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
-
zachbonner_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »Defending your nation with a strong army is not a choice when you are the worlds premiere superpower.
Sure it is. You can choose not to be a superpower.
that's quite ridiculous and shortsighted
No, it's true. No country has to be a superpower.
I'm not saying we shouldn't (I also think our defense budget could be lower without us ceasing to be a superpower, and certainly that it does not need to be increased), but to claim it's necessary and so all defense spending is not a choice is inaccurate.
whatever the military costs is infinatly more important than taxing people to eat sugar or the dozens of other things taxes pay for
Okay, but that has nothing to do with whether or not being a superpower is a choice.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »Defending your nation with a strong army is not a choice when you are the worlds premiere superpower.
Sure it is. You can choose not to be a superpower.
Not saying we should, but the idea that a certain degree of defense spending is necessary is wrong.
Anyway, I am not unemployed (and pay a lot in taxes) and don't consider taxes theft or extortion, but part of living in a particular community. I don't care if other people think of them that way and have opinions on what they should and should not pay for, but it's simply not true to claim that only the unemployed don't consider them theft.
IMO, this whole discussion becomes rather pointless if one just thinks all taxation is wrong. The more interesting question is if you (like most people) think that some taxation is okay, and that to some extent we share the cost of health care, even if just for old people, are (a) these taxes a good idea, and (b) if not, should there be other public policies to discourage/help reduce obesity and if so, what?
(c) those kind of taxes (health care) should be at the discretion of the states.
Good point, and I actually mostly think this is what's being discussed when it comes to the soda tax. Some places are trying them, some are not. I'm fine with that, although I'd also hope other public policy interventions that may have a stronger likelihood of being useful would be tried.However, the federal government has no business directing any individuals taxes to things that are not powers specifically given to the federal government.
We won't agree on this, probably -- I do agree that Congressional power is limited and certain actions are beyond its authority, but taxing power is broad (see, e.g., the ACA SC decision, whatever happens to the ACA and, for that matter, Medicaid and Medicare, going forward).0 -
This content has been removed.
-
zachbonner_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »Defending your nation with a strong army is not a choice when you are the worlds premiere superpower.
Sure it is. You can choose not to be a superpower.
that's quite ridiculous and shortsighted
No, it's true. No country has to be a superpower.
I'm not saying we shouldn't (I also think our defense budget could be lower without us ceasing to be a superpower, and certainly that it does not need to be increased), but to claim it's necessary and so all defense spending is not a choice is inaccurate.
whatever the military costs is infinatly more important than taxing people to eat sugar or the dozens of other things taxes pay for
No, any added cost to the military is NOT infinitely more important than absolutely anything else that taxes can pay for. There is a limit on what necessary defense spending is just as there are reasonable differences of opinion on whether some other expenditure is worth it or not.
Taxing people who eat sugar (I think that's what you meant) costs the gov't nothing, it adds to the coffers and pays for something else. That doesn't mean it should be done, but it's not an expense (unless you want to argue that it hurts the economy, of course). Medical care (which Packerjohn suggests this would pay for, I think) IS an expense, through Medicare, and one that would be extremely hard to cut politically. (Will the current admin try to cut Medicare? I dunno. Ryan wants to, but I don't think they actually will.)
Also, so far the sugar taxing seems likely to be done by the states or local gov'ts, not the feds (I am pretty confident we aren't getting a national sugar tax), and so it's not the same level of gov't that pays for the military. Now, I think Packerjohn wants a national soda tax (again, correct me if I am remembering incorrectly) and Macy suggested that Congress would force the states to change their sales tax systems, but the latter isn't possible unless I'm missing something, which is why I asked her to clarify how that would happen.0 -
zachbonner_ wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »Defending your nation with a strong army is not a choice when you are the worlds premiere superpower.
Sure it is. You can choose not to be a superpower.
that's quite ridiculous and shortsighted
No, it's true. No country has to be a superpower.
I'm not saying we shouldn't (I also think our defense budget could be lower without us ceasing to be a superpower, and certainly that it does not need to be increased), but to claim it's necessary and so all defense spending is not a choice is inaccurate.
whatever the military costs is infinatly more important than taxing people to eat sugar or the dozens of other things taxes pay for
Okay, but that has nothing to do with whether or not being a superpower is a choice.
I think you're getting hung up on the word superpower and not seeing my point
You said that one had no choice but to have a "strong" (read: expensive, given the context of the conversation) army when one is a superpower.
@lemurcat12 pointed out that being a superpower is a choice. It may be the right choice in our circumstances, but it's still a choice.
You said that was ridiculous because the military costs are more important.
I don't think I'm hung up on the word, I think I'm pointing out that even choices that have important consequences are still *choices*.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »Defending your nation with a strong army is not a choice when you are the worlds premiere superpower.
Sure it is. You can choose not to be a superpower.
Not saying we should, but the idea that a certain degree of defense spending is necessary is wrong.
Anyway, I am not unemployed (and pay a lot in taxes) and don't consider taxes theft or extortion, but part of living in a particular community. I don't care if other people think of them that way and have opinions on what they should and should not pay for, but it's simply not true to claim that only the unemployed don't consider them theft.
IMO, this whole discussion becomes rather pointless if one just thinks all taxation is wrong. The more interesting question is if you (like most people) think that some taxation is okay, and that to some extent we share the cost of health care, even if just for old people, are (a) these taxes a good idea, and (b) if not, should there be other public policies to discourage/help reduce obesity and if so, what?
(c) those kind of taxes (health care) should be at the discretion of the states.
Good point, and I actually mostly think this is what's being discussed when it comes to the soda tax. Some places are trying them, some are not. I'm fine with that, although I'd also hope other public policy interventions that may have a stronger likelihood of being useful would be tried.However, the federal government has no business directing any individuals taxes to things that are not powers specifically given to the federal government.
We won't agree on this, probably -- I do agree that Congressional power is limited and certain actions are beyond its authority, but taxing power is broad (see, e.g., the ACA SC decision, whatever happens to the ACA and, for that matter, Medicaid and Medicare, going forward).
If NYC wants to tax sugar drinks then that is their discretion and that is the true application of federalism; if the federal government wants to tax all sugar drinks then that is not constitutional.
well in my opinion the SC invented the taxing authority as cover, even though everyone knows that the individual mandate was NEVER sold as a tax. I would also argue that there is no enumerated power given to congress that would allow them to tax an individual for not buying health insurance; given that logic they can require everyone to buy a car from GM or pay a fee, because GM was partially owned by the government. Now, if an individual state wants to require their citizens to purchase health insurance, or pay a fine then they would have that power under their own state laws and or constitutions.2 -
zachbonner_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »Defending your nation with a strong army is not a choice when you are the worlds premiere superpower.
Sure it is. You can choose not to be a superpower.
that's quite ridiculous and shortsighted
No, it's true. No country has to be a superpower.
I'm not saying we shouldn't (I also think our defense budget could be lower without us ceasing to be a superpower, and certainly that it does not need to be increased), but to claim it's necessary and so all defense spending is not a choice is inaccurate.
whatever the military costs is infinatly more important than taxing people to eat sugar or the dozens of other things taxes pay for
there is a difference between provided for the country's defense, and being involved in 30+ conflicts around the world.
"no entangling alliances" as George Washington said.
I personally prefer the Monroe doctrine, stay out of your hemisphere and we will stay out of yours.6 -
Ok to try and sum up the main topic for my understanding,
Majority seemed to not be in favour of taxing junk food. However, although some states already tax soda and candy bars via state sales tax, everyone seemed ok with status quo and would not want to standardise that across the US.
I saw a few people say removing farm subsidies would be a good idea (myself included) although one poster cautioned we have to view the US farming industry similar to the way the DoD views the defence industry...need to at least ensure capability to be self supporting so we can feed ourselves in event of war. Right now the way they are set up, our taxes are actually paying for junk food before we ever even buy it. $20B a year we pay in taxes for this.
So should the Government reform farm subsidies to include vegetables and fruit? Basically divvy up the funding by % so it's like we're subsidising a balanced diet rather than a grains, meat and dairy only diet? Or is the majority for just not paying any tax dollars at all towards food and let the free market govern?
the federal government should only tax what it has been given the power to oversee - roads, bridges, post office, defense. All other forms of taxation should be reserved to the states.2 -
Macy suggested that Congress would force the states to change their sales tax systems, but the latter isn't possible unless I'm missing something, which is why I asked her to clarify how that would happen.[/quote]
Sorry missed that lemurcat!
The federal government/Congress has preempted the States' taxing authority via the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution before. An example of that is the ban on States charging sales tax on internet access done in 1998. The legality of this action is still debatable even though none of the States have challenged the law...so it's kind of moot.
If Congress were so minded, they could do the opposite of a ban and do a requirement that the States tax sugary foods. Most States already do this and so probably wouldn't challenge the law. Of course, any revenues from a sugar tax collected via State sales tax would go to the States and not the federal government.
(Reminder, I am against taxing junk food...but it could be done and could be done nationwide.)
A little tax analyst discussion on the above.
http://www.taxanalysts.org/tax-analysts-blog/when-should-congress-preempt-state-authority/2016/08/11/194501
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Taxing people who eat sugar (I think that's what you meant) costs the gov't nothing, it adds to the coffers and pays for something else. That doesn't mean it should be done, but it's not an expense (unless you want to argue that it hurts the economy, of course). Medical care (which Packerjohn suggests this would pay for, I think) IS an expense, through Medicare, and one that would be extremely hard to cut politically. (Will the current admin try to cut Medicare? I dunno. Ryan wants to, but I don't think they actually will.)
Also, so far the sugar taxing seems likely to be done by the states or local gov'ts, not the feds (I am pretty confident we aren't getting a national sugar tax), and so it's not the same level of gov't that pays for the military. Now, I think Packerjohn wants a national soda tax (again, correct me if I am remembering incorrectly) and Macy suggested that Congress would force the states to change their sales tax systems, but the latter isn't possible unless I'm missing something, which is why I asked her to clarify how that would happen.
The problems with any rise in taxes are the unintended consequences that follow (especially if the taxes have the desired result - i.e. make people stop doing something):
http://theresurgent.com/as-expected-philadelphias-tax-on-sugary-drinks-results-in-layoffs/
Yes, it's a political piece but it does serve to illustrate what could happen as a result of a massive sin-tax like a tax on 'junk' food.1 -
Taxes are resources taken by force, so by any definition this is theft. The real question lies is what percentage of theft is tolerated by the electorate. To the majority who are not taxed, any amount is acceptable as someone else is having their assets taken by force. As long as the majority see some small percentage of the take they will accept this.
Government succeeds in this endeavor through binary segregation. There are always only two sides to each argument - a third cannot be tolerated. Each new regulation/tax is implemented by only impacting an acceptable minority population. As the majority are not impacted this passes until the incremental increases become overly burdensome.
The trick of government is not to resolve problems, but to create problems that they cannot solve and increase the size and power of government - e.g. war on drugs, terrorism, poverty...
To think that at one time serfs would tithe at 10-15%...how I dream of one day becoming a serf.5 -
This content has been removed.
-
zachbonner_ wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »Defending your nation with a strong army is not a choice when you are the worlds premiere superpower.
Sure it is. You can choose not to be a superpower.
that's quite ridiculous and shortsighted
No, it's true. No country has to be a superpower.
I'm not saying we shouldn't (I also think our defense budget could be lower without us ceasing to be a superpower, and certainly that it does not need to be increased), but to claim it's necessary and so all defense spending is not a choice is inaccurate.
whatever the military costs is infinatly more important than taxing people to eat sugar or the dozens of other things taxes pay for
Okay, but that has nothing to do with whether or not being a superpower is a choice.
I think you're getting hung up on the word superpower and not seeing my point
You said that one had no choice but to have a "strong" (read: expensive, given the context of the conversation) army when one is a superpower.
@lemurcat12 pointed out that being a superpower is a choice. It may be the right choice in our circumstances, but it's still a choice.
You said that was ridiculous because the military costs are more important.
I don't think I'm hung up on the word, I think I'm pointing out that even choices that have important consequences are still *choices*.
yea, you're still stuck up on the superpower thing, bud.
What word would you like to use instead?
You're saying that we have no choice but to have a strong (expensive) army because . . . why? If it isn't due to the condition you named (being a superpower), why is it not a choice?0 -
To think that at one time serfs would tithe at 10-15%...how I dream of one day becoming a serf.
Being a serf was a lot rougher than tithing. A serf also owed around 100days labour a year on the lord's fields. A serf was bound to the land as a piece of chattel. Your lord of the manor would die, and you'd be part of an inheritance passed down with the estate because you were property. The lord had authority of life and death over his serfs. Also had sexual access to female serfs. A serf needed his lords permission to marry and many lords would actively breed their serfs by arranged marriages. A serf could be sold or gambled away to another lord. A serf could not own any livestock or even the hovel he lived in. Certain foods and clothing were also banned to serfs as they were deemed only for nobility. The only bright spot is if a serf could escape his manor and not be caught for a year and a day, he was free. He was also an outlaw and could be killed on sight..but hey free until he was hacked down like a dog or lynched by a roving band of men at arms. You wouldn't want to be a serf.
Maybe a yoeman, peasant, or tenant farmer...but not a serf!
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
zachbonner_ wrote: »I think he was joking lol. I wouldn't want to be alive in any class in that time period.
Not even as a King? Lol!
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Yep, I think this is a big issue too. Packerjohn seems to have changed his proposal to the soda tax, if memory serves (this was a long time ago in MFP time and it's too long to read back). I don't think anyone else has even addressed the question.
If I remember correctly, the answer to how "junk food" would be determined was - Well, everyone knows what junk food is, it wouldn't be difficult. (Ummm, no it would be really easy to get caught in the weeds on this, especially once lobbyists and special interests got involved). Or, anything with more than a certain number of grams of added sugar (which of course leaves out a whole host of savory junk food that people eat themselves sick on and assumes sugar is the devil).
Regardless, manufacturers would tweak the foods they could to keep them from whatever defines junk food, or would lower the price of the junk food to balance out the tax and then increase the price of other stuff they produce to make up for it and maintain their profits. And since the crux of this whole argument is that junk food is cheap, even if you levy a say 10% tax on it, we're talking about a few cents added to the point of purchase cost. So super easy for manufacturers to get creative and offset the extra tax.
It took decades and TONS of taxes to move the needle on cigarettes, and with tobacco there was no "safe" alternative for tobacco companies to easily steer consumers to as a plan B. It would take the food companies 30 seconds to reformulate, re-price, and change advertising to completely negate any possible benefit to taxing junk food across the board. As a practical matter, it would be completely useless.2 -
This content has been removed.
-
Ok to try and sum up the main topic for my understanding,
Majority seemed to not be in favour of taxing junk food. However, although some states already tax soda and candy bars via state sales tax, everyone seemed ok with status quo and would not want to standardise that across the US.
I'd break this down to a few questions:
(1) Should there be a national tax on "junk food"? Setting aside the basic problem of defining junk food, most seem to be against this (including me), but I think Packerjohn is arguing for a national soda tax (or maybe added sugar tax -- I feel bad, but I just don't remember). I'm sure he will correct me.
(2) If not, should there be a state tax on "junk food" that is in excess of the normal sales tax? (My county is currently adding this on soda, and Philadelphia and I think a few other places have.) My view on this is that it's probably useless but one function of local and state gov't is to try things, and I'm not strongly opposed to this being tried (and in the case of my own county which desperately needs money I prefer it to various other money raising options although I admit that's not a very liberal POV).
(3) If not, should we at least not exempt "junk food" from the lower (or 0) rate that food normally gets? I think a lot of places do this and so far as I know it's not controversial.I saw a few people say removing farm subsidies would be a good idea (myself included) although one poster cautioned we have to view the US farming industry similar to the way the DoD views the defence industry...need to at least ensure capability to be self supporting so we can feed ourselves in event of war.
Yup. I'm generally in favor of removing farm subsidies, but a few issues are related: it increases the cost of food, including meat, eggs, and dairy, which are generally cheap (food is generally cheap) in the US. Also, it's currently how we finance/compromise on SNAP and if we didn't have the farm subsidies it's not at all clear that SNAP would not end up being cut too, which is one reason it's politically hard to cut the subsidies. There are obviously many more reasons.
I'd also like to see a good analysis of the effects, although my knee-jerk view is that a freer market is better here. However, I could be swayed to the idea that some degree of crop insurance for farmers is important and to the extent the market includes more smaller farmers (these days it is largely industrial farms, of course), that is more, not less, important.
I also doubt it makes much difference in the availability/cost of junk food. But on the principle of it I'm in favor.So should the Government reform farm subsidies to include vegetables and fruit?
Here's an article that relates to this topic: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/farm-bill-why-dont-taxpayers-subsidize-the-foods-that-are-better-for-us/2014/02/14/d7642a3c-9434-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html?utm_term=.4e9ac68136a0
Again, I'd need to know more about the various effects of the proposed policies. I am not convinced there's a need to subsidize fruits and vegetables, but I'm not against the idea in principle if there is a need/it would be beneficial. I am very much in favor of the kinds of community gardens and promotion of that that French Peasant has been discussing.2 -
-
The federal government/Congress has preempted the States' taxing authority via the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution before. An example of that is the ban on States charging sales tax on internet access done in 1998.
Like you say it's debatable, but the bigger issue here is that requiring the states to tax something doesn't seem to further a federal interest, whereas the particular demand that they not is more in the line of normal preemption. I don't see how it's legitimate for them to require that states use their taxing powers in a particular way, and can't think of any related example. I suppose they could blackmail the states into doing that, similar to the questionable ways they blackmailed the states into increasing the drinking age with highway funds, but I am sure it gets challenged.
Bigger issue pragmatically, of course, is that it would make no sense to do so. If Congress wanted a national tax on sugar, it passes one nationally, and I think it's clear that won't happen any time soon.Most States already do this
No, they don't -- this is why I tried to clearly distinguish between exempting certain foods (candy/soda) from lower taxes on food in general (which some do) and adding a surtax above the normal tax on those products, which is what I think is being proposed here. Granted, I understand why the discussion gets confusing.
I don't think there are any state surtaxes of that sort currently, although there are some local ones.(Reminder, I am against taxing junk food...but it could be done and could be done nationwide.)
I agree that Congress could tax it, although I don't think Congress could make the states tax it.0 -
zachbonner_ wrote: »I think he was joking lol. I wouldn't want to be alive in any class in that time period.
Not even as a King? Lol!
My concern would be to die of plague, dysentery, or a toothache. Prokaryotes tend not to discriminate and are generally ignorant of human concepts such as divine right.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
well I think it is a massively slippery slope to start taxing people for not participating in a service or government program. Where does it stop? Government never gives power back willingly, so now that the SC has said that this is allowed (which is BS) what is the next service/program that we are going to be forced into?
I would also argue that the SC has lost all respect and is just a plaything of the parties and is not an impartial body that actually reads and makes determinations based on what the constitution actually says.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Taxing people who eat sugar (I think that's what you meant) costs the gov't nothing, it adds to the coffers and pays for something else. That doesn't mean it should be done, but it's not an expense (unless you want to argue that it hurts the economy, of course). Medical care (which Packerjohn suggests this would pay for, I think) IS an expense, through Medicare, and one that would be extremely hard to cut politically. (Will the current admin try to cut Medicare? I dunno. Ryan wants to, but I don't think they actually will.)
Also, so far the sugar taxing seems likely to be done by the states or local gov'ts, not the feds (I am pretty confident we aren't getting a national sugar tax), and so it's not the same level of gov't that pays for the military. Now, I think Packerjohn wants a national soda tax (again, correct me if I am remembering incorrectly) and Macy suggested that Congress would force the states to change their sales tax systems, but the latter isn't possible unless I'm missing something, which is why I asked her to clarify how that would happen.
The problems with any rise in taxes are the unintended consequences that follow (especially if the taxes have the desired result - i.e. make people stop doing something):
Right, which is why I referenced "unless it hurts the economy."
I will say that I think the two most likely results from this are (a) increased revenue (which is one intended result) and (b) decreased usage (which is also normally an intended result, although in Philadelphia's case I think less so). Beyond that, I think it increases the food budget/costs for people who still continue to buy the product, including people who enjoy it harmlessly and are not in bad health/overweight, and who are disproportionately likely to be lower income. (That's also bad, IMO.) And of course the companies that manufacture the products in question may spread their costs as they like would could have broader effects than intended.
This is actually one reason I think it's good to try things on a local level and see how they go (and again ideally a variety of things would be tried different places).
I admit I'm extremely skeptical about the idea that it actually leads to increased unemployment or a decline in the economy, though, especially at the level of tax we are talking about (lower than the alcohol taxes, at least the ones I know of).0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »I am normally a libertarian, but sugar is not any sort of essential nutrient and it is definitely addictive and abused which causes societal costs that we all bear. Alcohol and cigarettes are similar in that vane. I wouldn't be opposed to taxing sugar or HFCS.
sugar has never been found to be an addictive substance, never.
That's not true. Sugar has been found to be highly addictive in multiple studies. In brain scans it was shown to be as addictive as cocaine.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/13/sugar-addiction-like-drug-abuse-study-reveals/
FFS, I really wish this misinterpretation would die. All that happened was that the same pleasure centers lit up between the two.
The difference is that after cocaine use, the centers dim out heavily, and repeated increased dosages are required to have the same effect, and eventually even gain normalcy. This is addiction/dependency.
This doesn't happen with sugar. Everything returns to baseline, and that's it. This is not addiction/dependency.
When was the last time you saw someone shoveling in spoonfuls of sugar? My guess is never. Handfuls of M&Ms though? Probably often.
I'm afraid that multiple scientists disagree with you, the brain does not return to baseline, it reduces dopamine receptors which mean more sugar is needed to get same "high" this kicks off cravings, etc etc just like with drugs. Please see abstract to study I posted.
The full text is behind a paywall, and even the abstract seems to have some problems.
It states sugar-laden foods, not specifically sugar. As we all know, foods end up being greater or less than the sum of their parts, based upon several factors, including but not limited to: taste, smell, mouth feel, nutritional response, etc.
If you have access to the full text, I'd appreciate you sending it to me. I would be interested to see which foodstuffs were used for these things.
I have access, it's an opinion piece which summaries studies to date. Conclusion: more research is needed.
An opinion piece. Offered as proof.
I'm not surprised.
It's not an opinion piece that is a falsehood. It is a scientific review of studies to date. It was easier to post a scientific review of dozens of studies than post each study individually. I also posted a link twice to the full text of the review which you can download for free. Please go and read it.
If it were a meta-analysis that drew a convincing conclusion, the other poster has the credentials to have summed it up that way. She didn't.
You still haven't made your case, and it's off the topic of this thread.
I don't download things off the internet from unknown sources.
I didn't introduce the subject of sugar addiction to this thread another poster did. I merely responded to someone who said there has "never" been any evidence indicating sugar could be addictive. I simply posted a review of studies to date to show there is some evidence. I was then asked to try and post a link to the full review as some people were honestly interested in reading it. I posted it twice because others missed the link and kept asking for one. Others have jumped in claiming it's an opinion piece...so I corrected them as that is not a true statement. I'm not trying to make a case one way or the other..merely saying there is some evidence, that it is being researched. There's no need to get short with me, I was only trying to be informative not kick off a debate about sugar addiction; which is why I haven't made a case for sugar addiction (as you rightfully point out). Cheers.
Yes, you did. You made astatement about sugar addiction and I replied saying that sugar is not addictive and has never been proven to be so. You can't find a study that proves sugar addiction and all you have is some rat study saying that rats preferred the taste of sugar over cocaine. News flash, given those two choices 99% of the population would chose sugar, so it is a false choice.
Finally, rat model studies have been shown to have serious design flaws.1 -
zachbonner_ wrote: »I think he was joking lol. I wouldn't want to be alive in any class in that time period.
Not even as a King? Lol!
My concern would be to die of plague, dysentery, or a toothache. Prokaryotes tend not to discriminate and are generally ignorant of human concepts such as divine right.
I'm quite shortsighted so if I lived back then, I'd be a crazed blind beggar!0 -
Lemurcat...when I said most states do this, I was referring to currently charging any sales tax on soda and candy bars. To me it doesn't matter whether it's a done via a surtax or by not exempting them from tax, it's still a tax currently being paid.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »
well I think it is a massively slippery slope to start taxing people for not participating in a service or government program. Where does it stop?
If the gov't bears the cost of you not participating in the program, I think it's fair. It's NOT my preferred approach to health care (I'd have the gov't cover the cost of certain things more like Medicare, tax for that, and allow people to pay for other things or extra care with their own insurance or out of pocket, basically), but I admit I'm all for gov't funded health care and think it is within the powers of Congress.Government never gives power back willingly, so now that the SC has said that this is allowed (which is BS) what is the next service/program that we are going to be forced into?
The funny thing about the supposed outrage about this decision is that it was not at all controversial (not anymore) that a more socialistic health care program (like the one I outlined or, say, Medicare for all) was constitutional. No one thinks the SC is going to declare Medicare unconstitutional, after all. The particular issue with ACA was based on its origins as a plan that maintained the private/insurance component and yet tried to get rid of the free-rider problem, basically a moderate Republican plan (i.e., Romneycare).
I didn't like that approach either (for different reasons), but it is a tax IMO.I would also argue that the SC has lost all respect and is just a plaything of the parties and is not an impartial body that actually reads and makes determinations based on what the constitution actually says.
I don't agree with this, but then I wouldn't.0 -
Lemurcat...when I said most states do this, I was referring to currently charging any sales tax on soda and candy bars. To me it doesn't matter whether it's a done via a surtax or by not exempting them from tax, it's still a tax currently being paid.
Okay.
I think the original proposal was for something more (and higher than the primary sales tax).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
well I think it is a massively slippery slope to start taxing people for not participating in a service or government program. Where does it stop?
If the gov't bears the cost of you not participating in the program, I think it's fair. It's NOT my preferred approach to health care (I'd have the gov't cover the cost of certain things more like Medicare, tax for that, and allow people to pay for other things or extra care with their own insurance or out of pocket, basically), but I admit I'm all for gov't funded health care and think it is within the powers of Congress.Government never gives power back willingly, so now that the SC has said that this is allowed (which is BS) what is the next service/program that we are going to be forced into?
The funny thing about the supposed outrage about this decision is that it was not at all controversial (not anymore) that a more socialistic health care program (like the one I outlined or, say, Medicare for all) was constitutional. No one thinks the SC is going to declare Medicare unconstitutional, after all. The particular issue with ACA was based on its origins as a plan that maintained the private/insurance component and yet tried to get rid of the free-rider problem, basically a moderate Republican plan (i.e., Romneycare).
I didn't like that approach either (for different reasons), but it is a tax IMO.I would also argue that the SC has lost all respect and is just a plaything of the parties and is not an impartial body that actually reads and makes determinations based on what the constitution actually says.
I don't agree with this, but then I wouldn't.
Well, if it was up to me people would be able to shop for healthcare the way they shop for anything else. I was listening to someone the otehr day - forget his name - and he said that healthcare is one of the only services where you have no idea what the cost of anything that the Dr's are doing until after you get the bill, and you don't even get a chance to shop for your services. How crazy is that? Government involvement in every day life typically makes things worse not better, and when you add a layer of control from local, to state, and then to the federal government the whole process gets diluted, convoluted, and expensive. Health care companies have essentially become utilities.
They did not really rule on the law, they were ruling on the mandate and said that congress can make you buy something because it is a tax. What if congress said that if you get an abortion they are going to "tax" 10,000 per abortion to do it? People on the left would go nuts, and they would be right to. That is my point about a slippery slope. So yea, that decision might fit with a persons political view, for now, but what happens when it swings back the other way? The court should be ruling on the constitution not some perceived notion of what is, or is not, right.
You really think that all eight justices on the SC are impartial and not political?2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions