Sugar is the new "Devil"
Options
Replies
-
Joining the "Weepy, left wing commie 'murica-hating sissy government sheep " in the pro "sin" taxes corner.
Where I'm from (not 'merica) the taxes are pretty darn high, on most thing actually, but the benefits are substantial. We have FREE health care and free education for everyone so there is nothing stopping anyone from getting the help they need or the education they desire. Just sayin
It ain't "Free", you are paying for it in many ways....and not just taxes.
and here in "merica", no one is turned down for health care.
Hospitals cannot turn a person away it is against the law, so they are forced to treat people.
Regardless if the person can or cannot pay0 -
Sugar consumption =/= obesity. I know plenty of obese people who don't ever eat sweets. Know why? Because what you eat doesn't make you fat, it's how much of it you eat. I eat "indulgences" like you mentioned all the time, and I'm sitting at 108 pounds. Doesn't look like it's killing me.
Plus, taxing snacks more than other foods is silly anyway. I'd get fat again if I ate a 12 oz. steak every night. Where's the "sin" tax on that?0 -
Sugar consumption =/= obesity. I know plenty of obese people who don't ever eat sweets. Know why? Because what you eat doesn't make you fat, it's how much of it you eat. I eat "indulgences" like you mentioned all the time, and I'm sitting at 108 pounds. Doesn't look like it's killing me.
Plus, taxing snacks more than other foods is silly anyway. I'd get fat again if I ate a 12 oz. steak every night. Where's the "sin" tax on that?
^So much this.
How would you decide which foods to tax? There are so many competing theories - who is going to be the one to say that red meat is ok, but chocolate is not? Or butter is ok, but margarine is not? It's a slippery slope.
I also have a hard time taking health advice from someone who smokes and still thinks she is healthier than most other women. Like, wut? I used to smoke, was never obese, but after I quit I realized how much those cigarettes were impacting every aspect of my health. You don't really realize until you are out of it.0 -
They don't need to tax it, they need to transfer all subsidies over to fruit and vegetables. That will fix a whole lot of issues for a whole lot of people.0
-
If they're going to have a sin tax on processed sugar stuff, that tax should be used to subsidize the cost of fruits, vegetables, and other healthy options that are currently expensive. This in turn would benefit the farmers.0
-
Sugar consumption =/= obesity. I know plenty of obese people who don't ever eat sweets. Know why? Because what you eat doesn't make you fat, it's how much of it you eat. I eat "indulgences" like you mentioned all the time, and I'm sitting at 108 pounds. Doesn't look like it's killing me.
Plus, taxing snacks more than other foods is silly anyway. I'd get fat again if I ate a 12 oz. steak every night. Where's the "sin" tax on that?
^So much this.
How would you decide which foods to tax? There are so many competing theories - who is going to be the one to say that red meat is ok, but chocolate is not? Or butter is ok, but margarine is not? It's a slippery slope.
I also have a hard time taking health advice from someone who smokes and still thinks she is healthier than most other women. Like, wut? I used to smoke, was never obese, but after I quit I realized how much those cigarettes were impacting every aspect of my health. You don't really realize until you are out of it.
How many times do I have to say that I am NOT offering health advice or advocating that smoking is okay! It's just a light-hearted article I am working on in light of sin tax. Seriously!
Do some research yourself and you will see that the obesity problem far outweighs (excuse the pun) the smoking problem. I AM healthier than an inactive obese person - NOT MOST OTHER WOMEN - like you decided to interpret.0 -
If they're going to have a sin tax on processed sugar stuff, that tax should be used to subsidize the cost of fruits, vegetables, and other healthy options that are currently expensive. This in turn would benefit the farmers.
If they put a sin tax on processed sugary food, I'd quit eating. I joke, I joke. (And you say "other healthy options" like all processed food is unhealthy. What.)0 -
Joining the "Weepy, left wing commie 'murica-hating sissy government sheep " in the pro "sin" taxes corner.
Where I'm from (not 'merica) the taxes are pretty darn high, on most thing actually, but the benefits are substantial. We have FREE health care and free education for everyone so there is nothing stopping anyone from getting the help they need or the education they desire. Just sayin
It ain't "Free", you are paying for it in many ways....and not just taxes.
and here in "merica", no one is turned down for health care.
Hospitals cannot turn a person away it is against the law, so they are forced to treat people.
Regardless if the person can or cannot pay
What you are referring to only applies to emergency situations or women in labor. Many people cannot afford the maintenance treatments they need for chronic diseases or other diseases like certain kinds of cancer. Those aren't considered emergencies - until the person is about to keel over for it. And even then, they are given the basic treatment that will prevent death - not necessarily the maintenance treatment they need. And they are still billed for it.
I was talking to my Mom's oncologist, who we trust and have a good relationship with. He says that the unregulated pharmaceutical companies and biotech manufacturers are driving up the costs of healthcare. By comparison the doctors are cheap. My Mom's ONE medication of the ten she takes costs $100,000+ a year. We are lucky that insurance covers it. Others are not so fortunate.
One of the most disturbing trends I've seen (not saying you feel this way, just what I've seen in the media) is the blatant disregard for the lives of people who can't afford basic healthcare. Can't afford it? Too bad, you're poor so you don't really deserve to live anyway. And if you get the treatment you need? Be prepared to be hurdled into even more debt if you don't have insurance.
What's happened to us?!
I'm not an economist, so I can't tell you if sin taxes or socialized medicine are the right answer. I know that SOMETHING needs to change - both on the healthcare end and on the personal responsibility side of things People need to start taking personal responsibility for their health (read: obesity) but the healthcare system needs some sort of change too.
Edit: Coherence.0 -
It's amazing how often people want the government to step in and control things. As if we are children. Yea we make dumb decisions but that's life.
Yes, I'm standing on the right. Free food, free money for staying home, free rent, free health care.........= motivation. While people like me have to work 2 jobs to live barely comfortable. It's f'ing pathetic all the lazy people we have roaming around crying and moaning about everything when they do nothing to make themselves better. But don't worry......government to the rescue.
Can you elaborate on poor people being lazy?0 -
Sugar consumption =/= obesity. I know plenty of obese people who don't ever eat sweets. Know why? Because what you eat doesn't make you fat, it's how much of it you eat. I eat "indulgences" like you mentioned all the time, and I'm sitting at 108 pounds. Doesn't look like it's killing me.
Plus, taxing snacks more than other foods is silly anyway. I'd get fat again if I ate a 12 oz. steak every night. Where's the "sin" tax on that?
That was gonna be my next point.
Everyone is here for some reason, but a lot of them are too lose weight and being on here a while you realize that you didn't get fat cause you ate sugar/carbs, you got fat cause you ate to much.....period.
SO now that you watch what you eat, and still eat some of the stuff you did before, but in moderation....you have lost or are losing weight.....
So the problem is not sugar/carbs/processed foods....it is over consumption.
So you KNOW THIS and then turn around and defy what you know to be true, by saying "Oh lets have a sin tax on sugar and processed food" <
INSANITY
IT ISN"T SUGAR OR CARBS OR PROCESSED FOODS
It is people not controlling what they put in their mouths.
So fine, let's say you get your wish....a tax is put in place....then what??
Obesity doesn't go down...people just eat more fried foods or more nuts or more fruit or more avocados.....calories stay high, ppl stay fat....
But now your sin tax has drove down demand....so those companies no longer need to produce the amt of product they were....so then people start losing their jobs....no need for them.
What food or evil thing do we tax next???
ANd regards to the Fair Tax....
Fair tax is all good and well.....but it will not fix the problem.
The problem is a government out of control and taking on more roles and services it should not be.
Before moving to a new tax code, the problem has to be fixed first......just going to a new way in which they extract money out of us will not fix the problem
Case in point how many stories do you see now, where they wanted people to curb gas use, so they gave incentives to buy hybrid vehicles....gas prices have went up.
So more people have started buying hybrid cars....gas consumption went down.....great right???
Well now the government is coming back and saying well the revenues we were collecting off of gas has went down, so we need more money to fund hwy projects.....
So now we will tax people based on what they drive....not how much gas they consume.
Or a couple years back in one state, they were going through a drought....so the government encouraged people to conserve water..
So the ppl complied.....
Well revenues went down, so they raised taxes on the services for supplying water....so they could make up the short fall....
So again, go to any tax code you want.....
The problem is not the tax code....it is out of control government wanting to grow and get bigger0 -
Joining the "Weepy, left wing commie 'murica-hating sissy government sheep " in the pro "sin" taxes corner.
Where I'm from (not 'merica) the taxes are pretty darn high, on most thing actually, but the benefits are substantial. We have FREE health care and free education for everyone so there is nothing stopping anyone from getting the help they need or the education they desire. Just sayin
News Flash: NOTHING is free. Your healthcare isn't really free because you're actually paying for it in the form of higher taxes.
To the original post: I am against a "sin" tax. The government needs to stop trying to control every aspect of our lives because that's exactly what this is about: control. Next they're going to put a "sin" tax on anything that they deem to be unhealthy. Next they'll be telling us what we can and can not eat.Sugary drinks are not a necessity, similar to alcohol and tobacco. They are luxury items. Candy is also a luxury item. I could see a day where more things are taxed as such. It's not going to stop anyone because it's pennies on the dollar. It's a non-issue.
And as far as this comment goes: Who determines what is a luxury for someone and what isn't? Why should anyone have the authority to tell me what is a luxury and what isn't? My cleaning lady could be considered a luxury but to me she's not because I hate cleaning. Our landscaper could be considered a luxury but for my husband it's not because he doesn't have the time to do all there is to do around the yard. My laptop could be considered a luxury but it's not because without it I can't work.
You see my point?0 -
It's amazing how often people want the government to step in and control things. As if we are children. Yea we make dumb decisions but that's life.
Yes, I'm standing on the right. Free food, free money for staying home, free rent, free health care.........= motivation. While people like me have to work 2 jobs to live barely comfortable. It's f'ing pathetic all the lazy people we have roaming around crying and moaning about everything when they do nothing to make themselves better. But don't worry......government to the rescue.
Do you eat meat? If so, unless you're rich or ready to give it up, you aren't standing as far to the right as you think you are. Meat is only cheap because it's heavily subsidized.0 -
Sugar consumption =/= obesity. I know plenty of obese people who don't ever eat sweets. Know why? Because what you eat doesn't make you fat, it's how much of it you eat. I eat "indulgences" like you mentioned all the time, and I'm sitting at 108 pounds. Doesn't look like it's killing me.
Plus, taxing snacks more than other foods is silly anyway. I'd get fat again if I ate a 12 oz. steak every night. Where's the "sin" tax on that?
^So much this.
How would you decide which foods to tax? There are so many competing theories - who is going to be the one to say that red meat is ok, but chocolate is not? Or butter is ok, but margarine is not? It's a slippery slope.
I also have a hard time taking health advice from someone who smokes and still thinks she is healthier than most other women. Like, wut? I used to smoke, was never obese, but after I quit I realized how much those cigarettes were impacting every aspect of my health. You don't really realize until you are out of it.
How many times do I have to say that I am NOT offering health advice or advocating that smoking is okay! It's just a light-hearted article I am working on in light of sin tax. Seriously!
Do some research yourself and you will see that the obesity problem far outweighs (excuse the pun) the smoking problem. I AM healthier than an inactive obese person - NOT MOST OTHER WOMEN - like you decided to interpret.
Ok then. Please address the first part of my question. Who is going to be the authority on which foods are sinful?
ETA: Actually, the cigarette tax is pretty irrelevant because it's apple to oranges. People don't need cigarettes to survive, but they do need food.0 -
I am left leaning and I agree with that way of looking at taxes.Yes...increased prices can curb demand.....
But let market forces dictate that, not government putting its thumb on the scales.
Again, TAX CODES should not be used to punish people or to tilt the scales in ones favor and against anothers.....
Always confounds me how left leaning people get all bent out of shape when those on the right want to "legislate morality"....
But then turn around and do the same thing, by wanting to legislate peoples habits or behaviors when it is something they don't agree with.
Let the market decide.
Let people pay higher costs for the bad choices they make....
I do it when I decide I want to spend my money on cable TV, or internet, or cell phone....
Or if I prefer to have bison steak vs chicken breast one night.....
I weigh the cost and then make a decision on if I wish to spend my money there or not.....
I don't need the government coming in and tell me(force me) where to spend my money.
I am not fat
I am able to control my eating
So when I want to have one of these "sin" foods, I don't want to be taxed for it.0 -
Joining the "Weepy, left wing commie 'murica-hating sissy government sheep " in the pro "sin" taxes corner.
Where I'm from (not 'merica) the taxes are pretty darn high, on most thing actually, but the benefits are substantial. We have FREE health care and free education for everyone so there is nothing stopping anyone from getting the help they need or the education they desire. Just sayin
It ain't "Free", you are paying for it in many ways....and not just taxes.
and here in "merica", no one is turned down for health care.
Hospitals cannot turn a person away it is against the law, so they are forced to treat people.
Regardless if the person can or cannot pay
What you are referring to only applies to emergency situations or women in labor. Many people cannot afford the maintenance treatments they need for chronic diseases or other diseases like certain kinds of cancer. Those aren't considered emergencies - until the person is about to keel over for it. And even then, they are given the basic treatment that will prevent death - not necessarily the maintenance treatment they need. And they are still billed for it.
I was talking to my Mom's oncologist, who we trust and have a good relationship with. He says that the unregulated pharmaceutical companies and biotech manufacturers are driving up the costs of healthcare. By comparison the doctors are cheap. My Mom's ONE medication of the ten she takes costs $100,000+ a year. We are lucky that insurance covers it. Others are not so fortunate.
One of the most disturbing trends I've seen (not saying you feel this way, just what I've seen in the media) is the blatant disregard for the lives of people who can't afford basic healthcare. Can't afford it? Too bad, you're poor so you don't really deserve to live anyway. And if you get the treatment you need? Be prepared to be hurdled into even more debt if you don't have insurance.
What's happened to us?!
I'm not an economist, so I can't tell you if sin taxes or socialized medicine are the right answer. I know that SOMETHING needs to change - both on the healthcare end and on the personal responsibility side of things People need to start taking personal responsibility for their health (read: obesity) but the healthcare system needs some sort of change too.
Edit: Coherence.
How much of that is due to government regulation??
Go back and start looking at things from the 1940's moving forward and as the government's role in healthcare grew, the cost of said services have went up, not down
And regarding pharmaceutical companies driving up costs...
Again, how much is regulation
How much do these companies spend on R&D on medicines that the FDA turns down, so they can't make back their money??
Have you looked into that?
Or then they get sued,
So while I see what you are saying, and there may be some validity to it....
I still think a lot of the rise in cost is due to government intervention, people's poor choices
Just my opinion.
For those who feel, life is a tragedy
For those who think, life is a comedy0 -
What does eating meat have to do with political beliefs?It's amazing how often people want the government to step in and control things. As if we are children. Yea we make dumb decisions but that's life.
Yes, I'm standing on the right. Free food, free money for staying home, free rent, free health care.........= motivation. While people like me have to work 2 jobs to live barely comfortable. It's f'ing pathetic all the lazy people we have roaming around crying and moaning about everything when they do nothing to make themselves better. But don't worry......government to the rescue.
Do you eat meat? If so, unless you're rich or ready to give it up, you aren't standing as far to the right as you think you are. Meat is only cheap because it's heavily subsidized.
Because of government intervention meat is affordable for most Americans. Those standing to the right abhor government intervention in our lives. Therefore, either these people don't realize why they can afford meat or are not really standing to the right, at least not when it comes to results they want from that government intervention.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K 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
- 394 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 943 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions