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: »AbsurdParadigm wrote: »Only if we get to tax yachts more. See how these stupid politicians like it when something they like gets taxed unfairly.
So that more companies providing quality products can be driven out of the country and cause thousands of middle class locals who work in the industry to lose their jobs?
It wasn't meant to be a great plan. It was sarcasm. Although, I am in favor of taxing those who have the money, instead of taxing the poor and middle class more. Trickle down economics doesn't trickle.1 -
ajaygrover626 wrote: »Tax or no Tax - I think better idea is that Unhealthy food and Healthy food prices should match (or be close enough). Healthy foods are much more expensive comparatively.
That is because unhealthy food (HFCS, specifically) is heavily subsidized. Many of us have pointed out variations of the suggestion that a tax on HFCS to recover subsidies or just eliminating or reducing corn subsidies in the first place.1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »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 BMI
Yes, but the thing they're most linked to - if anything - is underweight, rather than overweight. So move away from being overweight to being normal weight by eating more sweat and salty snacks, but stop before you hit underweight. Makes sense, doesn't it?
I found that odd too
A couple of thoughts;
1. Underweight people don't have a messed up RMR from years of dieting like us and so can eat more.
2. In the past when I'd restrict the foods I craved, I would often eat several "healthy" things trying satisfy my craving and ate more calories than if I just had the darn donut to begin with.
Most under weight people have lower RMR than overweight people. It's quite difficult to maintain underweight status. I'm normal weight (bmi20) and my bmr is 1300 which isn't super high and i have to eat less calories to maintain than someone who weighs more than me. Bmr lowers as your weight lowers. I don't know why you think underweight eat more than overweight?
Well on paper they should but total weight isn't as important as LBM for RMR and also many studies have shown that dieting can drop RMR far beyond was predicted with weight loss and can stay damaged even after the weight has come back.
I eat more calories in an average week now at 200lbs and maintaining then 13 years ago when I was 300lbs and gaining.
In fact I never adjusted down my calorie goals which I originally based on my RMR at 300lbs.
Metabolic damage like that isn't typical and has really only been demonstrated in cases of extreme (and rapid) weight loss the likes of what is seen on Biggest Loser.
The BL was quite extreme but it does happen to most dieters.
The study below is a less extreme example but the MA drop in calories burned through resting metabolism would compute to about 10-15lbs of fat annually. That's just using the first 6 months of MA and I'm 99.9% sure that the rate of RMR drop is gradually increasing every week and month while dieting. The point is, food is still not the cause of obesity.
Intervention Participants were randomized to 1 of 4 groups for 6 months: control (weight maintenance diet); calorie restriction (25% calorie restriction of baseline energy requirements); calorie restriction with exercise (12.5% calorie restriction plus 12.5% increase in energy expenditure by structured exercise); very low-calorie diet (890 kcal/d until 15% weight reduction, followed by a weight maintenance diet).
Main Outcome Measures Body composition; dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS), glucose, and insulin levels; protein carbonyls; DNA damage; 24-hour energy expenditure; and core body temperature.
Results Mean (SEM) weight change at 6 months in the 4 groups was as follows: controls, −1.0% (1.1%); calorie restriction, −10.4% (0.9%); calorie restriction with exercise, −10.0% (0.8%); and very low-calorie diet, −13.9% (0.7%). At 6 months, fasting insulin levels were significantly reduced from baseline in the intervention groups (all P<.01), whereas DHEAS and glucose levels were unchanged. Core body temperature was reduced in the calorie restriction and calorie restriction with exercise groups (both P<.05). After adjustment for changes in body composition, sedentary 24-hour energy expenditure was unchanged in controls, but decreased in the calorie restriction (−135 kcal/d [42 kcal/d]), calorie restriction with exercise (−117 kcal/d [52 kcal/d]), and very low-calorie diet (−125 kcal/d [35 kcal/d]) groups (all P<.008). These “metabolic adaptations” (~ 6% more than expected based on loss of metabolic mass) were statistically different from controls (P<.05). Protein carbonyl concentrations were not changed from baseline to month 6 in any group, whereas DNA damage was also reduced from baseline in all intervention groups (P <.005).
Conclusions Our findings suggest that 2 biomarkers of longevity (fasting insulin level and body temperature) are decreased by prolonged calorie restriction in humans and support the theory that metabolic rate is reduced beyond the level expected from reduced metabolic body mass. Studies of longer duration are required to determine if calorie restriction attenuates the aging process in humans.
Effect of 6-Month Calorie Restriction on Biomarkers of Longevity, Metabolic Adaptation, and Oxidative Stress in Overweight Individuals
A Randomized Controlled Trial FREE
Leonie K. Heilbronn, PhD; Lilian de Jonge, PhD; Madlyn I. Frisard, PhD; James P. DeLany, PhD; D. Enette Larson-Meyer, PhD; Jennifer Rood, PhD; Tuong Nguyen, BSE; Corby K. Martin, PhD; Julia Volaufova, PhD; Marlene M. Most, PhD; Frank L. Greenway, PhD; Steven R. Smith, MD; Walter A. Deutsch, PhD; Donald A. Williamson, PhD; Eric Ravussin, PhD; for the Pennington CALERIE Team
[+] Author Affiliations
JAMA. 2006;295(13):1539-1548. doi:10.1001/jama.295.13.1539.0 -
LilyBentley2013 wrote: »I think rather than taxing junk food healthy snacks should be subsidized. I live in a fairly poor neighborhood and lots of my neighbors are on SNAP/food stamps. Parents desparate to feed their kids something and super poor think that cheetos and fruit snacks are the way to go. The fact that I can buy a pack of cheetos for 50c and an apple at the same store is damn near three dollars is absurd and sets poor life skills for the children.
I used to work for a dude who swore that they couldn't be poor because they were fat. I use fatness as a fair indicator that they may, in fact, be poor.
Healthy foods ARE subsidized ("healthy" here means that it contributes a good amount of protein or micros, as of course a food isn't individually the issue, the overall diet is). First, through things like SNAP, which can be used for "healthy" foods, and, second, through the same system that subsidizes junk foods -- one reason meat is so cheap in the US are those same subsidies, and farm subsidies have a broader effect in general than just on junk foods. Also, in many states, including mine, foods are NOT subject to the same standard sales tax that other items are or are taxed at a lower rate (often with exceptions for prepared food, soda, or candy, which get the higher rate).
Also, I've never seen apples for anywhere near $3. That's nuts and not normal US pricing, anyway.3 -
No. Such taxes are an abuse of taxation. Taxes are properly levied in as simple and uniform manner as is practicable, for the sole intent of defraying the legitimate expenses of government. Period. It is just not right to use taxation as a means of punishing someone from engaging in a legal behavior someone else disagrees with. If cigarettes are such a horrible evil, then government should ban them; certainly, government should not collect more money from their consumption than anyone else. Such tax policies are about money, and nothing else. But since that expresses a level of greed that's crass even for political bureaucrats, they tell us it's actually for our own good. Every time we accept another so-called "sin" tax, we confirm to those bureaucrats that we are indeed dull-witted fools....................
Sorry but we are long past the time when tax laws are solely for collection of revenue to fund government. They are used for social engineering. Examples, home mortgage credit, child tax credit, child care credit, tax credits for energy efficiency, various education credits/deductions, and the list goes on and on.
Not going to be judgemental on any of these but the various tax laws, right or wrong, are far from just collection of revenue.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Packerjohn wrote: »No. Such taxes are an abuse of taxation. Taxes are properly levied in as simple and uniform manner as is practicable, for the sole intent of defraying the legitimate expenses of government. Period. It is just not right to use taxation as a means of punishing someone from engaging in a legal behavior someone else disagrees with. If cigarettes are such a horrible evil, then government should ban them; certainly, government should not collect more money from their consumption than anyone else. Such tax policies are about money, and nothing else. But since that expresses a level of greed that's crass even for political bureaucrats, they tell us it's actually for our own good. Every time we accept another so-called "sin" tax, we confirm to those bureaucrats that we are indeed dull-witted fools....................
Sorry but we are long past the time when tax laws are solely for collection of revenue to fund government. They are used for social engineering. Examples, home mortgage credit, child tax credit, child care credit, tax credits for energy efficiency, various education credits/deductions, and the list goes on and on.
Not going to be judgemental on any of these but the various tax laws, right or wrong, are far from just collection of revenue.
Which further stresses the importance of scrapping our current sinking situation and moving toward a flat tax.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »No. Such taxes are an abuse of taxation. Taxes are properly levied in as simple and uniform manner as is practicable, for the sole intent of defraying the legitimate expenses of government. Period. It is just not right to use taxation as a means of punishing someone from engaging in a legal behavior someone else disagrees with. If cigarettes are such a horrible evil, then government should ban them; certainly, government should not collect more money from their consumption than anyone else. Such tax policies are about money, and nothing else. But since that expresses a level of greed that's crass even for political bureaucrats, they tell us it's actually for our own good. Every time we accept another so-called "sin" tax, we confirm to those bureaucrats that we are indeed dull-witted fools....................
Sorry but we are long past the time when tax laws are solely for collection of revenue to fund government. They are used for social engineering. Examples, home mortgage credit, child tax credit, child care credit, tax credits for energy efficiency, various education credits/deductions, and the list goes on and on.
Not going to be judgemental on any of these but the various tax laws, right or wrong, are far from just collection of revenue.
The 'ole we bent you over the proverbial desk for one thing so why not bend over for another thing argument?2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »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.
Can I claim both the six pack credit and the 5k deduction or do I have to choose one or the other?
Under my plan no one will ever be penalized for positive activities. I approve this message.1 -
Well, I replied in the first half of this thread, but since it seems everything is being rehashed, I'll have another go at it.
- Junk food doesn't make people obese, too much of any food makes people obese. There are plenty of folks in this country at least who got fat on food they cooked or their family members cooked. So a junk food tax would not help the obesity crisis.
- Taxing junk food might make it a little more expensive, and would not make most people stop buying it. At best, it would stop the very poorest from buying it. Obesity is a crisis because it affects all segments of the population. So a junk food tax would not help the obesity crisis.
- Food manufacturers make a very healthy profit, and most don't JUST sell junk food. If people started buying less junk food due to the price, the manufacturers would just spread the cost of the tax over ALL their offerings including the "healthy" ones to get sales back up, or just readjust their cost model some other way. Or they would just find a new creative way to tweak the products so they wouldn't fall under the tax. So a junk food tax would not help the obesity crisis.
- Governments in general are notorious for saying they will do one thing but doing something else. The Social Security fund has been raided for all sorts of things. State Lottery funds were supposed to go to the school system, but that rarely actually happens. Whatever they SAY they would spend this tax money on, it would go to the same crap all the rest of our money already goes to. So a junk food tax would not help the obesity crisis.
- Considering the US Congress still hasn't quite figured out how the Internet works, and some of them have made statements that make it clear they are clueless about human biology, I imagine it would take YEARS for them to figure out what is considered a "junk food" and how that is defined would be determined largely by which lobbyists had which politicians in their pockets. The list would end up being arbitrary and absurd. So a junk food tax would not help the obesity crisis.
I really don't feel like you even need to get into philosophical theories or nationalistic arguments on the appropriateness of taxes and health care policies. IMHO, there is basically 0% chance that a junk food tax in the real world we currently live in would have any affect on the levels of obesity in this country. Zero. Zilch. Nada. No dice. Waste O'Time.7 -
Oh Lord! one of these threads pop up every once in a while.
We can vote with our dollars. Stop buying the so called "junk" if you think it should be taxed. Companies pour money into areas where they can see profit. If you stop eating "junk" then they will get more creative with ideas towards bringing "healthy" items to market at reasonable price. People don't even like buying non branded items although they might be using same manufacturer.
Why would you want to live in a society where you are told what you can eat or not? haven't we been brainwashed enough? Smoking was considered an exercise for lungs.
There isn't much organic growth in wealth. It's debt floating around, if one collapses or stops paying -the house of cards fall. There is a reason why we run for yields. Why would you want money coming in your hands getting less and less.
Educate people , it is as simple as that.4 -
Russellb97 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »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 BMI
Yes, but the thing they're most linked to - if anything - is underweight, rather than overweight. So move away from being overweight to being normal weight by eating more sweat and salty snacks, but stop before you hit underweight. Makes sense, doesn't it?
I found that odd too
A couple of thoughts;
1. Underweight people don't have a messed up RMR from years of dieting like us and so can eat more.
2. In the past when I'd restrict the foods I craved, I would often eat several "healthy" things trying satisfy my craving and ate more calories than if I just had the darn donut to begin with.
Most under weight people have lower RMR than overweight people. It's quite difficult to maintain underweight status. I'm normal weight (bmi20) and my bmr is 1300 which isn't super high and i have to eat less calories to maintain than someone who weighs more than me. Bmr lowers as your weight lowers. I don't know why you think underweight eat more than overweight?
Well on paper they should but total weight isn't as important as LBM for RMR and also many studies have shown that dieting can drop RMR far beyond was predicted with weight loss and can stay damaged even after the weight has come back.
I eat more calories in an average week now at 200lbs and maintaining then 13 years ago when I was 300lbs and gaining.
In fact I never adjusted down my calorie goals which I originally based on my RMR at 300lbs.
Metabolic damage like that isn't typical and has really only been demonstrated in cases of extreme (and rapid) weight loss the likes of what is seen on Biggest Loser.
The BL was quite extreme but it does happen to most dieters.
The study below is a less extreme example but the MA drop in calories burned through resting metabolism would compute to about 10-15lbs of fat annually. That's just using the first 6 months of MA and I'm 99.9% sure that the rate of RMR drop is gradually increasing every week and month while dieting. The point is, food is still not the cause of obesity.
Intervention Participants were randomized to 1 of 4 groups for 6 months: control (weight maintenance diet); calorie restriction (25% calorie restriction of baseline energy requirements); calorie restriction with exercise (12.5% calorie restriction plus 12.5% increase in energy expenditure by structured exercise); very low-calorie diet (890 kcal/d until 15% weight reduction, followed by a weight maintenance diet).
Main Outcome Measures Body composition; dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS), glucose, and insulin levels; protein carbonyls; DNA damage; 24-hour energy expenditure; and core body temperature.
Results Mean (SEM) weight change at 6 months in the 4 groups was as follows: controls, −1.0% (1.1%); calorie restriction, −10.4% (0.9%); calorie restriction with exercise, −10.0% (0.8%); and very low-calorie diet, −13.9% (0.7%). At 6 months, fasting insulin levels were significantly reduced from baseline in the intervention groups (all P<.01), whereas DHEAS and glucose levels were unchanged. Core body temperature was reduced in the calorie restriction and calorie restriction with exercise groups (both P<.05). After adjustment for changes in body composition, sedentary 24-hour energy expenditure was unchanged in controls, but decreased in the calorie restriction (−135 kcal/d [42 kcal/d]), calorie restriction with exercise (−117 kcal/d [52 kcal/d]), and very low-calorie diet (−125 kcal/d [35 kcal/d]) groups (all P<.008). These “metabolic adaptations” (~ 6% more than expected based on loss of metabolic mass) were statistically different from controls (P<.05). Protein carbonyl concentrations were not changed from baseline to month 6 in any group, whereas DNA damage was also reduced from baseline in all intervention groups (P <.005).
Conclusions Our findings suggest that 2 biomarkers of longevity (fasting insulin level and body temperature) are decreased by prolonged calorie restriction in humans and support the theory that metabolic rate is reduced beyond the level expected from reduced metabolic body mass. Studies of longer duration are required to determine if calorie restriction attenuates the aging process in humans.
Effect of 6-Month Calorie Restriction on Biomarkers of Longevity, Metabolic Adaptation, and Oxidative Stress in Overweight Individuals
A Randomized Controlled Trial FREE
Leonie K. Heilbronn, PhD; Lilian de Jonge, PhD; Madlyn I. Frisard, PhD; James P. DeLany, PhD; D. Enette Larson-Meyer, PhD; Jennifer Rood, PhD; Tuong Nguyen, BSE; Corby K. Martin, PhD; Julia Volaufova, PhD; Marlene M. Most, PhD; Frank L. Greenway, PhD; Steven R. Smith, MD; Walter A. Deutsch, PhD; Donald A. Williamson, PhD; Eric Ravussin, PhD; for the Pennington CALERIE Team
[+] Author Affiliations
JAMA. 2006;295(13):1539-1548. doi:10.1001/jama.295.13.1539.
This isn't completely applicable to overweight and obese people losing weight. This is using people that are at a normal weight and getting them to live below their set point. If it is the Ravussin study I'm familiar with, none of the participants were allowed to start the plan with BMI greater than 28.5.
Studies have shown metabolic adaptations and not shown it, and on review, it seems to kick in when dieting below certain body fat levels.
There's studies showing MA happens in obese, overweight and normal weight and none of us have a *set-bodyfat that's hogwash. The "set-point" refers to energy homeostasis and metabolic adaptation at some degree happens when we are constantly under-feeding our bodies. The good news is leptin the hormone that is the driver for MA can be manipulated with daily energy balance.
*It is more difficult to lose bodyfat at low bodyfat percentages. I can easily maintain my BF between 10-12% however the few times I dropped to 8-9% it was like "dieting" again to maintain and not fun at all.
0 -
Many people are saying education is the answer. Honestly don't you think anyone other than a special needs person or very young child knows drinking a 2 liter bottle of pop or eating 6 doughnuts daily, etc isn't good for their health?0
-
Russellb97 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »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 BMI
Yes, but the thing they're most linked to - if anything - is underweight, rather than overweight. So move away from being overweight to being normal weight by eating more sweat and salty snacks, but stop before you hit underweight. Makes sense, doesn't it?
I found that odd too
A couple of thoughts;
1. Underweight people don't have a messed up RMR from years of dieting like us and so can eat more.
2. In the past when I'd restrict the foods I craved, I would often eat several "healthy" things trying satisfy my craving and ate more calories than if I just had the darn donut to begin with.
Most under weight people have lower RMR than overweight people. It's quite difficult to maintain underweight status. I'm normal weight (bmi20) and my bmr is 1300 which isn't super high and i have to eat less calories to maintain than someone who weighs more than me. Bmr lowers as your weight lowers. I don't know why you think underweight eat more than overweight?
Well on paper they should but total weight isn't as important as LBM for RMR and also many studies have shown that dieting can drop RMR far beyond was predicted with weight loss and can stay damaged even after the weight has come back.
I eat more calories in an average week now at 200lbs and maintaining then 13 years ago when I was 300lbs and gaining.
In fact I never adjusted down my calorie goals which I originally based on my RMR at 300lbs.
Metabolic damage like that isn't typical and has really only been demonstrated in cases of extreme (and rapid) weight loss the likes of what is seen on Biggest Loser.
The BL was quite extreme but it does happen to most dieters.
The study below is a less extreme example but the MA drop in calories burned through resting metabolism would compute to about 10-15lbs of fat annually. That's just using the first 6 months of MA and I'm 99.9% sure that the rate of RMR drop is gradually increasing every week and month while dieting. The point is, food is still not the cause of obesity.
Intervention Participants were randomized to 1 of 4 groups for 6 months: control (weight maintenance diet); calorie restriction (25% calorie restriction of baseline energy requirements); calorie restriction with exercise (12.5% calorie restriction plus 12.5% increase in energy expenditure by structured exercise); very low-calorie diet (890 kcal/d until 15% weight reduction, followed by a weight maintenance diet).
Main Outcome Measures Body composition; dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS), glucose, and insulin levels; protein carbonyls; DNA damage; 24-hour energy expenditure; and core body temperature.
Results Mean (SEM) weight change at 6 months in the 4 groups was as follows: controls, −1.0% (1.1%); calorie restriction, −10.4% (0.9%); calorie restriction with exercise, −10.0% (0.8%); and very low-calorie diet, −13.9% (0.7%). At 6 months, fasting insulin levels were significantly reduced from baseline in the intervention groups (all P<.01), whereas DHEAS and glucose levels were unchanged. Core body temperature was reduced in the calorie restriction and calorie restriction with exercise groups (both P<.05). After adjustment for changes in body composition, sedentary 24-hour energy expenditure was unchanged in controls, but decreased in the calorie restriction (−135 kcal/d [42 kcal/d]), calorie restriction with exercise (−117 kcal/d [52 kcal/d]), and very low-calorie diet (−125 kcal/d [35 kcal/d]) groups (all P<.008). These “metabolic adaptations” (~ 6% more than expected based on loss of metabolic mass) were statistically different from controls (P<.05). Protein carbonyl concentrations were not changed from baseline to month 6 in any group, whereas DNA damage was also reduced from baseline in all intervention groups (P <.005).
Conclusions Our findings suggest that 2 biomarkers of longevity (fasting insulin level and body temperature) are decreased by prolonged calorie restriction in humans and support the theory that metabolic rate is reduced beyond the level expected from reduced metabolic body mass. Studies of longer duration are required to determine if calorie restriction attenuates the aging process in humans.
Effect of 6-Month Calorie Restriction on Biomarkers of Longevity, Metabolic Adaptation, and Oxidative Stress in Overweight Individuals
A Randomized Controlled Trial FREE
Leonie K. Heilbronn, PhD; Lilian de Jonge, PhD; Madlyn I. Frisard, PhD; James P. DeLany, PhD; D. Enette Larson-Meyer, PhD; Jennifer Rood, PhD; Tuong Nguyen, BSE; Corby K. Martin, PhD; Julia Volaufova, PhD; Marlene M. Most, PhD; Frank L. Greenway, PhD; Steven R. Smith, MD; Walter A. Deutsch, PhD; Donald A. Williamson, PhD; Eric Ravussin, PhD; for the Pennington CALERIE Team
[+] Author Affiliations
JAMA. 2006;295(13):1539-1548. doi:10.1001/jama.295.13.1539.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »No. Such taxes are an abuse of taxation. Taxes are properly levied in as simple and uniform manner as is practicable, for the sole intent of defraying the legitimate expenses of government. Period. It is just not right to use taxation as a means of punishing someone from engaging in a legal behavior someone else disagrees with. If cigarettes are such a horrible evil, then government should ban them; certainly, government should not collect more money from their consumption than anyone else. Such tax policies are about money, and nothing else. But since that expresses a level of greed that's crass even for political bureaucrats, they tell us it's actually for our own good. Every time we accept another so-called "sin" tax, we confirm to those bureaucrats that we are indeed dull-witted fools....................
Sorry but we are long past the time when tax laws are solely for collection of revenue to fund government. They are used for social engineering. Examples, home mortgage credit, child tax credit, child care credit, tax credits for energy efficiency, various education credits/deductions, and the list goes on and on.
Not going to be judgemental on any of these but the various tax laws, right or wrong, are far from just collection of revenue.
So we should just roll with it?0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »No. Such taxes are an abuse of taxation. Taxes are properly levied in as simple and uniform manner as is practicable, for the sole intent of defraying the legitimate expenses of government. Period. It is just not right to use taxation as a means of punishing someone from engaging in a legal behavior someone else disagrees with. If cigarettes are such a horrible evil, then government should ban them; certainly, government should not collect more money from their consumption than anyone else. Such tax policies are about money, and nothing else. But since that expresses a level of greed that's crass even for political bureaucrats, they tell us it's actually for our own good. Every time we accept another so-called "sin" tax, we confirm to those bureaucrats that we are indeed dull-witted fools....................
Sorry but we are long past the time when tax laws are solely for collection of revenue to fund government. They are used for social engineering. Examples, home mortgage credit, child tax credit, child care credit, tax credits for energy efficiency, various education credits/deductions, and the list goes on and on.
Not going to be judgemental on any of these but the various tax laws, right or wrong, are far from just collection of revenue.
Which further stresses the importance of scrapping our current sinking situation and moving toward a flat tax.
Here here!!!0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
70% of the US population is overweight or obese, taxing the heathcare system (especially the 30% that are obese). I'm all for personal responsibility, but how's the take responsibility for your own actions thing working out for us?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you remove many of the consequences for those actions (as we have already done), no one adjusts their behaviour. The solution is not to remove even MORE consequences.
In addition, allowing people to take personal responsibility does not mean they will stop acting against their own best interests. That is not the goal of personal accountability. A reduction in those behaviours is often a side effect, but not guaranteed.2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Many people are saying education is the answer. Honestly don't you think anyone other than a special needs person or very young child knows drinking a 2 liter bottle of pop or eating 6 doughnuts daily, etc isn't good for their health?
You'd be surprised. Although, this is over-generalization. If I'm on a bulk and am I strong man. I can eat all that and burn those calories during workout which lasts 3 hours. Some strongmen eat north of 6k calories a day. It'll be much easier to get calories from doughnuts compared to broccoli lol
Also, educating in sense- no food is bad-eat in moderation-explain them CICO and importance of good nutrition. Teach them discipline -to make food choices that align with their goals.
Can't just willy nilly start taxing everything that one thinks is bad and does not have enough self control to eat something else instead -and just because something is taxed doesn't mean it'll be knocked out of consumption.1 -
This content has been removed.
-
AbsurdParadigm wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »AbsurdParadigm wrote: »Only if we get to tax yachts more. See how these stupid politicians like it when something they like gets taxed unfairly.
So that more companies providing quality products can be driven out of the country and cause thousands of middle class locals who work in the industry to lose their jobs?
It wasn't meant to be a great plan. It was sarcasm. Although, I am in favor of taxing those who have the money, instead of taxing the poor and middle class more. Trickle down economics doesn't trickle.
Funny thing about just taxing 'the people with the money'. Who always turn out to be 'the people who make more than me' and somehow are always a minority. It takes away meaningful discussion about whether or not the tax is necessary or not. If a tax is proposed on a majority, there's more likely to be meaningful pushback. Otherwise, it becomes, "Oh, we need some more money for X - why bother seeing if we can manage money better, or come up with another method of raising it, or even if it is appropriate for government to handle at all. We'll just levy a new tax, pretty sure it'll pass the vote".4 -
I vote for regulating the food manufacturing industry. Tax them… make the m put clear prominent labels with calorie counts..fat counts.. and chemicals and preservatives. Then the problem would fix itself.
Also, In Europe they do this.. regulate the food industry strictly. You don't see fat folks in Europe.. and i know they walk a lot..but the food matters too.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Many people are saying education is the answer. Honestly don't you think anyone other than a special needs person or very young child knows drinking a 2 liter bottle of pop or eating 6 doughnuts daily, etc isn't good for their health?
If this were true, I wouldn't see threads on here where people say how eye-opening it is to log their soda and realize they were consuming over 1000 calories in Coke a day. Wasn't there a study done where nutrition students knew that 20 oz of soda was 300 calories but said 60 oz only contained 600 calories? Registered dietitians overestimate the calories in their meals, and this is what they do for a living. There's a mental disconnect about how much we consume. More education about portions and nutrition and classes that give tools to develop good habits (i.e. cooking, meal planning) could very well go a long way toward making us a healthier society, much more so than a tax would.2 -
elisa123gal wrote: »I vote for regulating the food manufacturing industry. Tax them… make the m put clear prominent labels with calorie counts..fat counts.. and chemicals and preservatives. Then the problem would fix itself.
Also, In Europe they do this.. regulate the food industry strictly. You don't see fat folks in Europe.. and i know they walk a lot..but the food matters too.
I was in France two years ago. I was in Italy and England maybe four? years ago.
Yes, there were fat people in all three countries. There were even people that appeared to be morbidly obese. Not as high a percentage as is estimated for the U.S, but it's not as though seeing them was a rare event, either.2 -
elisa123gal wrote: »I vote for regulating the food manufacturing industry. Tax them… make the m put clear prominent labels with calorie counts..fat counts.. and chemicals and preservatives. Then the problem would fix itself.
Also, In Europe they do this.. regulate the food industry strictly. You don't see fat folks in Europe.. and i know they walk a lot..but the food matters too.
And a tax ultimately becomes part of the cost the consumer pays. There is a Federal Excise tax on alcohol in the US that is paid by the producer, buried in the price and never "seen" by the consumer.1 -
elisa123gal wrote: »I vote for regulating the food manufacturing industry. Tax them… make the m put clear prominent labels with calorie counts..fat counts.. and chemicals and preservatives. Then the problem would fix itself.
Also, In Europe they do this.. regulate the food industry strictly. You don't see fat folks in Europe.. and i know they walk a lot..but the food matters too.
From the 2015 WHO report: "The prevalence of overweight and obesity in European countries ranges from 45% to 67%." So yes, there are fat folks there too.
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/284750/EHR_High_EN_WEB.pdf?ua=12 -
This content has been removed.
-
elisa123gal wrote: »I vote for regulating the food manufacturing industry. Tax them… make the m put clear prominent labels with calorie counts..fat counts.. and chemicals and preservatives. Then the problem would fix itself.
Also, In Europe they do this.. regulate the food industry strictly. You don't see fat folks in Europe.. and i know they walk a lot..but the food matters too.
You mean like this?
8 -
elisa123gal wrote: »I vote for regulating the food manufacturing industry. Tax them… make the m put clear prominent labels with calorie counts..fat counts.. and chemicals and preservatives. Then the problem would fix itself.
Also, In Europe they do this.. regulate the food industry strictly. You don't see fat folks in Europe.. and i know they walk a lot..but the food matters too.
Um...you know that the US food industry is already heavily regulated, and all the things you want to see are already clearly displayed on the package, in intricate detail? And yet, post mandatory-label laws, the problem has just grown worse, rather than "fixing" itself, whatsoever.1 -
elisa123gal wrote: »I vote for regulating the food manufacturing industry. Tax them… make the m put clear prominent labels with calorie counts..fat counts.. and chemicals and preservatives. Then the problem would fix itself.
Also, In Europe they do this.. regulate the food industry strictly. You don't see fat folks in Europe.. and i know they walk a lot..but the food matters too.
Hopefully that's sarcasm?0 -
elisa123gal wrote: »I vote for regulating the food manufacturing industry. Tax them… make the m put clear prominent labels with calorie counts..fat counts.. and chemicals and preservatives. Then the problem would fix itself.
Also, In Europe they do this.. regulate the food industry strictly. You don't see fat folks in Europe.. and i know they walk a lot..but the food matters too.
Oh look, my Splenda appears to have some sort of label on it. HUH--wonder what that could be?
1
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
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions