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
-
Don't tax the individual that buys highly processed, nutrient poor, calorie dense foods, but tax the companies that produce them.
As queen liz said, this gets passed on to the consumer in higher prices. Focusing on the producer rather than the product actually means it probably gets spread among their products to some degree, some of which are not "junk food."
Also, localities are limited in their ability to tax the producers, vs. tax distributors/add a sales tax, and the various things you mentioned (sidewalks, lighting, community gardens, etc.) are all local services and locally funded, for the most part.
Where I live, most of that stuff exists, too. Certainly sidewalks do, and lighting, and so does public transportation, community gardens, various education programs, SNAP can be used at the farmer's market, etc. Biggest problem for local outdoor activity for areas with the worst obesity rates is probably crime.2 -
Has anyone connected the fact that the highest rate of obesity is among the poor to the fact that we are at the first time in history where food is so plentiful as to ALLOW the poor to be obese? The best approach to the obesity epidemic is education and patience. Allow people to learn how to eat in the face of abundance, and to change their own habits over time. Everyone here knows that lifestyle changes take time to happen. Besides, we still have people who are hungry, and I think raising taxes on high calories foods is simply cruel in that context.5
-
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Has anyone connected the fact that the highest rate of obesity is among the poor to the fact that we are at the first time in history where food is so plentiful as to ALLOW the poor to be obese? The best approach to the obesity epidemic is education and patience. Allow people to learn how to eat in the face of abundance, and to change their own habits over time. Everyone here knows that lifestyle changes take time to happen. Besides, we still have people who are hungry, and I think raising taxes on high calories foods is simply cruel in that context.
I'd agree education is important, but how do you pay for it? How would it be cruel to put a tax on soda and other drinks with added sugar, which have no nutritional value, to fund the educational efforts? This is assuming any funds collected by a tax would go to the intended purpose and not a black hole.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Has anyone connected the fact that the highest rate of obesity is among the poor to the fact that we are at the first time in history where food is so plentiful as to ALLOW the poor to be obese? The best approach to the obesity epidemic is education and patience. Allow people to learn how to eat in the face of abundance, and to change their own habits over time. Everyone here knows that lifestyle changes take time to happen. Besides, we still have people who are hungry, and I think raising taxes on high calories foods is simply cruel in that context.
I'd agree education is important, but how do you pay for it? How would it be cruel to put a tax on soda, which has no nutritional value, to fund the educational efforts?
Public service campaigns are being done regularly. Think of the 5 a Day program started by the NIH and other partners and the My Plate program. We also have a captive audience in the schools and I know that we are already teaching it there (due to some of the material our children have brought home, including My Plate). Give it time to work.
As for sodas, they're only a problem if someone isn't getting sufficient calories. If you've ever worked with hungry people you'll know what I'm taking about. Go spend a Sunday at a shelter or soup kitchen. If the 6 year old sleeping there wants a soda are you going to say no? Everyone loves to reminisce about the chocolate bars given out to kids during the Berlin Airlift, but god forbid you give a poor kid in the here and now a soda. We just did something similar by calorie controlling school lunches and it backfired. It's amazing to me how short sighted people can be.4 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Has anyone connected the fact that the highest rate of obesity is among the poor to the fact that we are at the first time in history where food is so plentiful as to ALLOW the poor to be obese? The best approach to the obesity epidemic is education and patience. Allow people to learn how to eat in the face of abundance, and to change their own habits over time. Everyone here knows that lifestyle changes take time to happen. Besides, we still have people who are hungry, and I think raising taxes on high calories foods is simply cruel in that context.
The problem with the foods, that the poor consume regularly're that they're calorie dense but nutrient/volume poor. So they'll still be hungry for the nutrients & satiety, even after they've consumed; their maintenance in calories! So with that perspective, while it looks as though they're eating well; they actually aren't.0 -
DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Has anyone connected the fact that the highest rate of obesity is among the poor to the fact that we are at the first time in history where food is so plentiful as to ALLOW the poor to be obese? The best approach to the obesity epidemic is education and patience. Allow people to learn how to eat in the face of abundance, and to change their own habits over time. Everyone here knows that lifestyle changes take time to happen. Besides, we still have people who are hungry, and I think raising taxes on high calories foods is simply cruel in that context.
The problem with the foods, that the poor consume regularly're that they're calorie dense but nutrient/volume poor. So they'll still be hungry for the nutrients & satiety, even after they've consumed; their maintenance in calories!
It's obvious you have no experience with what you're taking about. They need enough calories. A proper diet is a long term issue and it's important, but first comes enough calories.5 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Has anyone connected the fact that the highest rate of obesity is among the poor to the fact that we are at the first time in history where food is so plentiful as to ALLOW the poor to be obese? The best approach to the obesity epidemic is education and patience. Allow people to learn how to eat in the face of abundance, and to change their own habits over time. Everyone here knows that lifestyle changes take time to happen. Besides, we still have people who are hungry, and I think raising taxes on high calories foods is simply cruel in that context.
I think the point about people adjusting to new circumstances (pretty unusual over the course of human history) is a good one. I do think we will adjust over time.3 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Has anyone connected the fact that the highest rate of obesity is among the poor to the fact that we are at the first time in history where food is so plentiful as to ALLOW the poor to be obese? The best approach to the obesity epidemic is education and patience. Allow people to learn how to eat in the face of abundance, and to change their own habits over time. Everyone here knows that lifestyle changes take time to happen. Besides, we still have people who are hungry, and I think raising taxes on high calories foods is simply cruel in that context.
The problem with the foods, that the poor consume regularly're that they're calorie dense but nutrient/volume poor. So they'll still be hungry for the nutrients & satiety, even after they've consumed; their maintenance in calories!
It's obvious you have no experience with what you're taking about. They need enough calories. A proper diet is a long term issue and it's important, but first comes enough calories.
I have no experience in being poor? I've been disabled, before I could even get working papers. So no job/career, means I don't get to decide; what my income is (rightfully so) & thus means that I live on less, then minimum wage. If they're getting enough calories, then why're they still hungry because the body needs nutrients & it also needs time, for the brain to signal that your satiated; which takes approximately 20 minutes. Therefore they also need volume and/or time to consume their food slowly.1 -
DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Has anyone connected the fact that the highest rate of obesity is among the poor to the fact that we are at the first time in history where food is so plentiful as to ALLOW the poor to be obese? The best approach to the obesity epidemic is education and patience. Allow people to learn how to eat in the face of abundance, and to change their own habits over time. Everyone here knows that lifestyle changes take time to happen. Besides, we still have people who are hungry, and I think raising taxes on high calories foods is simply cruel in that context.
The problem with the foods, that the poor consume regularly're that they're calorie dense but nutrient/volume poor. So they'll still be hungry for the nutrients & satiety, even after they've consumed; their maintenance in calories!
It's obvious you have no experience with what you're taking about. They need enough calories. A proper diet is a long term issue and it's important, but first comes enough calories.
I have no experience in being poor? I've been disabled, before I could even get working papers. So no job/career, means I don't get to decide; what my income is (rightfully so) & thus means that I live on less, then minimum wage. If they're getting enough calories, then why're they still hungry because the body needs nutrients & it also needs time, for the brain to signal that your satiated; which takes approximately 20 minutes. Therefore they also need volume and/or to consume their food slowly.
I'm talking dealing with the truly hungry. Poor in this country isn't homeless and hungry. Food banks can help with fresh food, so if you're well off enough to have access to the Internet and a computer you can find one. I'm taking about the ones who can't.2 -
DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Has anyone connected the fact that the highest rate of obesity is among the poor to the fact that we are at the first time in history where food is so plentiful as to ALLOW the poor to be obese? The best approach to the obesity epidemic is education and patience. Allow people to learn how to eat in the face of abundance, and to change their own habits over time. Everyone here knows that lifestyle changes take time to happen. Besides, we still have people who are hungry, and I think raising taxes on high calories foods is simply cruel in that context.
The problem with the foods, that the poor consume regularly're that they're calorie dense but nutrient/volume poor. So they'll still be hungry for the nutrients & satiety, even after they've consumed; their maintenance in calories! So with that perspective, while it looks as though they're eating well; they actually aren't.
I think satiety is overrated. Having enough calories isn't going to leave the average person wanting more food, even in the absence of highly satiating foods (and what is satiating varies so much), in the absence of stimulus to the appetite. What happens is that human beings, on average, naturally tend to want food when it's around and offered and available. I think that's a side effect of a long history of needing to eat when food is available, and it being helpful to survival to be able to do so.
I find that the presence of food (especially food I find particularly tempting, of course) and the absence of habits such as standard eating times makes far more of a difference as to whether I want to eat extra calories/outside of meal time than actual meal choice. If I just had a coffee and bread here I'd be hungry in an hour and want all the food offered to me at work, probably (although I could resist it), but I've had plenty of vacations where I ate that, walked around all day, and didn't think of food before lunch, even a late lunch. Same with fruit at breakfast, which is basically what we had when I did a service trip to Nicaragua (again, lots of physical activity and a breakfast that would leave me hungry soon after in the US, given how my mind works, in the absence of strong habits).
People don't overeat because they lack nutrients or are truly hungry, IMO -- they overeat because food is delicious, it can be a cheap and easy way of experiencing pleasure when everything else sucks or is expensive, they are tired and don't want to cook and don't realize how many calories they are consuming (or what that means, if they bother to look at the calories, which are easy to ignore even when posted right in front of them), and because culturally hedonic eating is what's mostly promoted.4 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Has anyone connected the fact that the highest rate of obesity is among the poor to the fact that we are at the first time in history where food is so plentiful as to ALLOW the poor to be obese? The best approach to the obesity epidemic is education and patience. Allow people to learn how to eat in the face of abundance, and to change their own habits over time. Everyone here knows that lifestyle changes take time to happen. Besides, we still have people who are hungry, and I think raising taxes on high calories foods is simply cruel in that context.
The problem with the foods, that the poor consume regularly're that they're calorie dense but nutrient/volume poor. So they'll still be hungry for the nutrients & satiety, even after they've consumed; their maintenance in calories!
It's obvious you have no experience with what you're taking about. They need enough calories. A proper diet is a long term issue and it's important, but first comes enough calories.
I have no experience in being poor? I've been disabled, before I could even get working papers. So no job/career, means I don't get to decide; what my income is (rightfully so) & thus means that I live on less, then minimum wage. If they're getting enough calories, then why're they still hungry because the body needs nutrients & it also needs time, for the brain to signal that your satiated; which takes approximately 20 minutes. Therefore they also need volume and/or to consume their food slowly.
I'm talking dealing with the truly hungry. Poor in this country isn't homeless and hungry. Food banks can help with fresh food, so if you're well off enough to have access to the Internet and a computer you can find one. I'm taking about the ones who can't.
Food banks have had to turn people away because they didn't have enough food. So that isn't, always an option & then 1 has to factor in the time and/or transportation to get to 1 or more. Notice I said "they're" not "I", so I never implied that I am still; that poor. Lets not assume that everyone whom has access to a computer/internet, isn't at the library using their resources; instead of having their own but thankfully I do. From my experience most homeless people're thin, due to a lack of food/calories. I thought we were discussing those that're poor but're also overweight/obese.0 -
DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Has anyone connected the fact that the highest rate of obesity is among the poor to the fact that we are at the first time in history where food is so plentiful as to ALLOW the poor to be obese? The best approach to the obesity epidemic is education and patience. Allow people to learn how to eat in the face of abundance, and to change their own habits over time. Everyone here knows that lifestyle changes take time to happen. Besides, we still have people who are hungry, and I think raising taxes on high calories foods is simply cruel in that context.
The problem with the foods, that the poor consume regularly're that they're calorie dense but nutrient/volume poor. So they'll still be hungry for the nutrients & satiety, even after they've consumed; their maintenance in calories!
It's obvious you have no experience with what you're taking about. They need enough calories. A proper diet is a long term issue and it's important, but first comes enough calories.
I have no experience in being poor? I've been disabled, before I could even get working papers. So no job/career, means I don't get to decide; what my income is (rightfully so) & thus means that I live on less, then minimum wage. If they're getting enough calories, then why're they still hungry because the body needs nutrients & it also needs time, for the brain to signal that your satiated; which takes approximately 20 minutes. Therefore they also need volume and/or to consume their food slowly.
I'm talking dealing with the truly hungry. Poor in this country isn't homeless and hungry. Food banks can help with fresh food, so if you're well off enough to have access to the Internet and a computer you can find one. I'm taking about the ones who can't.
Food banks have had to turn people away because they didn't have enough food. So that isn't, always an option & then 1 has to factor in the time and/or transportation to get to 1 or more. Notice I said "they're" not "I", so I never implied that I am still; that poor. Lets not assume that everyone whom has access to a computer/internet, isn't at the library using their resources; instead of having their own but thankfully I do. From my experience most homeless people're thin, due to a lack of food/calories. I thought we were discussing those that're poor but're also overweight/obese.
Please reread what I posted. I'm addressing the double edged sword of taxing food to stop the higher end "poor" from becoming obese and the challenge that creates for the hungry. Again, it's better to educate and be patient than to use the blunt instrument of taxes on food.
4 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Has anyone connected the fact that the highest rate of obesity is among the poor to the fact that we are at the first time in history where food is so plentiful as to ALLOW the poor to be obese? The best approach to the obesity epidemic is education and patience. Allow people to learn how to eat in the face of abundance, and to change their own habits over time. Everyone here knows that lifestyle changes take time to happen. Besides, we still have people who are hungry, and I think raising taxes on high calories foods is simply cruel in that context.
The problem with the foods, that the poor consume regularly're that they're calorie dense but nutrient/volume poor. So they'll still be hungry for the nutrients & satiety, even after they've consumed; their maintenance in calories!
It's obvious you have no experience with what you're taking about. They need enough calories. A proper diet is a long term issue and it's important, but first comes enough calories.
I have no experience in being poor? I've been disabled, before I could even get working papers. So no job/career, means I don't get to decide; what my income is (rightfully so) & thus means that I live on less, then minimum wage. If they're getting enough calories, then why're they still hungry because the body needs nutrients & it also needs time, for the brain to signal that your satiated; which takes approximately 20 minutes. Therefore they also need volume and/or to consume their food slowly.
I'm talking dealing with the truly hungry. Poor in this country isn't homeless and hungry. Food banks can help with fresh food, so if you're well off enough to have access to the Internet and a computer you can find one. I'm taking about the ones who can't.
Food banks have had to turn people away because they didn't have enough food. So that isn't, always an option & then 1 has to factor in the time and/or transportation to get to 1 or more. Notice I said "they're" not "I", so I never implied that I am still; that poor. Lets not assume that everyone whom has access to a computer/internet, isn't at the library using their resources; instead of having their own but thankfully I do. From my experience most homeless people're thin, due to a lack of food/calories. I thought we were discussing those that're poor but're also overweight/obese.
Please reread what I posted. I'm addressing the double edged sword of taxing food to stop the higher end "poor" from becoming obese and the challenge that creates for the hungry. Again, it's better to educate and be patient than to use the blunt instrument of taxes on food.
While I mentioned that I disagree with taxing "junk food". It wouldn't effect most homeless people's purchasing power/majority of the time, especially if they have no regular income because most that'll give to the homeless, only give food, not currency.
However I give currency because my hope is that if I've given them, more than enough to help them buy food; they'll also buy a lottery ticket & win, more than I could ever give them myself; that could hopefully get them off of the streets & be productive, in ways that just giving a sandwich can't. Yeah giving a meal, is better than nothing but I feel as though, I'd just be prolonging their suffering because obviously they'll become hungry again & they might have to suffer much longer, before their next meal; is given to them.1 -
You hope homeless people will use money given to buy a lottery ticket, something commonly described as a tax on the numerically illiterate, as well as one of the worst taxes for being regressive?8
-
DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Has anyone connected the fact that the highest rate of obesity is among the poor to the fact that we are at the first time in history where food is so plentiful as to ALLOW the poor to be obese? The best approach to the obesity epidemic is education and patience. Allow people to learn how to eat in the face of abundance, and to change their own habits over time. Everyone here knows that lifestyle changes take time to happen. Besides, we still have people who are hungry, and I think raising taxes on high calories foods is simply cruel in that context.
The problem with the foods, that the poor consume regularly're that they're calorie dense but nutrient/volume poor. So they'll still be hungry for the nutrients & satiety, even after they've consumed; their maintenance in calories!
It's obvious you have no experience with what you're taking about. They need enough calories. A proper diet is a long term issue and it's important, but first comes enough calories.
I have no experience in being poor? I've been disabled, before I could even get working papers. So no job/career, means I don't get to decide; what my income is (rightfully so) & thus means that I live on less, then minimum wage. If they're getting enough calories, then why're they still hungry because the body needs nutrients & it also needs time, for the brain to signal that your satiated; which takes approximately 20 minutes. Therefore they also need volume and/or to consume their food slowly.
I'm talking dealing with the truly hungry. Poor in this country isn't homeless and hungry. Food banks can help with fresh food, so if you're well off enough to have access to the Internet and a computer you can find one. I'm taking about the ones who can't.
Food banks have had to turn people away because they didn't have enough food. So that isn't, always an option & then 1 has to factor in the time and/or transportation to get to 1 or more. Notice I said "they're" not "I", so I never implied that I am still; that poor. Lets not assume that everyone whom has access to a computer/internet, isn't at the library using their resources; instead of having their own but thankfully I do. From my experience most homeless people're thin, due to a lack of food/calories. I thought we were discussing those that're poor but're also overweight/obese.
Please reread what I posted. I'm addressing the double edged sword of taxing food to stop the higher end "poor" from becoming obese and the challenge that creates for the hungry. Again, it's better to educate and be patient than to use the blunt instrument of taxes on food.
While I mentioned that I disagree with taxing "junk food". It wouldn't effect most homeless people's purchasing power/majority of the time, especially if they have no regular income because most that'll give to the homeless, only give food, not currency.
However I give currency because my hope is that if I've given them, more than enough to help them buy food; they'll also buy a lottery ticket & win, more than I could ever give them myself; that could hopefully get them off of the streets & be productive, in ways that just giving a sandwich can't. Yeah giving a meal, is better than nothing but I feel as though, I'd just be prolonging their suffering because obviously they'll become hungry again & they might have to suffer much longer, before their next meal; is given to them.
I feel I must be misunderstanding what you are saying here. Are you saying it is better to give a homeless person a lottery ticket than a meal? Can you elaborate on this whole "meals prolong their suffering" concept because I'm afraid the way I interpret your words is really dark and twisted so I'm hoping I just misunderstood.1 -
DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Has anyone connected the fact that the highest rate of obesity is among the poor to the fact that we are at the first time in history where food is so plentiful as to ALLOW the poor to be obese? The best approach to the obesity epidemic is education and patience. Allow people to learn how to eat in the face of abundance, and to change their own habits over time. Everyone here knows that lifestyle changes take time to happen. Besides, we still have people who are hungry, and I think raising taxes on high calories foods is simply cruel in that context.
The problem with the foods, that the poor consume regularly're that they're calorie dense but nutrient/volume poor. So they'll still be hungry for the nutrients & satiety, even after they've consumed; their maintenance in calories!
It's obvious you have no experience with what you're taking about. They need enough calories. A proper diet is a long term issue and it's important, but first comes enough calories.
I have no experience in being poor? I've been disabled, before I could even get working papers. So no job/career, means I don't get to decide; what my income is (rightfully so) & thus means that I live on less, then minimum wage. If they're getting enough calories, then why're they still hungry because the body needs nutrients & it also needs time, for the brain to signal that your satiated; which takes approximately 20 minutes. Therefore they also need volume and/or to consume their food slowly.
I'm talking dealing with the truly hungry. Poor in this country isn't homeless and hungry. Food banks can help with fresh food, so if you're well off enough to have access to the Internet and a computer you can find one. I'm taking about the ones who can't.
Food banks have had to turn people away because they didn't have enough food. So that isn't, always an option & then 1 has to factor in the time and/or transportation to get to 1 or more. Notice I said "they're" not "I", so I never implied that I am still; that poor. Lets not assume that everyone whom has access to a computer/internet, isn't at the library using their resources; instead of having their own but thankfully I do. From my experience most homeless people're thin, due to a lack of food/calories. I thought we were discussing those that're poor but're also overweight/obese.
Please reread what I posted. I'm addressing the double edged sword of taxing food to stop the higher end "poor" from becoming obese and the challenge that creates for the hungry. Again, it's better to educate and be patient than to use the blunt instrument of taxes on food.
While I mentioned that I disagree with taxing "junk food". It wouldn't effect most homeless people's purchasing power/majority of the time, especially if they have no regular income because most that'll give to the homeless, only give food, not currency.
However I give currency because my hope is that if I've given them, more than enough to help them buy food; they'll also buy a lottery ticket & win, more than I could ever give them myself; that could hopefully get them off of the streets & be productive, in ways that just giving a sandwich can't. Yeah giving a meal, is better than nothing but I feel as though, I'd just be prolonging their suffering because obviously they'll become hungry again & they might have to suffer much longer, before their next meal; is given to them.
I'm baffled1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »You hope homeless people will use money given to buy a lottery ticket, something commonly described as a tax on the numerically illiterate, as well as one of the worst taxes for being regressive?
Well some homeless people, have won tens/hundreds of thousands!0 -
DeficitDuchess wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »You hope homeless people will use money given to buy a lottery ticket, something commonly described as a tax on the numerically illiterate, as well as one of the worst taxes for being regressive?
Well some homeless people, have won tens/hundreds of thousands!
Have you ever taken a class in statistics?7 -
WinoGelato wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Has anyone connected the fact that the highest rate of obesity is among the poor to the fact that we are at the first time in history where food is so plentiful as to ALLOW the poor to be obese? The best approach to the obesity epidemic is education and patience. Allow people to learn how to eat in the face of abundance, and to change their own habits over time. Everyone here knows that lifestyle changes take time to happen. Besides, we still have people who are hungry, and I think raising taxes on high calories foods is simply cruel in that context.
The problem with the foods, that the poor consume regularly're that they're calorie dense but nutrient/volume poor. So they'll still be hungry for the nutrients & satiety, even after they've consumed; their maintenance in calories!
It's obvious you have no experience with what you're taking about. They need enough calories. A proper diet is a long term issue and it's important, but first comes enough calories.
I have no experience in being poor? I've been disabled, before I could even get working papers. So no job/career, means I don't get to decide; what my income is (rightfully so) & thus means that I live on less, then minimum wage. If they're getting enough calories, then why're they still hungry because the body needs nutrients & it also needs time, for the brain to signal that your satiated; which takes approximately 20 minutes. Therefore they also need volume and/or to consume their food slowly.
I'm talking dealing with the truly hungry. Poor in this country isn't homeless and hungry. Food banks can help with fresh food, so if you're well off enough to have access to the Internet and a computer you can find one. I'm taking about the ones who can't.
Food banks have had to turn people away because they didn't have enough food. So that isn't, always an option & then 1 has to factor in the time and/or transportation to get to 1 or more. Notice I said "they're" not "I", so I never implied that I am still; that poor. Lets not assume that everyone whom has access to a computer/internet, isn't at the library using their resources; instead of having their own but thankfully I do. From my experience most homeless people're thin, due to a lack of food/calories. I thought we were discussing those that're poor but're also overweight/obese.
Please reread what I posted. I'm addressing the double edged sword of taxing food to stop the higher end "poor" from becoming obese and the challenge that creates for the hungry. Again, it's better to educate and be patient than to use the blunt instrument of taxes on food.
While I mentioned that I disagree with taxing "junk food". It wouldn't effect most homeless people's purchasing power/majority of the time, especially if they have no regular income because most that'll give to the homeless, only give food, not currency.
However I give currency because my hope is that if I've given them, more than enough to help them buy food; they'll also buy a lottery ticket & win, more than I could ever give them myself; that could hopefully get them off of the streets & be productive, in ways that just giving a sandwich can't. Yeah giving a meal, is better than nothing but I feel as though, I'd just be prolonging their suffering because obviously they'll become hungry again & they might have to suffer much longer, before their next meal; is given to them.
I feel I must be misunderstanding what you are saying here. Are you saying it is better to give a homeless person a lottery ticket than a meal? Can you elaborate on this whole "meals prolong their suffering" concept because I'm afraid the way I interpret your words is really dark and twisted so I'm hoping I just misunderstood.
I said that give them currency, it's their choice; what they do with it & I make no suggestions, to them. I just hope that I've given them enough, so that they're able to buy a meal & a chance for more.0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »You hope homeless people will use money given to buy a lottery ticket, something commonly described as a tax on the numerically illiterate, as well as one of the worst taxes for being regressive?
Well some homeless people, have won tens/hundreds of thousands!
Have you ever taken a class in statistics?
I don't have to to know that it's a rarity, that's why I hope to give them enough; to afford both a meal & a ticket.0 -
DeficitDuchess wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Has anyone connected the fact that the highest rate of obesity is among the poor to the fact that we are at the first time in history where food is so plentiful as to ALLOW the poor to be obese? The best approach to the obesity epidemic is education and patience. Allow people to learn how to eat in the face of abundance, and to change their own habits over time. Everyone here knows that lifestyle changes take time to happen. Besides, we still have people who are hungry, and I think raising taxes on high calories foods is simply cruel in that context.
The problem with the foods, that the poor consume regularly're that they're calorie dense but nutrient/volume poor. So they'll still be hungry for the nutrients & satiety, even after they've consumed; their maintenance in calories!
It's obvious you have no experience with what you're taking about. They need enough calories. A proper diet is a long term issue and it's important, but first comes enough calories.
I have no experience in being poor? I've been disabled, before I could even get working papers. So no job/career, means I don't get to decide; what my income is (rightfully so) & thus means that I live on less, then minimum wage. If they're getting enough calories, then why're they still hungry because the body needs nutrients & it also needs time, for the brain to signal that your satiated; which takes approximately 20 minutes. Therefore they also need volume and/or to consume their food slowly.
I'm talking dealing with the truly hungry. Poor in this country isn't homeless and hungry. Food banks can help with fresh food, so if you're well off enough to have access to the Internet and a computer you can find one. I'm taking about the ones who can't.
Food banks have had to turn people away because they didn't have enough food. So that isn't, always an option & then 1 has to factor in the time and/or transportation to get to 1 or more. Notice I said "they're" not "I", so I never implied that I am still; that poor. Lets not assume that everyone whom has access to a computer/internet, isn't at the library using their resources; instead of having their own but thankfully I do. From my experience most homeless people're thin, due to a lack of food/calories. I thought we were discussing those that're poor but're also overweight/obese.
Please reread what I posted. I'm addressing the double edged sword of taxing food to stop the higher end "poor" from becoming obese and the challenge that creates for the hungry. Again, it's better to educate and be patient than to use the blunt instrument of taxes on food.
While I mentioned that I disagree with taxing "junk food". It wouldn't effect most homeless people's purchasing power/majority of the time, especially if they have no regular income because most that'll give to the homeless, only give food, not currency.
However I give currency because my hope is that if I've given them, more than enough to help them buy food; they'll also buy a lottery ticket & win, more than I could ever give them myself; that could hopefully get them off of the streets & be productive, in ways that just giving a sandwich can't. Yeah giving a meal, is better than nothing but I feel as though, I'd just be prolonging their suffering because obviously they'll become hungry again & they might have to suffer much longer, before their next meal; is given to them.
I feel I must be misunderstanding what you are saying here. Are you saying it is better to give a homeless person a lottery ticket than a meal? Can you elaborate on this whole "meals prolong their suffering" concept because I'm afraid the way I interpret your words is really dark and twisted so I'm hoping I just misunderstood.
I said that give them currency, it's their choice; what they do with it & I make no suggestions, to them. I just hope that I've given them enough, so that they're able to buy a meal & a chance for more.
What about your previous statement that giving them meals prolongs their suffering? Can you please clarify?2 -
DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »You hope homeless people will use money given to buy a lottery ticket, something commonly described as a tax on the numerically illiterate, as well as one of the worst taxes for being regressive?
Well some homeless people, have won tens/hundreds of thousands!
Have you ever taken a class in statistics?
I don't have to to know that it's a rarity, that's why I hope to give them enough; to afford both a meal & a ticket.
The people at that level are often suffering from mental health disorders and you'd do better by just giving them food. I'm not saying that I begrudge them anything, even alcohol (and most mental health professionals will disagree with me there, but I'm not in a place to judge anyone in that situation), but the expected value of a lottery ticket (given the minuscule chance of winning) approaches zero.3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Has anyone connected the fact that the highest rate of obesity is among the poor to the fact that we are at the first time in history where food is so plentiful as to ALLOW the poor to be obese? The best approach to the obesity epidemic is education and patience. Allow people to learn how to eat in the face of abundance, and to change their own habits over time. Everyone here knows that lifestyle changes take time to happen. Besides, we still have people who are hungry, and I think raising taxes on high calories foods is simply cruel in that context.
The problem with the foods, that the poor consume regularly're that they're calorie dense but nutrient/volume poor. So they'll still be hungry for the nutrients & satiety, even after they've consumed; their maintenance in calories!
It's obvious you have no experience with what you're taking about. They need enough calories. A proper diet is a long term issue and it's important, but first comes enough calories.
I have no experience in being poor? I've been disabled, before I could even get working papers. So no job/career, means I don't get to decide; what my income is (rightfully so) & thus means that I live on less, then minimum wage. If they're getting enough calories, then why're they still hungry because the body needs nutrients & it also needs time, for the brain to signal that your satiated; which takes approximately 20 minutes. Therefore they also need volume and/or to consume their food slowly.
I'm talking dealing with the truly hungry. Poor in this country isn't homeless and hungry. Food banks can help with fresh food, so if you're well off enough to have access to the Internet and a computer you can find one. I'm taking about the ones who can't.
Food banks have had to turn people away because they didn't have enough food. So that isn't, always an option & then 1 has to factor in the time and/or transportation to get to 1 or more. Notice I said "they're" not "I", so I never implied that I am still; that poor. Lets not assume that everyone whom has access to a computer/internet, isn't at the library using their resources; instead of having their own but thankfully I do. From my experience most homeless people're thin, due to a lack of food/calories. I thought we were discussing those that're poor but're also overweight/obese.
Please reread what I posted. I'm addressing the double edged sword of taxing food to stop the higher end "poor" from becoming obese and the challenge that creates for the hungry. Again, it's better to educate and be patient than to use the blunt instrument of taxes on food.
While I mentioned that I disagree with taxing "junk food". It wouldn't effect most homeless people's purchasing power/majority of the time, especially if they have no regular income because most that'll give to the homeless, only give food, not currency.
However I give currency because my hope is that if I've given them, more than enough to help them buy food; they'll also buy a lottery ticket & win, more than I could ever give them myself; that could hopefully get them off of the streets & be productive, in ways that just giving a sandwich can't. Yeah giving a meal, is better than nothing but I feel as though, I'd just be prolonging their suffering because obviously they'll become hungry again & they might have to suffer much longer, before their next meal; is given to them.
I feel I must be misunderstanding what you are saying here. Are you saying it is better to give a homeless person a lottery ticket than a meal? Can you elaborate on this whole "meals prolong their suffering" concept because I'm afraid the way I interpret your words is really dark and twisted so I'm hoping I just misunderstood.
I said that give them currency, it's their choice; what they do with it & I make no suggestions, to them. I just hope that I've given them enough, so that they're able to buy a meal & a chance for more.
What about your previous statement that giving them meals prolongs their suffering? Can you please clarify?
Well I can't guarantee that I or anyone else'll be able to help them, the next time that they get hungry; so they're most likely're going to suffer with hunger pains again right? That's why just a meal, doesn't prevent future hunger; unlikely a lottery ticket'll either but it makes me feel as though, I tried to give them an opportunity to have more; then I could ever give them alone.0 -
DeficitDuchess wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Has anyone connected the fact that the highest rate of obesity is among the poor to the fact that we are at the first time in history where food is so plentiful as to ALLOW the poor to be obese? The best approach to the obesity epidemic is education and patience. Allow people to learn how to eat in the face of abundance, and to change their own habits over time. Everyone here knows that lifestyle changes take time to happen. Besides, we still have people who are hungry, and I think raising taxes on high calories foods is simply cruel in that context.
The problem with the foods, that the poor consume regularly're that they're calorie dense but nutrient/volume poor. So they'll still be hungry for the nutrients & satiety, even after they've consumed; their maintenance in calories!
It's obvious you have no experience with what you're taking about. They need enough calories. A proper diet is a long term issue and it's important, but first comes enough calories.
I have no experience in being poor? I've been disabled, before I could even get working papers. So no job/career, means I don't get to decide; what my income is (rightfully so) & thus means that I live on less, then minimum wage. If they're getting enough calories, then why're they still hungry because the body needs nutrients & it also needs time, for the brain to signal that your satiated; which takes approximately 20 minutes. Therefore they also need volume and/or to consume their food slowly.
I'm talking dealing with the truly hungry. Poor in this country isn't homeless and hungry. Food banks can help with fresh food, so if you're well off enough to have access to the Internet and a computer you can find one. I'm taking about the ones who can't.
Food banks have had to turn people away because they didn't have enough food. So that isn't, always an option & then 1 has to factor in the time and/or transportation to get to 1 or more. Notice I said "they're" not "I", so I never implied that I am still; that poor. Lets not assume that everyone whom has access to a computer/internet, isn't at the library using their resources; instead of having their own but thankfully I do. From my experience most homeless people're thin, due to a lack of food/calories. I thought we were discussing those that're poor but're also overweight/obese.
Please reread what I posted. I'm addressing the double edged sword of taxing food to stop the higher end "poor" from becoming obese and the challenge that creates for the hungry. Again, it's better to educate and be patient than to use the blunt instrument of taxes on food.
While I mentioned that I disagree with taxing "junk food". It wouldn't effect most homeless people's purchasing power/majority of the time, especially if they have no regular income because most that'll give to the homeless, only give food, not currency.
However I give currency because my hope is that if I've given them, more than enough to help them buy food; they'll also buy a lottery ticket & win, more than I could ever give them myself; that could hopefully get them off of the streets & be productive, in ways that just giving a sandwich can't. Yeah giving a meal, is better than nothing but I feel as though, I'd just be prolonging their suffering because obviously they'll become hungry again & they might have to suffer much longer, before their next meal; is given to them.
I feel I must be misunderstanding what you are saying here. Are you saying it is better to give a homeless person a lottery ticket than a meal? Can you elaborate on this whole "meals prolong their suffering" concept because I'm afraid the way I interpret your words is really dark and twisted so I'm hoping I just misunderstood.
I said that give them currency, it's their choice; what they do with it & I make no suggestions, to them. I just hope that I've given them enough, so that they're able to buy a meal & a chance for more.
What about your previous statement that giving them meals prolongs their suffering? Can you please clarify?
Well I can't guarantee that I or anyone else'll be able to help them, the next time that they get hungry; so they're most likely're going to suffer with hunger pains again right? That's why just a meal, doesn't prevent future hunger; unlikely a lottery ticket'll either but it makes me feel as though, I tried to give them an opportunity to have more; then I myself could ever give them.
What about the number of a shelter or directions and bus fare to the nearest soup kitchen? Don't get me wrong, I know the shelters are full. I went round and round over this for a family of four a couple of months ago.0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Has anyone connected the fact that the highest rate of obesity is among the poor to the fact that we are at the first time in history where food is so plentiful as to ALLOW the poor to be obese? The best approach to the obesity epidemic is education and patience. Allow people to learn how to eat in the face of abundance, and to change their own habits over time. Everyone here knows that lifestyle changes take time to happen. Besides, we still have people who are hungry, and I think raising taxes on high calories foods is simply cruel in that context.
I'd agree education is important, but how do you pay for it? How would it be cruel to put a tax on soda, which has no nutritional value, to fund the educational efforts?
As for sodas, they're only a problem if someone isn't getting sufficient calories. If you've ever worked with hungry people you'll know what I'm taking about. Go spend a Sunday at a shelter or soup kitchen. If the 6 year old sleeping there wants a soda are you going to say no? Everyone loves to reminisce about the chocolate bars given out to kids during the Berlin Airlift, but god forbid you give a poor kid in the here and now a soda. We just did something similar by calorie controlling school lunches and it backfired. It's amazing to me how short sighted people can be.
I would propose the vast majority of the obese poor have soda as a significant contributing factor as opposed to the portion who are thin and looking at soda a cheap calorie source.
Also, during the Berlin airlift, the US and allies were working to retain the trust of the people and reinforce the idea the west would not abandon them with small gifts. I would bet few if any of the people who received chocolate bars during the airlift were obese.0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Has anyone connected the fact that the highest rate of obesity is among the poor to the fact that we are at the first time in history where food is so plentiful as to ALLOW the poor to be obese? The best approach to the obesity epidemic is education and patience. Allow people to learn how to eat in the face of abundance, and to change their own habits over time. Everyone here knows that lifestyle changes take time to happen. Besides, we still have people who are hungry, and I think raising taxes on high calories foods is simply cruel in that context.
The problem with the foods, that the poor consume regularly're that they're calorie dense but nutrient/volume poor. So they'll still be hungry for the nutrients & satiety, even after they've consumed; their maintenance in calories!
It's obvious you have no experience with what you're taking about. They need enough calories. A proper diet is a long term issue and it's important, but first comes enough calories.
I have no experience in being poor? I've been disabled, before I could even get working papers. So no job/career, means I don't get to decide; what my income is (rightfully so) & thus means that I live on less, then minimum wage. If they're getting enough calories, then why're they still hungry because the body needs nutrients & it also needs time, for the brain to signal that your satiated; which takes approximately 20 minutes. Therefore they also need volume and/or to consume their food slowly.
I'm talking dealing with the truly hungry. Poor in this country isn't homeless and hungry. Food banks can help with fresh food, so if you're well off enough to have access to the Internet and a computer you can find one. I'm taking about the ones who can't.
Food banks have had to turn people away because they didn't have enough food. So that isn't, always an option & then 1 has to factor in the time and/or transportation to get to 1 or more. Notice I said "they're" not "I", so I never implied that I am still; that poor. Lets not assume that everyone whom has access to a computer/internet, isn't at the library using their resources; instead of having their own but thankfully I do. From my experience most homeless people're thin, due to a lack of food/calories. I thought we were discussing those that're poor but're also overweight/obese.
Please reread what I posted. I'm addressing the double edged sword of taxing food to stop the higher end "poor" from becoming obese and the challenge that creates for the hungry. Again, it's better to educate and be patient than to use the blunt instrument of taxes on food.
While I mentioned that I disagree with taxing "junk food". It wouldn't effect most homeless people's purchasing power/majority of the time, especially if they have no regular income because most that'll give to the homeless, only give food, not currency.
However I give currency because my hope is that if I've given them, more than enough to help them buy food; they'll also buy a lottery ticket & win, more than I could ever give them myself; that could hopefully get them off of the streets & be productive, in ways that just giving a sandwich can't. Yeah giving a meal, is better than nothing but I feel as though, I'd just be prolonging their suffering because obviously they'll become hungry again & they might have to suffer much longer, before their next meal; is given to them.
I feel I must be misunderstanding what you are saying here. Are you saying it is better to give a homeless person a lottery ticket than a meal? Can you elaborate on this whole "meals prolong their suffering" concept because I'm afraid the way I interpret your words is really dark and twisted so I'm hoping I just misunderstood.
I said that give them currency, it's their choice; what they do with it & I make no suggestions, to them. I just hope that I've given them enough, so that they're able to buy a meal & a chance for more.
What about your previous statement that giving them meals prolongs their suffering? Can you please clarify?
Well I can't guarantee that I or anyone else'll be able to help them, the next time that they get hungry; so they're most likely're going to suffer with hunger pains again right? That's why just a meal, doesn't prevent future hunger; unlikely a lottery ticket'll either but it makes me feel as though, I tried to give them an opportunity to have more; then I myself could ever give them.
What about the number of a shelter or directions and bus fare to the nearest soup kitchen? Don't get me wrong, I know the shelters are full. I went round and round over this for a family of four a couple of months ago.
Thank you for trying to help that family. I haven't come across anyone, whom hasn't been homeless for a while; so they most likely're aware of such but of course as you mentioned resources're scarce. I'd be more afraid that they'd spend that money, to catch a bus somewhere for help; only for there to be no help for them once they arrived.0 -
DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Has anyone connected the fact that the highest rate of obesity is among the poor to the fact that we are at the first time in history where food is so plentiful as to ALLOW the poor to be obese? The best approach to the obesity epidemic is education and patience. Allow people to learn how to eat in the face of abundance, and to change their own habits over time. Everyone here knows that lifestyle changes take time to happen. Besides, we still have people who are hungry, and I think raising taxes on high calories foods is simply cruel in that context.
The problem with the foods, that the poor consume regularly're that they're calorie dense but nutrient/volume poor. So they'll still be hungry for the nutrients & satiety, even after they've consumed; their maintenance in calories!
It's obvious you have no experience with what you're taking about. They need enough calories. A proper diet is a long term issue and it's important, but first comes enough calories.
I have no experience in being poor? I've been disabled, before I could even get working papers. So no job/career, means I don't get to decide; what my income is (rightfully so) & thus means that I live on less, then minimum wage. If they're getting enough calories, then why're they still hungry because the body needs nutrients & it also needs time, for the brain to signal that your satiated; which takes approximately 20 minutes. Therefore they also need volume and/or to consume their food slowly.
I'm talking dealing with the truly hungry. Poor in this country isn't homeless and hungry. Food banks can help with fresh food, so if you're well off enough to have access to the Internet and a computer you can find one. I'm taking about the ones who can't.
Food banks have had to turn people away because they didn't have enough food. So that isn't, always an option & then 1 has to factor in the time and/or transportation to get to 1 or more. Notice I said "they're" not "I", so I never implied that I am still; that poor. Lets not assume that everyone whom has access to a computer/internet, isn't at the library using their resources; instead of having their own but thankfully I do. From my experience most homeless people're thin, due to a lack of food/calories. I thought we were discussing those that're poor but're also overweight/obese.
Please reread what I posted. I'm addressing the double edged sword of taxing food to stop the higher end "poor" from becoming obese and the challenge that creates for the hungry. Again, it's better to educate and be patient than to use the blunt instrument of taxes on food.
While I mentioned that I disagree with taxing "junk food". It wouldn't effect most homeless people's purchasing power/majority of the time, especially if they have no regular income because most that'll give to the homeless, only give food, not currency.
However I give currency because my hope is that if I've given them, more than enough to help them buy food; they'll also buy a lottery ticket & win, more than I could ever give them myself; that could hopefully get them off of the streets & be productive, in ways that just giving a sandwich can't. Yeah giving a meal, is better than nothing but I feel as though, I'd just be prolonging their suffering because obviously they'll become hungry again & they might have to suffer much longer, before their next meal; is given to them.
I feel I must be misunderstanding what you are saying here. Are you saying it is better to give a homeless person a lottery ticket than a meal? Can you elaborate on this whole "meals prolong their suffering" concept because I'm afraid the way I interpret your words is really dark and twisted so I'm hoping I just misunderstood.
I said that give them currency, it's their choice; what they do with it & I make no suggestions, to them. I just hope that I've given them enough, so that they're able to buy a meal & a chance for more.
What about your previous statement that giving them meals prolongs their suffering? Can you please clarify?
Well I can't guarantee that I or anyone else'll be able to help them, the next time that they get hungry; so they're most likely're going to suffer with hunger pains again right? That's why just a meal, doesn't prevent future hunger; unlikely a lottery ticket'll either but it makes me feel as though, I tried to give them an opportunity to have more; then I myself could ever give them.
What about the number of a shelter or directions and bus fare to the nearest soup kitchen? Don't get me wrong, I know the shelters are full. I went round and round over this for a family of four a couple of months ago.
Thank you for trying to help that family. I haven't come across anyone, whom hasn't been homeless a while; so they most likely're aware of such but of course as you mentioned resources're scarce. I'd be more afraid that they'd spend that money, to catch a bus somewhere for help; only for there to be no help for them once they arrived.
We ended up doing pretty much jack *kitten* because we couldn't find the family again, we couldn't find them help, and the few dollars my wife did give them wouldn't have done much good. Again, many of these people are suffering from mental health disorders and the adult men that most of us usually come across are usually the last helped (which is why those are who most of us see). They aren't able to function at a high enough level consistently to keep jobs or care for themselves. Some will literally turn away and leave if you try to talk to them, but a little conversation and some guidance to resources can help.
People like you or me simply handing them money is a huge help, and I'm not in any way saying it isn't, nor am I saying there isn't some personal risk, but if you want to do more that is one approach. This is also about the time I get on my soapbox about mental health issues, and particularly stigma, but let me just say that being kind can go a long way. And yes, those few dollars you give them would be taxed because most of them end up at McDonald's or a convenience store.3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Has anyone connected the fact that the highest rate of obesity is among the poor to the fact that we are at the first time in history where food is so plentiful as to ALLOW the poor to be obese? The best approach to the obesity epidemic is education and patience. Allow people to learn how to eat in the face of abundance, and to change their own habits over time. Everyone here knows that lifestyle changes take time to happen. Besides, we still have people who are hungry, and I think raising taxes on high calories foods is simply cruel in that context.
I'd agree education is important, but how do you pay for it? How would it be cruel to put a tax on soda, which has no nutritional value, to fund the educational efforts?
As for sodas, they're only a problem if someone isn't getting sufficient calories. If you've ever worked with hungry people you'll know what I'm taking about. Go spend a Sunday at a shelter or soup kitchen. If the 6 year old sleeping there wants a soda are you going to say no? Everyone loves to reminisce about the chocolate bars given out to kids during the Berlin Airlift, but god forbid you give a poor kid in the here and now a soda. We just did something similar by calorie controlling school lunches and it backfired. It's amazing to me how short sighted people can be.
I would propose the vast majority of the obese poor have soda as a significant contributing factor as opposed to the portion who are thin and looking at soda a cheap calorie source.
Also, during the Berlin airlift, the US and allies were working to retain the trust of the people and reinforce the idea the west would not abandon them with small gifts. I would bet few if any of the people who received chocolate bars during the airlift were obese.
You're conflating the obese poor and the hungry poor (if I'm reading your post correctly). The obese poor need education rather than taxes, and time for that education to work. See also the double edged sword I spoke of above regarding your proposed taxes and the hungry poor. As for trust, that's also an issue with the homeless and very poor. They don't trust without building rapport, and again that takes time. Hence, why I like the comparison. Helping people in need is not effective if you dictate to them rather than build trust and listen. They're human beings and they don't just do what they're told, nor is what you or I think they need always what they really need.2 -
Most people just aren't educated when it comes to eating healthy. For example, I was walking through the grocery store today and an employee was trying to sell "the perfect healthy bar." There was a good sized crowd gathered so I took a look at the box and saw that each bar had 28g sugar.. That's as much if not more than most Andy bars but with good marketing and a lack of knowledge people will continue to buy such products.0
-
Holy superfluous punctuation, Batman!0
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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions