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.
AAP & AHA Recommending tax on sodas and sugary drinks
Replies
-
It is conflation -- and like you this is not personal but something I notice in these discussions.
"How do I do X?" is a separate question from "how do we address the societal problem of Y?"
That's so even if we ultimately conclude "there is no good or effective way to address the societal problem of Y without causing more or worse problems." (I have not concluded that's so in this case, but one could.)
That I think that there is a societal problem (increased obesity rates) does not mean that I think individuals NEED governmental policies to be able to lose weight. Clearly not, I lost weight myself. What it means is that I think people are people and we aren't fatter now (or than other countries) because we are collectively (or on average) less disciplined or lazier or what not, people haven't changed. It's because circumstances have changed (food availability, which is GOOD (but has some ill effects), and also culture and lifestyle due to modern conveniences (which again is mostly good but).
So the question is are there changes that could be made so that even with most people not wanting to spent a lot of time actively working on their weight (or worrying about how much they eat or fighting their impulses) that fewer people got obese?
Requiring chain restaurants to post calories seems like one good thing. Designing cities, towns, and villages so as to be more walkable is another. Bike paths. Not marketing soda to kids or having soda in schools and modeling healthy meals in schools, as well as incorporating some activity into school days all seem like positive things. (Most of these things already seem to be happening.) Are there some other things? Maybe. Best way to find out is for various places to try various things and see how they work.
Why do you see these issues as separate?
Because they are on their face separate questions.
One is about doing something as an individual, and one is about addressing societal problems.
For example, it's quite easy, IMO, to get a good education in science and math if you want to. That doesn't change the fact that as a society we undervalue education, especially in STEM, and there are fewer people in the US who become skilled in these things than is desirable. If I tried to start a conversation about how to encourage STEM education in the US and get more people involved, and people kept saying "well, I got educated in STEM, so it's possible," that would not be addressing the question I was asking.Before trying "various" things ask these questions:
Compared to what?
At what cost?
What objective evidence do you have?
Who benefits from enacting this change?
Who suffers from enacting this change?
Sure, but the point is that we lack evidence and people have theories they want to try out (and reasons why they think their plan will work in a certain way). If voters in one place try something, that provides evidence for the rest of us going forward. If it doesn't work or has negative consequences, you end it.
At risk of going off topic, I would argue that the US favors education in STEM over arts and foreign languages in a pretty major way.3 -
I'd actually add foreign languages to my illustration, along with STEM. I'm thinking more of things where I think there's a shortage of educated people in the fields.1
-
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »
More restrictive than they already are?
It is my understanding in most states one can use SNAP benefits on added sugar drink, chips and cookies.
IMO the program should be designed to get nutrient dense food to those in need. Personally I would support higher benefits if they would remove nutritionally poor items from the eligibility list.
Take the debates you see here among people who have anything from a reasonable idea of what they're talking about to people who are extremely well versed regarding nutrients and foods.
Now have a bunch of state and federal gov't officials trying to formulate a budget have these same debates with the $$ being the bottom line rather than the quality of the acceptable foods list.
Bloodbath
We've discussed this before and I thought our little community manages our differences quite well:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10591008/food-stamps-restriction#latest
I think we came up with much better ideas than those enacted.1 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »
More restrictive than they already are?
It is my understanding in most states one can use SNAP benefits on added sugar drink, chips and cookies.
IMO the program should be designed to get nutrient dense food to those in need. Personally I would support higher benefits if they would remove nutritionally poor items from the eligibility list.
Take the debates you see here among people who have anything from a reasonable idea of what they're talking about to people who are extremely well versed regarding nutrients and foods.
Now have a bunch of state and federal gov't officials trying to formulate a budget have these same debates with the $$ being the bottom line rather than the quality of the acceptable foods list.
Bloodbath
We've discussed this before and I thought our little community manages our differences quite well:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10591008/food-stamps-restriction#latest
I think we came up with much better ideas than those enacted.
I side with the community here as well 😉1 -
Just say no to any and all product specific taxes. All they do is create a huge black market.
Always a very bad idea.4 -
I'm not sure if our Seattle soda tax has been a success yet... it raised over $10 million during the first half of 2018, and the money is earmarked for research and public health initiatives, particularly in lower income areas. I don't think people are unhappy with the Seattle Council for enacting the law, though (see the report). People tend to be pretty health-conscious up here. However, I'll be looking forward to Part II of the study, which would hopefully show us if people are making better health choices - or if different tactics are needed. I just can't accept that we should do nothing, however, when record numbers of children are developing Type II diabetes.
https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/seattle/seattle-soda-tax-raises-10-million-in-six-months/281-581830494
https://www.scribd.com/document/385782218/Evaluation-of-Seattle-s-sweetened-beverage-tax
QUOTE:
"Whether or not the tax if effective is currently being studied. $520,000 from the tax's revenue has been set aside to fund research conducted by the University of Washington analyzing the effects of the soda tax on Seattle's population and businesses. A recent baseline report was released analyzing the initial effects of the tax. Since the tax revenue is so high, there is speculation as to whether or not the tax is actually working to dissuade people from purchasing sugary beverages."
[/end quote]
I have no concerns over the dreaded "Nanny State," as I would personally prefer if the government completely bans cigarettes and vaping, full stop. My quality of life has been much improved since the shunning of smokers and banning from restaurants and other public places - I have severe smoke allergies.3 -
Just say no to any and all product specific taxes. All they do is create a huge black market.
Always a very bad idea.
Gas tax is pretty hefty, I've never heard of anyone buying black market gas. Do you really think people are going to buy black market soda to avoid a ten cent tax? That doesn't sound very likely to me, it sounds like a boogeyman.2 -
We have had a sugar tax in the UK for a while. I noticed some places only stock diet versions of the drinks or you pay extra for the full sugar version0
-
NorthCascades wrote: »Just say no to any and all product specific taxes. All they do is create a huge black market.
Always a very bad idea.
Gas tax is pretty hefty, I've never heard of anyone buying black market gas. Do you really think people are going to buy black market soda to avoid a ten cent tax? That doesn't sound very likely to me, it sounds like a boogeyman.
True, but it is pretty common for people who live in a state with high gas taxes go across the border to a neighboring state with lower gas taxes if they live near the border.1 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Just say no to any and all product specific taxes. All they do is create a huge black market.
Always a very bad idea.
Gas tax is pretty hefty, I've never heard of anyone buying black market gas. Do you really think people are going to buy black market soda to avoid a ten cent tax? That doesn't sound very likely to me, it sounds like a boogeyman.
True, but it is pretty common for people who live in a state with high gas taxes go across the border to a neighboring state with lower gas taxes if they live near the border.
Doesn't seem very rational considering the time it usually takes to go somewhere else. For most people, taking a rational account of the value of their time, it rarely makes sense to even drive to a different gas station for a better price if it involves going out of the way.
Also, doesn't sound like a huge black market.0 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Just say no to any and all product specific taxes. All they do is create a huge black market.
Always a very bad idea.
Gas tax is pretty hefty, I've never heard of anyone buying black market gas. Do you really think people are going to buy black market soda to avoid a ten cent tax? That doesn't sound very likely to me, it sounds like a boogeyman.
True, but it is pretty common for people who live in a state with high gas taxes go across the border to a neighboring state with lower gas taxes if they live near the border.
Doesn't seem very rational considering the time it usually takes to go somewhere else. For most people, taking a rational account of the value of their time, it rarely makes sense to even drive to a different gas station for a better price if it involves going out of the way.
Also, doesn't sound like a huge black market.
In some cases, literally the opposite sides of a street are different states. You better believe people in those areas make their buying decisions on taxes and the convenience factor.
State taxes on cigarettes are $1.98 a pack in IL vs $0.17 a pack in Missouri. It's about 1/2 mile to drive across the Mississippi River. You don't think people are bootlegging?2 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Just say no to any and all product specific taxes. All they do is create a huge black market.
Always a very bad idea.
Gas tax is pretty hefty, I've never heard of anyone buying black market gas. Do you really think people are going to buy black market soda to avoid a ten cent tax? That doesn't sound very likely to me, it sounds like a boogeyman.
True, but it is pretty common for people who live in a state with high gas taxes go across the border to a neighboring state with lower gas taxes if they live near the border.
Doesn't seem very rational considering the time it usually takes to go somewhere else. For most people, taking a rational account of the value of their time, it rarely makes sense to even drive to a different gas station for a better price if it involves going out of the way.
Also, doesn't sound like a huge black market.
In some cases, literally the opposite sides of a street are different states. You better believe people in those areas make their buying decisions on taxes and the convenience factor.
State taxes on cigarettes are $1.98 a pack in IL vs $0.17 a pack in Missouri. It's about 1/2 mile to drive across the Mississippi River. You don't think people are bootlegging?
As bootlegging refers to illegal manufacture and sale of goods, I'm not seeing why a difference in two different state taxes of an item are relevant. Do you perhaps have some idiosyncratic use of the term?
Now, all other pricing being equal, if it takes more than 15 minutes of time to go to Missouri in your example, it isn't economically rational for even a minimum wage earner to make the crossing, more so if other costs like gas and vehicle wear are involved. The idea gets even worse if we're talking the majority of people who don't live near a state border.
If you're going to try to claim people will be motivating by saving money, you're kind of making claim that undercuts itself when examined: going out of way to buy goods can be more costly, not less. Reduced consumption seems far more likely in most cases.2 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Just say no to any and all product specific taxes. All they do is create a huge black market.
Always a very bad idea.
Gas tax is pretty hefty, I've never heard of anyone buying black market gas. Do you really think people are going to buy black market soda to avoid a ten cent tax? That doesn't sound very likely to me, it sounds like a boogeyman.
True, but it is pretty common for people who live in a state with high gas taxes go across the border to a neighboring state with lower gas taxes if they live near the border.
Doesn't seem very rational considering the time it usually takes to go somewhere else. For most people, taking a rational account of the value of their time, it rarely makes sense to even drive to a different gas station for a better price if it involves going out of the way.
Also, doesn't sound like a huge black market.
Depends on the risk and reward. Considering the proximity of a lower taxed region it would be unwise to place a burdensome tax when a competing body will take advantage.
A smart parasite doesn't kill the host.0 -
Instead of raising the cost of supposedly unhealthy items (because you know soda is only the first slip on a long, long slippery slope), how about we make healthy foods and drinks more affordable?0
-
magnusthenerd wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Just say no to any and all product specific taxes. All they do is create a huge black market.
Always a very bad idea.
Gas tax is pretty hefty, I've never heard of anyone buying black market gas. Do you really think people are going to buy black market soda to avoid a ten cent tax? That doesn't sound very likely to me, it sounds like a boogeyman.
True, but it is pretty common for people who live in a state with high gas taxes go across the border to a neighboring state with lower gas taxes if they live near the border.
Doesn't seem very rational considering the time it usually takes to go somewhere else. For most people, taking a rational account of the value of their time, it rarely makes sense to even drive to a different gas station for a better price if it involves going out of the way.
Also, doesn't sound like a huge black market.
In some cases, literally the opposite sides of a street are different states. You better believe people in those areas make their buying decisions on taxes and the convenience factor.
State taxes on cigarettes are $1.98 a pack in IL vs $0.17 a pack in Missouri. It's about 1/2 mile to drive across the Mississippi River. You don't think people are bootlegging?
As bootlegging refers to illegal manufacture and sale of goods, I'm not seeing why a difference in two different state taxes of an item are relevant. Do you perhaps have some idiosyncratic use of the term?
Now, all other pricing being equal, if it takes more than 15 minutes of time to go to Missouri in your example, it isn't economically rational for even a minimum wage earner to make the crossing, more so if other costs like gas and vehicle wear are involved. The idea gets even worse if we're talking the majority of people who don't live near a state border.
If you're going to try to claim people will be motivating by saving money, you're kind of making claim that undercuts itself when examined: going out of way to buy goods can be more costly, not less. Reduced consumption seems far more likely in most cases.
Bootlegging also refers to transportation as well as manufacture, no idiosyncratic use of the term
verb (used without object), boot·legged, boot·leg·ging.
to make, transport, or sell something, especially liquor, illegally or without registration or payment of taxes
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/recording
Don't know how much you get out, but there are urban areas and small communities where it is literally possible to go a block and be in another state. It's generally a big discussion when a state is considering a tax increase on some item, retailers near the boarder are concerned about losing business to the other state.0 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Just say no to any and all product specific taxes. All they do is create a huge black market.
Always a very bad idea.
Gas tax is pretty hefty, I've never heard of anyone buying black market gas. Do you really think people are going to buy black market soda to avoid a ten cent tax? That doesn't sound very likely to me, it sounds like a boogeyman.
True, but it is pretty common for people who live in a state with high gas taxes go across the border to a neighboring state with lower gas taxes if they live near the border.
Doesn't seem very rational considering the time it usually takes to go somewhere else. For most people, taking a rational account of the value of their time, it rarely makes sense to even drive to a different gas station for a better price if it involves going out of the way.
Also, doesn't sound like a huge black market.
In some cases, literally the opposite sides of a street are different states. You better believe people in those areas make their buying decisions on taxes and the convenience factor.
State taxes on cigarettes are $1.98 a pack in IL vs $0.17 a pack in Missouri. It's about 1/2 mile to drive across the Mississippi River. You don't think people are bootlegging?
As bootlegging refers to illegal manufacture and sale of goods, I'm not seeing why a difference in two different state taxes of an item are relevant. Do you perhaps have some idiosyncratic use of the term?
Now, all other pricing being equal, if it takes more than 15 minutes of time to go to Missouri in your example, it isn't economically rational for even a minimum wage earner to make the crossing, more so if other costs like gas and vehicle wear are involved. The idea gets even worse if we're talking the majority of people who don't live near a state border.
If you're going to try to claim people will be motivating by saving money, you're kind of making claim that undercuts itself when examined: going out of way to buy goods can be more costly, not less. Reduced consumption seems far more likely in most cases.
Bootlegging also refers to transportation as well as manufacture, no idiosyncratic use of the term
verb (used without object), boot·legged, boot·leg·ging.
to make, transport, or sell something, especially liquor, illegally or without registration or payment of taxes
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/recording
Don't know how much you get out, but there are urban areas and small communities where it is literally possible to go a block and be in another state. It's generally a big discussion when a state is considering a tax increase on some item, retailers near the boarder are concerned about losing business to the other state.
Except the item isn't sold illegally or without lawful tax payment. The company selling the product isn't failing to pay the taxes for the sale.
And again, I'm not seeing the relevance of border regions to setting a policy that will influence an entire state. Sure, there are times people will shop for a lower price - I'm actually stating very clearly under which conditions it is a rational economic decision to bother with expending the time needed for a lower price - in this specific border case, 15 minutes, and based on a state with one of the lowest taxes on tobacco use because it is a state with a heavy tobacco industry presence, next to a state that bases policy on a largely on a dense urban population in a different region.
I think I get out enough to understand there are few states where the entire population lives within 15 minutes of a border, so basing tax policy on that seems unreasonable. On one hand, you seem to want to imply people are rational economic actors in one sense - they'll avoid higher prices - but also seem to want to think they're making decisions that are irrational - they'll not value their own time. If we consistently believe they'll act mostly rationally towards optimizing both, I think it becomes hard to escape the idea that the net result of a tax will be a reduction in consumption.
Well unless your whole argument is that people will purposefully avoid taxes just because they think they have something to prove by wasting time just to prove a point about hating government. Maybe I don't get out enough for this, but my impression isn't that most people care about sticking it to the government so much that they'll waste that kind of time on it.4 -
ultra_violets wrote: »Instead of raising the cost of supposedly unhealthy items (because you know soda is only the first slip on a long, long slippery slope), how about we make healthy foods and drinks more affordable?
Healthy foods and drinks are affordable. Water is hardly expensive, and as discussed on many threads, the claim that healthy foods are expensive isn't really true unless you define as healthy only organic or trendy brand named stuff or the latest in must have magical foods like ACV or virgin coconut oil or what not. Also, while one can debate whether meat is healthy or not, one reason meat is so cheap in the US is that feed corn benefits from subsidies. (Overall food in the US is a smaller percentage of income on average than ever, and cheaper than most places.)
I simply don't believe that someone eats a poor diet because more nutrient dense foods are more expensive, when cooking from whole foods is typically less expensive than eating lots of fast food or take out or brand named products where the main cost is marketing (snack foods and dessert items and soda and energy drinks) (all of really treat type foods vs. substitutes for a full meal). (I would believe that in individual cases the time and energy that cooking takes or is perceived to take can be a stumbling block.)
Veg and fruit are, of course, going to be less expensive when organic is not required, and when they are in season. IME, when they are not in season frozen is often much less expensive. My preference would be to stop distorting the market with subsidies but to encourage people on SNAP to buy healthy items by making them go farther when items such as fruits and veg are chosen (as is the case many places, for example when using them at various farmers markets here).1 -
Lemurcat2"My preference would be to stop distorting the market with subsidies but to encourage people on SNAP to buy healthy items by making them go farther when items such as fruits and veg are chosen (as is the case many places, for example when using them at various farmers markets here)."
Yes -- there have been studies that show when stamp recipients can get "bonuses" for using SNAP at farmers' markets, they purchase fruits/veggies at a significantly higher rate.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 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
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions