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
-
After 30 pages, my eyes are glazing over, but my take home message is that poor children do not deserve birthday cakes. Ever.
Well, if a poor five year old wants a birthday cake then she should get a job and stop being so lazy, otherwise she wouldn't need a government handout . . .
^ that's sarcasm for those who can't tell2 -
Absolutely not! The only thing this would fix is maybe some roads with the new tax money.
Food is not the problem!0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
There is certainly government control in that they may be forcing me to NOT buy items I otherwise would.Packerjohn wrote: »
One would think the failure of Obamacare to lower costs (they've gone up) would serve as evidence that government involvement in the healthcare system is not the road to lowered health care costs.If you pay federal income taxes (almost 50% of the population doesn't) you are paying for government programs to pay for healthcare. Government pays for more than 50% of the healthcare cost in the US and that % and cost is increasing.Obesity related illness is by far the fastest growing, preventable drain on healthcare. An excise tax on junk food is one way to reduce consumption and/or fund medical payments.
There is no evidence to suggest that taxing "junk food" would reduce consumption or that there is a viable mechanism by which said taxes could provide any means of assistance to those struggling to make medical payments when our government is already in trillions of dollars' worth of debt.
I propose that the public not pay for it. I propose that each individual be responsible for their own actions and that healthcare costs should be lowered by means of deregulation, tort reform and the elimination of burdensome, bureaucratic involvement (like Obamacare) so that the free market can provide a reasonable service at a reasonable price.If you don't like a tax, how to you propose to pay for this? Note, letting people w/o insurance die or let the "rich" pay for it are not acceptable responses.
Believe me I'm all for small government and agree with your points on healthcare, but I am also a realist. We have too many people that can vote who like to use stuff and not pay for it. Under your scenario where individuals are responsible, someone making $10/hr who chooses not to buy insurance has a heart attack. Person has no money, do they just die in the street? It ain't going to happen.
My point with some sort of excise tax on junk food, you at least have some sort of revenue to pay for the situation it heavily contributes to.
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
There is certainly government control in that they may be forcing me to NOT buy items I otherwise would.Packerjohn wrote: »
One would think the failure of Obamacare to lower costs (they've gone up) would serve as evidence that government involvement in the healthcare system is not the road to lowered health care costs.If you pay federal income taxes (almost 50% of the population doesn't) you are paying for government programs to pay for healthcare. Government pays for more than 50% of the healthcare cost in the US and that % and cost is increasing.Obesity related illness is by far the fastest growing, preventable drain on healthcare. An excise tax on junk food is one way to reduce consumption and/or fund medical payments.
There is no evidence to suggest that taxing "junk food" would reduce consumption or that there is a viable mechanism by which said taxes could provide any means of assistance to those struggling to make medical payments when our government is already in trillions of dollars' worth of debt.
I propose that the public not pay for it. I propose that each individual be responsible for their own actions and that healthcare costs should be lowered by means of deregulation, tort reform and the elimination of burdensome, bureaucratic involvement (like Obamacare) so that the free market can provide a reasonable service at a reasonable price.If you don't like a tax, how to you propose to pay for this? Note, letting people w/o insurance die or let the "rich" pay for it are not acceptable responses.
Believe me I'm all for small government and agree with your points on healthcare, but I am also a realist. Under your scenario where individuals are responsible, someone making $10/hr who chooses not to buy insurance has a heart attack. Person has no money, do they just die in the street? It ain't going to happen.
My point with some sort of excise tax on junk food, you at least have some sort of revenue to pay for the situation it heavily contributes to.
They shouldn't be left to die but the debt they rack up during treatment (due to their own decision to forgo insurance coverage) should be their own to pay and not thrust upon the general populace by government mandate.
That said, I'm strongly in favor of private, charitable endeavors to assist the unfortunate in such cases.2 -
No, there shouldn't be.
I used to be in favour of the same but it is clear that apart from limited exceptions (like soda / fizzy drinks) it leads to minimal to no measurable improvements and ends up being regressive taxation.
In fact, I would go further and say governments should abandon political time and money spent specifically on obesity policy and use that time on policies to make people wealthier, improve work / life balance and get people into employment in the first place.2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Society is not responsible for an individual's lack of personal responsibility. We do not need another government created problem.
@CSARdiver does that mean we do not provide health care for a person that becomes ill due the individual's lack of personal responsibility?
Absolutely. This is role of charity...not of government.0 -
Everything bought and sold is already taxed.2
-
jennifer_417 wrote: »Everything bought and sold is already taxed.
This was addressed earlier - the thread is discussing an additional tax, like the taxes on alcohol and tobacco products.0 -
I think it should be taxed even if the majority won't stop at least it may pursaude some to think twice and also give the government more money to hopefully benifit the country.0
-
-
I think it should be taxed even if the majority won't stop at least it may pursaude some to think twice and also give the government more money to hopefully benifit the country.
Please provide me with one example of when giving more money to the government has benefitted the country.3 -
What are your thoughts?
I'll start by saying I love junk food, and it's a part of why I got to my worst, health-wise. That said, even before starting my weight loss journey I've always been pro-tax for junk food. Chips are as much a luxury as video games and cars. It would dissuade *some* people, but I don't believe for a minute that it would solve the problem of people over-consuming junk (cigarettes and alcohol are already proof of that reality), and let's face it, North America's in huge debt. The money to pay it off has to come from somewhere, and I'd sooner it be coming from candy and taco shells than taxed extra for school books and gym memberships.
The reality is that in North America our entitlement has gotten to a point where most people don't grasp the difference between necessities and luxuries (this is a problem on both ends of the spectrum, so let's not start a p'ing match over who specifically is to blame). You first have to convince the majority of the population that a junk tax is not taking away their freedom of choice (at least not any more than taxing a car purchase takes away their freedom to own a car.) You then have to get people to have a civil and sensible conversation about what constitutes junk food. In Ontario you can purchase a triple fudge cake or a tub of ice cream without being taxed, but if you purchase a single-serve bottle of water you're taxed.
I say bring on the junk tax, but only after our society gets its crap together and starts using common sense again.0 -
cinnag4225 wrote: »
given this part of your response, I say we gots nothing to worry about - maybe our great, great grandchildren, but certainly not us!
1 -
What are your thoughts?
As a total fitness and health buff, my answer is YES. Although, "junk" could be defined in all different ways. Let's start with McDonald's, Little Debbie cakes and that sort of stuff. It would significantly decrease the level of obesity in our country. Go to Croatia, Denmark, Stockholm...no one is obese and it seems like it has a little something to do with their non-fast-food and junk food based diets.0 -
My first thought would be how would you legally define junk food? If you can't come up with a quantitative definition that the majority of people agree upon that does not exclude some you want to include nor include some you would want to exclude then you aren't going to be able to get even close to making a law about it.
"Junk food" is a very subjective term. I mean how would you define it?1 -
One of the keys to long-term success is building a new and positive relationship with food and labeling foods "bad" and "good" is part of the problem. When we label them we avoid them which will lead to a loss of control and loosing control on what is now clearly labeled as "bad" will make the guilt aspect of losing weight even worse.
1 -
Second thought: "Junk food" is often the food that is cheapest for the amount of calories and therefore quite often the food that the poorest of us subside off of. Taxing that would be like putting a tax on the poor.3
-
peaceout_aly wrote: »What are your thoughts?
As a total fitness and health buff, my answer is YES. Although, "junk" could be defined in all different ways. Let's start with McDonald's, Little Debbie cakes and that sort of stuff. It would significantly decrease the level of obesity in our country. Go to Croatia, Denmark, Stockholm...no one is obese and it seems like it has a little something to do with their non-fast-food and junk food based diets.
Which method has better results - negative or positive reinforcement?
Instead of taxing junk food, provide incentives for positive behavior. Setup an achievement system which rewards through tax deductions.1 -
I can also name many non obese people who eat "junk food". Junk food isn't the problem0
-
peaceout_aly wrote: »What are your thoughts?
As a total fitness and health buff, my answer is YES. Although, "junk" could be defined in all different ways. Let's start with McDonald's, Little Debbie cakes and that sort of stuff. It would significantly decrease the level of obesity in our country. Go to Croatia, Denmark, Stockholm...no one is obese and it seems like it has a little something to do with their non-fast-food and junk food based diets.
Which method has better results - negative or positive reinforcement?
Instead of taxing junk food, provide incentives for positive behavior. Setup an achievement system which rewards through tax deductions.
I agree! And quit subsidizing large corn manufacturers and instead subsidize produce sold at local farmer markets.
This will naturally make the cost of processed food go up and local produce go down without labeling "good" and "bad"3 -
No, absolutely not. It wouldn't be right as it's still food. With that being said, I would suggest a tax credit for the extra cost a diet brings with it, including health club fees, etc. This would maybe encourage people.0
-
spondypete wrote: »No, absolutely not. It wouldn't be right as it's still food. With that being said, I would suggest a tax credit for the extra cost a diet brings with it, including health club fees, etc. This would maybe encourage people.
A gym or active living tax credit would be awesome!1 -
A tax on junk food would end up being a tax on the poor and I can't support that.2
-
This content has been removed.
-
peaceout_aly wrote: »What are your thoughts?
As a total fitness and health buff, my answer is YES. Although, "junk" could be defined in all different ways. Let's start with McDonald's, Little Debbie cakes and that sort of stuff. It would significantly decrease the level of obesity in our country. Go to Croatia, Denmark, Stockholm...no one is obese and it seems like it has a little something to do with their non-fast-food and junk food based diets.
Why not protein powder? It has less overall nutrition than plenty of things you could buy at a McDonald's, it is purely a convenience food.
Exactly1 -
peaceout_aly wrote: »What are your thoughts?
As a total fitness and health buff, my answer is YES. Although, "junk" could be defined in all different ways. Let's start with McDonald's, Little Debbie cakes and that sort of stuff. It would significantly decrease the level of obesity in our country. Go to Croatia, Denmark, Stockholm...no one is obese and it seems like it has a little something to do with their non-fast-food and junk food based diets.
And here-in lies a big part of the problem with trying to define junk food - you can get healthy food at McDonalds (they have salads and stuff) that most reasonable people would not consider junk, and on the other hand, I eat an LCHF diet so the stuff that you might want to call junk (like the burgers) fit very nicely into my WOE and are not junk to me (I don't eat the buns with the burger)... so who gets to win in this definition of junk?!?
2 -
peaceout_aly wrote: »What are your thoughts?
As a total fitness and health buff, my answer is YES. Although, "junk" could be defined in all different ways. Let's start with McDonald's, Little Debbie cakes and that sort of stuff. It would significantly decrease the level of obesity in our country. Go to Croatia, Denmark, Stockholm...no one is obese and it seems like it has a little something to do with their non-fast-food and junk food based diets.
Which method has better results - negative or positive reinforcement?
Instead of taxing junk food, provide incentives for positive behavior. Setup an achievement system which rewards through tax deductions.
Oh, brilliant idea!0 -
This content has been removed.
-
peaceout_aly wrote: »What are your thoughts?
As a total fitness and health buff, my answer is YES. Although, "junk" could be defined in all different ways. Let's start with McDonald's, Little Debbie cakes and that sort of stuff. It would significantly decrease the level of obesity in our country. Go to Croatia, Denmark, Stockholm...no one is obese and it seems like it has a little something to do with their non-fast-food and junk food based diets.
Why not protein powder? It has less overall nutrition than plenty of things you could buy at a McDonald's, it is purely a convenience food.
@VegetaSKJ Yes but protein powder has a ton of different uses, like over 9000.1 -
I guess the question is would we agree to tax it if there is impact on obesity / weight? The link isn't particularly strong, despite people's opinions.
From pure correlation, if we want people to lose weight, we should be subsidizing soda, sweat snacks, and salty snacks. Sweat snacks in particular.
foodpsychology.cornell.edu/discoveries/junk-food-blame
Though it does say for 95% of Americans there is no relationship between eating those foods and BMI2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 422 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions