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
-
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.
How did the US reduce smoking? Education and higher taxes on tobacco in combination1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Rather than punitively taxing food items, I do believe that the U.S. federal government should bring to an end the subsidy for domestic sugar production. That will raise the price of sugar, yes.
I was going to say the same thing about HFCS in the U.S. Either tax products that contain HFCS or stop subsidizing it so heavily. Either way results in packaged food being on a more even costing structure with other foods. My biggest concern is that poor people often rely on cheap packaged / junk food to survive (the reason why obesity is an issue even with the poor here - affordable fresh food is not as accessible as affordable packaged and calorie dense food... but that is a different thread), so an increase in food assistance would be needed to make this work.
No, they're fat because they don't understand (or care) how math works. I dropped 15 pounds eating fast food at one point, out of sheer laziness.
I wasn't talking about fast food.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.
In the US if you're a taxpayer you are paying for public health services even if you have private insurance.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Rather than punitively taxing food items, I do believe that the U.S. federal government should bring to an end the subsidy for domestic sugar production. That will raise the price of sugar, yes.
I was going to say the same thing about HFCS in the U.S. Either tax products that contain HFCS or stop subsidizing it so heavily. Either way results in packaged food being on a more even costing structure with other foods. My biggest concern is that poor people often rely on cheap packaged / junk food to survive (the reason why obesity is an issue even with the poor here - affordable fresh food is not as accessible as affordable packaged and calorie dense food... but that is a different thread), so an increase in food assistance would be needed to make this work.
No, they're fat because they don't understand (or care) how math works. I dropped 15 pounds eating fast food at one point, out of sheer laziness.
I wasn't talking about fast food.
Then do explain exactly what you meant by "food desert", because even if the most middle of nowhere places, I've always been able to find either a fast food joint, or a legitimate grocery store.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Rather than punitively taxing food items, I do believe that the U.S. federal government should bring to an end the subsidy for domestic sugar production. That will raise the price of sugar, yes.
I was going to say the same thing about HFCS in the U.S. Either tax products that contain HFCS or stop subsidizing it so heavily. Either way results in packaged food being on a more even costing structure with other foods. My biggest concern is that poor people often rely on cheap packaged / junk food to survive (the reason why obesity is an issue even with the poor here - affordable fresh food is not as accessible as affordable packaged and calorie dense food... but that is a different thread), so an increase in food assistance would be needed to make this work.
No, they're fat because they don't understand (or care) how math works. I dropped 15 pounds eating fast food at one point, out of sheer laziness.
I wasn't talking about fast food.
Then do explain exactly what you meant by "food desert", because even if the most middle of nowhere places, I've always been able to find either a fast food joint, or a legitimate grocery store.
I didn't use the term "food desert" so I couldn't have meant anything with that term. What do you mean by that term?0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Rather than punitively taxing food items, I do believe that the U.S. federal government should bring to an end the subsidy for domestic sugar production. That will raise the price of sugar, yes.
I was going to say the same thing about HFCS in the U.S. Either tax products that contain HFCS or stop subsidizing it so heavily. Either way results in packaged food being on a more even costing structure with other foods. My biggest concern is that poor people often rely on cheap packaged / junk food to survive (the reason why obesity is an issue even with the poor here - affordable fresh food is not as accessible as affordable packaged and calorie dense food... but that is a different thread), so an increase in food assistance would be needed to make this work.
No, they're fat because they don't understand (or care) how math works. I dropped 15 pounds eating fast food at one point, out of sheer laziness.
I wasn't talking about fast food.
Then do explain exactly what you meant by "food desert", because even if the most middle of nowhere places, I've always been able to find either a fast food joint, or a legitimate grocery store.
I didn't use the term "food desert" so I couldn't have meant anything with that term. What do you mean by that term?
Sorry about that, read someone else as you. Too damned many threads at once. So, allow me to put forth that question again, without my idiocy in play. What were you referring to then?0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Rather than punitively taxing food items, I do believe that the U.S. federal government should bring to an end the subsidy for domestic sugar production. That will raise the price of sugar, yes.
I was going to say the same thing about HFCS in the U.S. Either tax products that contain HFCS or stop subsidizing it so heavily. Either way results in packaged food being on a more even costing structure with other foods. My biggest concern is that poor people often rely on cheap packaged / junk food to survive (the reason why obesity is an issue even with the poor here - affordable fresh food is not as accessible as affordable packaged and calorie dense food... but that is a different thread), so an increase in food assistance would be needed to make this work.
No, they're fat because they don't understand (or care) how math works. I dropped 15 pounds eating fast food at one point, out of sheer laziness.
I wasn't talking about fast food.
Then do explain exactly what you meant by "food desert", because even if the most middle of nowhere places, I've always been able to find either a fast food joint, or a legitimate grocery store.
I didn't use the term "food desert" so I couldn't have meant anything with that term. What do you mean by that term?
Sorry about that, read someone else as you. Too damned many threads at once. So, allow me to put forth that question again, without my idiocy in play. What were you referring to then?
I mentioned "HFCS" and "packaged food." There are a lot of packaged foods containing HFCS ranging from Oreos to "fruit" snacks.1 -
Nothing should be taxed. The government should get a job.12
-
mommarnurse wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Isn't candy already taxable? Could have sworn I payed tax on my candy bar the last time I purchased one....but not all candy is junk food either....what about Dark Chocolate? Sweetened drinks, why sweetened? Would that include sweet tea, lemonade, milk, chocolate milk? ----Can't find any redeeming quality about chips except they are yummy...lol
That's what I was thinking - "junk food" is already taxed.
No junk food is taxed like any other food like lettuce, apples, etc in most states. I'd assume the op is talking about something more than the regular sales tax.
Where I am (in Canada) food like lettuce, apples,etc are not taxed. Candy bars, chips etc. are.
US is the same. there are no taxes on food. However, certain things are taxed. (such as candy etc)
This actually depends on the state. We pay 2% on food where I am in the US.0 -
Where I am, there's no tax on groceries, but sales tax is applied to prepared foods, soft drinks, anything considered ready-to-eat, as a general rule.
I would consider it reasonable to tax anything with packaging, to help with disposal costs, not sure about taxing foods based on their nutritional benefits or lack of them, though. Would you then tax iceburg lettuce because it's not got many vitamins, or dates because they have so much sugar, or would all plants be OK? If all plants are OK, then all animal products too? Even the fattiest sausage or fried chitlins?
I think it would get too complicated.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Rather than punitively taxing food items, I do believe that the U.S. federal government should bring to an end the subsidy for domestic sugar production. That will raise the price of sugar, yes.
I was going to say the same thing about HFCS in the U.S. Either tax products that contain HFCS or stop subsidizing it so heavily. Either way results in packaged food being on a more even costing structure with other foods. My biggest concern is that poor people often rely on cheap packaged / junk food to survive (the reason why obesity is an issue even with the poor here - affordable fresh food is not as accessible as affordable packaged and calorie dense food... but that is a different thread), so an increase in food assistance would be needed to make this work.
No, they're fat because they don't understand (or care) how math works. I dropped 15 pounds eating fast food at one point, out of sheer laziness.
I wasn't talking about fast food.
Then do explain exactly what you meant by "food desert", because even if the most middle of nowhere places, I've always been able to find either a fast food joint, or a legitimate grocery store.
I didn't use the term "food desert" so I couldn't have meant anything with that term. What do you mean by that term?
Sorry about that, read someone else as you. Too damned many threads at once. So, allow me to put forth that question again, without my idiocy in play. What were you referring to then?
I mentioned "HFCS" and "packaged food." There are a lot of packaged foods containing HFCS ranging from Oreos to "fruit" snacks.
This is true, but I have yet to see anywhere that had these as the sole dietary option. In fact, I rarely even see them front and center anymore, like they were about 15-20 years ago. Hell, every town has a 7-11, and while it's not exactly a healthfood haven, it's not like they don't have options that don't consist of pure sugar.
Ultimately, the problem still lies with the consumer. It's no one's fault but your own, if you decide to eat a pack of Sweet Tarts, instead of buying a couple of wings (just to throw out something in a similar price range).0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Rather than punitively taxing food items, I do believe that the U.S. federal government should bring to an end the subsidy for domestic sugar production. That will raise the price of sugar, yes.
I was going to say the same thing about HFCS in the U.S. Either tax products that contain HFCS or stop subsidizing it so heavily. Either way results in packaged food being on a more even costing structure with other foods. My biggest concern is that poor people often rely on cheap packaged / junk food to survive (the reason why obesity is an issue even with the poor here - affordable fresh food is not as accessible as affordable packaged and calorie dense food... but that is a different thread), so an increase in food assistance would be needed to make this work.
No, they're fat because they don't understand (or care) how math works. I dropped 15 pounds eating fast food at one point, out of sheer laziness.
I wasn't talking about fast food.
Then do explain exactly what you meant by "food desert", because even if the most middle of nowhere places, I've always been able to find either a fast food joint, or a legitimate grocery store.
I didn't use the term "food desert" so I couldn't have meant anything with that term. What do you mean by that term?
Sorry about that, read someone else as you. Too damned many threads at once. So, allow me to put forth that question again, without my idiocy in play. What were you referring to then?
I mentioned "HFCS" and "packaged food." There are a lot of packaged foods containing HFCS ranging from Oreos to "fruit" snacks.
This is true, but I have yet to see anywhere that had these as the sole dietary option. In fact, I rarely even see them front and center anymore, like they were about 15-20 years ago. Hell, every town has a 7-11, and while it's not exactly a healthfood haven, it's not like they don't have options that don't consist of pure sugar.
Ultimately, the problem still lies with the consumer. It's no one's fault but your own, if you decide to eat a pack of Sweet Tarts, instead of buying a couple of wings (just to throw out something in a similar price range).
My point isn't that healthy food cannot be found, it is that packaged food is cheap because HFCS is subsidized. Poor people are likely to buy what is cheap.0 -
Maybe, but perhaps healthy food should be more affordable instead of junk food. It's cheaper to buy chips, soft drinks and sweet foods than it is to buy fresh fruit and vegetables.4
-
I would think about taxing regular soda and other foods that are calorie bombs without much nutritional value (that's how I define junk).
I want more education in schools about how calories count. I also want phys ed returned like it was when I was growing up. A class period of real physical activity every day. We ran around. Now it's ridiculous.
The excuse for not having the above is money.
Tobacco tax definitely reduced smoking. Obesity causes many if not more health issues than smoking.
I wonder if there are more obese people now than how many smokers there were before the taxes started.
I am leary of sin taxes because the government will say they will use the money towards education but there is always a loophole so that they can and do funnel the money elsewhere.0 -
Annamarie3404 wrote: »Maybe, but perhaps healthy food should be more affordable instead of junk food. It's cheaper to buy chips, soft drinks and sweet foods than it is to buy fresh fruit and vegetables.
What? That's ludicrous! Bananas in California are 89 cents a pound and a large bag of potato chips are $2.79.
6 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Annamarie3404 wrote: »Maybe, but perhaps healthy food should be more affordable instead of junk food. It's cheaper to buy chips, soft drinks and sweet foods than it is to buy fresh fruit and vegetables.
What? That's ludicrous! Bananas in California are 89 cents a pound and a large bag of potato chips are $2.79.
Ok. But you're in cali. Here, a honeybun is 50 cents, and a banana is about the same price. Chips here (offbrand) are $1.00 vs a bag of carrots that will cost over $3. It's that way almost everywhere.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »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.
In the US if you're a taxpayer you are paying for public health services even if you have private insurance.
That is a fact.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Annamarie3404 wrote: »Maybe, but perhaps healthy food should be more affordable instead of junk food. It's cheaper to buy chips, soft drinks and sweet foods than it is to buy fresh fruit and vegetables.
What? That's ludicrous! Bananas in California are 89 cents a pound and a large bag of potato chips are $2.79.
Come to Newfoundland. Prices are much higher here because it all has to come over via ferry. When the ferry is out of service (usually due to winter storm weather), the stores look like they were hit by looters. Fresh foods are pretty much cheaper where the food is. Don't even ask about Nunavut.3 -
I live just outside Philly and the city is implementing a soda tax...but it's not just on regular soda. It's on diet soda and fruit juices and teas. It's pretty much a tax on all non water beverages. It's a complete racket.
I don't think the government should be able to tell us what we can and can't eat and drink, which they do indirectly when they tax sugar or "junk food." I mean this is the same government for years that told us that "fat is bad and carbs are good." Now we find out that just isn't the case.
Personal Accountability. I'm not going to elect someone who thinks the masses are dumb enough that we don't know too many sugary drinks can be bad for us. We know that.
Welcome to America, the land of the over-governed. It's enough that if Trump wasn't the republican candidate, I might actually be tempted to vote republican for the first time.7 -
enterdanger wrote: »I live just outside Philly and the city is implementing a soda tax...but it's not just on regular soda. It's on diet soda and fruit juices and teas. It's pretty much a tax on all non water beverages. It's a complete racket.
I don't think the government should be able to tell us what we can and can't eat and drink, which they do indirectly when they tax sugar or "junk food." I mean this is the same government for years that told us that "fat is bad and carbs are good." Now we find out that just isn't the case.
Personal Accountability. I'm not going to elect someone who thinks the masses are dumb enough that we don't know too many sugary drinks can be bad for us. We know that.
Welcome to America, the land of the over-governed. It's enough that if Trump wasn't the republican candidate, I might actually be tempted to vote republican for the first time.
The fact that 2/3 of the population is overweight or obese would tend to indicate most don't know too many sugary drinks or too much of any food is bad for you4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 979 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions