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
-
I don't advocate any new taxes, and feel the government is way too involved in things they don't need to control. I suppose if it did happen, my question would be...What would the money from the tax be used for?
when has the taxing body every truly earmarked funds for a specific reason? Goes into slush fund1 -
I read last night that in response to a tax targeting 12 packs of soda and 2 litre containers, Pepsi pulled their products in one city and are working on "alternative packaging". Congratulations, a volume - based tax will result in smaller packaging and more garbage.2
-
I read last night that in response to a tax targeting 12 packs of soda and 2 litre containers, Pepsi pulled their products in one city and are working on "alternative packaging". Congratulations, a volume - based tax will result in smaller packaging and more garbage.
And perhaps more profits for the sugar water industry.0 -
isabellapanzica9387 wrote: »The government not suppuses to tax necessities. Food is a necessity. Junk food is food. End of story.
If the government actually wanted to help the obesity crisis they would invest in education and infrastructure that people can walk/bike on.
I wish they felt that way about vehicle taxes too.0 -
What if we just taxed sugar content, sodium content, etc. Anything deemed "too high" in either regard gets taxed. I'm sure health scientists can figure out what is a good versus bad minimum number for sugar and sodium.0
-
I think bodyfat should be taxed.3
-
-
isabellapanzica9387 wrote: »The government not suppuses to tax necessities. Food is a necessity. Junk food is food. End of story.
If the government actually wanted to help the obesity crisis they would invest in education and infrastructure that people can walk/bike on.
Maybe if they taxed junk food, which is NOT a necessity (air is a necessity, while strawberry flavored air is not; water is a necessity, while sparkling water is not), they could afford to build the infrastructure you speak of, complete with educational signage.1 -
ButterballBookworm wrote: »What if we just taxed sugar content, sodium content, etc. Anything deemed "too high" in either regard gets taxed. I'm sure health scientists can figure out what is a good versus bad minimum number for sugar and sodium.
This proposal has also been discussed and shot down because you have fruits that are low sugar like blueberries and strawberries and fruits that are high sugar like bananas and mangoes, so do you tax the high sugar fruits and not the low sugar ones? Or, since they are fruit (and are therefore 'healthy') do you not tax them but still tax items that contain less sugar per serving but are still considered 'high' sugar? Same goes for salt content - there are studies out that say salt is bad and studies that say we don't eat enough salt, so which studies do we base the taxes on (i.e. which study is correct and which government agency gets to make the determination)???3 -
JustinAnimal wrote: »isabellapanzica9387 wrote: »The government not suppuses to tax necessities. Food is a necessity. Junk food is food. End of story.
If the government actually wanted to help the obesity crisis they would invest in education and infrastructure that people can walk/bike on.
Maybe if they taxed junk food, which is NOT a necessity (air is a necessity, while strawberry flavored air is not; water is a necessity, while sparkling water is not), they could afford to build the infrastructure you speak of, complete with educational signage.
So anything not sold in its natural state is 'junk food' now?1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »caroldavison332 wrote: »no. we pay too much in taxes already and it won't dissuade people from eating it. Look what they pay for cigarettes.
Look at how much smoking has decreased with taxes and education over the last 30 years or so.
Tax away. Candy, sweetened drinks, chips, etc if the money is earmarked for education and treatment of obesity related issues
That's the problem, it's NEVER earmarked for just education. Once they(politicians) get their hands on the tax money, it's spent on whatever they want. Besides, Big Brother does NOT need to be in anymore parts of our lives! Whatever happened to "Personal Responsibility". I don't need another politician telling me how to live. Good or bad choices, the choices should still be ours!
2 -
I read last night that in response to a tax targeting 12 packs of soda and 2 litre containers, Pepsi pulled their products in one city and are working on "alternative packaging". Congratulations, a volume - based tax will result in smaller packaging and more garbage.
Most of the taxes I've seen either in effect or proposed are based on a tax per fluid ounce as opposed to how many ounces are in a container.
1 -
-
JustinAnimal wrote: »isabellapanzica9387 wrote: »The government not suppuses to tax necessities. Food is a necessity. Junk food is food. End of story.
If the government actually wanted to help the obesity crisis they would invest in education and infrastructure that people can walk/bike on.
Maybe if they taxed junk food, which is NOT a necessity (air is a necessity, while strawberry flavored air is not; water is a necessity, while sparkling water is not), they could afford to build the infrastructure you speak of, complete with educational signage.
So anything not sold in its natural state is 'junk food' now?
Who said that? You, not me.
ETA: I was simply providing examples. I'm not saying that junk food SHOULD be taxed, either. Just food for thought.1 -
Rather than tax junk food (what even is that?) maybe tax people for being overweight or over a certain bf% idk. Taxing anything is just an excuse to give the government money so I'm not a fan of taxing anything but if you had to I'd tax the person not the food.0
-
I don't know, I like the thought of money going to states. I think all of the marijuana legalization has done good things for schools and infrastructure... however, upon saying that, I immediately acknowledge that I have nothing other than hearsay from folks who live in those states to back up those claims.
If being morbidly obese makes me pay more money, when I am a responsible guy and keep myself in decent shape, why? Why do I pay more? I'm not for letting people die without health care, but why not tax someone who is a "drain" on the system. Doesn't seem fair, but I suppose very few things in life are.0 -
-
how about making healthy food cheaper instead?0
-
how about making healthy food cheaper instead?
So more subsidies to out-subsidize the crap that is currently being subsidized and causing the problems? Seems like a legit approach. Or maybe just pull a Venezuela, force the farmers to take a massive economic hit, and send them to jail over cauliflower and pear pricing? Explain to me the economics of this idea, and please back up your suggestions with a working knowledge of the Agricultural Act of 2014.
As has been illustrated repeatedly on this thread, that the more the petty bureaucrats and diktocrats mess with things, the more the overall market becomes screwed up, and the more unintended consequences are reaped.4 -
French_Peasant wrote: »how about making healthy food cheaper instead?
So more subsidies to out-subsidize the crap that is currently being subsidized and causing the problems? Seems like a legit approach. Or maybe just pull a Venezuela, force the farmers to take a massive economic hit, and send them to jail over cauliflower and pear pricing? Explain to me the economics of this idea, and please back up your suggestions with a working knowledge of the Agricultural Act of 2014.
As has been illustrated repeatedly on this thread, that the more the petty bureaucrats and diktocrats mess with things, the more the overall market becomes screwed up, and the more unintended consequences are reaped.
So what's your answer,then?1 -
You know i was really torn on this subject. I think it's great that we live in a free country and we should be allowed to make our own choices. However, obesity is an epidemic in this country and is leading people to develop serious health conditions and ultimately death because of those conditions. Parents are overweight, and not teaching their children healthy eating habits/lifestyle which leads to obesity in children where the cycle continues.
Essentially, I think that proves that the majority of Americans (who become overweight) can't make their own choices. And I understand that many people have health issues and genetics that cause them to gain weight. However, it's not as though a lot of those health complications are brand-new. However obesity is a fairly new epidemic and I don't think that fact can be ignored.
Simply raising the tax cannot completely stop obesity, there is a lot of education and other societal issues that are causing obesity. But I do think making junk food something a little less affordable will force the issue a little bit.
Yes the price of produce and groceries have gone up. But if you buy seasonally and plan your meals smartly it actually in the long run is a lot less expensive than just buying a bunch of processed food and eating out a lot.
(Edited for grammar)0 -
Yes. The tax money should be allocated to societal expenses related to obesity, like higher health care costs. Isn't that what the tax on cigarettes is for?
that never happens...
politicians use it to fund their own programs...
never cease to be amazed at how much blind faith people put in government.2 -
ButterballBookworm wrote: »What if we just taxed sugar content, sodium content, etc. Anything deemed "too high" in either regard gets taxed. I'm sure health scientists can figure out what is a good versus bad minimum number for sugar and sodium.
how about we don't, because free will and all that fun stuff...0 -
comptonelizabeth wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »how about making healthy food cheaper instead?
So more subsidies to out-subsidize the crap that is currently being subsidized and causing the problems? Seems like a legit approach. Or maybe just pull a Venezuela, force the farmers to take a massive economic hit, and send them to jail over cauliflower and pear pricing? Explain to me the economics of this idea, and please back up your suggestions with a working knowledge of the Agricultural Act of 2014.
As has been illustrated repeatedly on this thread, that the more the petty bureaucrats and diktocrats mess with things, the more the overall market becomes screwed up, and the more unintended consequences are reaped.
So what's your answer,then?
the answer is that the governemnt has zero business/authority in being in the food business.
it is called personal responsibility and individual freedom, use it.3 -
Yes. The tax money should be allocated to societal expenses related to obesity, like higher health care costs. Isn't that what the tax on cigarettes is for?
that never happens...
politicians use it to fund their own programs...
never cease to be amazed at how much blind faith people put in government.
I am in complete agreement.
Being from Illinois I have seen countless tax increases made over the years that would "fix" every issue. Gambling was legalized and the taxation was allegedly earmarked for education which would resolve the pension deficit and fully fund state education for 50 years. The money was never allocated and 30 years later Illinois is currently over 200 Billion in debt. I finally had enough and voted with my feet - moving my family and business to greener pastures...literally.
The issue is complete lack of accountability of government when it attempts to play roles it wasn't meant for.
I don't understand how people can be so blind and somehow believe that "TAX IT!" will ever solve anything.5 -
comptonelizabeth wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »how about making healthy food cheaper instead?
So more subsidies to out-subsidize the crap that is currently being subsidized and causing the problems? Seems like a legit approach. Or maybe just pull a Venezuela, force the farmers to take a massive economic hit, and send them to jail over cauliflower and pear pricing? Explain to me the economics of this idea, and please back up your suggestions with a working knowledge of the Agricultural Act of 2014.
As has been illustrated repeatedly on this thread, that the more the petty bureaucrats and diktocrats mess with things, the more the overall market becomes screwed up, and the more unintended consequences are reaped.
So what's your answer,then?
the answer is that the governemnt has zero business/authority in being in the food business.
it is called personal responsibility and individual freedom, use it.
Just to play devils advocate here....
Americans keep becoming larger and more unhealthy, leading them to develop serious health problems. Then that causes them to not teach good habits to their children, Who end up getting heart conditions, diabetes, etc...
Doesn't that prove that over the past several decades Americans have not been able to take personal responsibility? Eating junk food have no consequences and was just frowned upon, that would be one thing. But ultimately eating a terrible diet does lead to serious health problems and is leaving children to develop what used to just be adult problems like diabetes and heart conditions. Isn't it in a way the governments job to help our society become healthier? I get the personal responsibility aspect, but Americans are becoming more obese every year and I feel like that proves a lot of them have no personal responsibility in a way. No there are certainly many other factors that are contributing to obesity that taxing would not help or change at all. But making it harder to gain access to maybe a little bit of a start.
Not trying to be rude at all, just curious what your take on that is?0 -
comptonelizabeth wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »how about making healthy food cheaper instead?
So more subsidies to out-subsidize the crap that is currently being subsidized and causing the problems? Seems like a legit approach. Or maybe just pull a Venezuela, force the farmers to take a massive economic hit, and send them to jail over cauliflower and pear pricing? Explain to me the economics of this idea, and please back up your suggestions with a working knowledge of the Agricultural Act of 2014.
As has been illustrated repeatedly on this thread, that the more the petty bureaucrats and diktocrats mess with things, the more the overall market becomes screwed up, and the more unintended consequences are reaped.
So what's your answer,then?
the answer is that the governemnt has zero business/authority in being in the food business.
it is called personal responsibility and individual freedom, use it.
Just to play devils advocate here....
Americans keep becoming larger and more unhealthy, leading them to develop serious health problems. Then that causes them to not teach good habits to their children, Who end up getting heart conditions, diabetes, etc...
Doesn't that prove that over the past several decades Americans have not been able to take personal responsibility? Eating junk food have no consequences and was just frowned upon, that would be one thing. But ultimately eating a terrible diet does lead to serious health problems and is leaving children to develop what used to just be adult problems like diabetes and heart conditions. Isn't it in a way the governments job to help our society become healthier? I get the personal responsibility aspect, but Americans are becoming more obese every year and I feel like that proves a lot of them have no personal responsibility in a way. No there are certainly many other factors that are contributing to obesity that taxing would not help or change at all. But making it harder to gain access to maybe a little bit of a start.
Not trying to be rude at all, just curious what your take on that is?
Not rude at all, the only problem is that 'junk' food is not the reason that people are obese - eating too many calories is the reason that people are obese. You can (and I did) get just as fat eating healthy and wholesome food as existing entirely on 'junk' food.
And still, 57 pages into this discussion, nobody can actually define 'junk' food so wth would you tax?2 -
comptonelizabeth wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »how about making healthy food cheaper instead?
So more subsidies to out-subsidize the crap that is currently being subsidized and causing the problems? Seems like a legit approach. Or maybe just pull a Venezuela, force the farmers to take a massive economic hit, and send them to jail over cauliflower and pear pricing? Explain to me the economics of this idea, and please back up your suggestions with a working knowledge of the Agricultural Act of 2014.
As has been illustrated repeatedly on this thread, that the more the petty bureaucrats and diktocrats mess with things, the more the overall market becomes screwed up, and the more unintended consequences are reaped.
So what's your answer,then?
Well, my answer has been literally to roll up my sleeves and take direct action:
--I have helped lead the creation of two highly productive community gardens, both in food deserts
--I have put in many scores of hours of work in order to deliver hundreds of pounds of beautiful, organic fresh produce to our food banks
--Every year I start hundreds of vegetable seedlings and give them away in the community for free
--I am currently teaching a formal "how to start gardening" class at an inner city site, in addition to the informal training of children that show up wanting to help me garden, and developing a phalanx of volunteers to expand the impact we have in the community
--I am currently getting the ball rolling on an 8-week "cooking with fresh veg" course in the same inner city neighborhood as our garden, so recipients know what to do with all the kale and eggplants they are getting
--Developing curriculum and teaching elementary aged kids about gardening as well as ensuring they have access to reasonably priced seeds, etc.
This is in addition to a demanding full-time professional job, raising two children, serving on arts-related boards, and trying to find time to work in my own garden and fit in workouts, hikes and bike rides.
As you can tell, I really hate trying to control people with nonsensical taxation that lines politicians' pockets, and I really enjoy helping people become more healthy, wily, feral and self-sufficient while sticking it to The Man:
8 -
comptonelizabeth wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »how about making healthy food cheaper instead?
So more subsidies to out-subsidize the crap that is currently being subsidized and causing the problems? Seems like a legit approach. Or maybe just pull a Venezuela, force the farmers to take a massive economic hit, and send them to jail over cauliflower and pear pricing? Explain to me the economics of this idea, and please back up your suggestions with a working knowledge of the Agricultural Act of 2014.
As has been illustrated repeatedly on this thread, that the more the petty bureaucrats and diktocrats mess with things, the more the overall market becomes screwed up, and the more unintended consequences are reaped.
So what's your answer,then?
the answer is that the governemnt has zero business/authority in being in the food business.
it is called personal responsibility and individual freedom, use it.
Just to play devils advocate here....
Americans keep becoming larger and more unhealthy, leading them to develop serious health problems. Then that causes them to not teach good habits to their children, Who end up getting heart conditions, diabetes, etc...
Doesn't that prove that over the past several decades Americans have not been able to take personal responsibility? Eating junk food have no consequences and was just frowned upon, that would be one thing. But ultimately eating a terrible diet does lead to serious health problems and is leaving children to develop what used to just be adult problems like diabetes and heart conditions. Isn't it in a way the governments job to help our society become healthier? I get the personal responsibility aspect, but Americans are becoming more obese every year and I feel like that proves a lot of them have no personal responsibility in a way. No there are certainly many other factors that are contributing to obesity that taxing would not help or change at all. But making it harder to gain access to maybe a little bit of a start.
Not trying to be rude at all, just curious what your take on that is?
Not who you were talking to, but junk food is usually inexpensive right? So let's say there's a 10% tax on "junk food". That $1.19 candy bar is now $1.30. How many people will stop buying it? A 12 pack of soda is $4.99, now it's $5.49 so each can went up $0.04. How many people will stop buying it? When I go to Wendy's my lunch is usually around $8.00, now it will be $8.80. Americans are just as bad at budgeting their money as they are at budgeting their calories. Only the very poorest people would be in a position where they might buy less, that's it.
Add to that that plenty of people get fat eating whole food, or some combo of whole/processed/junk food.
Add to that the manufacturers will find ways to formulate/package products around whatever qualifies something as "junk food". Or just increase prices on foods they make that aren't "junk food" to even the playing field.
It would be totally ineffective and would just give the government another revenue source to waste and cause the average person's dollar to not go quite as far.
The obesity crisis needs to be addressed, but it's the healthcare field, communities, and individuals that will need to do it. Eating is something personal and emotional, I don't think it can be solved through people's wallets.0 -
comptonelizabeth wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »how about making healthy food cheaper instead?
So more subsidies to out-subsidize the crap that is currently being subsidized and causing the problems? Seems like a legit approach. Or maybe just pull a Venezuela, force the farmers to take a massive economic hit, and send them to jail over cauliflower and pear pricing? Explain to me the economics of this idea, and please back up your suggestions with a working knowledge of the Agricultural Act of 2014.
As has been illustrated repeatedly on this thread, that the more the petty bureaucrats and diktocrats mess with things, the more the overall market becomes screwed up, and the more unintended consequences are reaped.
So what's your answer,then?
the answer is that the governemnt has zero business/authority in being in the food business.
it is called personal responsibility and individual freedom, use it.
Just to play devils advocate here....
Americans keep becoming larger and more unhealthy, leading them to develop serious health problems. Then that causes them to not teach good habits to their children, Who end up getting heart conditions, diabetes, etc...
Doesn't that prove that over the past several decades Americans have not been able to take personal responsibility? Eating junk food have no consequences and was just frowned upon, that would be one thing. But ultimately eating a terrible diet does lead to serious health problems and is leaving children to develop what used to just be adult problems like diabetes and heart conditions. Isn't it in a way the governments job to help our society become healthier? I get the personal responsibility aspect, but Americans are becoming more obese every year and I feel like that proves a lot of them have no personal responsibility in a way. No there are certainly many other factors that are contributing to obesity that taxing would not help or change at all. But making it harder to gain access to maybe a little bit of a start.
Not trying to be rude at all, just curious what your take on that is?
my take on that is if someone wants to sit on the couch and eat ding dongs all day then that is their personal decision. However, don't expect me, or anyone else, so subsidize someone else's bad decisions.
If you tax "junk food" to make it harder to get all you will do is create a black market for it where people go to find what they want. Just look at illegal drugs, that is supposed to make them harder to get but any kid in high school knows where to go get a bag of weed; so making drugs hard to get get by making them illegal has totally back-fired...
I am all for some kind of basic education about nutrition, but I don't want the government using the tax code to tell me what is good or bad, or using it to make me subsidize someone else's bad decisions..3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions