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?
Options
Replies
-
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
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »Holy superfluous punctuation, Batman!
It's my MO!0 -
DeficitDuchess wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Holy superfluous punctuation, Batman!
It's my MO!
Why? I almost can't read it.1 -
DeficitDuchess wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Holy superfluous punctuation, Batman!
It's my MO!
Why? I almost can't read it.
I am unfortunately just, naturally difficult!0 -
DeficitDuchess wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Holy superfluous punctuation, Batman!
It's my MO!
Why? I almost can't read it.
I am unfortunately just, naturally difficult!
Ah, I get it. Not worth reading.1 -
Ah, I get it. Not worth reading.
Said the person with a sentence not worth writing.
*******************************************************************************************************
Everyone wants to help the homeless, I get that. In fact, as someone who found himself homeless for a short period in my life, I appreciate the fact that others want to help.
Here's where my problem is: You don't really want to help.
Re-read that last line VERY carefully and go look at yourself in the mirror.
If you *really* wanted to help, you'd volunteer at a soup kitchen or homeless shelter.
You would take the talents that you have - even basic math is not a trivial thing - and share it with the homeless by donating your time and services to them.
You would organize a local food drive within your place of worship or your community center or your neighborhood.
You would go buy sleeping bags or blankets on clearance in some of the butt-ugliest colors imaginable (but cheap) and go pass them out to shelters, churches that cater to the homeless, or even to people you see on the streets.
But no, you don't *really* want to help. What you *really* want is to feel good that you did something special by throwing money at the government and blindly believing that *THEY* will distribute in a wise and efficient manner.
Have you been to DMV lately? There is nothing wise nor efficient about the government. Every dollar you give to the government to help the homeless or the poor gives the homeless and the poor a nice bright shiny DIME.
Yeah, the rest goes to fund the bureau, the committee to decide what they should do with the money, the workers who process all the paperwork that the committee wrote that the bureau approved and the managers, administrators and executives on the committee.
If you *really* wanted to help, tell the government to quit taking your fu@#%$! taxes and you could then find toothbrushes and toothpaste on sale at the local pharmacy and buy some up in bulk - heck, maybe even get bonus rewards for doing so (charity can pay off, sometimes) and go take them to a shelter.
If you *really* wanted to help, you'd get up off your butt and do it. You wouldn't sit around and talk about what the GOVERNMENT should do to help all those poor suffering waifs.
Seriously, why in the heck does this thing keep appearing under my feet???!?!?
<steps down from soapbox>6 -
What about lowering tax for produce and other healthy foods0
-
YaGirlMaddi wrote: »What about lowering tax for produce and other healthy foods
What specific tax?
Many states don't tax food sales, and most others that do have a much lower tax on them.2 -
Ah, I get it. Not worth reading.
Said the person with a sentence not worth writing.
*******************************************************************************************************
Everyone wants to help the homeless, I get that. In fact, as someone who found himself homeless for a short period in my life, I appreciate the fact that others want to help.
Here's where my problem is: You don't really want to help.
Re-read that last line VERY carefully and go look at yourself in the mirror.
If you *really* wanted to help, you'd volunteer at a soup kitchen or homeless shelter.
You would take the talents that you have - even basic math is not a trivial thing - and share it with the homeless by donating your time and services to them.
You would organize a local food drive within your place of worship or your community center or your neighborhood.
You would go buy sleeping bags or blankets on clearance in some of the butt-ugliest colors imaginable (but cheap) and go pass them out to shelters, churches that cater to the homeless, or even to people you see on the streets.
But no, you don't *really* want to help. What you *really* want is to feel good that you did something special by throwing money at the government and blindly believing that *THEY* will distribute in a wise and efficient manner.
Have you been to DMV lately? There is nothing wise nor efficient about the government. Every dollar you give to the government to help the homeless or the poor gives the homeless and the poor a nice bright shiny DIME.
Yeah, the rest goes to fund the bureau, the committee to decide what they should do with the money, the workers who process all the paperwork that the committee wrote that the bureau approved and the managers, administrators and executives on the committee.
If you *really* wanted to help, tell the government to quit taking your fu@#%$! taxes and you could then find toothbrushes and toothpaste on sale at the local pharmacy and buy some up in bulk - heck, maybe even get bonus rewards for doing so (charity can pay off, sometimes) and go take them to a shelter.
If you *really* wanted to help, you'd get up off your butt and do it. You wouldn't sit around and talk about what the GOVERNMENT should do to help all those poor suffering waifs.
Seriously, why in the heck does this thing keep appearing under my feet???!?!?
<steps down from soapbox>
Being disabled, I don't have many physical opportunities; to help others but I do do my best; to earn my keep/save taxpayers money. My apartment complex's management volunteered to make 200 peanut butter & jelly sandwiches, for the homeless; last month & since I was well enough to help, with that at that time; I did. I also don't collect every benefit, that I am entitled to either. I pay regular bus fare; instead of the reduced fare for the disabled. I'm also registered to be an organ donor, when I die. Unfortunately I am not healthy enough to recover well, while alive; to donate blood/organs. Even my purpose for being here is to make someone else's job easier to do, when I'm no longer able to physically care for myself; by hopefully becoming the lowest healthiest weight. So that I'll be lighter to maneuver/lift, even if I dislike what I'd look like; at that weight. If people didn't help at soup kitchens, there wouldn't be any; it's just that not enough do. Yeah much of the lack, of help's by choice but not all of it, some're just unable.1 -
DeficitDuchess wrote: »Being disabled, I don't have many physical opportunities; to help others but I do do my best; to earn my keep/save taxpayers money. My apartment complex's management volunteered to make 200 peanut butter & jelly sandwiches, for the homeless; last month & since I was well enough to help, with that at that time; I did. I also don't collect every benefit, that I am entitled to either. I pay regular bus fare; instead of the reduced fare for the disabled. I'm also registered to be an organ donor, when I die. Unfortunately I am not healthy enough to recover well, while alive; to donate blood/organs. Even my purpose for being here is to make someone else's job easier to do, when I'm no longer able to physically care for myself; by hopefully becoming the lowest healthiest weight. So that I'll be lighter to maneuver/lift, even if I dislike what I'd look like; at that weight. If people didn't help at soup kitchens, there wouldn't be any; it's just that not enough do. Yeah much of the lack, of help's by choice but not all of it, some're just unable.
As someone who's physically disabled, I hear you. They're in the process of (hopefully) fixing my back so I can lead a normal life after 28 years of agony.
I'm glad to hear you volunteer and honestly - please *do* take every benefit you can right now - there are plenty who bilk the system and I'd rather my taxes go to someone who's actually in need rather than to someone who's figured out how to get food stamps and trade them in for actual cash at $.75 on the dollar, or for people who take their 2-6 kids to every food pantry in the town/city they live in and get truckloads of groceries, only to turn around and sell them "cheap" to their neighbors for - you guessed it, more food stamps that they can then trade in for real cash at a shady store.
My comment earlier wasn't directed at you - it was to everyone who wants to raise more taxes to "help others". That doesn't help others. It makes for a bigger, bloated government that has more power and authority than it should have and the value it offers is a feel-good moment for people too damned lazy or apathetic to actually help *solve* the problem, but still want to ease their guilty conscious because they think that making good money makes them bad people.
By the way - it doesn't. It just makes them people. What makes them bad people is when they do something that is morally or ethically wrong - like raising *everyone's* taxes, because they feel guilty for making money.
Which cracks me up as well, since most of those types usually have decent accountants so they pay the LEAST amount of taxes anyhow, when in reality if they really wanted to practice what they preached and wanted *everyone* to do, they'd insist the government KEEP EVERY PENNY of their taxes and never look for a single deduction.
Furthermore I...okay seriously people. Who's doing this?
<steps down from soapbox>1 -
kanebrewer88 wrote: »Whose daily calorie intake? Hopefully not mine, or you're going to find food costs are going to go WAY up.
haha! well the average recommended is 2000-2500 depending on size/sex? make it simple, if its 1000 calories, up the price.I'm also completely confused as to why it's easier to stick a frozen pizza in the oven than any other frozen meal. Do they not sell frozen meals that have moderate calorie counts in the UK? Because they do in the US, and it certainly isn't putting us ahead as far as obesity goes.
Pizza was just an example. Ready Meals in general in the UK are packed full of salt and sugar which if not moderated can attribute heart problems & diabetes. The time vs putting a Ready Meal in the oven, vs defrosting and cooking vegetables, meat, sauces, is vastly different. Obviously the latter is preferable.The thing is, it isn't just about convenience. It's about convenience,
makes sense
not giving enough of a flip about how much food they're eating (for many reasons including it's low on the priority totem pole), and wanting the food to be 'feel good' food - which gives an edge to the frozen pizzas and pot pies vs frozen vegetables and meat.
er yeah sure, but idk about the US but here we've been educating people for two decades, both in schools and Media. And the problem only gets worse, caused by a sedentary lifestyle and a careless diet.Frankly, if there were a way you could get people to care about how much food they're eating that worked other than having a personal epiphany, then you could get somewhere. They could even have a frozen pizza or pot pie if they wanted. And save money, because it'd stretch further.
Make it more expensive. I dont see how thats a problem. When you walk into a supermarket in the UK, the first thing you see is 5 donuts for a pound, jumbo packet of crisps for a quid. Then you get to fruit and veg and its more or less the same price for a pack of leeks, bag of apples. Make the junk food more expensive and the healthy food cheaper, bottles of pop especcially, they are calorific!! and I watch family wheel and waddle this stuff out by the 6 pack. Drink *kitten* fizzy water with squash in it!!!! not 2 liters of full fat coca cola!!
I dont think this is the final solution to the problem, but it would help.
Sugar doesn't cause diabetes. Salt doesn't cause heart problems. High levels of both can exacerbate fairly common health problems, but so can potassium and protein (kidney). People need to be responsible for managing their own conditions.
There are frozen items in the US and I presume the UK where the only ingredient is the vegetable, or the fruit, or the meat, or the fish that is frozen. It is no less convenient to bake a frozen pizza than it is to bake a frozen fish fillet and frozen broccoli (as an example). As I said, it is not just about convenience.
Make 'junk' food more expensive, and people who overeat that will simply overeat something that is not classified as 'junk'. Frankly, around here the 'junk' food you're talking about is already more expensive than a good bit of the fresh produce per serving (and much more expensive than frozen), and you get more volume to eat in a serving of produce. Difference that makes? Not enough to prevent a lot of people from becoming obese.
Please do not try to tell me that the importance is price per calorie - if that were the issue, these people who are so concerned about their money would not be overweight and would not be part of the problem because they'd be limiting their intake to maintenance or less in an effort to conserve funds.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions