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: »bennettinfinity wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »Well, since junk food doesn't make people fat, too much food does, I don't see why it would help.
Trust me, too much of anything will make one gain weight.
Nailed it!!
I mean, I can go to Chipolte and down a 1,200 calorie burrito stuffed with "healthy food" for lunch, plus a 500 calorie breakfast of eggs and veggies, then a 500 calorie dinner of grilled chicken and veggies EVERY DAY of my life. That's 2,200 calories a day. 300 calories over what my body needs. All of that extra food made me fat, but all of it is considered healthy. There wasn't one chip, cookie, candy, etc in that whole day. But guess what? I'm 40lbs overweight because I ate too much food and didn't burn off the extra 300 calories a day. I didn't eat junk, but I'm fat and I'm at risk of diabetes. Not because I was binging on carbs, because I ate too many calories.
A Chipotle burrito is anything but low carb. Unless you get a salad instead of a burrito, skip the rice, skip the beans... then it can be considered low carb.
Did I say in any of this about low carb? I said "healthy". And those 2 do not go hand in hand.
You said "binging on carbs" in a way that seemed to be used inter-changeably with "junk food." Could you explain what you meant by "binging on carbs" and how that was relevant to "healthy?"
Maybe that wasn't the best "term" and I'm sorry if I started something. Most people relate "junk food" to "carbs", especially when trying to figure out how to eat "healthy". So they cut out cookies, baked goods, chips, candy, etc. Because those foods are "bad". Then some may even go as far as rice, pasta, tortillas, etc. But those last foods aren't "junk", they are just high in carbs and I'm sorry, but I'm so far off the "low carb" train it's not even funny. I lost 50lbs by eating less food and becoming more active, because I think a life without 1/2 the foods and drinks I love is SAD.
So what I meant was that my meal plan was "healthy" (even though highly caloric, each item in a burrito is not classified as junk food), unless you want to tax beans, rice and tortillas too. But it was too much food for me and I got fat and now I'm pre-disposed to diabetes. Not because I sat and ate 2 packs of Oreos, 3 Reeses Fast Breaks and a bag of potato chips every day. And those foods I would assume would be part of the junk food tax (and not to go even farther, but how the heck would you draw the line on what's junk since everyone has different opinions?)
Get my point? If not, I'm sorry, but we'll need to agree to disagree, but I didn't mean this to go in this way. I felt I was very logical.
It isn't about agreeing to disagree, as I've not taken a position on whether carbs are or are not healthy. I have taken a position on the difficulty to define what is included as "junk food" in the junk food tax and I agree with you there. I just saw that you said you ate a food that is high carb "EVERY DAY" and then concluded that you were not "binging on carbs." It makes more sense if you meant to say that you were not "binging on junk food," an entirely different statement, because you relate junk food to carbs. That does not make my response to what you said wrong, even if it isn't what you meant.
Yes it does - you continue to willfully ignore the clear meaning of the post and the follow-up...
Willful Ignorance: It's not just for breakfast anymore.™
The 1,200 calorie Chipotle burrito is low carb? To each their own...
She didn't say it was low carb!
Saying, "Not because I was binging on carbs" is not the same as saying "I did not have a carb binge". It is definitely not the same thing as saying "I ate a low carb meal", but for some reason that is what you keep misinterpreting her words to mean.
She is saying the reason for her weight gain has nothing to do with the fact that the calories came from carbohydrates. The irony of this situation is, I think she is saying that this was a very carb heavy meal, which is what you are saying also. You just keep misunderstanding the entire point of her post which had virtually nothing to do with carbs.
4 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »I was recently in Arizona and their produce prices made me sad. I do live in the Central Valley, though, so produce is stupid cheap, especially when in season.
Prepared food is taxed where I am, but necessities are not.
I agree that this tax would just make it harder to be poor, which is already hard enough. I disagree that Americans are over taxed though, considering we're about on par with many other countries we like to compare ourselves to; I think it has much more to do with the fact that we don't get much back for our taxes so it seems like we're over paying.
What do you mean? We have this fantastic behemoth of a bureaucracy that takes care of the roads, protects us from teh ebil corporations, teach our kids critical thought processes in public schools...okay, I can't keep doing this.
Haha right. I think if our priorities were different, people may feel like they weren't overtaxed, since the numbers just really don't support that conclusion. Add I'm things like direct democracy at the state level and things get messy. In California, voters always tend to vote for new programs, i.e. stuff from the government, but against new taxes, i.e. ways to pay for the stuff we want.
Of course, Americans have a foundational issue with taxes in general so I could be wrong!0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »I was recently in Arizona and their produce prices made me sad. I do live in the Central Valley, though, so produce is stupid cheap, especially when in season.
Prepared food is taxed where I am, but necessities are not.
I agree that this tax would just make it harder to be poor, which is already hard enough. I disagree that Americans are over taxed though, considering we're about on par with many other countries we like to compare ourselves to; I think it has much more to do with the fact that we don't get much back for our taxes so it seems like we're over paying.
What do you mean? We have this fantastic behemoth of a bureaucracy that takes care of the roads, protects us from teh ebil corporations, teach our kids critical thought processes in public schools...okay, I can't keep doing this.
Haha right. I think if our priorities were different, people may feel like they weren't overtaxed, since the numbers just really don't support that conclusion. Add I'm things like direct democracy at the state level and things get messy. In California, voters always tend to vote for new programs, i.e. stuff from the government, but against new taxes, i.e. ways to pay for the stuff we want.
Of course, Americans have a foundational issue with taxes in general so I could be wrong!
Democracy only works when you have an informed and sensible public. Have you looked around lately?0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »I was recently in Arizona and their produce prices made me sad. I do live in the Central Valley, though, so produce is stupid cheap, especially when in season.
Prepared food is taxed where I am, but necessities are not.
I agree that this tax would just make it harder to be poor, which is already hard enough. I disagree that Americans are over taxed though, considering we're about on par with many other countries we like to compare ourselves to; I think it has much more to do with the fact that we don't get much back for our taxes so it seems like we're over paying.
What do you mean? We have this fantastic behemoth of a bureaucracy that takes care of the roads, protects us from teh ebil corporations, teach our kids critical thought processes in public schools...okay, I can't keep doing this.
Haha right. I think if our priorities were different, people may feel like they weren't overtaxed, since the numbers just really don't support that conclusion. Add I'm things like direct democracy at the state level and things get messy. In California, voters always tend to vote for new programs, i.e. stuff from the government, but against new taxes, i.e. ways to pay for the stuff we want.
Of course, Americans have a foundational issue with taxes in general so I could be wrong!
Democracy only works when you have an informed and sensible public. Have you looked around lately?
I have and it is not good!0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »I was recently in Arizona and their produce prices made me sad. I do live in the Central Valley, though, so produce is stupid cheap, especially when in season.
Prepared food is taxed where I am, but necessities are not.
I agree that this tax would just make it harder to be poor, which is already hard enough. I disagree that Americans are over taxed though, considering we're about on par with many other countries we like to compare ourselves to; I think it has much more to do with the fact that we don't get much back for our taxes so it seems like we're over paying.
What do you mean? We have this fantastic behemoth of a bureaucracy that takes care of the roads, protects us from teh ebil corporations, teach our kids critical thought processes in public schools...okay, I can't keep doing this.
Haha right. I think if our priorities were different, people may feel like they weren't overtaxed, since the numbers just really don't support that conclusion. Add I'm things like direct democracy at the state level and things get messy. In California, voters always tend to vote for new programs, i.e. stuff from the government, but against new taxes, i.e. ways to pay for the stuff we want.
Of course, Americans have a foundational issue with taxes in general so I could be wrong!
Democracy only works when you have an informed and sensible public. Have you looked around lately?
I have and it is not good!
5 -
WinoGelato wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »Well, since junk food doesn't make people fat, too much food does, I don't see why it would help.
Trust me, too much of anything will make one gain weight.
Nailed it!!
I mean, I can go to Chipolte and down a 1,200 calorie burrito stuffed with "healthy food" for lunch, plus a 500 calorie breakfast of eggs and veggies, then a 500 calorie dinner of grilled chicken and veggies EVERY DAY of my life. That's 2,200 calories a day. 300 calories over what my body needs. All of that extra food made me fat, but all of it is considered healthy. There wasn't one chip, cookie, candy, etc in that whole day. But guess what? I'm 40lbs overweight because I ate too much food and didn't burn off the extra 300 calories a day. I didn't eat junk, but I'm fat and I'm at risk of diabetes. Not because I was binging on carbs, because I ate too many calories.
A Chipotle burrito is anything but low carb. Unless you get a salad instead of a burrito, skip the rice, skip the beans... then it can be considered low carb.
Did I say in any of this about low carb? I said "healthy". And those 2 do not go hand in hand.
You said "binging on carbs" in a way that seemed to be used inter-changeably with "junk food." Could you explain what you meant by "binging on carbs" and how that was relevant to "healthy?"
Maybe that wasn't the best "term" and I'm sorry if I started something. Most people relate "junk food" to "carbs", especially when trying to figure out how to eat "healthy". So they cut out cookies, baked goods, chips, candy, etc. Because those foods are "bad". Then some may even go as far as rice, pasta, tortillas, etc. But those last foods aren't "junk", they are just high in carbs and I'm sorry, but I'm so far off the "low carb" train it's not even funny. I lost 50lbs by eating less food and becoming more active, because I think a life without 1/2 the foods and drinks I love is SAD.
So what I meant was that my meal plan was "healthy" (even though highly caloric, each item in a burrito is not classified as junk food), unless you want to tax beans, rice and tortillas too. But it was too much food for me and I got fat and now I'm pre-disposed to diabetes. Not because I sat and ate 2 packs of Oreos, 3 Reeses Fast Breaks and a bag of potato chips every day. And those foods I would assume would be part of the junk food tax (and not to go even farther, but how the heck would you draw the line on what's junk since everyone has different opinions?)
Get my point? If not, I'm sorry, but we'll need to agree to disagree, but I didn't mean this to go in this way. I felt I was very logical.
It isn't about agreeing to disagree, as I've not taken a position on whether carbs are or are not healthy. I have taken a position on the difficulty to define what is included as "junk food" in the junk food tax and I agree with you there. I just saw that you said you ate a food that is high carb "EVERY DAY" and then concluded that you were not "binging on carbs." It makes more sense if you meant to say that you were not "binging on junk food," an entirely different statement, because you relate junk food to carbs. That does not make my response to what you said wrong, even if it isn't what you meant.
Yes it does - you continue to willfully ignore the clear meaning of the post and the follow-up...
Willful Ignorance: It's not just for breakfast anymore.™
The 1,200 calorie Chipotle burrito is low carb? To each their own...
She didn't say it was low carb!
Saying, "Not because I was binging on carbs" is not the same as saying "I did not have a carb binge". It is definitely not the same thing as saying "I ate a low carb meal", but for some reason that is what you keep misinterpreting her words to mean.
She is saying the reason for her weight gain has nothing to do with the fact that the calories came from carbohydrates. The irony of this situation is, I think she is saying that this was a very carb heavy meal, which is what you are saying also. You just keep misunderstanding the entire point of her post which had virtually nothing to do with carbs.
The original post I responded to specifically mentioned carbs. My response to that post was accurate based on what was written there.
Though she later came back and clarified that she did not intent to say "carbs," the response to what she did say is still accurate. This is where we have a difference between what she said and what she meant. She said "carbs" and that is what I responded to initially. She later indicated that it is not what she meant. Had she said what she meant originally, then I would not have pointed out that her Chipotle burrito is carb heavy.
At this point, though, we do in fact have a revision. My original point that the burrito is not low carb is correct whether she intended to mention carbs or calories. It's just no longer important now that carbs are no longer identified.
The part that is relevant to this thread is that she decided to substitute "carbs" for "junk food" and appears to have done so without a second thought. It was done as though it is second nature to consider carbs as junk food. If carbs is how most people are going to define junk food, then a tax on junk food (carbs) would be too comprehensive. It would tax the burrito, oranges, and foods rich in micro-nutrients just as if they were cookies and ice cream.1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »I was recently in Arizona and their produce prices made me sad. I do live in the Central Valley, though, so produce is stupid cheap, especially when in season.
Prepared food is taxed where I am, but necessities are not.
I agree that this tax would just make it harder to be poor, which is already hard enough. I disagree that Americans are over taxed though, considering we're about on par with many other countries we like to compare ourselves to; I think it has much more to do with the fact that we don't get much back for our taxes so it seems like we're over paying.
What do you mean? We have this fantastic behemoth of a bureaucracy that takes care of the roads, protects us from teh ebil corporations, teach our kids critical thought processes in public schools...okay, I can't keep doing this.
Haha right. I think if our priorities were different, people may feel like they weren't overtaxed, since the numbers just really don't support that conclusion. Add I'm things like direct democracy at the state level and things get messy. In California, voters always tend to vote for new programs, i.e. stuff from the government, but against new taxes, i.e. ways to pay for the stuff we want.
Of course, Americans have a foundational issue with taxes in general so I could be wrong!
What is really funny/sad if you look at polls most people will say they pay too much in federal income tax but fact is 1/2 of.the households don't pay any and many that don't pay get money from various credits3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »I was recently in Arizona and their produce prices made me sad. I do live in the Central Valley, though, so produce is stupid cheap, especially when in season.
Prepared food is taxed where I am, but necessities are not.
I agree that this tax would just make it harder to be poor, which is already hard enough. I disagree that Americans are over taxed though, considering we're about on par with many other countries we like to compare ourselves to; I think it has much more to do with the fact that we don't get much back for our taxes so it seems like we're over paying.
What do you mean? We have this fantastic behemoth of a bureaucracy that takes care of the roads, protects us from teh ebil corporations, teach our kids critical thought processes in public schools...okay, I can't keep doing this.
Haha right. I think if our priorities were different, people may feel like they weren't overtaxed, since the numbers just really don't support that conclusion. Add I'm things like direct democracy at the state level and things get messy. In California, voters always tend to vote for new programs, i.e. stuff from the government, but against new taxes, i.e. ways to pay for the stuff we want.
Of course, Americans have a foundational issue with taxes in general so I could be wrong!
What is really funny/sad if you look at polls most people will say they pay too much in federal income tax but fact is 1/2 of.the households don't pay any and many that don't pay get money from various credits
People like to forget their complaints about wealth redistribution, when it benefits them specifically.4 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »Well, since junk food doesn't make people fat, too much food does, I don't see why it would help.
Trust me, too much of anything will make one gain weight.
Nailed it!!
I mean, I can go to Chipolte and down a 1,200 calorie burrito stuffed with "healthy food" for lunch, plus a 500 calorie breakfast of eggs and veggies, then a 500 calorie dinner of grilled chicken and veggies EVERY DAY of my life. That's 2,200 calories a day. 300 calories over what my body needs. All of that extra food made me fat, but all of it is considered healthy. There wasn't one chip, cookie, candy, etc in that whole day. But guess what? I'm 40lbs overweight because I ate too much food and didn't burn off the extra 300 calories a day. I didn't eat junk, but I'm fat and I'm at risk of diabetes. Not because I was binging on carbs, because I ate too many calories.
A Chipotle burrito is anything but low carb. Unless you get a salad instead of a burrito, skip the rice, skip the beans... then it can be considered low carb.
Did I say in any of this about low carb? I said "healthy". And those 2 do not go hand in hand.
You said "binging on carbs" in a way that seemed to be used inter-changeably with "junk food." Could you explain what you meant by "binging on carbs" and how that was relevant to "healthy?"
Maybe that wasn't the best "term" and I'm sorry if I started something. Most people relate "junk food" to "carbs", especially when trying to figure out how to eat "healthy". So they cut out cookies, baked goods, chips, candy, etc. Because those foods are "bad". Then some may even go as far as rice, pasta, tortillas, etc. But those last foods aren't "junk", they are just high in carbs and I'm sorry, but I'm so far off the "low carb" train it's not even funny. I lost 50lbs by eating less food and becoming more active, because I think a life without 1/2 the foods and drinks I love is SAD.
So what I meant was that my meal plan was "healthy" (even though highly caloric, each item in a burrito is not classified as junk food), unless you want to tax beans, rice and tortillas too. But it was too much food for me and I got fat and now I'm pre-disposed to diabetes. Not because I sat and ate 2 packs of Oreos, 3 Reeses Fast Breaks and a bag of potato chips every day. And those foods I would assume would be part of the junk food tax (and not to go even farther, but how the heck would you draw the line on what's junk since everyone has different opinions?)
Get my point? If not, I'm sorry, but we'll need to agree to disagree, but I didn't mean this to go in this way. I felt I was very logical.
It isn't about agreeing to disagree, as I've not taken a position on whether carbs are or are not healthy. I have taken a position on the difficulty to define what is included as "junk food" in the junk food tax and I agree with you there. I just saw that you said you ate a food that is high carb "EVERY DAY" and then concluded that you were not "binging on carbs." It makes more sense if you meant to say that you were not "binging on junk food," an entirely different statement, because you relate junk food to carbs. That does not make my response to what you said wrong, even if it isn't what you meant.
Yes it does - you continue to willfully ignore the clear meaning of the post and the follow-up...
Willful Ignorance: It's not just for breakfast anymore.™
The 1,200 calorie Chipotle burrito is low carb? To each their own...
She didn't say it was low carb!
Saying, "Not because I was binging on carbs" is not the same as saying "I did not have a carb binge". It is definitely not the same thing as saying "I ate a low carb meal", but for some reason that is what you keep misinterpreting her words to mean.
She is saying the reason for her weight gain has nothing to do with the fact that the calories came from carbohydrates. The irony of this situation is, I think she is saying that this was a very carb heavy meal, which is what you are saying also. You just keep misunderstanding the entire point of her post which had virtually nothing to do with carbs.
The original post I responded to specifically mentioned carbs. My response to that post was accurate based on what was written there.
Though she later came back and clarified that she did not intent to say "carbs," the response to what she did say is still accurate. This is where we have a difference between what she said and what she meant. She said "carbs" and that is what I responded to initially. She later indicated that it is not what she meant. Had she said what she meant originally, then I would not have pointed out that her Chipotle burrito is carb heavy.
At this point, though, we do in fact have a revision. My original point that the burrito is not low carb is correct whether she intended to mention carbs or calories. It's just no longer important now that carbs are no longer identified.
The part that is relevant to this thread is that she decided to substitute "carbs" for "junk food" and appears to have done so without a second thought. It was done as though it is second nature to consider carbs as junk food. If carbs is how most people are going to define junk food, then a tax on junk food (carbs) would be too comprehensive. It would tax the burrito, oranges, and foods rich in micro-nutrients just as if they were cookies and ice cream.
That's one convoluted way of reaching to extract what you want the words to mean just to make a far reaching argument that most people would not identify with and most governments wouldn't even consider with a straight face.
Could have just made a separate comment without having to milk a post for what it doesn't have. Could have just made a separate rant about people using the word carbs to mean two different things depending on context (who would have thought words could have two meanings!) and how confusing the two would lead to a wider taxation range than proposed (although I have faith that every government would have at least one person with good reading comprehension but I could be wrong).
Now could you please stop derailing the thread into a non-existent hell? Fine, you were right. There.6 -
:gaah:
1 -
Wow. What a thread! Can't we all just eat our junk food in a dark closet, drying our tears with chocolate-stained napkins? You know - like normal people?!6
-
-
I ate some movie theater buttered popcorn just last night... Didn't gain an ounce. In fact, I also just had a health screen that was ridiculously perfect for my age...
Oh, and I had pizza the other night, and a burger from McDonald's the other day.
Granted, I ate really, really healthy stuff like grilled chicken, beans, etc for my other meals on those days, but yeah, I have at least something that could be considered "junk" almost 4 or 5 times a week.
The vast majority of vegans think eating anything that came from an animal is immoral. Should we therefore propose taxing meat and dairy?
Excuse me while I slip down this slope..........
2 -
Here in MN I believe the way it works is most with sugar (other than natural sugar) are taxed. Candy..douhnuts..chips..pop...and anything you buy preheated in the store...such as you go into a gas station and buy a breakfast sandwhich that is sitting in the warmer ready to grab and eat0
-
There's already more than enough taxes everywhere. The solution is to cut down on entitlement care.6
-
-
Packerjohn wrote: »
Not let people without insurance die if it's for a non-lifestyle induced illness. For a start, I'd propose increasing care for all emergency patients and accident-related care, free of charge. A national health system for this emergency care funded by income tax. Then, a complete eradication of all public-sponsored elective surgeries, gastric bypass, or any lifestyle disease that is self-induced. Exemptions would be allowed provided evidence is provided that it wasn't self-induced. Eg: evidence of a healthy lifestyle but nevertheless suffering from a genetic disorder predisposing one to weight gain. These would be exempt but rare cases.
This alone would increase healthcare for people that do everything right but get unlucky, or suffer from an emergency medical condition, whilst forcing people to pay for their own lifestyle decisions. This would also bring back personal responsibility, which would have a far reaching impact socially as well. The net result would be savings and less taxation needed by government.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
Not let people without insurance die if it's for a non-lifestyle induced illness. For a start, I'd propose increasing care for all emergency patients and accident-related care, free of charge. A national health system for this emergency care funded by income tax. Then, a complete eradication of all public-sponsored elective surgeries, gastric bypass, or any lifestyle disease that is self-induced. Exemptions would be allowed provided evidence is provided that it wasn't self-induced. Eg: evidence of a healthy lifestyle but nevertheless suffering from a genetic disorder predisposing one to weight gain. These would be exempt but rare cases.
This alone would increase healthcare for people that do everything right but get unlucky, or suffer from an emergency medical condition, whilst forcing people to pay for their own lifestyle decisions. This would also bring back personal responsibility, which would have a far reaching impact socially as well. The net result would be savings and less taxation needed by government.
We can't even decide how to define junk food... How would you "prove" a healthy lifestyle? Food diaries (which we all know can be horrendously inaccurate) and exercise tracking? What if the person is eating a reasonable amount of calories but still eats candy bars - could they be disqualified? What if they have PCOS, which doesn't prevent weight loss but can definitely make it a harder, longer process?
Extend this to other things. I'd assume I'd get coverage if I get lung cancer, I don't smoke. But what if I got skin cancer when I don't always wear sunscreen? How about eating disorders like anorexia - is that a "lifestyle decision" or something that should be treated? Are pregnancies covered? What if a woman gets pregnant despite using birth control?1 -
All food is taxed in the USA because they hate us.1
-
The clear solution is nutritious gruel for all.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 389 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 920 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions