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
-
Packerjohn wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Define junk.
This. It's such a subjective term that is really meaningless. I'm in excellent health and have a BMI of under 22. I eat a wide variety of foods. Why should I have to pay any more for the chocolate chips I buy versus the mushrooms I buy? They both fit into my healthy diet and lifestyle.
Just as a counter argument, someone in good health, not overweight drinks beer or wine occasionally, why should that person pay more in taxes on the product that someone who drinks Coke?
I concur, and sin taxes should die in a fire as well.3 -
It's a moral code tax, and I'm flat out against that.1
-
Packerjohn wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Define junk.
This. It's such a subjective term that is really meaningless. I'm in excellent health and have a BMI of under 22. I eat a wide variety of foods. Why should I have to pay any more for the chocolate chips I buy versus the mushrooms I buy? They both fit into my healthy diet and lifestyle.
Just as a counter argument, someone in good health, not overweight drinks beer or wine occasionally, why should that person pay more in taxes on the product that someone who drinks Coke?
They shouldn't (in my opinion).1 -
No, because...
“Freedom necessarily involves risk. You can not have a free country, which is at the same time a nursery…”
–Alan Watts8 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »
We're deferring to the WHO on matters of political theory now?2 -
No. It is not the job of government to use taxation to manipulate behavior.
Where does it end? Taxing people for not having a gym membership? A tax for not using the gym enough?
The government is wrong nearly all the time when it decides what we should be eating.
The creation of the food pyramid led to an increase in obesity.4 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
We're deferring to the WHO on matters of political theory now?
I think WHO thinks they should to our thinking for us because we are not smart enough to think for ourselves in these matters perhaps.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
We're deferring to the WHO on matters of political theory now?
I think WHO thinks they should to our thinking for us because we are not smart enough to think for ourselves in these matters perhaps.
2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
We're deferring to the WHO on matters of political theory now?
I think WHO thinks they should to our thinking for us because we are not smart enough to think for ourselves in these matters perhaps.
WHO's role is to make recommendations. That doesn't mean they think "we" (who is we?) are not "smart enough." That's a weirdly negative way to look at it.3 -
No. It is not the job of government to use taxation to manipulate behavior.
Where does it end? Taxing people for not having a gym membership? A tax for not using the gym enough?
The government is wrong nearly all the time when it decides what we should be eating.
The creation of the food pyramid led to an increase in obesity.
Overeating and not enough movement by much of the population led to an increase in obesity, not some drawing in a pamphlet.
In the US, the tax system manipulates all sorts of behaviors. Mortgage interest deduction, child care credits, credits for dependent children, credits for energy system investments by homeowners, deductions for educational expenses, charitable contributions, retirement funding, etc, etc. If anyone gets any of these, I'm guessing they are in favor of using taxation to manipulate that particular behavior.1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
We're deferring to the WHO on matters of political theory now?
I think WHO thinks they should to our thinking for us because we are not smart enough to think for ourselves in these matters perhaps.
By this logic any organization made up of trained professionals giving recommendations thinks they should do our thinking for us and that they're smarter than us.
If a group of dermatologists recommends wearing sunscreen when you're in the sun, do you think they're trying to do your thinking for you? Are they assuming they are smarter than you?
No. They just have access to specific training and information that leads them to conclude it is a good idea to wear sunscreen to prevent cancer. They may be wrong, they may be right -- the scientific method is always allowing us to come up with a more accurate picture of the world.
But we don't have the time (or the inclination) to become experts in everything and create our own recommendations based on clinical research and data.2 -
The subject is taxation of junk food. I think WHO could give some valid health input but I do not see them as being valid taxation advisors. I do have the inclination to understand what may lead to premature death of my family and myself and do take the time to do so but I know most don't.0
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »The subject is taxation of junk food. I think WHO could give some valid health input but I do not see them as being valid taxation advisors. I do have the inclination to understand what may lead to premature death of my family and myself and do take the time to do so but I know most don't.
Making policy recommendations that relate to public health is part of their organization's purpose. That doesn't mean we can't legitimately disagree with them (I do happen to disagree with the proposal to tax "junk" food), but it's silly to think a group of health professionals offering policy suggestions to improve public health are acting like they're "smarter than us."
It's not like they're giving us advice on how to write off depreciated assets or structure earnings to avoid extra tax penalties. They're specifically talking about a tax policy they think would have a positive impact on public health and that's well within their field.2 -
this whole topic infuriates the hell out of me. i've said it before. why on gods green earth would anyone want more tax and for the already inept government to meddle even more into our lives by trying to either make financial gain by taxing food or my forcing people to have to choose to eliminate certain foods.
so...what because some have no discipline "I" have to pay to enjoy a donut or candy bar?
Sheesus. get real people. SMH7 -
I'm not in favor of this proposal either, but given the reasons many give for being against it, I don't know why they aren't lobbying against alcohol taxes.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm not in favor of this proposal either, but given the reasons many give for being against it, I don't know why they aren't lobbying against alcohol taxes.
Because the tax is hidden and the vast majority are not aware how many taxes we actually pay. Imagine if income tax were paid out at the end of the year instead of deducted in advance. There would be riots.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm not in favor of this proposal either, but given the reasons many give for being against it, I don't know why they aren't lobbying against alcohol taxes.
I'm not as anti-tax as some on here, but here's my personal reasons for being more accepting of an alcohol tax than a junk food tax:
-Alcohol can be immediately dangerous. Making it more expensive deters some (unfortunately nowhere close to all) from drinking to the point of intoxication and driving, or getting raging drunk then abusing family members. No one is getting beaten or killed when someone binges on a whole bag of chips.
-Alcohol is a more isolated economy than junk food. If the cost of alcohol goes up, liquor stores don't have the option of redistributing the cost onto other goods. Taxing junk food could result in many other foods becoming more expensive (soy products, oils, meat, dairy, etc.), whereas only specific grains and grapes are hit if alcohol costs go up, most of which don't filter into other products.
-Personally, I believe the culture around alcohol and how commonly alcohol is abused is a more serious problem than how much junk food contributes to people being fat. I'm also aware that this perspective is tinted by the circles I run in - I know a lot more people who drink too much than people who are fat because they're consuming too much candy and soda.
I don't think a tax is a very effective deterrent, but in this case, if it deters a few people from being really freaking stupid or horrible, then I'll pay a little more for my wine and hope that's one less person who didn't get killed by a drunk driver.1 -
chocolate_owl wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm not in favor of this proposal either, but given the reasons many give for being against it, I don't know why they aren't lobbying against alcohol taxes.
I'm not as anti-tax as some on here, but here's my personal reasons for being more accepting of an alcohol tax than a junk food tax:
Just to be clear, I favor an alcohol tax and am (currently) opposed to a junk food tax as a national tax or as a tax in the jurisdictions I live in (although I could probably be convinced to change my position on the junk food tax on a negative externalities kind of argument--I don't have particularly strong feelings about it one way or the other). I'm in favor of other jurisdictions experimenting with different sorts of junk food taxes if they want, though, and trying out the public policy arguments. (I'm also currently paying some sort of soda tax and don't really care; more annoyed by our out of control sales taxes.)
My point was that given the rationale given by some for being opposed to the junk food tax, which would apply just as strongly to the alcohol tax, it seemed inconsistent not to be angry about that one as well or lobbying against it. I am not saying that there would be no reason to distinguish between the two, but general opposition to taxing, to taxing in order to discourage behavior, to "sin" taxes, or to dealing with negative externalities with taxation would not be a reason to distinguish the two.0 -
True enough, and several here who are opposed to the junk food tax have also said they oppose taxes on alcohol, that no matter the item it comes down to personal responsibility, and it's not fair to burden those who drink moderately with taxes just because some people are alcoholics. (I'd quote if I could, I know I've seen it in this thread somewhere, but this thing's turned into a 44-page monster, and it might have been in the other thread about the healthcare cost of obesity...)
And while I generally agree with those sentiments, I also don't mind the tax on alcohol so much for the reasons I listed. There's benefits and drawbacks on either side of that particular tax. I don't see the same benefits with a junk food tax, and I'm more likely to get up in arms about the cost of my Coke Zero going up than my Pinot Noir.0 -
Yeah, several have, but there seems to be a mismatch in the passion expressed. Mostly, though, I get annoyed with responses that are basically "why should the gov't have any of our money, they waste it" or "why is it my problem if someone else overeats candy, I don't!" While I understand the sentiment, it really doesn't have much to do with the question of junk food taxes specifically, but either all taxes or all "sin" taxes or all tax policy used to encourage certain behaviors (as someone else noted, that's rampant). If someone focuses on those as a reason to be, in essence, outraged about even a discussion of junk food taxes, without seeming too bothered by the taxes that already exist (and even among anti tax sorts I pretty much never hear anyone complaining about the alcohol taxes), that seems hypocritical or at least weird. Heck, if I drive to work (which I almost never do) I park in a garage that explains to me just how much of the (insane) amount charged is due to local taxes. Is that somehow less outrageous than a junk food tax.*
Eh, just something bothering me, since I don't really want this to become a discussion of "the gov't, they suck" or "oh, yeah, hang out in the DMV then and see how badly the gov't spends money!" Mainly because this not being an open forum for political discussion I don't feel like I can actually respond or try to have an intelligent discussion of those topics. I do think we have (at times, over the course of this thread) had some decent discussion of the junk food tax idea, for the record.
Maybe I'm just overreacting to the endless campaign season, however. ;-)
*Again, I'm generally against it, but it doesn't bother me any more than any other sales tax tied to a specific type of product. For me the question is whether it actually accomplishes anything. I'd probably be willing to accept a trade off of NO taxes on foods in general (we have a small one, much lower than the regular sales tax) for a higher tax on certain kinds of soda and snack foods (depending on how defined and on an experimental basis). My intuition is that it wouldn't make a difference, but that's my intuition on alcohol too, and yet studies show I'm wrong and that it does have an effect.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »No. It is not the job of government to use taxation to manipulate behavior.
Where does it end? Taxing people for not having a gym membership? A tax for not using the gym enough?
The government is wrong nearly all the time when it decides what we should be eating.
The creation of the food pyramid led to an increase in obesity.
Overeating and not enough movement by much of the population led to an increase in obesity, not some drawing in a pamphlet.
In the US, the tax system manipulates all sorts of behaviors. Mortgage interest deduction, child care credits, credits for dependent children, credits for energy system investments by homeowners, deductions for educational expenses, charitable contributions, retirement funding, etc, etc. If anyone gets any of these, I'm guessing they are in favor of using taxation to manipulate that particular behavior.
Only up to the point where it results in a zero balance. Never been a fan of people getting back more than they actually had withheld, but I'm perfectly fine with people using every neans at their disposal to keep as much as possible of what belongs to them.0 -
Bumping -- this is a better place for the effect of taxes on consumption (including of alcohol, I think) than the addiction thread. There may be others, this is the first one that came up.0
-
I think we should start by getting our (the US) govt. to stop subsidizing corn. The end of the "high-fructose corn syrup" subsidy would be passed on to consumers, and drive up the costs of "junk food" substantially, without a tax. And in this "era" of anti-"big government" and anti-departments/agencies - you'd think it would be an easy target. Of course, "farmers" (aka. Big Agri-Business) would have a cow ... get it? ... cow ... farmers ... LOL. Anyway, Big-Agri-Business wouldn't like not getting their subsidy, and they'd have their political lackeys, I mean elected politicians kill any attempt to take away their money.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Bumping -- this is a better place for the effect of taxes on consumption (including of alcohol, I think) than the addiction thread. There may be others, this is the first one that came up.
shakes fist at lemurcat for bumping old frustrating thread....7 -
Good idealemurcat12 wrote: »Bumping -- this is a better place for the effect of taxes on consumption (including of alcohol, I think) than the addiction thread. There may be others, this is the first one that came up.
Personally I'd be in favour of some sort of government action regarding junk food in the US. For example, here in the UK we have a stoplight system on the nutritional information printed on food packages...if a food is high in salt, sugar, fat it'll have the grams printed in a red background with the %rdi...if its moderate, it'll be on a yellow background, if low, a green background. That way you can easily tell that your honey roasted peanuts are high in sugar, salt and fat without calculating grams and RDIs for your weight etc. Go here to see an example
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/food-labelling.aspx
I'd like to see this expanded to be included on restaurant menus, fast food joints..everywhere. Mostly because a lot of people are in the dark as to what is in their food. A quick stoplight chart lets people make quick informed decisions.
Another thing I'd like to see is no more advertising of junk food to children...period. Children don't stand a chance against the slick advertising campaigns.
Movies/Hollywood/Disney should not accept product placement of fast food or portray it as cool...just like we did with smoking.
Amusement parks, esp Disney should offer healthy choices to eat. I've been to Disney and there are NO healthy eating options anywhere. We were really miserable and hungry there as we do not eat fast food. It makes myself and my husband physically ill..vomiting..the work, so our kids have never eaten fast food their entire lives. I think anywhere that caters to kids should be required to offer a healthy option for every junk food option.
No more fast foods in schools..many US schools will have school lunches that are a rotating menu of Taco Bell, dominios, McDonalds, Arby's, etc. Every school should at least have a salad bar every day so kids can actually make a healthy food choice.
Additive chemicals need to be strictly regulated...no more adding chemicals to up the taste/addictiveness. They should only be for preservative purposes. Not for appearance, taste, texture.
I don't think fast food should be taxed, but I do think it should be regulated.
0 -
Also, I think the Government should stop subsidising food period. Now this article is a bit frothing at the mouth but just focus on the nine foods that are being subsidised...not a single vegetable is on there. The fact that some foods...grains, meat and dairy are being subsidised means food stuff derived from these are cheaper than they should be...thus the overuse of corn syrup, the overproduction of cheese resulting in marketing to get people to eat more cheese, etc. Wishfully, I'd like to see vegetables subsidised...but in lieu of that...stop subsidising and let the consumers decide what they want to eat instead of creating an over abundance of food stuffs that then get heavily used and marketed.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/03/the-9-foods-the-us-government-is-paying-you-to-eat.aspx0 -
Also, I think the Government should stop subsidising food period. Now this article is a bit frothing at the mouth but just focus on the nine foods that are being subsidised...not a single vegetable is on there. The fact that some foods...grains, meat and dairy are being subsidised means food stuff derived from these are cheaper than they should be...thus the overuse of corn syrup, the overproduction of cheese resulting in marketing to get people to eat more cheese, etc. Wishfully, I'd like to see vegetables subsidised...but in lieu of that...stop subsidising and let the consumers decide what they want to eat instead of creating an over abundance of food stuffs that then get heavily used and marketed.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/03/the-9-foods-the-us-government-is-paying-you-to-eat.aspx
If they're gonna subsidize the moo juice, they need to start giving kickbacks to the goat farmers dammit. I'm tired of paying 5x as much for goat milk and cheese.
3 -
Good idealemurcat12 wrote: »Bumping -- this is a better place for the effect of taxes on consumption (including of alcohol, I think) than the addiction thread. There may be others, this is the first one that came up.
Personally I'd be in favour of some sort of government action regarding junk food in the US. For example, here in the UK we have a stoplight system on the nutritional information printed on food packages...if a food is high in salt, sugar, fat it'll have the grams printed in a red background with the %rdi...if its moderate, it'll be on a yellow background, if low, a green background. That way you can easily tell that your honey roasted peanuts are high in sugar, salt and fat without calculating grams and RDIs for your weight etc. Go here to see an example
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/food-labelling.aspx
I'd like to see this expanded to be included on restaurant menus, fast food joints..everywhere. Mostly because a lot of people are in the dark as to what is in their food. A quick stoplight chart lets people make quick informed decisions.
Another thing I'd like to see is no more advertising of junk food to children...period. Children don't stand a chance against the slick advertising campaigns.
Movies/Hollywood/Disney should not accept product placement of fast food or portray it as cool...just like we did with smoking.
Amusement parks, esp Disney should offer healthy choices to eat. I've been to Disney and there are NO healthy eating options anywhere. We were really miserable and hungry there as we do not eat fast food. It makes myself and my husband physically ill..vomiting..the work, so our kids have never eaten fast food their entire lives. I think anywhere that caters to kids should be required to offer a healthy option for every junk food option.
No more fast foods in schools..many US schools will have school lunches that are a rotating menu of Taco Bell, dominios, McDonalds, Arby's, etc. Every school should at least have a salad bar every day so kids can actually make a healthy food choice.
Additive chemicals need to be strictly regulated...no more adding chemicals to up the taste/addictiveness. They should only be for preservative purposes. Not for appearance, taste, texture.
I don't think fast food should be taxed, but I do think it should be regulated.
It is interesting that you couldn't find anything that was not fast food at Disney; I picked the first Magic Kingdom restaurant that caught my eye and found several options that would meet most reasonable definitions of a healthy, balanced meal, unless there is an odd medical condition in play:
Colony Salad - featuring Ocean Spray® Craisins® BRAND with Washington Apples, Sweet Pecans, Applewood- smoked Cheddar, and Craisins® Dried Cranberries tossed with Field Greens in a Honey-Shallot Vinaigrette
Freedom Pasta with Grilled Chicken - Rigatoni Pasta with Sautéed Seasonal Vegetables tossed in a Cream Sauce
Freedom Pasta with Sautéed Shrimp - Rigatoni Pasta with Sautéed Seasonal Vegetables tossed in a Cream Sauce
New England Pot Roast - Our Tavern Keeper's Favorite...Braised Beef in a Cabernet Wine and Mushroom Sauce served with Mashed Potatoes and Garden Vegetables
Pilgrim's Feast - Traditional Roast Turkey served with Herb Bread Stuffing, Mashed Potatoes, and a Garden Vegetable
The Vegetarian Proclamation - Roasted Seasonal Vegetables Sandwich, fresh Greens, and Tomatoes topped with a Tangy Vegan Mayonnaise Spread with fresh Fruit or Sweet Potato Fries
Of course, when we travel with our kids I make sure to always have healthy snacks stashed in my purse so we don't have to rely completely on options that don't meet my specifications as a parent. By the same token commercials aren't a problem in our house, because our children normally aren't exposed to them, have been taught to think critically about them, and when they see them will in general scoff at them.
We do invest a lot of time and energy in parenting (and effective research of restaurants) and would prefer not join in the screaming and dancing to have the government or media conglomerates do our parenting for us.
US schools are actually having a huge problem with mandated healthy options going straight into the trash--they are required to put very expensive fruits and vegetables on the tray, but many of the kids do not eat them.4 -
French_Peasant wrote: »
Good idealemurcat12 wrote: »Bumping -- this is a better place for the effect of taxes on consumption (including of alcohol, I think) than the addiction thread. There may be others, this is the first one that came up.
Personally I'd be in favour of some sort of government action regarding junk food in the US. For example, here in the UK we have a stoplight system on the nutritional information printed on food packages...if a food is high in salt, sugar, fat it'll have the grams printed in a red background with the %rdi...if its moderate, it'll be on a yellow background, if low, a green background. That way you can easily tell that your honey roasted peanuts are high in sugar, salt and fat without calculating grams and RDIs for your weight etc. Go here to see an example
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/food-labelling.aspx
I'd like to see this expanded to be included on restaurant menus, fast food joints..everywhere. Mostly because a lot of people are in the dark as to what is in their food. A quick stoplight chart lets people make quick informed decisions.
Another thing I'd like to see is no more advertising of junk food to children...period. Children don't stand a chance against the slick advertising campaigns.
Movies/Hollywood/Disney should not accept product placement of fast food or portray it as cool...just like we did with smoking.
Amusement parks, esp Disney should offer healthy choices to eat. I've been to Disney and there are NO healthy eating options anywhere. We were really miserable and hungry there as we do not eat fast food. It makes myself and my husband physically ill..vomiting..the work, so our kids have never eaten fast food their entire lives. I think anywhere that caters to kids should be required to offer a healthy option for every junk food option.
No more fast foods in schools..many US schools will have school lunches that are a rotating menu of Taco Bell, dominios, McDonalds, Arby's, etc. Every school should at least have a salad bar every day so kids can actually make a healthy food choice.
Additive chemicals need to be strictly regulated...no more adding chemicals to up the taste/addictiveness. They should only be for preservative purposes. Not for appearance, taste, texture.
I don't think fast food should be taxed, but I do think it should be regulated.
It is interesting that you couldn't find anything that was not fast food at Disney; I picked the first Magic Kingdom restaurant that caught my eye and found several options that would meet most reasonable definitions of a healthy, balanced meal, unless there is an odd medical condition in play:
Colony Salad - featuring Ocean Spray® Craisins® BRAND with Washington Apples, Sweet Pecans, Applewood- smoked Cheddar, and Craisins® Dried Cranberries tossed with Field Greens in a Honey-Shallot Vinaigrette
Freedom Pasta with Grilled Chicken - Rigatoni Pasta with Sautéed Seasonal Vegetables tossed in a Cream Sauce
Freedom Pasta with Sautéed Shrimp - Rigatoni Pasta with Sautéed Seasonal Vegetables tossed in a Cream Sauce
New England Pot Roast - Our Tavern Keeper's Favorite...Braised Beef in a Cabernet Wine and Mushroom Sauce served with Mashed Potatoes and Garden Vegetables
Pilgrim's Feast - Traditional Roast Turkey served with Herb Bread Stuffing, Mashed Potatoes, and a Garden Vegetable
The Vegetarian Proclamation - Roasted Seasonal Vegetables Sandwich, fresh Greens, and Tomatoes topped with a Tangy Vegan Mayonnaise Spread with fresh Fruit or Sweet Potato Fries
Of course, when we travel with our kids I make sure to always have healthy snacks stashed in my purse so we don't have to rely completely on options that don't meet my specifications as a parent. By the same token commercials aren't a problem in our house, because our children normally aren't exposed to them, have been taught to think critically about them, and when they see them will in general scoff at them.
We do invest a lot of time and energy in parenting (and effective research of restaurants) and would prefer not join in the screaming and dancing to have the government or media conglomerates do our parenting for us.
US schools are actually having a huge problem with mandated healthy options going straight into the trash--they are required to put very expensive fruits and vegetables on the tray, but many of the kids do not eat them.
We were there in 2005, so my Disney experience is probably out of date. Glad to see there is more choice now.
I don't understand why you are viewing regulation of junk food as a parenting issue? Surely it's a public health issue to regulate it and the parenting comes in insofar as encouraging the kids to eat healthy.
I've heard about the kids not eating Ms Obamas healthier school lunches...surely that would be a parenting Issue? As in encouraging kids to eat healthy? Kids not eating healthy food is no reason to just throw up our hands and say let them eat cake, pizza, and French fries...and then ban all healthy options from schools.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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions