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?
Replies
-
Certainly it's not a tax on water in the desert.0
-
The whole premise of this is stupid anyways. No particular food, or even a particular category of food (much less one as nebulously-defined as "junk food") makes you fat, obese, or diabetic. The issue is too much caloric input, and too little caloric output.4
-
No taxes for people. Tax the corporations who peddle junk and call it health food on their labels. Tax breaks for those who stick to certain portion/calories/nutritional value guidelines. Then use that money for nutrition education programs.
I can't believe anyone is calling for a sales tax increase. I'm not on board with the "punish the fatties" mentality. Perhaps some kind of positive reinforcement should happen. But definitely more education. Go to the general weightless board- everyone has a different idea about what's "healthy" and what's not. We need real science, standardized guidelines and MORE EDUCATION. I mean schools, government programs, psa ads, all of it. Educate the people, don't penalize them for eating out of ignorance.0 -
lessismore130 wrote: »No taxes for people. Tax the corporations who peddle junk and call it health food on their labels. Tax breaks for those who stick to certain portion/calories/nutritional value guidelines. Then use that money for nutrition education programs.
I can't believe anyone is calling for a sales tax increase. I'm not on board with the "punish the fatties" mentality. Perhaps some kind of positive reinforcement should happen. But definitely more education. Go to the general weightless board- everyone has a different idea about what's "healthy" and what's not. We need real science, standardized guidelines and MORE EDUCATION. I mean schools, government programs, psa ads, all of it. Educate the people, don't penalize them for eating out of ignorance.
And the tax gets passed on to the consumers who choose to eat the junk food. Same difference.
7 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lessismore130 wrote: »No taxes for people. Tax the corporations who peddle junk and call it health food on their labels. Tax breaks for those who stick to certain portion/calories/nutritional value guidelines. Then use that money for nutrition education programs.
I can't believe anyone is calling for a sales tax increase. I'm not on board with the "punish the fatties" mentality. Perhaps some kind of positive reinforcement should happen. But definitely more education. Go to the general weightless board- everyone has a different idea about what's "healthy" and what's not. We need real science, standardized guidelines and MORE EDUCATION. I mean schools, government programs, psa ads, all of it. Educate the people, don't penalize them for eating out of ignorance.
And the tax gets passed on to the consumers who choose to eat the junk food. Same difference.
Would taxing a business make it a bit less profitable to manufacture certain items, though?
Edit: hmm... Or maybe just put the little guy out of business while making it easier for larger manufacturers to profit due to reduced competition1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lessismore130 wrote: »No taxes for people. Tax the corporations who peddle junk and call it health food on their labels. Tax breaks for those who stick to certain portion/calories/nutritional value guidelines. Then use that money for nutrition education programs.
I can't believe anyone is calling for a sales tax increase. I'm not on board with the "punish the fatties" mentality. Perhaps some kind of positive reinforcement should happen. But definitely more education. Go to the general weightless board- everyone has a different idea about what's "healthy" and what's not. We need real science, standardized guidelines and MORE EDUCATION. I mean schools, government programs, psa ads, all of it. Educate the people, don't penalize them for eating out of ignorance.
And the tax gets passed on to the consumers who choose to eat the junk food. Same difference.
Would taxing a business make it a bit less profitable to manufacture certain items, though?
Edit: hmm... Or maybe just put the little guy out of business while making it easier for larger manufacturers to profit due to reduced competition
Most likely not. If the same tax impacts all producers of the item taxed, the producers can raise the price to to consumer to cover the tax amount.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lessismore130 wrote: »No taxes for people. Tax the corporations who peddle junk and call it health food on their labels. Tax breaks for those who stick to certain portion/calories/nutritional value guidelines. Then use that money for nutrition education programs.
I can't believe anyone is calling for a sales tax increase. I'm not on board with the "punish the fatties" mentality. Perhaps some kind of positive reinforcement should happen. But definitely more education. Go to the general weightless board- everyone has a different idea about what's "healthy" and what's not. We need real science, standardized guidelines and MORE EDUCATION. I mean schools, government programs, psa ads, all of it. Educate the people, don't penalize them for eating out of ignorance.
And the tax gets passed on to the consumers who choose to eat the junk food. Same difference.
Would taxing a business make it a bit less profitable to manufacture certain items, though?
Edit: hmm... Or maybe just put the little guy out of business while making it easier for larger manufacturers to profit due to reduced competition
Most likely not. If the same tax impacts all producers of the item taxed, the producers can raise the price to to consumer to cover the tax amount.
Right. But a larger manufacturer likely offers multiple products and/or services and can absorb this one cost across the board and keep the change transparent to their end customers. A smaller business that just makes one or few products would likely need to raise their sales price, thus making them less attractive to the consumer. The bigger manufacturer wins1 -
Are avocados going to be one of the foods taxed? They have tons of fat and sometimes more calories than a candy bar.2
-
Packerjohn wrote: »lessismore130 wrote: »No taxes for people. Tax the corporations who peddle junk and call it health food on their labels. Tax breaks for those who stick to certain portion/calories/nutritional value guidelines. Then use that money for nutrition education programs.
I can't believe anyone is calling for a sales tax increase. I'm not on board with the "punish the fatties" mentality. Perhaps some kind of positive reinforcement should happen. But definitely more education. Go to the general weightless board- everyone has a different idea about what's "healthy" and what's not. We need real science, standardized guidelines and MORE EDUCATION. I mean schools, government programs, psa ads, all of it. Educate the people, don't penalize them for eating out of ignorance.
And the tax gets passed on to the consumers who choose to eat the junk food. Same difference.
Not same difference. Businesses will have an incentive to produce healthier food. Most of the food you buy is made by 4 or 5 giant corporations. You want healthy food in your body? It starts with them.
And I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the little guy in business already lost.0 -
lessismore130 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lessismore130 wrote: »No taxes for people. Tax the corporations who peddle junk and call it health food on their labels. Tax breaks for those who stick to certain portion/calories/nutritional value guidelines. Then use that money for nutrition education programs.
I can't believe anyone is calling for a sales tax increase. I'm not on board with the "punish the fatties" mentality. Perhaps some kind of positive reinforcement should happen. But definitely more education. Go to the general weightless board- everyone has a different idea about what's "healthy" and what's not. We need real science, standardized guidelines and MORE EDUCATION. I mean schools, government programs, psa ads, all of it. Educate the people, don't penalize them for eating out of ignorance.
And the tax gets passed on to the consumers who choose to eat the junk food. Same difference.
Not same difference. Businesses will have an incentive to produce healthier food. Most of the food you buy is made by 4 or 5 giant corporations. You want healthy food in your body? It starts with them.
And I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the little guy in business already lost.
No, business has an incentive to produce what sells and makes a profit. If people want to buy and eat crap foods, businesses will continue to make them, passing any additional costs on to the consumer.
If the consumer votes with their wallet that they don't want crap foods at higher costs, then the output of the business will change.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Part of the problem is that it's not really clear what the tax would be on.
How about taxing based on added sugars? Would get the main items that any third grader would classify as junk food like pop, candy, cookies, etc. Might also get manufacturers to reduce the amount of "hidden" sugars in things like ketchup, sauces, etc.
The US already has some definition of "healthy foods" from the WIC programs, might be a start.2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lessismore130 wrote: »No taxes for people. Tax the corporations who peddle junk and call it health food on their labels. Tax breaks for those who stick to certain portion/calories/nutritional value guidelines. Then use that money for nutrition education programs.
I can't believe anyone is calling for a sales tax increase. I'm not on board with the "punish the fatties" mentality. Perhaps some kind of positive reinforcement should happen. But definitely more education. Go to the general weightless board- everyone has a different idea about what's "healthy" and what's not. We need real science, standardized guidelines and MORE EDUCATION. I mean schools, government programs, psa ads, all of it. Educate the people, don't penalize them for eating out of ignorance.
And the tax gets passed on to the consumers who choose to eat the junk food. Same difference.
Would taxing a business make it a bit less profitable to manufacture certain items, though?
Edit: hmm... Or maybe just put the little guy out of business while making it easier for larger manufacturers to profit due to reduced competition
Most likely not. If the same tax impacts all producers of the item taxed, the producers can raise the price to to consumer to cover the tax amount.
Right. But a larger manufacturer likely offers multiple products and/or services and can absorb this one cost across the board and keep the change transparent to their end customers. A smaller business that just makes one or few products would likely need to raise their sales price, thus making them less attractive to the consumer. The bigger manufacturer wins
A business is very aware of what products are profitable and which ones aren't. A business that keeps "loss leaders" afloat won't be successful long term.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lessismore130 wrote: »No taxes for people. Tax the corporations who peddle junk and call it health food on their labels. Tax breaks for those who stick to certain portion/calories/nutritional value guidelines. Then use that money for nutrition education programs.
I can't believe anyone is calling for a sales tax increase. I'm not on board with the "punish the fatties" mentality. Perhaps some kind of positive reinforcement should happen. But definitely more education. Go to the general weightless board- everyone has a different idea about what's "healthy" and what's not. We need real science, standardized guidelines and MORE EDUCATION. I mean schools, government programs, psa ads, all of it. Educate the people, don't penalize them for eating out of ignorance.
And the tax gets passed on to the consumers who choose to eat the junk food. Same difference.
Would taxing a business make it a bit less profitable to manufacture certain items, though?
Edit: hmm... Or maybe just put the little guy out of business while making it easier for larger manufacturers to profit due to reduced competition
Most likely not. If the same tax impacts all producers of the item taxed, the producers can raise the price to to consumer to cover the tax amount.
Right. But a larger manufacturer likely offers multiple products and/or services and can absorb this one cost across the board and keep the change transparent to their end customers. A smaller business that just makes one or few products would likely need to raise their sales price, thus making them less attractive to the consumer. The bigger manufacturer wins
A business is very aware of what products are profitable and which ones aren't. A business that keeps "loss leaders" afloat won't be successful long term.
Chances of success increase with less competition. Unless the taxes make the item UNprofitable, the bigger businesses might actually come out ahead of where they were before.
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Part of the problem is that it's not really clear what the tax would be on.
How about taxing based on added sugars? Would get the main items that any third grader would classify as junk food like pop, candy, cookies, etc. Might also get manufacturers to reduce the amount of "hidden" sugars in things like ketchup, sauces, etc.
The US already has some definition of "healthy foods" from the WIC programs, might be a start.
Lol @ any third grader would... but not on this forum! So weird!
Taxing based on added sugar seems reasonable and doable.0 -
Actually, it is a bit more complicated than just the question of whether businesses are price makers (i.e. the argument that a tax on business will be passed on to consumers) or price takers (i.e. the argument that businesses will be influenced financially by the tax and not offset it to consumers - thereby influencing the behavior of businesses). On both sides of the transaction, there is a utility factor. It's no different than the argument that a business will lose money if they raise prices - a preposterous notion without more information. If a business raises prices by 10% and only sells 8% fewer units, then the business has increased profits by raising prices. On the other hand, if a business raises prices by 10% and sells 12% fewer units, then it has decreased profits (when looking at this simplistically and assuming all costs are variable).
By taxing the consumer directly, you influence the consumer's decision and the complication of whether it influences the business directly or not is irrelevant. If it works to cut consumption, then the business will sell fewer units... and (unless there is both a price increase and a demand utility such that a price increase doesn't decrease sales by more than price is increased) that means a less profitable product for the company anyway. My only concern, which I mentioned a long time ago in this thread, is that impoverished members of society are likely to be hurt the most by such a tax. For this reason, I would suggest starting with removing government subsidies for HFCS production. This affects business directly, and might affect consumers (depending on demand utility) as well. Removing subsidies (or taxing businesses) probably will be passed to consumers in the case of these foods since the impoverished are likely price takers when it comes to food. If it is done at an amount to put the prices of fresh foods at a similar price as packaged / junk food, then the goal of reducing junk food consumption should be easily achieved. As for the impoverished people who will be less able to afford food: Raise food assistance.
That is the economic explanation for how fiscal policy can work to reduce consumption of junk food.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Part of the problem is that it's not really clear what the tax would be on.
How about taxing based on added sugars? Would get the main items that any third grader would classify as junk food like pop, candy, cookies, etc. Might also get manufacturers to reduce the amount of "hidden" sugars in things like ketchup, sauces, etc.
The US already has some definition of "healthy foods" from the WIC programs, might be a start.
I like the idea to stop subsidizing the raw materials to begin with, if we're deciding they're no good for us at the quantities consumed. Why not fix the problem we created at the source?4 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Part of the problem is that it's not really clear what the tax would be on.
How about taxing based on added sugars? Would get the main items that any third grader would classify as junk food like pop, candy, cookies, etc. Might also get manufacturers to reduce the amount of "hidden" sugars in things like ketchup, sauces, etc.
The US already has some definition of "healthy foods" from the WIC programs, might be a start.
I like the idea to stop subsidizing the raw materials to begin with, if we're deciding they're no good for us at the quantities consumed. Why not fix the problem we created at the source?
Great idea, THAT is something I would get behind.
The US Federal Government spends somewhere in the neighborhood of tens of billions a year of stolen (tax) money on farm subsidies. These subsidies make food products (for example, the oft-demonized corn syrup) artificially cheaper by flooding the market with excess supply - while the aim of "junk food" taxes, of course, is to make food artificially more expensive in order to change consumer behavior.
So, rather than screw the taxpayer on both ends, how about not screwing the taxpayer at all?
3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Actually, it is a bit more complicated than just the question of whether businesses are price makers (i.e. the argument that a tax on business will be passed on to consumers) or price takers (i.e. the argument that businesses will be influenced financially by the tax and not offset it to consumers - thereby influencing the behavior of businesses). On both sides of the transaction, there is a utility factor. It's no different than the argument that a business will lose money if they raise prices - a preposterous notion without more information. If a business raises prices by 10% and only sells 8% fewer units, then the business has increased profits by raising prices. On the other hand, if a business raises prices by 10% and sells 12% fewer units, then it has decreased profits (when looking at this simplistically and assuming all costs are variable).
By taxing the consumer directly, you influence the consumer's decision and the complication of whether it influences the business directly or not is irrelevant. If it works to cut consumption, then the business will sell fewer units... and (unless there is both a price increase and a demand utility such that a price increase doesn't decrease sales by more than price is increased) that means a less profitable product for the company anyway. My only concern, which I mentioned a long time ago in this thread, is that impoverished members of society are likely to be hurt the most by such a tax. For this reason, I would suggest starting with removing government subsidies for HFCS production. This affects business directly, and might affect consumers (depending on demand utility) as well. Removing subsidies (or taxing businesses) probably will be passed to consumers in the case of these foods since the impoverished are likely price takers when it comes to food. If it is done at an amount to put the prices of fresh foods at a similar price as packaged / junk food, then the goal of reducing junk food consumption should be easily achieved. As for the impoverished people who will be less able to afford food: Raise food assistance.
That is the economic explanation for how fiscal policy can work to reduce consumption of junk food.
Don't forget that food bought with food stamps isn't taxed. So if a tax is what's keeping junk food and fresh food prices comparable then the junk will come out cheaper for the poorer citizens.0 -
lessismore130 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Actually, it is a bit more complicated than just the question of whether businesses are price makers (i.e. the argument that a tax on business will be passed on to consumers) or price takers (i.e. the argument that businesses will be influenced financially by the tax and not offset it to consumers - thereby influencing the behavior of businesses). On both sides of the transaction, there is a utility factor. It's no different than the argument that a business will lose money if they raise prices - a preposterous notion without more information. If a business raises prices by 10% and only sells 8% fewer units, then the business has increased profits by raising prices. On the other hand, if a business raises prices by 10% and sells 12% fewer units, then it has decreased profits (when looking at this simplistically and assuming all costs are variable).
By taxing the consumer directly, you influence the consumer's decision and the complication of whether it influences the business directly or not is irrelevant. If it works to cut consumption, then the business will sell fewer units... and (unless there is both a price increase and a demand utility such that a price increase doesn't decrease sales by more than price is increased) that means a less profitable product for the company anyway. My only concern, which I mentioned a long time ago in this thread, is that impoverished members of society are likely to be hurt the most by such a tax. For this reason, I would suggest starting with removing government subsidies for HFCS production. This affects business directly, and might affect consumers (depending on demand utility) as well. Removing subsidies (or taxing businesses) probably will be passed to consumers in the case of these foods since the impoverished are likely price takers when it comes to food. If it is done at an amount to put the prices of fresh foods at a similar price as packaged / junk food, then the goal of reducing junk food consumption should be easily achieved. As for the impoverished people who will be less able to afford food: Raise food assistance.
That is the economic explanation for how fiscal policy can work to reduce consumption of junk food.
Don't forget that food bought with food stamps isn't taxed. So if a tax is what's keeping junk food and fresh food prices comparable then the junk will come out cheaper for the poorer citizens.
This is something that would have to change... the special tax would have to apply regardless.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Part of the problem is that it's not really clear what the tax would be on.
How about taxing based on added sugars? Would get the main items that any third grader would classify as junk food like pop, candy, cookies, etc. Might also get manufacturers to reduce the amount of "hidden" sugars in things like ketchup, sauces, etc.
The US already has some definition of "healthy foods" from the WIC programs, might be a start.
I like the idea to stop subsidizing the raw materials to begin with, if we're deciding they're no good for us at the quantities consumed. Why not fix the problem we created at the source?
Great idea, THAT is something I would get behind.
The US Federal Government spends somewhere in the neighborhood of tens of billions a year of stolen (tax) money on farm subsidies. These subsidies make food products (for example, the oft-demonized corn syrup) artificially cheaper by flooding the market with excess supply - while the aim of "junk food" taxes, of course, is to make food artificially more expensive in order to change consumer behavior.
So, rather than screw the taxpayer on both ends, how about not screwing the taxpayer at all?
Wait a second, being a tax payer and NOT getting screwed? Why, I wouldn't know what to do with myself!
3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K 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
- 388 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions