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
-
3dogsrunning wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »For those that don't think this stuff should be taxed, ho do you propose paying the medical costs ot the 30% of the population thst will have diabetes by 2050 or before?
Remember this stuff.is a prime contributor to the situation.
So is lack of exercise. Are we going to start taxing people for that too?
Yes! Tax them all!
While we're at it, mandatory DNA testing and taxation if you have the addiction gene.
Yes. I know.
9 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »For those that don't think this stuff should be taxed, ho do you propose paying the medical costs ot the 30% of the population thst will have diabetes by 2050 or before?
Remember this stuff.is a prime contributor to the situation.
So is lack of exercise. Are we going to start taxing people for that too?
That would be fine by me. Lot harder to determine what is adequate exercise as opposed to agreeing pop, candy, ding dongs, chips, etc are junk food.
You forgot to answer my question. How do we as a society pay for the 30% of the population with diabetes by a 2050 if we continue on our current path?1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »For those that don't think this stuff should be taxed, ho do you propose paying the medical costs ot the 30% of the population thst will have diabetes by 2050 or before?
Remember this stuff.is a prime contributor to the situation.
So is lack of exercise. Are we going to start taxing people for that too?
That would be fine by me. Lot harder to determine what is adequate exercise as opposed to agreeing pop, candy, ding dongs, chips, etc are junk food.
You forgot to answer my question. How do we as a society pay for the 30% of the population with diabetes by a 2050 if we continue on our current path?
Since "we" are in different countries with totally different health care systems I don't really see how I can answer that.
And is that even a fact?
ETA - I can also eat tons of food that can put me at risk for diabetes without having to buy pop, candy, ding dongs, chips, etc.6 -
Packerjohn wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »For those that don't think this stuff should be taxed, ho do you propose paying the medical costs ot the 30% of the population thst will have diabetes by 2050 or before?
Remember this stuff.is a prime contributor to the situation.
So is lack of exercise. Are we going to start taxing people for that too?
That would be fine by me. Lot harder to determine what is adequate exercise as opposed to agreeing pop, candy, ding dongs, chips, etc are junk food.
You forgot to answer my question. How do we as a society pay for the 30% of the population with diabetes by a 2050 if we continue on our current path?
How would this pay for it? This would penalize poorer people for their food choices or price them out of even buying some things. No one else would be impacted because they could go ahead and buy whatever they wanted. The revenue would likely not even make a dent in medical costs even if it were earmarked for that.
It's legislating morality. It's trying to change the behavior of other people. People who push for things like this already don't do the things they are trying to punish.
If you want to do something that would have a real impact, require restaurants to limit entrees to less than 400 calories and 1000 mg of sodium.8 -
<sarcasm>Yes, because it's absolutely the government's business what I consume. All hail our benevolent leaders! </sarcasm>18
-
Packerjohn wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »For those that don't think this stuff should be taxed, ho do you propose paying the medical costs ot the 30% of the population thst will have diabetes by 2050 or before?
Remember this stuff.is a prime contributor to the situation.
So is lack of exercise. Are we going to start taxing people for that too?
That would be fine by me. Lot harder to determine what is adequate exercise as opposed to agreeing pop, candy, ding dongs, chips, etc are junk food.
You forgot to answer my question. How do we as a society pay for the 30% of the population with diabetes by a 2050 if we continue on our current path?
How would this pay for it? This would penalize poorer people for their food choices or price them out of even buying some things. No one else would be impacted because they could go ahead and buy whatever they wanted. The revenue would likely not even make a dent in medical costs even if it were earmarked for that.
It's legislating morality. It's trying to change the behavior of other people. People who push for things like this already don't do the things they are trying to punish.
If you want to do something that would have a real impact, require restaurants to limit entrees to less than 400 calories and 1000 mg of sodium.
Are you going to limit sales to one entee a person?
If you price people out of buying a 64 ounce Coke at a convenience store how is that a bad thing?
0 -
Why?0
-
3dogsrunning wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »For those that don't think this stuff should be taxed, ho do you propose paying the medical costs ot the 30% of the population thst will have diabetes by 2050 or before?
Remember this stuff.is a prime contributor to the situation.
So is lack of exercise. Are we going to start taxing people for that too?
That would be fine by me. Lot harder to determine what is adequate exercise as opposed to agreeing pop, candy, ding dongs, chips, etc are junk food.
You forgot to answer my question. How do we as a society pay for the 30% of the population with diabetes by a 2050 if we continue on our current path?
Since "we" are in different countries with totally different health care systems I don't really see how I can answer that.
And is that even a fact?
ETA - I can also eat tons of food that can put me at risk for diabetes without having to buy pop, candy, ding dongs, chips, etc.
Have no idea where you live but in the US, yes 30% with diabetes is the projection by the Center for Disease Control:
https://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2010/r101022.html0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »For those that don't think this stuff should be taxed, ho do you propose paying the medical costs ot the 30% of the population thst will have diabetes by 2050 or before?
Remember this stuff.is a prime contributor to the situation.
So is lack of exercise. Are we going to start taxing people for that too?
That would be fine by me. Lot harder to determine what is adequate exercise as opposed to agreeing pop, candy, ding dongs, chips, etc are junk food.
You forgot to answer my question. How do we as a society pay for the 30% of the population with diabetes by a 2050 if we continue on our current path?
How would this pay for it? This would penalize poorer people for their food choices or price them out of even buying some things. No one else would be impacted because they could go ahead and buy whatever they wanted. The revenue would likely not even make a dent in medical costs even if it were earmarked for that.
It's legislating morality. It's trying to change the behavior of other people. People who push for things like this already don't do the things they are trying to punish.
If you want to do something that would have a real impact, require restaurants to limit entrees to less than 400 calories and 1000 mg of sodium.
Are you going to limit sales to one entee a person?
If you price people out of buying a 64 ounce Coke at a convenience store how is that a bad thing?
Nope. If someone wants more than one, go for it. However, it would lead to an overall calorie intake reduction for many people because they would just buy the one entree (like they do now) and get a natural calorie intake reduction without putting any effort into it. If restaurants wanted to out-portion-size each other, they'd be forced to add more veggies.
So many restaurant dishes are calorie bombs and few realize just how many calories they have.
As for the 64 fl oz Coke, how do you know that they aren't sharing? What if that's their weekly treat? Why can't the onus be on the store to only stock up to (say) 32 fl oz cups if you want to have that limit and then let people buy as many of those as they wish?
Having artificially inflated prices on large sizes will only price poor people out of buying those things. It's like saying that your vice is fine as long as you pay the protection money to access it. The way it stands right now, it's usually cheapest on a per fl oz basis to buy the largest size you can get. It would be a good thing, IMO, if the smallest option had a discount to encourage the purchase of that.
Make it easier and more convenient to eat in a healthier way than in an unhealthy way and people will do it. Don't penalize them in the hope that they will conform.1 -
What are your thoughts?
For what purpose?
Who decides what is junk food?
My thought is no taxing food with a vague label is a poor idea. I do not feel it will make people healthier or make different choices. I think coffee, alcohol, foods with artificial sweeteners and rice cakes are junk. Should my opinion mean people have to pay more for something they want? I don't think so.
I don't think you can punish people into health. I don't trust the government to have fair and good guidelines on this matter.
How about making more nutritious foods available everywhere and working to lower food costs instead of raising them?
9 -
Social engineering through taxation never leads to anything good. Eventually, you'll get black markets and everything that comes with those. Untaxed cigs already have a black market and crime associated with them. Now ask yourself, what would you do for a klondike bar?
12 -
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »
30 years ago, it was fat that was the bad thing to eat and there are still many organizations that feel that way. What would it do to your current food budget if anything with fat was taxed at 500%? Would that be fair?11 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »
30 years ago, it was fat that was the bad thing to eat and there are still many organizations that feel that way. What would it do to your current food budget if fat was taxed at 500%? Would that be fair?
I would protest to high heaven.1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
30 years ago, it was fat that was the bad thing to eat and there are still many organizations that feel that way. What would it do to your current food budget if fat was taxed at 500%? Would that be fair?
I would protest to high heaven.
I don't doubt it. Why is it OK to do to other people for the way they eat but not to you for the way you eat?14 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
30 years ago, it was fat that was the bad thing to eat and there are still many organizations that feel that way. What would it do to your current food budget if fat was taxed at 500%? Would that be fair?
I would protest to high heaven.
I don't doubt it. Why is it OK to do to other people for the way they eat but not to you for the way you eat?
I do not care how anyone eats as long as it is the way they want to eat. It is more about getting a free ride tax wise.
Actually I do not understand why people put up with sin taxes unless they are on public health services so they do not pay for medical services.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
30 years ago, it was fat that was the bad thing to eat and there are still many organizations that feel that way. What would it do to your current food budget if fat was taxed at 500%? Would that be fair?
I would protest to high heaven.
I don't doubt it. Why is it OK to do to other people for the way they eat but not to you for the way you eat?
I do not care how anyone eats as long as it is the way they want to eat. It is more about getting a free ride tax wise.
Actually I do not understand why people put up with sin taxes unless they are on public health services so they do not pay for medical services.
The people who want sin taxes are the people who don't sin that way. Prohibitionists weren't drinkers; they wanted drinkers to stop drinking. Sin taxes are about trying to force a behavior modification onto other people and hopefully making some extra money on the side while they are doing it.
Going after other people's sins is taking a big chance since the next sin that people go after may be your own.
Everyone pays for health services, either in socialized medicine or taxes for things like Medicare and Medicaid in the US. If we want a healthier population, it needs to be done through encouragement and making healthy living more convenient and cheaper, not through financial punishment for certain choices.27 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
30 years ago, it was fat that was the bad thing to eat and there are still many organizations that feel that way. What would it do to your current food budget if fat was taxed at 500%? Would that be fair?
I would protest to high heaven.
I don't doubt it. Why is it OK to do to other people for the way they eat but not to you for the way you eat?
I do not care how anyone eats as long as it is the way they want to eat. It is more about getting a free ride tax wise.
Actually I do not understand why people put up with sin taxes unless they are on public health services so they do not pay for medical services.
The people who want sin taxes are the people who don't sin that way. Prohibitionists weren't drinkers; they wanted drinkers to stop drinking. Sin taxes are about trying to force a behavior modification onto other people and hopefully making some extra money on the side while they are doing it.
Going after other people's sins is taking a big chance since the next sin that people go after may be your own.
Everyone pays for health services, either in socialized medicine or taxes for things like Medicare and Medicaid in the US. If we want a healthier population, it needs to be done through encouragement and making healthy living more convenient and cheaper, not through financial punishment for certain choices.
So true. The expression "to live and let live" seems to be no longer valid. The county seat of my county will be voting in a few hours to permit or not permit the sell of alcohol in stores. Last year it was county wide and lost so this year it is city only because it carried in the city last time. As you can guess I do not drink carbs but I have no burning desire to prevent Wal-Mart from selling beer to those who want to buy it. I live in the county and have no vote in the city.
I agree financial punishment for legal activities is likely to be counter productive. They forget the expression, "What comes around goes around."
Processed food is not going away as long as it is profitable to the makers and sellers. MFP is doing a great job of encouraging healthier living.
0 -
Absolutely! Maybe if people who litter our beautiful world with junk will stop if they have to pay taxes for it.
Seriously, when it comes to food there is no junk. Just food.5 -
It would be nice if there was no junk food perhaps but it could lead to major protests I expect. I can see how junk food adds to the litter since it comes in packages that get tossed. A tossed apple will decompose or be eaten by critters.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 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
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions