Fast food should be taxed!
Replies
-
By fast food I mean:
-anything fried
-with added sodium
-with added sugar
That qualifies any restaurant-served food as fast food. Every cook uses salt and sugar and will occasionally fry stuff, even in fancy-schmancy healthy places. And they do for a reason. It's called cooking. It's an art.
By that definition, pretty much anything except raw produce would be fast food. A little too easy, don't you think?0 -
In Pennsylvania it's taxed.0
-
*sigh* Pretty much all food is already taxed. I just don't understand the need to control everything that OTHER people do. If you don't want to eat it, don't. If they want to eat it and slowly kill themselves, even armed with the knowledge that it will do so, who are you to stop them? That is their choice. They are not hurting anyone but themselves.0
-
I agree, it won't stop many, but it certainly would help offset the cost of the caring for them when they're sick.
It's pretty hard-core, but it's not right that the health-conscience pay ridiculous amounts in healthcare to cover the cost of those who don't give a damn! Just like cigarettes. I was a smoker and I am ridiculously overweight. I wouldn't be opposed to the so-called "sin taxes."0 -
I agree, it won't stop many, but it certainly would help offset the cost of the caring for them when they're sick.
It's pretty hard-core, but it's not right that the health-conscience pay ridiculous amounts in healthcare to cover the cost of those who don't give a damn! Just like cigarettes. I was a smoker and I am ridiculously overweight. I wouldn't be opposed to the so-called "sin taxes."
I respectfully disagree. Studies show that, while obesity is happening in all economic levels, there is a higher rate of obesity among poor people. Like that ObamaCare bill (please, don't get started on this) is difficult because you are imposing a fee for NOT having insurance, and common sense dictates that it's not rich people who don't have health insurance! It's going to be the people who can't afford the health insurance that are going to pay a fee for essentially being poor.
I don't have health care. I cannot afford it. It's $400 a month just to cover me, and the insurance doesn't cover pre-existing conditions, so there would be little point in paying that much. I go to a sliding scale clinic to receive care, and it costs about $100 a month. It's not that poor people "don't give a damn", it's that they CAN'T!0 -
Add a tax to all fast food and subsidize healthy eating propaganda in public places.
They could even add a warning the doors of fast food places like on alcohol bottles and cigarettes packs.
By fast food I mean:
-anything fried
-with added sodium
-with added sugar
-anything that sounds unhealthy or you suspect is.
This type of reasoning is a little too simplistic. There is a lot more to consider such as families who live on minimum wage, the quality of food offered in schools (which is akin to fast food), the lack of education in many communities as far as nutrition is concerned, neighborhoods that still don't have supermarkets and fresh fruits and vegetables but have fast food eating places.
If you tax items, that in many cases, is the bulk of the meal many people can afford, then you have to make sure you offer something of comparable value in its place that is healthier.0 -
Add a tax to all fast food and subsidize healthy eating propaganda in public places.
They could even add a warning the doors of fast food places like on alcohol bottles and cigarettes packs.
By fast food I mean:
-anything fried
-with added sodium
-with added sugar
-anything that sounds unhealthy or you suspect is.
Why? Do you think it will stop people from eating there? Because it wont. Do you think it will help make more money? Because really, it wont. Tax will not help anything in the slightest other than make people angry, so why do it on something that doesn't need to be done? In most cases restaurant's have nutrition labels, and that should be good enough. If people still eat it, then that's their problem. Not yours. If they don't have nutrition labels, you should already know it's unhealthy. If you don't then you are ignorant and maybe you should teach yourself, it shouldn't be everyone else's responsibility to do that but yours. And parents of children of course to teach their children.0 -
I think everyone is missing the mark.
No need to tax junk food - just get it off TV, off billboards - out of our faces.
Ever notice the presence of McDonalds in your life - even when you're nowhere near a restaurant?
Just ban advertising - especially during kids shows and late at night.
It's advertising that should be the first thing to go. imo.0 -
I agree, it won't stop many, but it certainly would help offset the cost of the caring for them when they're sick.
It's pretty hard-core, but it's not right that the health-conscience pay ridiculous amounts in healthcare to cover the cost of those who don't give a damn! Just like cigarettes. I was a smoker and I am ridiculously overweight. I wouldn't be opposed to the so-called "sin taxes."
I respectfully disagree. Studies show that, while obesity is happening in all economic levels, there is a higher rate of obesity among poor people. Like that ObamaCare bill (please, don't get started on this) is difficult because you are imposing a fee for NOT having insurance, and common sense dictates that it's not rich people who don't have health insurance! It's going to be the people who can't afford the health insurance that are going to pay a fee for essentially being poor.
I don't have health care. I cannot afford it. It's $400 a month just to cover me, and the insurance doesn't cover pre-existing conditions, so there would be little point in paying that much. I go to a sliding scale clinic to receive care, and it costs about $100 a month. It's not that poor people "don't give a damn", it's that they CAN'T!
You may have misunderstood my "don't give a damn". I meant with regards to being "health-conscience". I don't have insurance either. I HAVE pre-existing conditions and no one will cover me unless I pay a fortune. This is why I believe the sin-taxes may help cover the costs of the uninsured emergencies/urgencies that end up in the hospital with heart attacks, strokes, etc.
We already pay taxes. Would you rather your taxes went to better schools or the hospital write-offs?0 -
I agree, it won't stop many, but it certainly would help offset the cost of the caring for them when they're sick.
It's pretty hard-core, but it's not right that the health-conscience pay ridiculous amounts in healthcare to cover the cost of those who don't give a damn! Just like cigarettes. I was a smoker and I am ridiculously overweight. I wouldn't be opposed to the so-called "sin taxes."
I respectfully disagree. Studies show that, while obesity is happening in all economic levels, there is a higher rate of obesity among poor people. Like that ObamaCare bill (please, don't get started on this) is difficult because you are imposing a fee for NOT having insurance, and common sense dictates that it's not rich people who don't have health insurance! It's going to be the people who can't afford the health insurance that are going to pay a fee for essentially being poor.
I don't have health care. I cannot afford it. It's $400 a month just to cover me, and the insurance doesn't cover pre-existing conditions, so there would be little point in paying that much. I go to a sliding scale clinic to receive care, and it costs about $100 a month. It's not that poor people "don't give a damn", it's that they CAN'T!
^ I also agree. I don't have healthcare, and I too can't afford it. I have a doctor that I go to when needed and it usually costs about $40 each visit. It's cheap, may not be the best medical, but I mainly go there to get my migraine prescript refilled. I don't need it for anything else, and even then I only go when I absolutely have to. Us poor people can't afford anymore than what we can. Making more taxes is not going to help that in any case.0 -
Not saying if it should or shouldnt, but just to let you know, out here in NY they do put taxes on tanning salons so that people are discouraged from "harming" their selves...so why wouldnt or shouldnt they?0
-
That's obvious. Even with the OP's regulations in place, you could still get unhealthy food you'd just have to pay more. I don't see how you could possibly believe that what your boss does would be the same thing if the government did it.
That's still not the point. What your employer does in your workplace only affects the people who work there, when they work there. If the government did the same thing, it would affect everyone all the time.
That's the point. In your workplace, you could just bring in candy bars if you wanted.On the flip side, I do work in an office where the vending machines items that are supposedly healthier have their costs slightly subsidized by the company, and the candy-like items are more expensive to make up for it.
I kind of like it. It's a small enough scale that it works for me. However, there are a few problems.
Sometimes the choices for what's healthier are ridiculous and stupid. You can't just see a "no trans fats" label and claim it must be healthy.
and
The selection is somewhat limited.
But this isnt a government regulation. This is just your company's vending machines. Someone who doesnt want to pay the extra money can bring their own food in.
And? It's not like you can't double fry chicken strips at your house.
Unless you work in food service, I don't think you can equate an office to a restaurant. I kind of have to go to work (to still stay employed). I don't *have* to go to a restaurant to eat. In the same way that the vending machine is a luxury, so is a restaurant.
No, my point was relevant, and yours isn't. I showed the point of comparison is false. While you pointed out a difference between the two that is meaningless. You could still acquire unhealthy food through other means than fast food restaurants regardless of scope of impact.
Because it's obviously very similar? He (my boss) is messing with the vending machine market in my office. He gets to do that. In the admittedly whacked out suggestion by the OP (because of how open ended it is), the government is exerting power over the market. Both are allowed.
You just don't like the government interfering with markets. I get that. I also don't care.0 -
In philosophy they are, but the scale makes them different. Also, your boss and the government don't have the same rule book.
That's obvious. Even with the OP's regulations in place, you could still get unhealthy food you'd just have to pay more. I don't see how you could possibly believe that what your boss does would be the same thing if the government did it.
That's still not the point. What your employer does in your workplace only affects the people who work there, when they work there. If the government did the same thing, it would affect everyone all the time.
That's the point. In your workplace, you could just bring in candy bars if you wanted.On the flip side, I do work in an office where the vending machines items that are supposedly healthier have their costs slightly subsidized by the company, and the candy-like items are more expensive to make up for it.
I kind of like it. It's a small enough scale that it works for me. However, there are a few problems.
Sometimes the choices for what's healthier are ridiculous and stupid. You can't just see a "no trans fats" label and claim it must be healthy.
and
The selection is somewhat limited.
But this isnt a government regulation. This is just your company's vending machines. Someone who doesnt want to pay the extra money can bring their own food in.
And? It's not like you can't double fry chicken strips at your house.
Unless you work in food service, I don't think you can equate an office to a restaurant. I kind of have to go to work (to still stay employed). I don't *have* to go to a restaurant to eat. In the same way that the vending machine is a luxury, so is a restaurant.
No, my point was relevant, and yours isn't. I showed the point of comparison is false. While you pointed out a difference between the two that is meaningless. You could still acquire unhealthy food through other means than fast food restaurants regardless of scope of impact.
Because it's obviously very similar? He (my boss) is messing with the vending machine market in my office. He gets to do that. In the admittedly whacked out suggestion by the OP (because of how open ended it is), the government is exerting power over the market. Both are allowed.
You just don't like the government interfering with markets. I get that. I also don't care.0 -
Add a tax to all fast food and subsidize healthy eating propaganda in public places.
They could even add a warning the doors of fast food places like on alcohol bottles and cigarettes packs.
By fast food I mean:
-anything fried
-with added sodium
-with added sugar
-anything that sounds unhealthy or you suspect is.
Yes, let's create another black market in America! Sounds perfect to add chicken nuggets to the controlled substances list! :huh:
Or how about we take care of our own bodies? You own you; you don't own ME!0 -
No one has the right to tell a grown adult what to do with their own body. Adults have the right to eat or drink whatever they choose. Using the force of government to promote your own lifestyle is immoral.0
-
I don't know where you live but it is taxed where I live. All convenience foods are.
And, I'm a friggin adult. If I want to eat I should be able to without the damn government taxing me. Still cannot understand why people don't worry about themselves and stay out of other people's lives. NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS what anyone eats, drinks does. Worry about what happens under your own roof.0 -
A couple of devil's advocate posts:
1. Health insurance already has the option (and chooses to use the option) of charging higher premiums to smokers than non smokers. This is to help off-set the extra cost of medical care the a smoker needs on average compared to a non-smoker. (BTW, I am a non-smoker for 3 months now, but will be paying the extra $100/month for the tobacco rate until the end of next year because I won't qualify for the non tobacco rate until I've been tobacco free for 12 months at the time of open enrollment). I made the decision to start smoking, and I made the decision to continue until smoking for 16 years, even with the extra tax on insurance and cigarettes.
2. Meals in my state (VT) are already taxed. Doesn't matter if they are from McDonalds or Healthy Living Market, if its prepared food its taxed at the same rate. Its a convenience tax. If I'm feeling lazy, I'm going to pay the extra to have someone else prepare a meal that I know will taste good, and require less prep and clean-up time. My time is worth more than the few extra dollars to me.
3. In VT food businesses are required to post calorie content for their food. I've found this to be helpful, because yes, I know McDonalds (or Taco Bell, or random mom and pop diner, etc) are not going to be good for me, it helps me to see that I'm really not saving any calories by getting that bacon ranch salad as opposed to getting the cheeseburger that I really wanted. Again, sometimes I place a higher value on my time than to prepare something for myself, but if its staring me in the face, I might make a (slightly) better decision.
4. With NY banning sugary drinks bigger than a certain size, well, if I'm out at a ball game, I might just decide to only grab one drink, since it would be an inconvenience to go back for a second. At the very least I will have to make a second trip, and that's a little bit of exercise, right?
Bottom line in my opinion is that we didn't get fat overnight, so we can't fix it overnight either. Basic house-hold staples were less expensive (proportionately) than they are now, and most house-holds had 1 working adult and 1 stay at home adult as opposed to 2. If we could afford for one person in my house to stay at home and do all the house work and balanced meal cooking, I'm sure we could be a lot healthier. The reality has changed, and our attitudes toward food and convenience need to also. I just wish it was easier to find a balance between healthy, affordable, and convenient! If the government can help do that, then awesome! But unfortunately, it seems like we're left having to choose between only 2 of those options (if we're really lucky).0 -
We have enough attacks on our liberty.....
NO NEW TAXES:drinker:
There must be a better way to address this.0 -
Let's not let people vote, either. Yea, they might make a bad decision with their freedom. We better just take that freedom away, JUST IN CASE.
My thoughts exactly!0 -
We have enough attacks on our liberty.....
NO NEW TAXES:drinker:
There must be a better way to address this.
^^^This^^^ maybe a public announcement run every hour on the T.V... "Hey Fatty... Yeah you... put that burger down and get outside and walk or something" LOL these people always trying to get the government involved..... Gotta love these sheep :-)0 -
No. People must be free to make their own choices and not be coerced.0
-
Intereting topic... there was an article in the paper today talking exactly about this... Due to the increasing obesity withing australia... I think its needed... sometimes its too cheap and convenient. People need a push to start eating healthier0
-
....And also
0 -
Fast food is already taxed here in MA. So what would Big Brother do with the money, piss it away on useless programs for people who don't want to be fit and healthy?
I just want to know why pot is legal in NY but not big gulps?
Yeah...Big Bro...What? Pot? What? In NY State, legal,,,gulp!0 -
I agree, it won't stop many, but it certainly would help offset the cost of the caring for them when they're sick.
It's pretty hard-core, but it's not right that the health-conscience pay ridiculous amounts in healthcare to cover the cost of those who don't give a damn! Just like cigarettes. I was a smoker and I am ridiculously overweight. I wouldn't be opposed to the so-called "sin taxes."
I respectfully disagree. Studies show that, while obesity is happening in all economic levels, there is a higher rate of obesity among poor people. Like that ObamaCare bill (please, don't get started on this) is difficult because you are imposing a fee for NOT having insurance, and common sense dictates that it's not rich people who don't have health insurance! It's going to be the people who can't afford the health insurance that are going to pay a fee for essentially being poor.
I don't have health care. I cannot afford it. It's $400 a month just to cover me, and the insurance doesn't cover pre-existing conditions, so there would be little point in paying that much. I go to a sliding scale clinic to receive care, and it costs about $100 a month. It's not that poor people "don't give a damn", it's that they CAN'T!
^ I also agree. I don't have healthcare, and I too can't afford it. I have a doctor that I go to when needed and it usually costs about $40 each visit. It's cheap, may not be the best medical, but I mainly go there to get my migraine prescript refilled. I don't need it for anything else, and even then I only go when I absolutely have to. Us poor people can't afford anymore than what we can. Making more taxes is not going to help that in any case.
Just a note that in 2014 it will cover Pre-existing conditions0 -
I really like the fact that Papa Murphy's pizza accepts EBT......:noway:0
-
I think everyone is missing the mark.
No need to tax junk food - just get it off TV, off billboards - out of our faces.
Ever notice the presence of McDonalds in your life - even when you're nowhere near a restaurant?
Just ban advertising - especially during kids shows and late at night.
It's advertising that should be the first thing to go. imo.
Much harder to accomplish than levying a tax. But neither is the best move right now. End corn subsidies and a lot of this food won't be so cheap.0 -
Too nanny state for my liking. We have the right to choose what we eat and when we eat it. I don't care if other people want to eat junk. I exercise my choice NOT to eat junk. Plus, I don't think a tax is really going to help. People are still going to buy junk food. Why? Because it tastes good. Unless they're making a conscious effort to get healthy, the taste of potato chips and a Big Mac is going to win out over healthy food.0
-
Too nanny state for my liking. We have the right to choose what we eat and when we eat it. I don't care if other people want to eat junk. I exercise my choice NOT to eat junk. Plus, I don't think a tax is really going to help. People are still going to buy junk food. Why? Because it tastes good. Unless they're making a conscious effort to get healthy, the taste of potato chips and a Big Mac is going to win out over healthy food.
So in summary, a tax would infringe on your right to choose what you eat while simultaneously not stopping anyone from choosing what they eat? Wow, you win at logic.
I would only be in favor of this if it were very tightly written (impossible with the state of Congress) and any addition funds went direct back to states to fund physical education programs and health education in public schools. But nothing that concise would ever make it out of appropriations.0 -
I wish they would, actually. It would eliminate the temptation for me to get any.. and it'd help my godawful state's (California) budget crisis (that they're cutting 5% of my/other state employee's salary to try and "fix").. /bitter0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions