paying for the medical costs of obesity? Remember 50% of healthcare spending is funded by the US government. It's a dollars and cents think for the government to reduce healthcare costs.
/raises hand
Oh oh, pick me, pick me.
Stop subsidizing people's bad decisions. There, I just solved most of our debt problem in thirty seconds.
Fine by me. Now the big question how to get congress and the POTUS to go along with us.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
Since 2/3 of the US population is overweight, 1/3 is obese and 30% of the population is expected to have diabetes by 2050, it's pretty obvious the typical American doesn't know *kitten* about feeding themselves in an educated manner.
If a tax would help with curtail the current eating habits and/or help fund education/medical care for obesity related issues, I'd say why not.
In my opinion, it won't and it won't. And people continually expecting the government to step in and "help" us take care of ourselves is, in my opinion, a big reason why so many people don't know how to take care of themselves.
So how are you proposing paying for the medical costs of obesity? Remember 50% of healthcare spending is funded by the US government. It's a dollars and cents think for the government to reduce healthcare costs.
/raises hand
Oh oh, pick me, pick me.
Stop subsidizing people's bad decisions. There, I just solved most of our debt problem in thirty seconds.
Fine by me. Now the big question how to get congress and the POTUS to go along with us.
Not going to happen. Unfortunately, the elderly vote pretty hard, and any time you talk about cutting health expenditures, they seem to automatically assume that we are cranking up the "death panel", even if specific legislation has nothing to do with them as a whole. It would be career suicide.1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
Since 2/3 of the US population is overweight, 1/3 is obese and 30% of the population is expected to have diabetes by 2050, it's pretty obvious the typical American doesn't know *kitten* about feeding themselves in an educated manner.
If a tax would help with curtail the current eating habits and/or help fund education/medical care for obesity related issues, I'd say why not.
In my opinion, it won't and it won't. And people continually expecting the government to step in and "help" us take care of ourselves is, in my opinion, a big reason why so many people don't know how to take care of themselves.
So how are you proposing paying for the medical costs of obesity? Remember 50% of healthcare spending is funded by the US government. It's a dollars and cents think for the government to reduce healthcare costs.
/raises hand
Oh oh, pick me, pick me.
Stop subsidizing people's bad decisions. There, I just solved most of our debt problem in thirty seconds.
Actually, I think replacing "people's" with "Congress'" would be much more effective.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
Since 2/3 of the US population is overweight, 1/3 is obese and 30% of the population is expected to have diabetes by 2050, it's pretty obvious the typical American doesn't know *kitten* about feeding themselves in an educated manner.
If a tax would help with curtail the current eating habits and/or help fund education/medical care for obesity related issues, I'd say why not.
In my opinion, it won't and it won't. And people continually expecting the government to step in and "help" us take care of ourselves is, in my opinion, a big reason why so many people don't know how to take care of themselves.
I love this post @kimny72 It is truth!!2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
Since 2/3 of the US population is overweight, 1/3 is obese and 30% of the population is expected to have diabetes by 2050, it's pretty obvious the typical American doesn't know *kitten* about feeding themselves in an educated manner.
If a tax would help with curtail the current eating habits and/or help fund education/medical care for obesity related issues, I'd say why not.
In my opinion, it won't and it won't. And people continually expecting the government to step in and "help" us take care of ourselves is, in my opinion, a big reason why so many people don't know how to take care of themselves.
So how are you proposing paying for the medical costs of obesity? Remember 50% of healthcare spending is funded by the US government. It's a dollars and cents think for the government to reduce healthcare costs.
I totally get your point. But to me, this is just throwing good money after bad, compounding the problem. The majority of people will still eat in a way that leaves them overweight and at greater risk for all the health issues caused by that. And the money will be diverted to something else that seems more pressing or unavoidable.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
I'd say why not.
To which I'd reply:
Because this is the United States of America which was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. This nation was built by hard working innovators taking advantage of a free-enterprise, capitalist system and we owe the affluence we so readily take for granted to the very type of free trade that the creation of a socialistic nanny state would strangle.
We haven't become one of the most prosperous and blessed nations in the history of mankind because of government intervention in our daily lives. We've enjoyed the prosperity we have because, to a much greater degree than most countries, our government has left industry alone to succeed and our people alone to live and believe as they so desire.
We don't need someone to decide for us what we can eat and punish us monetarily for not adhering to their plan. If we don't take care of our own selves, it's on us. And even if we did need someone to make our decisions for us, it sure to goodness wouldn't be the government's job. You know, The Constitution and Bill of Rights and all that fun stuff no one remembers from their civics classes.
Besides, do we really want our nutrition choices to be dictated by the same entity responsible for bankrupting social security, the housing bubble (remember 2008?), Fast and Furious, IRS scandals, Benghazi, trillions of dollars of debt, etc. not to mention being heavily influenced by lobbyists and perpetually stalled in partisan gridlock?
That's why. For starters.
Seriously, the very idea flies in the face of everything that made America great.
And people ask me to expound on why I weep for this nation.
The fact that this is even being considered a serious conversation...11 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
I'd say why not.
To which I'd reply:
Because this is the United States of America which was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. This nation was built by hard working innovators taking advantage of a free-enterprise, capitalist system and we owe the affluence we so readily take for granted to the very type of free trade that the creation of a socialistic nanny state would strangle.
We haven't become one of the most prosperous and blessed nations in the history of mankind because of government intervention in our daily lives. We've enjoyed the prosperity we have because, to a much greater degree than most countries, our government has left industry alone to succeed and our people alone to live and believe as they so desire.
We don't need someone to decide for us what we can eat and punish us monetarily for not adhering to their plan. If we don't take care of our own selves, it's on us. And even if we did need someone to make our decisions for us, it sure to goodness wouldn't be the government's job. You know, The Constitution and Bill of Rights and all that fun stuff no one remembers from their civics classes.
Besides, do we really want our nutrition choices to be dictated by the same entity responsible for bankrupting social security, the housing bubble (remember 2008?), Fast and Furious, IRS scandals, Benghazi, trillions of dollars of debt, etc. not to mention being heavily influenced by lobbyists and perpetually stalled in partisan gridlock?
That's why. For starters.
Seriously, the very idea flies in the face of everything that made America great.
And people ask me to expound on why I weep for this nation.
The fact that this is even being considered a serious conversation...
Better still, do we want our mandatory nutritional guidelines laid out by people who think that a 10% caloric allotment to protein per day is a good idea?4 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
Since 2/3 of the US population is overweight, 1/3 is obese and 30% of the population is expected to have diabetes by 2050, it's pretty obvious the typical American doesn't know *kitten* about feeding themselves in an educated manner.
If a tax would help with curtail the current eating habits and/or help fund education/medical care for obesity related issues, I'd say why not.
In my opinion, it won't and it won't. And people continually expecting the government to step in and "help" us take care of ourselves is, in my opinion, a big reason why so many people don't know how to take care of themselves.
So how are you proposing paying for the medical costs of obesity? Remember 50% of healthcare spending is funded by the US government. It's a dollars and cents think for the government to reduce healthcare costs.
/raises hand
Oh oh, pick me, pick me.
Stop subsidizing people's bad decisions. There, I just solved most of our debt problem in thirty seconds.
That's one of the points that was already made (I think I was the first to make that point, in fact), but more specifically, stop subsidizing HFCS. Vaguely, "bad decisions" has about as many definitions as "junk food."0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »This whole thread just makes me weep for America.
Me too.
Why? (Carlos just gave his answer, but I seem to recall you had a different viewpoint.) Is this still because people suggested that you would actually have to have a good definition of what would be taxed if you were proposing to add a tax?0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
Since 2/3 of the US population is overweight, 1/3 is obese and 30% of the population is expected to have diabetes by 2050, it's pretty obvious the typical American doesn't know *kitten* about feeding themselves in an educated manner.
If a tax would help with curtail the current eating habits and/or help fund education/medical care for obesity related issues, I'd say why not.
In my opinion, it won't and it won't. And people continually expecting the government to step in and "help" us take care of ourselves is, in my opinion, a big reason why so many people don't know how to take care of themselves.
So how are you proposing paying for the medical costs of obesity? Remember 50% of healthcare spending is funded by the US government. It's a dollars and cents think for the government to reduce healthcare costs.
/raises hand
Oh oh, pick me, pick me.
Stop subsidizing people's bad decisions. There, I just solved most of our debt problem in thirty seconds.
That's one of the points that was already made (I think I was the first to make that point, in fact), but more specifically, stop subsidizing HFCS. Vaguely, "bad decisions" has about as many definitions as "junk food."
Well yes, those need to go too, but I was specifically referring to quit paying for people's self-induced health problems.0 -
-
Does junk food translate into a cost for society that I have to pay for.
Yes, in terms of medicare costs, costs for the uninsured. You can argue that we shouldn't pay for these costs, but I feel these costs should be pushed to the people who eat junk food to excess, or smoke or other such actions.
Now the counter argument is to have no social services as part of the government, but if we do, yes tax according to the cost so I don't have to pay for others.1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
Since 2/3 of the US population is overweight, 1/3 is obese and 30% of the population is expected to have diabetes by 2050, it's pretty obvious the typical American doesn't know *kitten* about feeding themselves in an educated manner.
If a tax would help with curtail the current eating habits and/or help fund education/medical care for obesity related issues, I'd say why not.
In my opinion, it won't and it won't. And people continually expecting the government to step in and "help" us take care of ourselves is, in my opinion, a big reason why so many people don't know how to take care of themselves.
So how are you proposing paying for the medical costs of obesity? Remember 50% of healthcare spending is funded by the US government. It's a dollars and cents think for the government to reduce healthcare costs.
/raises hand
Oh oh, pick me, pick me.
Stop subsidizing people's bad decisions. There, I just solved most of our debt problem in thirty seconds.
That's one of the points that was already made (I think I was the first to make that point, in fact), but more specifically, stop subsidizing HFCS. Vaguely, "bad decisions" has about as many definitions as "junk food."
Well yes, those need to go too, but I was specifically referring to quit paying for people's self-induced health problems.
That is going to be difficult to define as well. Not everyone who is overweight made bad decisions. I'm a perfect example - I became overweight because I followed medical advice. But then again, it was a question of being fat or being dead, so technically I had that decision. But would you punish me then?! It actually gets a bit more complicated because some of my treatment for the results of being overweight actually overlap with the treatment for auto-immune disease, which can't possibly be attributed to behavior. So how would you determine what part is auto-immune disease treatment and what part is treatment for being overweight?bathmatt12345 wrote: »Does junk food translate into a cost for society that I have to pay for.
Yes, in terms of medicare costs, costs for the uninsured. You can argue that we shouldn't pay for these costs, but I feel these costs should be pushed to the people who eat junk food to excess, or smoke or other such actions.
Now the counter argument is to have no social services as part of the government, but if we do, yes tax according to the cost so I don't have to pay for others.
That is similar to how tobacco taxes fund smoking cessation programs and campaigns to dissuade youths from smoking, right? I like the idea overall, but then it would not just be to pay for healthcare... it would need to go to education for those not yet overweight and for dietitions (and maybe personal trainers) to help those who are addicted to nicotine overweight to kick the habit lose weight.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions