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
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »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.
How do you define "hidden" sugar? Many recipes hinge on a specific sugar content, and since you mentioned ketchup, that's actually one of them. You know what you have when you strip added sugar from ketchup? Pastey cocktail sauce.
Hidden sugar is a bogus, made-up thing, but you could tax* based on percentage by weight that's added sugar. Kind of questionable in that the calories in something like a Hostess cupcake (do those still exist?) or potato chips (no sugar, so not covered by the law) are about half from fat. Both the cupcake and the ketchup contain sugar, but I suspect ketchup results in weight gain by absolutely no one. (Neither do cupcakes, calories do, but I think a lot more people overeat cupcakes to the point of throwing their overall calories out of whack -- or chips, for that matter -- than ketchup. A law that blames ketchup and not chips for obesity is weird,** which I why I mentioned the definition point and got told that was a stupid laughable question!)
*Not saying I'm in favor, but speculating about how the law could work.
**Yes, no food is responsible for obesity. People eating too much cause obesity.
There was a table of patriotic Hostess products on sale in my grocery store yesterday. Cupcakes with red, white, and blue frosting, Twinkies with red, white, and blue sprinkles... I can't see a Twinkie without thinking of MFP.
To add on to your point about definitions: Let's say we can define "junk" as a percent added sugar or a percent sat fat in a packaged food (now let's go define packaging, because my ground beef is usually already wrapped up with a price tag). I mentioned chips earlier. What happens with the baked chips - are they still junk food because they're "empty" calories, or would they get a pass for having less sat fat and fewer calories than their traditional counterparts?
And let's say we arrive at a definition and agree on a tax. How do you keep companies from reducing prices on junk food and distributing the cost increase to their other products? If HFCS products become more expensive and people buy fewer of them, that cost will work its way back to Big Corn, which will increase the cost of meat. Are you going to use the junk food tax to subsidize Big Corn further and keep meat at the same price? Junk food isn't like alcohol or cigarettes - it's a much complicated economy where tax will have unwanted consequences.
For the chips, we'll just end up with Olean-laden backdoor blowouts again. Could we not? Please?
Gross.
Not only would we be paying more in taxes, we'd get back some of the terrible junk food from America's fat-hating days. This sounds just *brilliant*.0 -
Well, it would certainly be less tempting, I suppose!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.
The WIC program is not necessarily a list of "healthy foods." It is a few foods that are supplied to supplement nutrition for young children.
The breads you can get on WIC have HCFS (small amounts, but yes). You can choose from a list of cereals, which includes frosted mini-wheats; they do have guidelines about their cereals, which has to do with how much sugar, whole grain, and added nutrients the cereal has. Fruit and vanilla flavored yogurts are allowed, which have added sugar. Block cheese is provided. Unless the child is 12-24 months and therefore getting whole milk, the milk must be skim or 1%.
In fact, every item on the WIC list, aside from the fresh fruits/vegetables, will meat someones definition of not healthy, and some will fall under certain people's definitions of "junk."
So, while looking at the WIC program as "a start" for a definition of "healthy foods" might work, if we follow that pattern, we still have to ask, by whose definition of healthy are we going. Additionally, are we going to need a list of foods that are "healthy" and therefore exempt from the tax? (We can't just say cereal, can we, because what about lucky charms or coco puffs?) An every-changing list as new products come onto the market? And how does the average consumer know which items are taxed and which aren't, without carrying an extensive, just updated, list with them?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.
The WIC program is not necessarily a list of "healthy foods." It is a few foods that are supplied to supplement nutrition for young children.
The breads you can get on WIC have HCFS (small amounts, but yes). You can choose from a list of cereals, which includes frosted mini-wheats; they do have guidelines about their cereals, which has to do with how much sugar, whole grain, and added nutrients the cereal has. Fruit and vanilla flavored yogurts are allowed, which have added sugar. Block cheese is provided. Unless the child is 12-24 months and therefore getting whole milk, the milk must be skim or 1%.
In fact, every item on the WIC list, aside from the fresh fruits/vegetables, will meat someones definition of not healthy, and some will fall under certain people's definitions of "junk."
So, while looking at the WIC program as "a start" for a definition of "healthy foods" might work, if we follow that pattern, we still have to ask, by whose definition of healthy are we going. Additionally, are we going to need a list of foods that are "healthy" and therefore exempt from the tax? (We can't just say cereal, can we, because what about lucky charms or coco puffs?) An every-changing list as new products come onto the market? And how does the average consumer know which items are taxed and which aren't, without carrying an extensive, just updated, list with them?[/quote]
Seem like the stores I go to have a WIC eligible sticker along with the price.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.
Simple, make items defined as junk food not eligible for purchase with food stamps.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »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.
Simple, make items defined as junk food not eligible for purchase with food stamps.
Oh god, all the rage this would generate. You know what, set any parameters for "junk food" for this, and I wouldn't care. Somewhere, sometime, and whole bunch of people are gonna be livid, and it will be hilarious.2 -
Additionally, are we going to need a list of foods that are "healthy" and therefore exempt from the tax? (We can't just say cereal, can we, because what about lucky charms or coco puffs?) An every-changing list as new products come onto the market? And how does the average consumer know which items are taxed and which aren't, without carrying an extensive, just updated, list with them?
Not clear they would, until it's rung up. My state and local sales taxes have a variety of different rates (it's confusing), and I never really know what the added tax will be 'til it's rung up. And yeah, annoying.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »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.
Simple, make items defined as junk food not eligible for purchase with food stamps.
Oh god, all the rage this would generate. You know what, set any parameters for "junk food" for this, and I wouldn't care. Somewhere, sometime, and whole bunch of people are gonna be livid, and it will be hilarious.
How's that different from now? Somebody's always mad about something. *shrugs*2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »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.
How do you define "hidden" sugar? Many recipes hinge on a specific sugar content, and since you mentioned ketchup, that's actually one of them. You know what you have when you strip added sugar from ketchup? Pastey cocktail sauce.
Hidden sugar is a bogus, made-up thing, but you could tax* based on percentage by weight that's added sugar. Kind of questionable in that the calories in something like a Hostess cupcake (do those still exist?) or potato chips (no sugar, so not covered by the law) are about half from fat. Both the cupcake and the ketchup contain sugar, but I suspect ketchup results in weight gain by absolutely no one. (Neither do cupcakes, calories do, but I think a lot more people overeat cupcakes to the point of throwing their overall calories out of whack -- or chips, for that matter -- than ketchup. A law that blames ketchup and not chips for obesity is weird,** which I why I mentioned the definition point and got told that was a stupid laughable question!)
*Not saying I'm in favor, but speculating about how the law could work.
**Yes, no food is responsible for obesity. People eating too much cause obesity.
Makes the fries more tasty...1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »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.
Simple, make items defined as junk food not eligible for purchase with food stamps.
Oh god, all the rage this would generate. You know what, set any parameters for "junk food" for this, and I wouldn't care. Somewhere, sometime, and whole bunch of people are gonna be livid, and it will be hilarious.
How's that different from now? Somebody's always mad about something. *shrugs*
Because there are few things funnier than people complaining about not being able to get specific things for "free".0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »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.
Simple, make items defined as junk food not eligible for purchase with food stamps.
Oh god, all the rage this would generate. You know what, set any parameters for "junk food" for this, and I wouldn't care. Somewhere, sometime, and whole bunch of people are gonna be livid, and it will be hilarious.
Was behind the guy at the register. He had a can of Pringles, a pound of NY strip steak and a $12 6 pack of craft beer. I smiled at him, said something about dinner of champions. He says, yeah going home to cook this up and watch basketball.
Of course pulls out the SNAP card to pay for the steak and Pringles.1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Because there are few things funnier than people complaining about not being able to get specific things for "free".
That's about equal to "ZOMG they gunna tax muh cheezy poofs!"3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »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.
Simple, make items defined as junk food not eligible for purchase with food stamps.
Oh god, all the rage this would generate. You know what, set any parameters for "junk food" for this, and I wouldn't care. Somewhere, sometime, and whole bunch of people are gonna be livid, and it will be hilarious.
Was behind the guy at the register. He had a can of Pringles, a pound of NY strip steak and a $12 6 pack of craft beer. I smiled at him, said something about dinner of champions. He says, yeah going home to cook this up and watch basketball.
Of course pulls out the SNAP card to pay for the steak and Pringles.
So what? When he runs out of grocery money it's coming out of his own pocket. Personal responsibility. If he wants to eat Pringles & steak the first week of the month and starve the other 3, that's on him.
You'd probably be mad if he bought all organic, expensive veggies too. Like you said, someone's always mad about something.
4 -
Packerjohn wrote: »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.
The WIC program is not necessarily a list of "healthy foods." It is a few foods that are supplied to supplement nutrition for young children.
The breads you can get on WIC have HCFS (small amounts, but yes). You can choose from a list of cereals, which includes frosted mini-wheats; they do have guidelines about their cereals, which has to do with how much sugar, whole grain, and added nutrients the cereal has. Fruit and vanilla flavored yogurts are allowed, which have added sugar. Block cheese is provided. Unless the child is 12-24 months and therefore getting whole milk, the milk must be skim or 1%.
In fact, every item on the WIC list, aside from the fresh fruits/vegetables, will meat someones definition of not healthy, and some will fall under certain people's definitions of "junk."
So, while looking at the WIC program as "a start" for a definition of "healthy foods" might work, if we follow that pattern, we still have to ask, by whose definition of healthy are we going. Additionally, are we going to need a list of foods that are "healthy" and therefore exempt from the tax? (We can't just say cereal, can we, because what about lucky charms or coco puffs?) An every-changing list as new products come onto the market? And how does the average consumer know which items are taxed and which aren't, without carrying an extensive, just updated, list with them?
Seem like the stores I go to have a WIC eligible sticker along with the price.
Many do, but they don't always get it right. And updating it frequently enough might not be high on the store's list of things to spend man-hours on. (Speaking more of the theoretical non-taxed foods than WIC). As lemurcat said, you might not know until you get to the checkout.
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »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.
The WIC program is not necessarily a list of "healthy foods." It is a few foods that are supplied to supplement nutrition for young children.
The breads you can get on WIC have HCFS (small amounts, but yes). You can choose from a list of cereals, which includes frosted mini-wheats; they do have guidelines about their cereals, which has to do with how much sugar, whole grain, and added nutrients the cereal has. Fruit and vanilla flavored yogurts are allowed, which have added sugar. Block cheese is provided. Unless the child is 12-24 months and therefore getting whole milk, the milk must be skim or 1%.
In fact, every item on the WIC list, aside from the fresh fruits/vegetables, will meat someones definition of not healthy, and some will fall under certain people's definitions of "junk."
So, while looking at the WIC program as "a start" for a definition of "healthy foods" might work, if we follow that pattern, we still have to ask, by whose definition of healthy are we going. Additionally, are we going to need a list of foods that are "healthy" and therefore exempt from the tax? (We can't just say cereal, can we, because what about lucky charms or coco puffs?) An every-changing list as new products come onto the market? And how does the average consumer know which items are taxed and which aren't, without carrying an extensive, just updated, list with them?
Seem like the stores I go to have a WIC eligible sticker along with the price.
Many do, but they don't always get it right. And updating it frequently enough might not be high on the store's list of things to spend man-hours on. (Speaking more of the theoretical non-taxed foods than WIC). As lemurcat said, you might not know until you get to the checkout.
If someone gets to the checkout and finds an item is taxed and they don't want to pay the tax simply tell the clerk you don't want it. NBD.0 -
lessismore130 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »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.
Simple, make items defined as junk food not eligible for purchase with food stamps.
Oh god, all the rage this would generate. You know what, set any parameters for "junk food" for this, and I wouldn't care. Somewhere, sometime, and whole bunch of people are gonna be livid, and it will be hilarious.
Was behind the guy at the register. He had a can of Pringles, a pound of NY strip steak and a $12 6 pack of craft beer. I smiled at him, said something about dinner of champions. He says, yeah going home to cook this up and watch basketball.
Of course pulls out the SNAP card to pay for the steak and Pringles.
So what? When he runs out of grocery money it's coming out of his own pocket. Personal responsibility. If he wants to eat Pringles & steak the first week of the month and starve the other 3, that's on him.
You'd probably be mad if he bought all organic, expensive veggies too. Like you said, someone's always mad about something.
Ha! I acually saw this complaint on another forum I used to lurk on. They were mad because people were using their cards to buy organic groceries while all they(non snap card users) could afford was store brand generics and regular gmo-satan veggies. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.0 -
Alluminati wrote: »lessismore130 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »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.
Simple, make items defined as junk food not eligible for purchase with food stamps.
Oh god, all the rage this would generate. You know what, set any parameters for "junk food" for this, and I wouldn't care. Somewhere, sometime, and whole bunch of people are gonna be livid, and it will be hilarious.
Was behind the guy at the register. He had a can of Pringles, a pound of NY strip steak and a $12 6 pack of craft beer. I smiled at him, said something about dinner of champions. He says, yeah going home to cook this up and watch basketball.
Of course pulls out the SNAP card to pay for the steak and Pringles.
So what? When he runs out of grocery money it's coming out of his own pocket. Personal responsibility. If he wants to eat Pringles & steak the first week of the month and starve the other 3, that's on him.
You'd probably be mad if he bought all organic, expensive veggies too. Like you said, someone's always mad about something.
Ha! I acually saw this complaint on another forum I used to lurk on. They were mad because people were using their cards to buy organic groceries while all they(non snap card users) could afford was store brand generics and regular gmo-satan veggies. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I'd only be pissed about it, because the whole organic thing is a fleecejob, and making me pay for a scam isn't cool.0 -
lessismore130 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »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.
Simple, make items defined as junk food not eligible for purchase with food stamps.
Oh god, all the rage this would generate. You know what, set any parameters for "junk food" for this, and I wouldn't care. Somewhere, sometime, and whole bunch of people are gonna be livid, and it will be hilarious.
Was behind the guy at the register. He had a can of Pringles, a pound of NY strip steak and a $12 6 pack of craft beer. I smiled at him, said something about dinner of champions. He says, yeah going home to cook this up and watch basketball.
Of course pulls out the SNAP card to pay for the steak and Pringles.
So what? When he runs out of grocery money it's coming out of his own pocket. Personal responsibility. If he wants to eat Pringles & steak the first week of the month and starve the other 3, that's on him.
You'd probably be mad if he bought all organic, expensive veggies too. Like you said, someone's always mad about something.
What pissed me off was somebody on welfare buying $12 6 pack of craft beer.
3 -
Yes, they should tax junk food. I think that's what the deal with listing sugars on the new nutrition labels is all about. Any over X amount of added sugar will be taxed.
It's good. People shouldn't be able to kill themselves with junk food. If you leave the choice up to people, they'll eat the junk instead of what they should eat, so a little nudge in the right direction is probably a good thing.
They eat junk food, the cost of healthcare goes up. So, taxing the food might help with that expense. Maybe put a limit on how much junk food people could buy. You could figure in weight. Fat people can't buy any, that kind of thing. They could have, like, a food debit card to keep track.
While I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Oreo should be illegal, maybe if it costs more people will start thinking about what they should and shouldn't eat.
Poor people get food stamps, anyway, so it really doesn't matter if rich, fat people can't eat another bag of Cheetos.
You cannot just let people eat whatever they want. That's why we are fat.
If you cannot make the right choices for yourself, someone has to help you. People should be eating healthy!1 -
Yes, they should tax junk food. I think that's what the deal with listing sugars on the new nutrition labels is all about. Any over X amount of added sugar will be taxed.
It's good. People shouldn't be able to kill themselves with junk food. If you leave the choice up to people, they'll eat the junk instead of what they should eat, so a little nudge in the right direction is probably a good thing.
They eat junk food, the cost of healthcare goes up. So, taxing the food might help with that expense. Maybe put a limit on how much junk food people could buy. You could figure in weight. Fat people can't buy any, that kind of thing. They could have, like, a food debit card to keep track.
While I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Oreo should be illegal, maybe if it costs more people will start thinking about what they should and shouldn't eat.
Poor people get food stamps, anyway, so it really doesn't matter if rich, fat people can't eat another bag of Cheetos.
You cannot just let people eat whatever they want. That's why we are fat.
If you cannot make the right choices for yourself, someone has to help you. People should be eating healthy!
Uhm, no?
I'm all for getting people to unscrew their diets, but treating grown adults like children cannot end well.5 -
I hate entertaining this idea. People should govern themselves and others should haven't to pay for others over enthusiasm for certain things. Taxing something isn't going to make people stop buying them it's just making others richer. Things like smokes, alcohol, junk food.. Yeah all those things are bad when done frequently and are also said to be addictive but occasionally its not going to do anything. People should be able to limit themselves or if they find they have a problem change it (just like majority of people on this site are doing. We're seeing an issue and trying to fix it).
We all know the risks of over consumption especially with the above. What more do we need? Someone to physically take a doughnut out of our hand? Give me the warning and move on. What I decide to do is on me. Or at least that's how it should be.
I'm in Australia and the prices for everything here I find ridiculous. If you want to eat healthy you're going to be paying an arm and a leg. How about bringing the price of healthy food down so people who are low income earners do have the option of actually eating right. $4 for an avocado? Almost $6 for a head of broccoli. These things aren't even the "organic" ones. Smokes here are almost $30 a packet. The cheapest bottle of vodka you can buy is also about $30. These prices were put up (and will be continually going up over the next couple years) to decrease the amount of people who smoke and drink. It may have discouraged some but most are just looking for alternatives.
And yes, I'm aware the smoking and drinking is bad but it's just an example of how over taxing is ridiculous imo. People should be accountable for themselves. Some people go overboard. I have an addictive personality and if I like something I want it all the time. Who's fault is that?? Oh.... that's right.. the governments, the media, commercials, my neighbor, maybe even my dog. Definitely not my fault if I get addicted to any of the above though. I blame my weight gain on the person I thought looked cool eating a bag of chips one day.
In conclusion: No. Take responsibility of your own actions.4 -
The whole idea of "hidden" sugar in things like ketchup baffles me. There is sugar in ketchup. It's part of the recipe. It's an ingredient. If you don't know there's sugar in ketchup, then it's your ignorance of how to make ketchup that's too blame, not the hidden sugars. And not that i expect everyone to know how to make ketchup, but the fact that we no longer need to make our own and can conveniently buy it from the store doesn't make its ingredients suddenly nefarious.11
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Yes, they should tax junk food. I think that's what the deal with listing sugars on the new nutrition labels is all about. Any over X amount of added sugar will be taxed.
It's good. People shouldn't be able to kill themselves with junk food. If you leave the choice up to people, they'll eat the junk instead of what they should eat, so a little nudge in the right direction is probably a good thing.
They eat junk food, the cost of healthcare goes up. So, taxing the food might help with that expense. Maybe put a limit on how much junk food people could buy. You could figure in weight. Fat people can't buy any, that kind of thing. They could have, like, a food debit card to keep track.
While I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Oreo should be illegal, maybe if it costs more people will start thinking about what they should and shouldn't eat.
Poor people get food stamps, anyway, so it really doesn't matter if rich, fat people can't eat another bag of Cheetos.
You cannot just let people eat whatever they want. That's why we are fat.
If you cannot make the right choices for yourself, someone has to help you. People should be eating healthy!
Uhm, no?
I'm all for getting people to unscrew their diets, but treating grown adults like children cannot end well.
Yeah, have to agree with you here.1 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »The whole idea of "hidden" sugar in things like ketchup baffles me. There is sugar in ketchup. It's part of the recipe. It's an ingredient. If you don't know there's sugar in ketchup, then it's your ignorance of how to make ketchup that's too blame, not the hidden sugars. And not that i expect everyone to know how to make ketchup, but the fact that we no longer need to make our own and can conveniently buy it from the store doesn't make its ingredients suddenly nefarious.
All of this. Also, you can taste the sugar and it's on the label. Hidden makes NO sense.2 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »The whole idea of "hidden" sugar in things like ketchup baffles me. There is sugar in ketchup. It's part of the recipe. It's an ingredient. If you don't know there's sugar in ketchup, then it's your ignorance of how to make ketchup that's too blame, not the hidden sugars. And not that i expect everyone to know how to make ketchup, but the fact that we no longer need to make our own and can conveniently buy it from the store doesn't make its ingredients suddenly nefarious.
I originally used the term "hidden sugar" in this context:
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.
Agree anyone can find the sugar in an item by looking at the ingredient list (that is why I put "hidden" in the quotation marks). However, most don't and consumers can get much additional sugar (calories) in the diet from things that many would not expect to have sugar.
Also, I'm not sure people can taste the "hidden sugars" in many item. Many people have grown up eating foods that have extra sugar added in the processing and don't "taste" the sugar since they've never had the food without it.2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »The whole idea of "hidden" sugar in things like ketchup baffles me. There is sugar in ketchup. It's part of the recipe. It's an ingredient. If you don't know there's sugar in ketchup, then it's your ignorance of how to make ketchup that's too blame, not the hidden sugars. And not that i expect everyone to know how to make ketchup, but the fact that we no longer need to make our own and can conveniently buy it from the store doesn't make its ingredients suddenly nefarious.
I originally used the term "hidden sugar" in this context:
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.
Agree anyone can find the sugar in an item by looking at the ingredient list (that is why I put "hidden" in the quotation marks). However, most don't and consumers can get much additional sugar (calories) in the diet from things that many would not expect to have sugar.
Also, I'm not sure people can taste the "hidden sugars" in many item. Many people have grown up eating foods that have extra sugar added in the processing and don't "taste" the sugar since they've never had the food without it.
While I get your point, I don't see what more could be done. Well, short of forcing companies to change their labeling to big black boxes with white letters that say "all the sugar!! Diabeetus!! Do not eat unless you want the beetus!!", which would be completely false, and still probably wouldn't dissuade most who eat these things.
The information is clearly on the label. If consumers practice willful ignorance, or just don't care, there's nothing you can do about it.6 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »The whole idea of "hidden" sugar in things like ketchup baffles me. There is sugar in ketchup. It's part of the recipe. It's an ingredient. If you don't know there's sugar in ketchup, then it's your ignorance of how to make ketchup that's too blame, not the hidden sugars. And not that i expect everyone to know how to make ketchup, but the fact that we no longer need to make our own and can conveniently buy it from the store doesn't make its ingredients suddenly nefarious.
I originally used the term "hidden sugar" in this context:
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.
Agree anyone can find the sugar in an item by looking at the ingredient list (that is why I put "hidden" in the quotation marks). However, most don't and consumers can get much additional sugar (calories) in the diet from things that many would not expect to have sugar.
Also, I'm not sure people can taste the "hidden sugars" in many item. Many people have grown up eating foods that have extra sugar added in the processing and don't "taste" the sugar since they've never had the food without it.
And I'm saying that the expectation that certain foods don't have sugar comes from ignorance about how they're made.4 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »The whole idea of "hidden" sugar in things like ketchup baffles me. There is sugar in ketchup. It's part of the recipe. It's an ingredient. If you don't know there's sugar in ketchup, then it's your ignorance of how to make ketchup that's too blame, not the hidden sugars. And not that i expect everyone to know how to make ketchup, but the fact that we no longer need to make our own and can conveniently buy it from the store doesn't make its ingredients suddenly nefarious.
I originally used the term "hidden sugar" in this context:
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.
Agree anyone can find the sugar in an item by looking at the ingredient list (that is why I put "hidden" in the quotation marks). However, most don't and consumers can get much additional sugar (calories) in the diet from things that many would not expect to have sugar.
Also, I'm not sure people can taste the "hidden sugars" in many item. Many people have grown up eating foods that have extra sugar added in the processing and don't "taste" the sugar since they've never had the food without it.
While I get your point, I don't see what more could be done. Well, short of forcing companies to change their labeling to big black boxes with white letters that say "all the sugar!! Diabeetus!! Do not eat unless you want the beetus!!", which would be completely false, and still probably wouldn't dissuade most who eat these things.
The information is clearly on the label. If consumers practice willful ignorance, or just don't care, there's nothing you can do about it.
A label with Paula Deen's photo required on all items with any added sugar?2 -
mskessler89 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »The whole idea of "hidden" sugar in things like ketchup baffles me. There is sugar in ketchup. It's part of the recipe. It's an ingredient. If you don't know there's sugar in ketchup, then it's your ignorance of how to make ketchup that's too blame, not the hidden sugars. And not that i expect everyone to know how to make ketchup, but the fact that we no longer need to make our own and can conveniently buy it from the store doesn't make its ingredients suddenly nefarious.
I originally used the term "hidden sugar" in this context:
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.
Agree anyone can find the sugar in an item by looking at the ingredient list (that is why I put "hidden" in the quotation marks). However, most don't and consumers can get much additional sugar (calories) in the diet from things that many would not expect to have sugar.
Also, I'm not sure people can taste the "hidden sugars" in many item. Many people have grown up eating foods that have extra sugar added in the processing and don't "taste" the sugar since they've never had the food without it.
While I get your point, I don't see what more could be done. Well, short of forcing companies to change their labeling to big black boxes with white letters that say "all the sugar!! Diabeetus!! Do not eat unless you want the beetus!!", which would be completely false, and still probably wouldn't dissuade most who eat these things.
The information is clearly on the label. If consumers practice willful ignorance, or just don't care, there's nothing you can do about it.
A label with Paula Deen's photo required on all items with any added sugar?
Hmmm, maybe. Though, if the crap they put on cigarette packs in some places didn't work, I doubt that will either. Though admittedly, Paula Deen's face is almost as horrifying as a lung tumor.1 -
This whole thread just makes me weep for America.8
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions