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
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Crazyartgrrl wrote: »Taxes were not designed to manipulate behavior. Their purpose is to create revenue for government functions (roads, defense, etc) Creating an additional tax for "junk" food seems illegal or at least, contrary to the original "spirit" of taxes.
That is one of the purposes of taxes, yes. However, tax policy, fiscal policy, and monetary policy are all utilized to encourage state and local governments, NGO's, businesses, and even individuals to make decisions supported by the federal government. For example, the federal government does not have the authority to regulate intra-state commerce. By providing highway funds to states that adopt minimum regulations for CMV's, the federal government encourages states to make a certain decision.
I don't think it's a question of "do they?" More like "should they?"
This is something else that some would disagree about... I would say they should while I'm sure some would disagree.
But I don't think the question was either "do they?" or "should they?" It was "may they?" I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but my understanding is that they may.
ETA: Evidence that they may is that they do and haven't been forced by the supreme court to stop.
Oh, absolutely. The commerce clause has been interpreted to allow this very thing, many times over, even from back in the John Marshall days. It's taxation powers granted under Clause 1 also allow for the very thing we are discussing here, and if there were any question of that, one need only look at 2012's PPACA ruling for verification.
However, as I said, most of this is already handled at the state level. Throwing another Federal tax on top of it would just be cruel to those in the worst of circumstances. Again, I live in "the hood". I promise you, 2.5-5% would hurt these people far more than it could possibly help, given the notoriously inefficient budgeting of the federal government.3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »I knew this would be a hot topic when I saw the title. We're straying dangerously close to a political discussion in this thread.
I will never advocate for additional taxes. As a single, childless person who makes above average income, I already feel like I'm overtaxed, and the US government doesn't have a very good track record of wisely spending the money they take from my paychecks. That said, I'd be all for additional education about healthy food choices, calories, reading nutrition labels, etc., as I believe that would be much more effective at reducing our obesity problem. There's enough glut in the US government to fund that already - no need for more taxes.
As a single, childfree (i.e. childless plus) person who makes above average income, I am ok with some higher taxes and advocate for many tax changes that are beyond the scope of this thread. Nothing government does will be approved by everyone.
Which is why a debate like this will never really go anywhere. There's no way to prove one way or the other whether increasing taxes on certain food items will assist either with the obesity crisis or with healthcare costs. Education seems like it would be best choice, since the highest rates of obesity in the US are in groups with the lowest levels of education (and the lowest income levels as well).
It can be proven or dis-proven by trying it. Until it is attempted, you are right that there is no way to prove the effectiveness of the policy.
And in the meantime, millions of taxpayers shell out even more money that may or may not do what it's supposed to do, if the taxes are even applied where they were supposed to be. No thanks.
It doesn't need to be millions. Experimentally, it could be done in a smaller area as long as the possibility of going across the street and buying outside that area isn't a reasonable possibility that would skew the results. We already have different tax laws from city to city, county to county, and state to state. Put this in a single area and keep track of the results in a central location within that area.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Crazyartgrrl wrote: »Taxes were not designed to manipulate behavior. Their purpose is to create revenue for government functions (roads, defense, etc) Creating an additional tax for "junk" food seems illegal or at least, contrary to the original "spirit" of taxes.
That is one of the purposes of taxes, yes. However, tax policy, fiscal policy, and monetary policy are all utilized to encourage state and local governments, NGO's, businesses, and even individuals to make decisions supported by the federal government. For example, the federal government does not have the authority to regulate intra-state commerce. By providing highway funds to states that adopt minimum regulations for CMV's, the federal government encourages coerces states to make a certain decision.
FIFY - You know this exceeds the boundaries of the federalist model, no?2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Sugar should be taxed if you are on a universal health care system. Since the US isn't, then you're just taxing yourself later when you become diabetic or overweight and have complications.
If not then there should be penalties or restrictions for companies who are adding too much sugar into our food. Do we really need high fructose corn syrup in almost every loaf of bread?
You know sugar doesn't cause diabetes, right?
You know that sugar of some form is needed for the yeast to do its job on bread, right?
If not sugar then what foods do cause diabetes?
None of them.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Crazyartgrrl wrote: »Taxes were not designed to manipulate behavior. Their purpose is to create revenue for government functions (roads, defense, etc) Creating an additional tax for "junk" food seems illegal or at least, contrary to the original "spirit" of taxes.
That is one of the purposes of taxes, yes. However, tax policy, fiscal policy, and monetary policy are all utilized to encourage state and local governments, NGO's, businesses, and even individuals to make decisions supported by the federal government. For example, the federal government does not have the authority to regulate intra-state commerce. By providing highway funds to states that adopt minimum regulations for CMV's, the federal government encourages states to make a certain decision.
I don't think it's a question of "do they?" More like "should they?"
This is something else that some would disagree about... I would say they should while I'm sure some would disagree.
But I don't think the question was either "do they?" or "should they?" It was "may they?" I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but my understanding is that they may.
ETA: Evidence that they may is that they do and haven't been forced by the supreme court to stop.
the supreme court does not have an enforcement arm, which would be the most likely reason. The states are not going to challenge because they get bribed by the federal government in the form of welfare payments/reimbursements back to the states.1 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Crazyartgrrl wrote: »Taxes were not designed to manipulate behavior. Their purpose is to create revenue for government functions (roads, defense, etc) Creating an additional tax for "junk" food seems illegal or at least, contrary to the original "spirit" of taxes.
That is one of the purposes of taxes, yes. However, tax policy, fiscal policy, and monetary policy are all utilized to encourage state and local governments, NGO's, businesses, and even individuals to make decisions supported by the federal government. For example, the federal government does not have the authority to regulate intra-state commerce. By providing highway funds to states that adopt minimum regulations for CMV's, the federal government encourages coerces states to make a certain decision.
FIFY - You know this exceeds the boundaries of the federalist model, no?
we blew out the federalist model when Lincoln went to war with the south over state's rights..just saying...3 -
It already is.
ETA: Also from Canada. "Junk" (i.e. not fresh) is taxed. Fresh is not.
I can't remember if frozen fruit and vegetables are taxed. Frozen meat is not taxed.
Not sure about canned stuff. Hmm.
In the end if I want it I buy it so meh!1 -
-
Have not read the thread at all. Just jumping in. Am I to assume that the agreement is that beets should be taxed? Because... Blechhhh. Just assuming this is the way this went, no?4
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »I knew this would be a hot topic when I saw the title. We're straying dangerously close to a political discussion in this thread.
I will never advocate for additional taxes. As a single, childless person who makes above average income, I already feel like I'm overtaxed, and the US government doesn't have a very good track record of wisely spending the money they take from my paychecks. That said, I'd be all for additional education about healthy food choices, calories, reading nutrition labels, etc., as I believe that would be much more effective at reducing our obesity problem. There's enough glut in the US government to fund that already - no need for more taxes.
As a single, childfree (i.e. childless plus) person who makes above average income, I am ok with some higher taxes and advocate for many tax changes that are beyond the scope of this thread. Nothing government does will be approved by everyone.
Which is why a debate like this will never really go anywhere. There's no way to prove one way or the other whether increasing taxes on certain food items will assist either with the obesity crisis or with healthcare costs. Education seems like it would be best choice, since the highest rates of obesity in the US are in groups with the lowest levels of education (and the lowest income levels as well).
It can be proven or dis-proven by trying it. Until it is attempted, you are right that there is no way to prove the effectiveness of the policy.
And in the meantime, millions of taxpayers shell out even more money that may or may not do what it's supposed to do, if the taxes are even applied where they were supposed to be. No thanks.
It doesn't need to be millions. Experimentally, it could be done in a smaller area as long as the possibility of going across the street and buying outside that area isn't a reasonable possibility that would skew the results. We already have different tax laws from city to city, county to county, and state to state. Put this in a single area and keep track of the results in a central location within that area.
There are already a couple cities that impose special taxes on soda and even more have plans to implement them if passed by voters. Since sugar-laden drinks have long been touted as one of the contributing factors to the rise of obesity, we should maybe first assess what those taxes have done before we try the same thing over again with the next demonized food group.4 -
-
queenliz99 wrote: »
Blasphemy.2 -
No, but I think more of our tax money should be spent on educating kids, and people in general on nutrition. I don't think many people are taught extensively how food/nutrition works. If the parents don't understand, how can they teach their children?3
-
3dogsrunning wrote: »Rob_Drewry wrote: »Excessive sugar consumption causes a boat load of health issues. I'd be in favor of taxing "junk food" if a), it could be positively identified/quantified, b) the tax could be placed in a trust that could only be used to help mitigate the health cost of obesity, and c) could not be used by the government for any other purpose.
Since c is impossible, I'm against it. How about we bring back physical education in our schools?
Do you not have physical education in the schools where you are? There are more options for phys ed now then when I was in high school.
Also, the problem extends beyond children.
I am still in the don't tax it camp though.
We have health classes and phys ed in America, but it isn't seen as an important class. It's one of those 'bird' courses that don't delve very deep into importance. You go to health class, get out, go to the cafeteria and they're serving pizza and fries for lunch. America is a bit F**ked in this department.2 -
That would be a regressive tax. Poorer people would be impacted. People with more money would just go ahead and eat what they wanted anyway.
If the government (actually busybodies who want to control the behavior of others so lobby for their views to be legislated) is that concerned, they should subsidize more nutritious food to make it cheaper rather than making "junk" food more expensive. Positive reinforcement for behavior change rather than negative reinforcement. However, subsidies don't fill government coffers.
Shoot, they could go the whole nine yards and have government cafeterias everywhere with free (or nearly free) nutritious meals available 24/7. That would give everyone the opportunity to choose a healthy meal that better meets the government's idea of how people should eat.
Can I "awesome" this post twice?1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »I do agree that raising taxes on junk food might lead to less obesity... quite a possibility.
However, there are better alternatives for aiding in fighting the obesity epidemic. For example, why not further people's resources to gain knowledge of the "obesity epidemic", so that they then have the right knowledge to decide for themselves how much junk food they will eat.
More important it should start in school cafeterias to mandate them to only offer healthy foods, this will make a new generation in the near future, they will already be 'programmed' to eat healthy.
Wouldn't a tax on junk food be a good way to fund education programs as well as healthier meals in schools as well as healthcare for obesity related issues.
My guess would be that even if intentions were good, none or very little of that tax revenue would actually go to those things.
Beyond that, they could paint "junk" with a very broad brush. They would use pretty arbitrary guidelines I would guess...like would an avocado be considered junk?...it's extremely high in fat. Would things like deli meats and hot dogs be considered "junk" because sodium?
It would just be opening Pandora's box and like I said...very little of that revenue would actually go to the things you would think they could/would go to.5 -
Thinking though.
Perhaps a "taxed unless the manufacturer can prove it meets specific health standards" could make sense. It might make it so that manufacturers strive to make their products a bit more "healthy". They would have incentives in that more people might buy the product.
That being said... I can see that system failing in other aspects already. Like low fat items - chalk full of fillers (or so I hear), but marketed as healthier than full fat alternatives. Or organic.. still full of pesticides, just not the ones on the "no-no" list... (or so I've heard).2 -
Thinking though.
Perhaps a "taxed unless the manufacturer can prove it meets specific health standards" could make sense. It might make it so that manufacturers strive to make their products a bit more "healthy". They would have incentives in that more people might buy the product.
That being said... I can see that system failing in other aspects already. Like low fat items - chalk full of fillers (or so I hear), but marketed as healthier than full fat alternatives. Or organic.. still full of pesticides, just not the ones on the "no-no" list... (or so I've heard).
Therein lies the problem. Nutrition as a whole, unlike things such as tobacco and alcohol is pretty damned subjective. Jesus, just take three hours and read these boards, and you'd be amazed at what is "junk food" and "health food", and don't even get me started on Whole Foods.4 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »I knew this would be a hot topic when I saw the title. We're straying dangerously close to a political discussion in this thread.
I will never advocate for additional taxes. As a single, childless person who makes above average income, I already feel like I'm overtaxed, and the US government doesn't have a very good track record of wisely spending the money they take from my paychecks. That said, I'd be all for additional education about healthy food choices, calories, reading nutrition labels, etc., as I believe that would be much more effective at reducing our obesity problem. There's enough glut in the US government to fund that already - no need for more taxes.
As a single, childfree (i.e. childless plus) person who makes above average income, I am ok with some higher taxes and advocate for many tax changes that are beyond the scope of this thread. Nothing government does will be approved by everyone.
Which is why a debate like this will never really go anywhere. There's no way to prove one way or the other whether increasing taxes on certain food items will assist either with the obesity crisis or with healthcare costs. Education seems like it would be best choice, since the highest rates of obesity in the US are in groups with the lowest levels of education (and the lowest income levels as well).
It can be proven or dis-proven by trying it. Until it is attempted, you are right that there is no way to prove the effectiveness of the policy.
And in the meantime, millions of taxpayers shell out even more money that may or may not do what it's supposed to do, if the taxes are even applied where they were supposed to be. No thanks.
It doesn't need to be millions. Experimentally, it could be done in a smaller area as long as the possibility of going across the street and buying outside that area isn't a reasonable possibility that would skew the results. We already have different tax laws from city to city, county to county, and state to state. Put this in a single area and keep track of the results in a central location within that area.
There are already a couple cities that impose special taxes on soda and even more have plans to implement them if passed by voters. Since sugar-laden drinks have long been touted as one of the contributing factors to the rise of obesity, we should maybe first assess what those taxes have done before we try the same thing over again with the next demonized food group.
I'm not sure a single city would be large enough geographically. It would be too easy to leave a city and go to the next city.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions