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
-
I can't even fathom the thought process that is going into demanding that the government become a food nanny for the entire populace... just wow, do you want the government to tell you when to go the bathroom and how many times you should wipe in the process as well????
ETA - besides, it's not 'junk' food that makes people obese - it is over-consumption of calories that makes people obese. I can get just as fat eating a healthy diet (and for the most did) as I can by eating 'Junk' food.7 -
The direction this thread has taken makes me very sad. I find it appalling that anyone thinks the government should be telling people what they can and cannot eat. Granted I lean toward the Libertarian viewpoint of wanting the government to GTFO of people's lives, but I just can't fathom someone actually wanting to live in a country where the government has that kind of involvement in people's personal decisions.7
-
queenliz99 wrote: »tattoo barcodes are next!
Awesome idea! Add in some double-labelled water and mandatory urine testing to make sure you aren't overconsuming. Nanny state anyone?3 -
I totally agree that telling people what they had to eat would be ridiculous.The direction this thread has taken makes me very sad. I find it appalling that anyone thinks the government should be telling people what they can and cannot eat. Granted I lean toward the Libertarian viewpoint of wanting the government to GTFO of people's lives, but I just can't fathom someone actually wanting to live in a country where the government has that kind of involvement in people's personal decisions.
Nobody is saying that anyone would be told what to eat, just have some reasonable moderation. You get the healthy range the usda recommends. If you have an exception for medical reasons, then your doctor could say that was healthy for you. You still get to pick what you eat.
You get to pick all the foods you like so long as they're part of a healthy-for-you diet.
Unhealthy people cost us too much money.
Why would anyone have a problem with making our country healthier??????????0 -
What is more important than people being healthy? Nothing. People, kids especially, need to start getting healthier.Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
I'd say why not.
To which I'd reply:
Because this is the United States of America which was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. This nation was built by hard working innovators taking advantage of a free-enterprise, capitalist system and we owe the affluence we so readily take for granted to the very type of free trade that the creation of a socialistic nanny state would strangle.
We haven't become one of the most prosperous and blessed nations in the history of mankind because of government intervention in our daily lives. We've enjoyed the prosperity we have because, to a much greater degree than most countries, our government has left industry alone to succeed and our people alone to live and believe as they so desire.
We don't need someone to decide for us what we can eat and punish us monetarily for not adhering to their plan. If we don't take care of our own selves, it's on us. And even if we did need someone to make our decisions for us, it sure to goodness wouldn't be the government's job. You know, The Constitution and Bill of Rights and all that fun stuff no one remembers from their civics classes.
Besides, do we really want our nutrition choices to be dictated by the same entity responsible for bankrupting social security, the housing bubble (remember 2008?), Fast and Furious, IRS scandals, Benghazi, trillions of dollars of debt, etc. not to mention being heavily influenced by lobbyists and perpetually stalled in partisan gridlock?
That's why. For starters.
Seriously, the very idea flies in the face of everything that made America great.
And people ask me to expound on why I weep for this nation.
The fact that this is even being considered a serious conversation...
They're going to tax the junk food. They'll do it by taxing food with added sugars and high amounts of sodium.
I think people should be eating healthy. If they don't, they should pay for it.
Maybe they should just make cigarettes and junk food illegal instead of taxing it. That would probably be easier and have less people complaining about paying taxes. We would also have fewer people setting poor examples for children.
They could set limits on how much fast food and restaurant food people could eat. Nobody is saying you can't ever eat junk, but limit it to a reasonable, small amount.
People who are left to make their own decisions will make bad ones. It's bad for them, it's bad for children and it's bad for society. There is no good there.
Communism and fascism, though described as being on opposing ends of the spectrum of political theory, have two major similarities:
1) Government control of the populace
2) Self-justification by the flawed reasoning of "the people need us to make their decisions for them"
If you want a government that so encroaches on your personal liberties as to dictate what you should and shouldn't be eating, try the Castro brothers.
This is important. If you eat a healthy diet like you should then nothing changes for you. If you aren't eating a healthy diet then everyone else shouldn't have to pay for it which we would in healthcare. Plus, you set a bad example for children.
The health of the populace and the kids especially is the most important thing and we all see where allowing people to crazy with food had left us.
Something has to be done and taxing is better than nothing. Quit selling junk food would be better and probably easier.
Do people really need the Cheeto?
What's more important than being healthy? My freedom to make my own personal choices that's what. That is more important than my health, or my life for that matter. And yes, I really sometimes need the Cheeto. Especially the jalapeno cheddar ones.13 -
I totally agree that telling people what they had to eat would be ridiculous.The direction this thread has taken makes me very sad. I find it appalling that anyone thinks the government should be telling people what they can and cannot eat. Granted I lean toward the Libertarian viewpoint of wanting the government to GTFO of people's lives, but I just can't fathom someone actually wanting to live in a country where the government has that kind of involvement in people's personal decisions.
Nobody is saying that anyone would be told what to eat, just have some reasonable moderation. You get the healthy range the usda recommends. If you have an exception for medical reasons, then your doctor could say that was healthy for you. You still get to pick what you eat.
You get to pick all the foods you like so long as they're part of a healthy-for-you diet.
Unhealthy people cost us too much money.
Why would anyone have a problem with making our country healthier??????????
Yeah, see, that's the part I have a problem with. Who the hell is the government to be trying to tell me what a "healthy-for-you" diet is? That is telling people what they should eat. Just because you give someone the ability to choose from a subset doesn't mean you aren't still restricting their choices.
I have no problem with making our country healthier. You and I just have vastly different ideas as to how that should be accomplished.
3 -
What is more important than people being healthy? Nothing. People, kids especially, need to start getting healthier.Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
I'd say why not.
To which I'd reply:
Because this is the United States of America which was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. This nation was built by hard working innovators taking advantage of a free-enterprise, capitalist system and we owe the affluence we so readily take for granted to the very type of free trade that the creation of a socialistic nanny state would strangle.
We haven't become one of the most prosperous and blessed nations in the history of mankind because of government intervention in our daily lives. We've enjoyed the prosperity we have because, to a much greater degree than most countries, our government has left industry alone to succeed and our people alone to live and believe as they so desire.
We don't need someone to decide for us what we can eat and punish us monetarily for not adhering to their plan. If we don't take care of our own selves, it's on us. And even if we did need someone to make our decisions for us, it sure to goodness wouldn't be the government's job. You know, The Constitution and Bill of Rights and all that fun stuff no one remembers from their civics classes.
Besides, do we really want our nutrition choices to be dictated by the same entity responsible for bankrupting social security, the housing bubble (remember 2008?), Fast and Furious, IRS scandals, Benghazi, trillions of dollars of debt, etc. not to mention being heavily influenced by lobbyists and perpetually stalled in partisan gridlock?
That's why. For starters.
Seriously, the very idea flies in the face of everything that made America great.
And people ask me to expound on why I weep for this nation.
The fact that this is even being considered a serious conversation...
They're going to tax the junk food. They'll do it by taxing food with added sugars and high amounts of sodium.
I think people should be eating healthy. If they don't, they should pay for it.
Maybe they should just make cigarettes and junk food illegal instead of taxing it. That would probably be easier and have less people complaining about paying taxes. We would also have fewer people setting poor examples for children.
They could set limits on how much fast food and restaurant food people could eat. Nobody is saying you can't ever eat junk, but limit it to a reasonable, small amount.
People who are left to make their own decisions will make bad ones. It's bad for them, it's bad for children and it's bad for society. There is no good there.
Communism and fascism, though described as being on opposing ends of the spectrum of political theory, have two major similarities:
1) Government control of the populace
2) Self-justification by the flawed reasoning of "the people need us to make their decisions for them"
If you want a government that so encroaches on your personal liberties as to dictate what you should and shouldn't be eating, try the Castro brothers.
1) This is important. 2) If you eat a healthy diet like you should then nothing changes for you. 3) If you aren't eating a healthy diet then everyone else shouldn't have to pay for it which we would in healthcare. 4) Plus, you set a bad example for children.
5) The health of the populace and the kids especially is the most important thing and we all see where allowing people to crazy with food had left us.
6) Something has to be done and 7) taxing is better than nothing. 8) Quit selling junk food would be better and probably easier.
9) Do people really need the Cheeto?
1) Not as important as personal responsibility.
2) That's not true because I include "junk foods" in my overall healthy diet and plus I'd have to live with an overreaching government which would now have a precedent of making personal, individual decisions on my behalf.
3) I'm also opposed to universal healthcare for the same reason.
4) So does Kim Kardashian. You gonna lock her up?
5) And there's the illogical appeal to emotion. #ItsForTheKids
6) No, actually, the government doesn't need to do a single thing.
7) No, taxing really isn't better than nothing.
8) Oh, so you'd rather eliminate an entire industry from the economy. Bad idea.
9) I can think of about 50,000 people who depend on Cheetos to be able to put a roof over their heads. And I can think of over 6 billion people (minus those with allergies or other medical conditions) who could easily fit Cheetos into a healthy diet if they had both the knowledge and desire to do so.12 -
Again, nobody is saying that you don't get to choose, just that you eat a healthy diet. Pick whatever you want!
What is more important than people being healthy? Nothing. People, kids especially, need to start getting healthier.Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
I'd say why not.
To which I'd reply:
Because this is the United States of America which was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. This nation was built by hard working innovators taking advantage of a free-enterprise, capitalist system and we owe the affluence we so readily take for granted to the very type of free trade that the creation of a socialistic nanny state would strangle.
We haven't become one of the most prosperous and blessed nations in the history of mankind because of government intervention in our daily lives. We've enjoyed the prosperity we have because, to a much greater degree than most countries, our government has left industry alone to succeed and our people alone to live and believe as they so desire.
We don't need someone to decide for us what we can eat and punish us monetarily for not adhering to their plan. If we don't take care of our own selves, it's on us. And even if we did need someone to make our decisions for us, it sure to goodness wouldn't be the government's job. You know, The Constitution and Bill of Rights and all that fun stuff no one remembers from their civics classes.
Besides, do we really want our nutrition choices to be dictated by the same entity responsible for bankrupting social security, the housing bubble (remember 2008?), Fast and Furious, IRS scandals, Benghazi, trillions of dollars of debt, etc. not to mention being heavily influenced by lobbyists and perpetually stalled in partisan gridlock?
That's why. For starters.
Seriously, the very idea flies in the face of everything that made America great.
And people ask me to expound on why I weep for this nation.
The fact that this is even being considered a serious conversation...
They're going to tax the junk food. They'll do it by taxing food with added sugars and high amounts of sodium.
I think people should be eating healthy. If they don't, they should pay for it.
Maybe they should just make cigarettes and junk food illegal instead of taxing it. That would probably be easier and have less people complaining about paying taxes. We would also have fewer people setting poor examples for children.
They could set limits on how much fast food and restaurant food people could eat. Nobody is saying you can't ever eat junk, but limit it to a reasonable, small amount.
People who are left to make their own decisions will make bad ones. It's bad for them, it's bad for children and it's bad for society. There is no good there.
Communism and fascism, though described as being on opposing ends of the spectrum of political theory, have two major similarities:
1) Government control of the populace
2) Self-justification by the flawed reasoning of "the people need us to make their decisions for them"
If you want a government that so encroaches on your personal liberties as to dictate what you should and shouldn't be eating, try the Castro brothers.
This is important. If you eat a healthy diet like you should then nothing changes for you. If you aren't eating a healthy diet then everyone else shouldn't have to pay for it which we would in healthcare. Plus, you set a bad example for children.
The health of the populace and the kids especially is the most important thing and we all see where allowing people to crazy with food had left us.
Something has to be done and taxing is better than nothing. Quit selling junk food would be better and probably easier.
Do people really need the Cheeto?
What's more important than being healthy? My freedom to make my own personal choices that's what. That is more important than my health, or my life for that matter. And yes, I really sometimes need the Cheeto. Especially the jalapeno cheddar ones.
Your freedom to eat your Cheetos doesn't outweigh our freedom to not spend all that money on your healthcare. If you choose to eat an unhealthy diet, you should pay for it.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
What is more important than people being healthy? Nothing. People, kids especially, need to start getting healthier.Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
I'd say why not.
To which I'd reply:
Because this is the United States of America which was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. This nation was built by hard working innovators taking advantage of a free-enterprise, capitalist system and we owe the affluence we so readily take for granted to the very type of free trade that the creation of a socialistic nanny state would strangle.
We haven't become one of the most prosperous and blessed nations in the history of mankind because of government intervention in our daily lives. We've enjoyed the prosperity we have because, to a much greater degree than most countries, our government has left industry alone to succeed and our people alone to live and believe as they so desire.
We don't need someone to decide for us what we can eat and punish us monetarily for not adhering to their plan. If we don't take care of our own selves, it's on us. And even if we did need someone to make our decisions for us, it sure to goodness wouldn't be the government's job. You know, The Constitution and Bill of Rights and all that fun stuff no one remembers from their civics classes.
Besides, do we really want our nutrition choices to be dictated by the same entity responsible for bankrupting social security, the housing bubble (remember 2008?), Fast and Furious, IRS scandals, Benghazi, trillions of dollars of debt, etc. not to mention being heavily influenced by lobbyists and perpetually stalled in partisan gridlock?
That's why. For starters.
Seriously, the very idea flies in the face of everything that made America great.
And people ask me to expound on why I weep for this nation.
The fact that this is even being considered a serious conversation...
They're going to tax the junk food. They'll do it by taxing food with added sugars and high amounts of sodium.
I think people should be eating healthy. If they don't, they should pay for it.
Maybe they should just make cigarettes and junk food illegal instead of taxing it. That would probably be easier and have less people complaining about paying taxes. We would also have fewer people setting poor examples for children.
They could set limits on how much fast food and restaurant food people could eat. Nobody is saying you can't ever eat junk, but limit it to a reasonable, small amount.
People who are left to make their own decisions will make bad ones. It's bad for them, it's bad for children and it's bad for society. There is no good there.
Communism and fascism, though described as being on opposing ends of the spectrum of political theory, have two major similarities:
1) Government control of the populace
2) Self-justification by the flawed reasoning of "the people need us to make their decisions for them"
If you want a government that so encroaches on your personal liberties as to dictate what you should and shouldn't be eating, try the Castro brothers.
1) This is important. 2) If you eat a healthy diet like you should then nothing changes for you. 3) If you aren't eating a healthy diet then everyone else shouldn't have to pay for it which we would in healthcare. 4) Plus, you set a bad example for children.
5) The health of the populace and the kids especially is the most important thing and we all see where allowing people to crazy with food had left us.
6) Something has to be done and 7) taxing is better than nothing. 8) Quit selling junk food would be better and probably easier.
9) Do people really need the Cheeto?
4) So does Kim Kardashian. You gonna lock her up?
I can think of many people who would agree this is not a bad idea.
3 -
I totally agree that telling people what they had to eat would be ridiculous.The direction this thread has taken makes me very sad. I find it appalling that anyone thinks the government should be telling people what they can and cannot eat. Granted I lean toward the Libertarian viewpoint of wanting the government to GTFO of people's lives, but I just can't fathom someone actually wanting to live in a country where the government has that kind of involvement in people's personal decisions.
Nobody is saying that anyone would be told what to eat, just have some reasonable moderation. You get the healthy range the usda recommends. If you have an exception for medical reasons, then your doctor could say that was healthy for you. You still get to pick what you eat.
You get to pick all the foods you like so long as they're part of a healthy-for-you diet.
Unhealthy people cost us too much money.
Why would anyone have a problem with making our country healthier??????????
Our personal freedoms come first. If you want the government involved, put more nutrition education in classrooms that starts in kindergarten and goes through 12th grade. Cut subsidies on corn so HCFS products are more expensive, but not at the taxpayers' expense. Build up public transportation and bike lanes so people have the option to walk/cycle on commutes instead of driving. If you want to regulate or tax something, tax the damn diet industry that pushes fads and useless products, preying on people's desperation and lack of education.
People should be given opportunities and encouragement to take responsibility for themselves. By limiting how much of a particular food they can buy, it makes society more infantile. Do we really want to keep dumbing ourselves down?9 -
I'm pretty liberal, and even I think that's taking things too far.1
-
I totally agree that telling people what they had to eat would be ridiculous.The direction this thread has taken makes me very sad. I find it appalling that anyone thinks the government should be telling people what they can and cannot eat. Granted I lean toward the Libertarian viewpoint of wanting the government to GTFO of people's lives, but I just can't fathom someone actually wanting to live in a country where the government has that kind of involvement in people's personal decisions.
Nobody is saying that anyone would be told what to eat, just have some reasonable moderation. You get the healthy range the usda recommends. If you have an exception for medical reasons, then your doctor could say that was healthy for you. You still get to pick what you eat.
You get to pick all the foods you like so long as they're part of a healthy-for-you diet.
Unhealthy people cost us too much money.
Why would anyone have a problem with making our country healthier??????????
You know what else would make our country healthier? Executing the handicapped, pushing the infirm off of cliffs, and sending the fatties off to the camps. Does that make it a good idea? Hell no.
:getout:2 -
Again, nobody is saying that you don't get to choose, just that you eat a healthy diet. Pick whatever you want!
What is more important than people being healthy? Nothing. People, kids especially, need to start getting healthier.Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
I'd say why not.
To which I'd reply:
Because this is the United States of America which was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. This nation was built by hard working innovators taking advantage of a free-enterprise, capitalist system and we owe the affluence we so readily take for granted to the very type of free trade that the creation of a socialistic nanny state would strangle.
We haven't become one of the most prosperous and blessed nations in the history of mankind because of government intervention in our daily lives. We've enjoyed the prosperity we have because, to a much greater degree than most countries, our government has left industry alone to succeed and our people alone to live and believe as they so desire.
We don't need someone to decide for us what we can eat and punish us monetarily for not adhering to their plan. If we don't take care of our own selves, it's on us. And even if we did need someone to make our decisions for us, it sure to goodness wouldn't be the government's job. You know, The Constitution and Bill of Rights and all that fun stuff no one remembers from their civics classes.
Besides, do we really want our nutrition choices to be dictated by the same entity responsible for bankrupting social security, the housing bubble (remember 2008?), Fast and Furious, IRS scandals, Benghazi, trillions of dollars of debt, etc. not to mention being heavily influenced by lobbyists and perpetually stalled in partisan gridlock?
That's why. For starters.
Seriously, the very idea flies in the face of everything that made America great.
And people ask me to expound on why I weep for this nation.
The fact that this is even being considered a serious conversation...
They're going to tax the junk food. They'll do it by taxing food with added sugars and high amounts of sodium.
I think people should be eating healthy. If they don't, they should pay for it.
Maybe they should just make cigarettes and junk food illegal instead of taxing it. That would probably be easier and have less people complaining about paying taxes. We would also have fewer people setting poor examples for children.
They could set limits on how much fast food and restaurant food people could eat. Nobody is saying you can't ever eat junk, but limit it to a reasonable, small amount.
People who are left to make their own decisions will make bad ones. It's bad for them, it's bad for children and it's bad for society. There is no good there.
Communism and fascism, though described as being on opposing ends of the spectrum of political theory, have two major similarities:
1) Government control of the populace
2) Self-justification by the flawed reasoning of "the people need us to make their decisions for them"
If you want a government that so encroaches on your personal liberties as to dictate what you should and shouldn't be eating, try the Castro brothers.
This is important. If you eat a healthy diet like you should then nothing changes for you. If you aren't eating a healthy diet then everyone else shouldn't have to pay for it which we would in healthcare. Plus, you set a bad example for children.
The health of the populace and the kids especially is the most important thing and we all see where allowing people to crazy with food had left us.
Something has to be done and taxing is better than nothing. Quit selling junk food would be better and probably easier.
Do people really need the Cheeto?
What's more important than being healthy? My freedom to make my own personal choices that's what. That is more important than my health, or my life for that matter. And yes, I really sometimes need the Cheeto. Especially the jalapeno cheddar ones.
Your freedom to eat your Cheetos doesn't outweigh our freedom to not spend all that money on your healthcare. If you choose to eat an unhealthy diet, you should pay for it.
I'm sorry, but have you ever asked a question at the DMV? Have you ever flipped over to C-SPAN and tried to watch how Congress works? Have you ever tried to get a Stop Sign put on an unsafe intersection? I have to assume you have not, if you think anything about what you are describing would be "easy".
And to be blunt, your idea of what kind of government oversight is acceptable sends chills down my spine. There have been many novels about frightening dystopian futures that your plan would fit perfectly in.10 -
mskessler89 wrote: »
I totally agree that telling people what they had to eat would be ridiculous.The direction this thread has taken makes me very sad. I find it appalling that anyone thinks the government should be telling people what they can and cannot eat. Granted I lean toward the Libertarian viewpoint of wanting the government to GTFO of people's lives, but I just can't fathom someone actually wanting to live in a country where the government has that kind of involvement in people's personal decisions.
Nobody is saying that anyone would be told what to eat, just have some reasonable moderation. You get the healthy range the usda recommends. If you have an exception for medical reasons, then your doctor could say that was healthy for you. You still get to pick what you eat.
You get to pick all the foods you like so long as they're part of a healthy-for-you diet.
Unhealthy people cost us too much money.
Why would anyone have a problem with making our country healthier??????????
Our personal freedoms come first. If you want the government involved, put more nutrition education in classrooms that starts in kindergarten and goes through 12th grade. Cut subsidies on corn so HCFS products are more expensive, but not at the taxpayers' expense. Build up public transportation and bike lanes so people have the option to walk/cycle on commutes instead of driving. If you want to regulate or tax something, tax the damn diet industry that pushes fads and useless products, preying on people's desperation and lack of education.
People should be given opportunities and encouragement to take responsibility for themselves. By limiting how much of a particular food they can buy, it makes society more infantile. Do we really want to keep dumbing ourselves down?
Education hasn't worked.
We don't need to get too dramatic here. Nobody is suggesting that anyone be told what to eat, just how we might make ourselves a healthier country because we aren't.
If people are eating reasonable diets, nothing changes. Unless you are being crazy with junk and restaurant food, it doesn't affect you.
We need to do something to make people healthier.
Agree on taxing the diet industry as agree so much on bike lanes. We should have them everywhere. It would encourage people to bike!
0 -
No. Food should not be taxed. "Junk" or otherwise.2
-
mskessler89 wrote: »
I totally agree that telling people what they had to eat would be ridiculous.The direction this thread has taken makes me very sad. I find it appalling that anyone thinks the government should be telling people what they can and cannot eat. Granted I lean toward the Libertarian viewpoint of wanting the government to GTFO of people's lives, but I just can't fathom someone actually wanting to live in a country where the government has that kind of involvement in people's personal decisions.
Nobody is saying that anyone would be told what to eat, just have some reasonable moderation. You get the healthy range the usda recommends. If you have an exception for medical reasons, then your doctor could say that was healthy for you. You still get to pick what you eat.
You get to pick all the foods you like so long as they're part of a healthy-for-you diet.
Unhealthy people cost us too much money.
Why would anyone have a problem with making our country healthier??????????
Our personal freedoms come first. If you want the government involved, put more nutrition education in classrooms that starts in kindergarten and goes through 12th grade. Cut subsidies on corn so HCFS products are more expensive, but not at the taxpayers' expense. Build up public transportation and bike lanes so people have the option to walk/cycle on commutes instead of driving. If you want to regulate or tax something, tax the damn diet industry that pushes fads and useless products, preying on people's desperation and lack of education.
People should be given opportunities and encouragement to take responsibility for themselves. By limiting how much of a particular food they can buy, it makes society more infantile. Do we really want to keep dumbing ourselves down?
Education hasn't worked.
We don't need to get too dramatic here. Nobody is suggesting that anyone be told what to eat, just how we might make ourselves a healthier country because we aren't.
If people are eating reasonable diets, nothing changes. Unless you are being crazy with junk and restaurant food, to doesn't affect you.
We need to do something to make people healthier.
Agree on taxing the diet industry as agree so much on bike lanes. We should have them everywhere. It would encourage people to bike!
Education hasn't worked? When did it start?4 -
Relax. No chills necessary.
Again, nobody is saying that you don't get to choose, just that you eat a healthy diet. Pick whatever you want!
What is more important than people being healthy? Nothing. People, kids especially, need to start getting healthier.Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
I'd say why not.
To which I'd reply:
Because this is the United States of America which was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. This nation was built by hard working innovators taking advantage of a free-enterprise, capitalist system and we owe the affluence we so readily take for granted to the very type of free trade that the creation of a socialistic nanny state would strangle.
We haven't become one of the most prosperous and blessed nations in the history of mankind because of government intervention in our daily lives. We've enjoyed the prosperity we have because, to a much greater degree than most countries, our government has left industry alone to succeed and our people alone to live and believe as they so desire.
We don't need someone to decide for us what we can eat and punish us monetarily for not adhering to their plan. If we don't take care of our own selves, it's on us. And even if we did need someone to make our decisions for us, it sure to goodness wouldn't be the government's job. You know, The Constitution and Bill of Rights and all that fun stuff no one remembers from their civics classes.
Besides, do we really want our nutrition choices to be dictated by the same entity responsible for bankrupting social security, the housing bubble (remember 2008?), Fast and Furious, IRS scandals, Benghazi, trillions of dollars of debt, etc. not to mention being heavily influenced by lobbyists and perpetually stalled in partisan gridlock?
That's why. For starters.
Seriously, the very idea flies in the face of everything that made America great.
And people ask me to expound on why I weep for this nation.
The fact that this is even being considered a serious conversation...
They're going to tax the junk food. They'll do it by taxing food with added sugars and high amounts of sodium.
I think people should be eating healthy. If they don't, they should pay for it.
Maybe they should just make cigarettes and junk food illegal instead of taxing it. That would probably be easier and have less people complaining about paying taxes. We would also have fewer people setting poor examples for children.
They could set limits on how much fast food and restaurant food people could eat. Nobody is saying you can't ever eat junk, but limit it to a reasonable, small amount.
People who are left to make their own decisions will make bad ones. It's bad for them, it's bad for children and it's bad for society. There is no good there.
Communism and fascism, though described as being on opposing ends of the spectrum of political theory, have two major similarities:
1) Government control of the populace
2) Self-justification by the flawed reasoning of "the people need us to make their decisions for them"
If you want a government that so encroaches on your personal liberties as to dictate what you should and shouldn't be eating, try the Castro brothers.
This is important. If you eat a healthy diet like you should then nothing changes for you. If you aren't eating a healthy diet then everyone else shouldn't have to pay for it which we would in healthcare. Plus, you set a bad example for children.
The health of the populace and the kids especially is the most important thing and we all see where allowing people to crazy with food had left us.
Something has to be done and taxing is better than nothing. Quit selling junk food would be better and probably easier.
Do people really need the Cheeto?
What's more important than being healthy? My freedom to make my own personal choices that's what. That is more important than my health, or my life for that matter. And yes, I really sometimes need the Cheeto. Especially the jalapeno cheddar ones.
Your freedom to eat your Cheetos doesn't outweigh our freedom to not spend all that money on your healthcare. If you choose to eat an unhealthy diet, you should pay for it.
I'm sorry, but have you ever asked a question at the DMV? Have you ever flipped over to C-SPAN and tried to watch how Congress works? Have you ever tried to get a Stop Sign put on an unsafe intersection? I have to assume you have not, if you think anything about what you are describing would be "easy".
And to be blunt, your idea of what kind of government oversight is acceptable sends chills down my spine. There have been many novels about frightening dystopian futures that your plan would fit perfectly in.
The tax is coming. It's a step in the right direction.
Stay calm and fret not over the tax.
0 -
If you have a better idea that hasn't been tried, I'm all ears. How can we make this country more healthy?Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
I totally agree that telling people what they had to eat would be ridiculous.The direction this thread has taken makes me very sad. I find it appalling that anyone thinks the government should be telling people what they can and cannot eat. Granted I lean toward the Libertarian viewpoint of wanting the government to GTFO of people's lives, but I just can't fathom someone actually wanting to live in a country where the government has that kind of involvement in people's personal decisions.
Nobody is saying that anyone would be told what to eat, just have some reasonable moderation. You get the healthy range the usda recommends. If you have an exception for medical reasons, then your doctor could say that was healthy for you. You still get to pick what you eat.
You get to pick all the foods you like so long as they're part of a healthy-for-you diet.
Unhealthy people cost us too much money.
Why would anyone have a problem with making our country healthier??????????
You know what else would make our country healthier? Executing the handicapped, pushing the infirm off of cliffs, and sending the fatties off to the camps. Does that make it a good idea? Hell no.
:getout:
0 -
MiloBloom83 wrote: »No. Food should not be taxed. "Junk" or otherwise.
You mean that there are still people who suffer from food insecurity among all this abundance and we might want to actually care about them? I'm sure we can just layer in a simple tax deduction that they could use on their tax returns that they can calculate with their accountants and that will fix it up, right? Wait, you think they don't have accountants? Don't you think that's irresponsible of them?2 -
There is a difference between taxing it and making junk food illegal. I can support the former, but not the latter. As we have seen with alcohol during prohibition times, and with drugs today, outlawing a product that is desired only leads to a criminal underground enterprise that brings even more crime with it. Fortunately we are beyond the days of people getting killed over production of alcohol (maybe a rare case here and there, but not at the same level as during prohibition). Let's not start an organized crime syndicate of cookies.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions