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
-
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.0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »I know this is going back a few pages (Can't believe this thread blew up again, lol!) but I wanted to address this:You can't test humans that way because it's unethical and against the law. You can only test animals like lab rats. In this particular study they report how rats given the choice between self administering cocaine or sucrose, chose sucrose. They also would go for the sucrose even if it meant an electric shock to get it...even though there was plain water available with no electric shock to punish them. In self assessments, humans have reported addiction symptoms and have shown addictive behaviour for sugar. But we can't do a study where we deliberately hook someone on sugar...WinoGelato 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/
Please find me a study on humans that has conclusive evidence that sugar is addictive.
and you get the same reaction in your brain to petting puppies as you do to sugar, so does that mean that petting puppies is addictive as cocaine.
Here you go. You may get the same type of reaction in brain by petting puppies..but the magnitude is far far lower. Just like the effects of paracetamol vs. Morphine. Yes both are analgesics, but paracetamol is not addictive like an opiate is.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719144.
nope, that is not what I was asking for. I mean show me a study where humans became addicted to sugar. Pleasure centers does not prove anything, because by that logic one can be addicted to racing cars, petting puppies, sitting on the beach, etc, etc...
You can't test humans that way because it's unethical and against the law. You can only test animals like lab rats. In this particular study they report how rats given the choice between self administering cocaine or sucrose, chose sucrose. They also would go for the sucrose even if it meant an electric shock to get it...even though there was plain water available with no electric shock to punish them. In self assessments, humans have reported addiction symptoms and have shown addictive behaviour for sugar. But we can't do a study where we deliberately hook someone on sugar...
So animals will go for the source that provides energy and sustenance to their body, over the source that provides a narcotic high? Smart rats...
@Macy9336 - have you ever tasted cocaine? It's nasty, nasty stuff. No surprise that the rats chose sugar water over the cocaine. Every. Single. Time. So the only thing that 'scientific experiment' proves is that sugar tastes better than cocaine, which 10/10 rats/humans would agree with.
No I haven't tasted cocaine, but that's a really good insight. It would explain a lot. Although not sure how we explain the taking the electric shock to get the sugar bit of the experiment.0 -
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?3 -
French_Peasant wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »Also - if you want to have some fun - go and look at the Net Worth of members of Congress - Prior to them being elected to Congress and after. They have pretty much made themselves exempt from insider trading. Ask yourself how a person who has only worked in Govt their whole lives can be worth 100s of Millions of $$???? How is that possible??? I wont turn this into a left right thing - I think both sides as very guilty - but I am thinking of some high profile types who worth tons and never held a real job. That is all you need to know about the Tax Code. Its about keeping control of the population. Plain and simple. Congress is nothing more than looters - they take what is not theirs and do with it as they please.
I have found it more helpful to reframe my reference baseline to the liberty vs. tyranny axis rather than the left vs. right axis as providing more illumination in understanding the power dynamics in play today. It is very difficult to control someone who takes their liberty (and its concomitant wing, responsibility, which we NEVER hear about) seriously. Today everyone seems to demand their free-dumbs, their mind-, soul- or body-corrupting vices, and rejects any obligation (such as education, civic engagement, and prudence and wisdom in personal affairs), which to me is something completely different from true liberty in the Jeffersonian sense.
If you are not a serf, slave, peasant, or royal subject, if you are a citizen, one of the most valuable properties that you own is your body, and it should be treated with respect so you can prosper and do not become a dead weight (literally or metaphorically) for your spouse, your children, your neighbors, and your community.
Another important thing to understand, and this ties into the subsidies discussion, is that food is a huge national security issue....and it is also a terrible, vicious, horrific weapon of mass destruction. If that food supply is ever yanked away, who bears the brunt....the feral, wily, mistrustful razorbacks, or the fat little piglets who are in a pen trusting the farmer to feed them? Do you ever wonder why our propaganda tells us that we are the bread basket of the world, and it is the job of our farmers and scientists to feed the world? Just some food for thought, as it were.
to the point in your first paragraph, Aristotle always said that the problem with democracy was that the people would vote for the person that promised to "open up the treasury to them." To which he asked the question "then why would anyone vote for the other person who said that he would close the treasury?" (I am paraphrasing) Which is basically the idiotic argument that we have about entitlements today, which is that we already gave it, i.e. promised it, so how can we take it away?
Exactly. Fortunately we have been blessed by the founders in their wisdom with a Republic ("if we can keep it"). It is interesting to note that both our representative republic and founding documents are under a full frontal assault today, and the linchpin of that assault is the profound and deliberately-propagated ignorance and disinterest of so many people about even the basics of our first principals.
Others of us still get pissed off about the Whiskey Tax.
Benjamin Franklin's famous words "A Republic sir, if you can keep it" the way things are going these days we are closer to losing it, IMO.3 -
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. So if your state wants to increase taxes to get Granny a scooter to get around then so be it. However, the federal government has no business directing any individuals taxes to things that are not powers specifically given to the federal government.2 -
StealthHealth wrote: »The problems with taxing junk food are numerous, but off the top of my head I'd say the biggies are:
A tax of this type would not hit the intended population - It would be a tax on all not just on those that are unhealthy (and therefore likely to place more demand on the healthcare system).
Yes, I think this is a problem. Curious if any of the strong proponents for such a tax (Packerjohn, maybe Macy) have responses.Who gets to decide what is junk food - you, me, politicians, industry, doctors, scientists? I doubt you could get a list of 100 generic food items which all would agree are junk. On MFP I doubt you could get 10!!
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.Even if you could decide that something was Junk food, I'd assume that this would need to include some sort of content limits (for example you may decide that a specific food item contains more than xg of sugar per serving was junk and therefore taxed), manufacturers/food producers would then game the system by producing and selling items that were 1g under the limit and therefor un-taxed and cheaper (therefore sell more)
I'd guess that the response to this could be that you tax by amount or percentage of the supposedly offending item -- x cents per gram of added sugar or x cents per gram of whatever else people want to take an issue with. I also think it would be helpful for any proponents to answer how this would work or cite a current law somewhere that they think handles it correctly.0 -
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.0 -
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?
0 -
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 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions