Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Should junk food be taxed?
Options
Replies
-
Nobody has said that the food had to be provided. *Sigh.* Another example of people not understanding, demonstrating the need for a food system. People still but their food and make their choices. The card is just a guide to stop them from making bad choices.Packerjohn wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
None, yes, doesn't apply, doesn't apply.stephanieluvspb wrote: »So @Zipp237, how much of my money will be put on this card? Does everyone get the same amount? If I use all the money on my card before it gets refilled, do I just starve? Will the goverment take the rest of my paycheck and tell me what to do with it?
Wait, so the healthy food allowance isn't even our own money? And everyone has the same amount, regardless of income? Where does the money come from?stephanieluvspb wrote: »
None, yes, doesn't apply, doesn't apply.stephanieluvspb wrote: »So @Zipp237, how much of my money will be put on this card? Does everyone get the same amount? If I use all the money on my card before it gets refilled, do I just starve? Will the goverment take the rest of my paycheck and tell me what to do with it?
So where is the money coming from?
Who said anything about money? No offense, but these kind of questions illustrate the need for something like a Healthy USA Food Program. People just don't understand what is explained to them and need help. A card would do that. Nobody would have to understand what was explained, the card would just work. If you've used up your junk food allotment, no more junk food. No thinking required. The receipts could even make suggestions, like "How about some grapes?" It could be intuitive based on things you've purchased before, suggesting items that you like instead of more Oreos.
Sorry, money is the first thing that needs to be addressed. How would this be funded? Nobody would provide the food, the administrative costs, etc of something like this for free.
Any small cost associated with writing programs to load on the cards and mailing them out would be offset by a junk food tax. It would create jobs for those working on the system.
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Human history shows sooner or later the masses find a way to cut their lives short one way or another. The trend will continue I expect for the masses. Living a long and fully functioning life is not taught early on when after a T-ball game McDonald's is the reward for success.
No I disagree. It's the reward for showing up.
While that is a problem for some areas, it's not really relevant to this topic. Unless of course, you are somehow tying it together via "I'm alive, therefore take care of me, no matter how terrible my choices are". In which case yeah, I could see your point.
I was just replying to a comment on how kids are being "trained". They get high calorie, low nutrition foods as a reward for showing up for an event. This perpetuates the cycle of more and more high calorie/low nutrition (i.e. junk) foods in the diet.
Maybe a tax on junk food would encourage parents to give kids apples and water after a game instead of a sugar laden "juice box" and cookies. Wouldn't that be a good way to encourage healthy habits?
It would, but a card would be better. Then nobody is buying giant amounts of junk food to give children. They'll have to find some healthy options to serve the kids or just eliminate group snacking as an activity which would be even better.
The card solves the problem and people won't complain about being taxed.
A tax is just a small step in the right direction. What we need is for people to take control of themselves and the card would teach them how to do that.
Again....so we can't buy in bulk....it's cheaper? How do you know all of this "junk food" is going to kids? What's a junk food and what isn't.....on your card? A specified list would be great.
0 -
Of course you can buy in bulk. That was already covered. The troll thing is getting old, especially when combined with questions that were already answered and serve only to demonstrate the meed for something to help people who cannot understand things.Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Human history shows sooner or later the masses find a way to cut their lives short one way or another. The trend will continue I expect for the masses. Living a long and fully functioning life is not taught early on when after a T-ball game McDonald's is the reward for success.
No I disagree. It's the reward for showing up.
While that is a problem for some areas, it's not really relevant to this topic. Unless of course, you are somehow tying it together via "I'm alive, therefore take care of me, no matter how terrible my choices are". In which case yeah, I could see your point.
I was just replying to a comment on how kids are being "trained". They get high calorie, low nutrition foods as a reward for showing up for an event. This perpetuates the cycle of more and more high calorie/low nutrition (i.e. junk) foods in the diet.
Maybe a tax on junk food would encourage parents to give kids apples and water after a game instead of a sugar laden "juice box" and cookies. Wouldn't that be a good way to encourage healthy habits?
It would, but a card would be better. Then nobody is buying giant amounts of junk food to give children. They'll have to find some healthy options to serve the kids or just eliminate group snacking as an activity which would be even better.
The card solves the problem and people won't complain about being taxed.
A tax is just a small step in the right direction. What we need is for people to take control of themselves and the card would teach them how to do that.
Again....so we can't buy in bulk....it's cheaper? How do you know all of this "junk food" is going to kids? What's a junk food and what isn't.....on your card? A specified list would be great.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »This whole thread just makes me weep for America.
Me too.
Why? (Carlos just gave his answer, but I seem to recall you had a different viewpoint.) Is this still because people suggested that you would actually have to have a good definition of what would be taxed if you were proposing to add a tax?
Now that this card silliness has died down, I'd really love an answer to this question. 100df?
I wasn't ignoring you, I missed your post.
I am confident that most people know what junk food is. It's only some MFP members who fight about it. In real life everyone knows what junk food is. So when MFP members say it's impossible to define, I know that's ridiculous.
I think you were missing the point. Since I am one of the people who asked how junk food would be defined, I am 100% sure about that, in fact.
We are discussing a proposed law. In order to talk about the proposed law, one has to understand what the tax would cover, how it would work. If you really think it's possible to just tax "junk food" and say "well, everyone knows what junk food is" to retailers, I think you have a very different understanding of how law works than I do.
My point in asking how junk food would be defined is NOT to claim it can't be defined (anything can be defined, you just need a definition -- person can be defined as including corporations, for example, and I have zero issue with that, makes total sense in context). It is to understand what is being proposed here. For example, packerjohn has now said it's not really a tax on junk food, but one on added sugar. I had follow up questions (which I'd like answered), but that's a different type of tax than one on low nutrient products with high cals (which would be quite hard to define) or one on added fat (which I personally don't see as any less or more defensible than the sugar one). So we are taxing flavored yogurt in some way, but not potato chips. You may think it's obvious how we use definitions, but I think that result would fly in the face of how many think of junk food.My comment wasn't specifically about the tax. I am sad that some people think we don't have a problem with food and eating in this country.
Not everyone does. I'm not even sure if it's a "problem with food and eating." IMO, we have a problem with obesity that is more pronounced in some subcultures and areas than others, and which relates to the prevalence and easy access to cheap, high cal, convenience foods, as well as a culture that no longer seems to regulate how we eat in any significant way (outside of a few subcultures). I am always interested in talking about that, but I don't perceive someone having a different idea about it than me to be "sad." That seems patronizing.2 -
Of course you can buy in bulk. That was already covered. The troll thing is getting old, especially when combined with questions that were already answered and serve only to demonstrate the meed for something to help people who cannot understand things.Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Human history shows sooner or later the masses find a way to cut their lives short one way or another. The trend will continue I expect for the masses. Living a long and fully functioning life is not taught early on when after a T-ball game McDonald's is the reward for success.
No I disagree. It's the reward for showing up.
While that is a problem for some areas, it's not really relevant to this topic. Unless of course, you are somehow tying it together via "I'm alive, therefore take care of me, no matter how terrible my choices are". In which case yeah, I could see your point.
I was just replying to a comment on how kids are being "trained". They get high calorie, low nutrition foods as a reward for showing up for an event. This perpetuates the cycle of more and more high calorie/low nutrition (i.e. junk) foods in the diet.
Maybe a tax on junk food would encourage parents to give kids apples and water after a game instead of a sugar laden "juice box" and cookies. Wouldn't that be a good way to encourage healthy habits?
It would, but a card would be better. Then nobody is buying giant amounts of junk food to give children. They'll have to find some healthy options to serve the kids or just eliminate group snacking as an activity which would be even better.
The card solves the problem and people won't complain about being taxed.
A tax is just a small step in the right direction. What we need is for people to take control of themselves and the card would teach them how to do that.
Again....so we can't buy in bulk....it's cheaper? How do you know all of this "junk food" is going to kids? What's a junk food and what isn't.....on your card? A specified list would be great.
When no one understands you, it means you're not explaining your concept clearly, not that we're stupid.
You're going on ignore for me today. Yesterday was a mildly entertaining diversion, but there's a real conversation to be had here and you're not contributing to it.2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »natboosh69 wrote: »No, because why should people who like to treat themselves every now and again suffer, for the sake of other greedy people.
Why should people who like to have a beer, a glass of wine or a cocktail every now and then have to pay taxes over and above the sales tax?
That's right, you shouldn't. And that's why many places don't put an extra tax on alcohol for the consumer.
The tax is built into the cost from the distributor. Believe me the consumer is paying the tax, it's just not showing up on their store or bar receipt.
stevencloser is in Germany. Don't assume. (I don't know what the law is, but I also am not assuming.)
Ah, here: http://www.cfe-eutax.org/taxation/excise-duties/germany
Sin taxes on alcohol in the US also can't be totally separated from US issues with alcohol in general or the variety of weird alcohol-related laws we have. My guess is that places with problematic cultural relationships with alcohol (the Anglophone world fits, I think) tend to have more sin taxes on them, but do the sin taxes actually serve a positive effect or just raise some money/express our contradictory neuroses re drinking? (Alcohol tax here is flat per gallon, although there's a higher rate for beverages with above 20%. What that means is that it's a much higher tax on the cheap stuff than on expensive wine or scotch or whatever.) I wonder what evidence there is of the tax reducing consumption -- the only sources I found were free market biased, so I am undecided.
Also: http://www.mountvernon.org/digital-encyclopedia/article/whiskey-rebellion/0 -
Here's an interesting article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/the-wages-of-sin-taxes/474327/
I like the historical stuff:Ian Williams’s Rum: A Social and Sociable History of the Real Spirit of 1776 details how the infamous taxes in the Sugar Act of 1764 and its predecessor, the Molasses Act, helped spark the American Revolution by raising the price of the American colonies’ sweetest import and also by disrupting the production and consumption of rum, which had become as important as cash in the early colonies. The Sugar Act itself functioned as a kind of sin tax, given its impact on rum consumption, despite the fact that it was mainly intended as a revenue-raising protectionist measure. According to Gina Hames’s Alcohol in World History, the British Crown had long been concerned with the colonies’ indulgence in alcohol. So more-restrictive taxation of sugar and molasses addressed several problems at once, providing necessary cash, disrupting foreign competition, and promoting slightly less drunkenness.
This claims to answer the question I asked in the last post:A study on increased alcohol taxes in Illinois concluded that when a tax of 1 cent per serving of beer and 5 cents per serving of spirits was imposed in 2009, the state saw a total monthly decrease of 25 percent in drunk-driving deaths, and a whopping 37 percent among young people, in the two years afterward. While those findings were consistent with the findings of previous studies, the Illinois study found in addition that the decrease in drunk-driving deaths occurred even in heavy drinkers, who economists had long believed to have alcohol demands so inflexible as to be considered immune to taxes.
Re: sugar taxes (and not unrelated to the questions people have raised about the definition of junk food in the law proposed here):But there isn’t much evidence yet that they actually make people any healthier or less obese. Obesity is complicated, with multiple interacting causes related to nutrition, fitness, occupation, genetics, and environment. And while the relationship between, say, alcohol consumption and drunk-driving deaths appears straightforward, sugary snacks or junk food aren’t the only possible culprits in obesity. If denied sugary foods or soda, people might just turn to bread or bacon. At the same time, the externalities of obesity are vague. Obesity certainly burdens health-care systems, but so do plenty of other semi-avoidable health problems. Should people be taxed for not being physically active? For having unprotected sex? For eating sausages? For extending the life of terminally ill patients?0 -
mskessler89 wrote: »Relevant: http://gazettereview.com/2016/07/study-mexicos-junk-food-tax-reveals-small-drop-purchases/
Mexico is defining junk food as food with more than 275 calories per 100g. The 8% tax has stopped poor households from buying the equivalent of a Snickers bar a day (quote from different article) and hasn't deterred wealthier households at all.
Butter, oil, pasta, rice, bread, etc. are junk foods now?0 -
That is similar to how tobacco taxes fund smoking cessation programs and campaigns to dissuade youths from smoking, right? I like the idea overall, but then it would not just be to pay for healthcare... it would need to go to education for those not yet overweight and for dietitions (and maybe personal trainers) to help those who are addicted to nicotine overweight to kick the habit lose weight.
Correct, teen smoking was 37% prior to the high taxes, now it is 16%. a decrease of ~60% (don't have my calculator but that's close)1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »This whole thread just makes me weep for America.
Me too.
Why? (Carlos just gave his answer, but I seem to recall you had a different viewpoint.) Is this still because people suggested that you would actually have to have a good definition of what would be taxed if you were proposing to add a tax?
Now that this card silliness has died down, I'd really love an answer to this question. 100df?
I wasn't ignoring you, I missed your post.
I am confident that most people know what junk food is. It's only some MFP members who fight about it. In real life everyone knows what junk food is. So when MFP members say it's impossible to define, I know that's ridiculous.
I think you were missing the point. Since I am one of the people who asked how junk food would be defined, I am 100% sure about that, in fact.
We are discussing a proposed law. In order to talk about the proposed law, one has to understand what the tax would cover, how it would work. If you really think it's possible to just tax "junk food" and say "well, everyone knows what junk food is" to retailers, I think you have a very different understanding of how law works than I do.
My point in asking how junk food would be defined is NOT to claim it can't be defined (anything can be defined, you just need a definition -- person can be defined as including corporations, for example, and I have zero issue with that, makes total sense in context). It is to understand what is being proposed here. For example, packerjohn has now said it's not really a tax on junk food, but one on added sugar. I had follow up questions (which I'd like answered), but that's a different type of tax than one on low nutrient products with high cals (which would be quite hard to define) or one on added fat (which I personally don't see as any less or more defensible than the sugar one). So we are taxing flavored yogurt in some way, but not potato chips. You may think it's obvious how we use definitions, but I think that result would fly in the face of how many think of junk food.My comment wasn't specifically about the tax. I am sad that some people think we don't have a problem with food and eating in this country.
Not everyone does. I'm not even sure if it's a "problem with food and eating." IMO, we have a problem with obesity that is more pronounced in some subcultures and areas than others, and which relates to the prevalence and easy access to cheap, high cal, convenience foods, as well as a culture that no longer seems to regulate how we eat in any significant way (outside of a few subcultures). I am always interested in talking about that, but I don't perceive someone having a different idea about it than me to be "sad." That seems patronizing.
No, we are not discussing a proposed law; we are discussing a proposed policy that might someday become a proposed platform resolution. There is an enormous difference between these. Those who don't understand the difference here seem to want to discuss formation of a proposed bill, which is still not the same as discussing a proposed law or even a proposed bill. Those of us who understand that we are discussing a policy idea that could eventually become a proposed platform resolution and then maybe get formed into a proposed bill, then an actual bill, and ultimately a law are aware that there is no need to discuss finer details. Yes, there is a benefit to discussing for the sake of gaining understanding of others positions on those details. This is exactly the place to seek that benefit, but don't misunderstand that we are discussing a proposed law... it is far from that.1 -
@lemurcat12 too long to quote you on my phone...
I don't know if the answer is a junk food tax. It's a discussion on the forum. It's an idea. I missed your follow up questions and do not feel obligated to go back.
Everyone does not have an obesity problem. That doesn't mean society as a whole can't help the ones that do. If the statistics are correct about obesity related illnesses in the future it seems that society would be better off doing something to help the situation.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Relevant: http://gazettereview.com/2016/07/study-mexicos-junk-food-tax-reveals-small-drop-purchases/
Mexico is defining junk food as food with more than 275 calories per 100g. The 8% tax has stopped poor households from buying the equivalent of a Snickers bar a day (quote from different article) and hasn't deterred wealthier households at all.
Butter, oil, pasta, rice, bread, etc. are junk foods now?
Possibly. It's based on "processed foods" - which butter and oil are definitely processed, but not as processed as Oreos. I wonder if they've defined "processed" anywhere. Trying to find the actual legislation.
"Foods made mainly with cereal" is on Mexico's tax list: http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/01/world/americas/junk-food-tax-mexico/
This would never fly in the US. It's too broad, and we love our loopholes.
ETA: I found this: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673612620893 It defines "ultra-processed foods" as "made from processed substances extracted or refined from whole foods—eg, oils, hydrogenated oils and fats, flours and starches, variants of sugar, and cheap parts or remnants of animal foods—with little or no whole foods." I still haven't found the actual Mexican legislation, but these seem to be the products they're taxing - high calorie foods that are made through secondary and tertiary processing.0 -
There we have it. A sugar tax is good, but it's not enough. If we want healthy people, we need a national system to help them. If we leave people alone to choose their own diets they won't choose wisely. They need help planning better.mskessler89 wrote: »Relevant: http://gazettereview.com/2016/07/study-mexicos-junk-food-tax-reveals-small-drop-purchases/
Mexico is defining junk food as food with more than 275 calories per 100g. The 8% tax has stopped poor households from buying the equivalent of a Snickers bar a day (quote from different article) and hasn't deterred wealthier households at all.
If I may ask, how old are you?
As science continues to evolve, popular opinion of what we see as healthy today might not be considered so in the future. With that in mind, I would like to present a situation:
I'm ASSUMING you are not currently eating a LCHF diet. This is a diet often high in saturated fats with as much as 90% of caloric intake coming from fat. While it is still a bit of a counter culture in the diet world, it has gained in popularity in the past few decades. Let's say a lot of the LCHF proponents make their way into government and get control of your card. Now your card stops working when you go to the store to buy grapes and directs you to buy bacon instead. Will you just blindly change your diet at that point in order to comply with your card?
This concept could be applied to whatever undesired diet may affect you.1 -
mskessler89 wrote: »
Of course you can buy in bulk. That was already covered. The troll thing is getting old, especially when combined with questions that were already answered and serve only to demonstrate the meed for something to help people who cannot understand things.Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Human history shows sooner or later the masses find a way to cut their lives short one way or another. The trend will continue I expect for the masses. Living a long and fully functioning life is not taught early on when after a T-ball game McDonald's is the reward for success.
No I disagree. It's the reward for showing up.
While that is a problem for some areas, it's not really relevant to this topic. Unless of course, you are somehow tying it together via "I'm alive, therefore take care of me, no matter how terrible my choices are". In which case yeah, I could see your point.
I was just replying to a comment on how kids are being "trained". They get high calorie, low nutrition foods as a reward for showing up for an event. This perpetuates the cycle of more and more high calorie/low nutrition (i.e. junk) foods in the diet.
Maybe a tax on junk food would encourage parents to give kids apples and water after a game instead of a sugar laden "juice box" and cookies. Wouldn't that be a good way to encourage healthy habits?
It would, but a card would be better. Then nobody is buying giant amounts of junk food to give children. They'll have to find some healthy options to serve the kids or just eliminate group snacking as an activity which would be even better.
The card solves the problem and people won't complain about being taxed.
A tax is just a small step in the right direction. What we need is for people to take control of themselves and the card would teach them how to do that.
Again....so we can't buy in bulk....it's cheaper? How do you know all of this "junk food" is going to kids? What's a junk food and what isn't.....on your card? A specified list would be great.
When no one understands you, it means you're not explaining your concept clearly, not that we're stupid.
You're going on ignore for me today. Yesterday was a mildly entertaining diversion, but there's a real conversation to be had here and you're not contributing to it.
Yep. It's too bad, this was actually a frustrating but fun debate until one troll decided to take over and derail it.0 -
Of course you can buy in bulk. That was already covered. The troll thing is getting old, especially when combined with questions that were already answered and serve only to demonstrate the meed for something to help people who cannot understand things.Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Human history shows sooner or later the masses find a way to cut their lives short one way or another. The trend will continue I expect for the masses. Living a long and fully functioning life is not taught early on when after a T-ball game McDonald's is the reward for success.
No I disagree. It's the reward for showing up.
While that is a problem for some areas, it's not really relevant to this topic. Unless of course, you are somehow tying it together via "I'm alive, therefore take care of me, no matter how terrible my choices are". In which case yeah, I could see your point.
I was just replying to a comment on how kids are being "trained". They get high calorie, low nutrition foods as a reward for showing up for an event. This perpetuates the cycle of more and more high calorie/low nutrition (i.e. junk) foods in the diet.
Maybe a tax on junk food would encourage parents to give kids apples and water after a game instead of a sugar laden "juice box" and cookies. Wouldn't that be a good way to encourage healthy habits?
It would, but a card would be better. Then nobody is buying giant amounts of junk food to give children. They'll have to find some healthy options to serve the kids or just eliminate group snacking as an activity which would be even better.
The card solves the problem and people won't complain about being taxed.
A tax is just a small step in the right direction. What we need is for people to take control of themselves and the card would teach them how to do that.
Again....so we can't buy in bulk....it's cheaper? How do you know all of this "junk food" is going to kids? What's a junk food and what isn't.....on your card? A specified list would be great.
How can we buy in bulk, but yet not by giant amounts...you're constant contradiction (to the point it sounds labored) is what's setting off everyone's troll detector. It's not that we can't understand it...you just make zero sense and are a walking contradiction that doesn't have a plan and is just making it up as you go along. Oh wait.....now I do get it.1 -
There we have it. A sugar tax is good, but it's not enough. If we want healthy people, we need a national system to help them. If we leave people alone to choose their own diets they won't choose wisely. They need help planning better.mskessler89 wrote: »Relevant: http://gazettereview.com/2016/07/study-mexicos-junk-food-tax-reveals-small-drop-purchases/
Mexico is defining junk food as food with more than 275 calories per 100g. The 8% tax has stopped poor households from buying the equivalent of a Snickers bar a day (quote from different article) and hasn't deterred wealthier households at all.
If I may ask, how old are you?
As science continues to evolve, popular opinion of what we see as healthy today might not be considered so in the future. With that in mind, I would like to present a situation:
I'm ASSUMING you are not currently eating a LCHF diet. This is a diet often high in saturated fats with as much as 90% of caloric intake coming from fat. While it is still a bit of a counter culture in the diet world, it has gained in popularity in the past few decades. Let's say a lot of the LCHF proponents make their way into government and get control of your card. Now your card stops working when you go to the store to buy grapes and directs you to buy bacon instead. Will you just blindly change your diet at that point in order to comply with your card?
This concept could be applied to whatever undesired diet may affect you.
@moe0303 I am glad you asked this. I am curious too! Her idea is naive.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »This whole thread just makes me weep for America.
Me too.
Why? (Carlos just gave his answer, but I seem to recall you had a different viewpoint.) Is this still because people suggested that you would actually have to have a good definition of what would be taxed if you were proposing to add a tax?
Now that this card silliness has died down, I'd really love an answer to this question. 100df?
I wasn't ignoring you, I missed your post.
I am confident that most people know what junk food is. It's only some MFP members who fight about it. In real life everyone knows what junk food is. So when MFP members say it's impossible to define, I know that's ridiculous.
I think you were missing the point. Since I am one of the people who asked how junk food would be defined, I am 100% sure about that, in fact.
We are discussing a proposed law. In order to talk about the proposed law, one has to understand what the tax would cover, how it would work. If you really think it's possible to just tax "junk food" and say "well, everyone knows what junk food is" to retailers, I think you have a very different understanding of how law works than I do.
My point in asking how junk food would be defined is NOT to claim it can't be defined (anything can be defined, you just need a definition -- person can be defined as including corporations, for example, and I have zero issue with that, makes total sense in context). It is to understand what is being proposed here. For example, packerjohn has now said it's not really a tax on junk food, but one on added sugar. I had follow up questions (which I'd like answered), but that's a different type of tax than one on low nutrient products with high cals (which would be quite hard to define) or one on added fat (which I personally don't see as any less or more defensible than the sugar one). So we are taxing flavored yogurt in some way, but not potato chips. You may think it's obvious how we use definitions, but I think that result would fly in the face of how many think of junk food.My comment wasn't specifically about the tax. I am sad that some people think we don't have a problem with food and eating in this country.
Not everyone does. I'm not even sure if it's a "problem with food and eating." IMO, we have a problem with obesity that is more pronounced in some subcultures and areas than others, and which relates to the prevalence and easy access to cheap, high cal, convenience foods, as well as a culture that no longer seems to regulate how we eat in any significant way (outside of a few subcultures). I am always interested in talking about that, but I don't perceive someone having a different idea about it than me to be "sad." That seems patronizing.
No, we are not discussing a proposed law; we are discussing a proposed policy that might someday become a proposed platform resolution. There is an enormous difference between these. Those who don't understand the difference here seem to want to discuss formation of a proposed bill, which is still not the same as discussing a proposed law or even a proposed bill. Those of us who understand that we are discussing a policy idea that could eventually become a proposed platform resolution and then maybe get formed into a proposed bill, then an actual bill, and ultimately a law are aware that there is no need to discuss finer details. Yes, there is a benefit to discussing for the sake of gaining understanding of others positions on those details. This is exactly the place to seek that benefit, but don't misunderstand that we are discussing a proposed law... it is far from that.
That's where I am coming from.
Are there policymakers creeping the MFP forums for their next platform?0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »This whole thread just makes me weep for America.
Me too.
Why? (Carlos just gave his answer, but I seem to recall you had a different viewpoint.) Is this still because people suggested that you would actually have to have a good definition of what would be taxed if you were proposing to add a tax?
Now that this card silliness has died down, I'd really love an answer to this question. 100df?
I wasn't ignoring you, I missed your post.
I am confident that most people know what junk food is. It's only some MFP members who fight about it. In real life everyone knows what junk food is. So when MFP members say it's impossible to define, I know that's ridiculous.
I think you were missing the point. Since I am one of the people who asked how junk food would be defined, I am 100% sure about that, in fact.
We are discussing a proposed law. In order to talk about the proposed law, one has to understand what the tax would cover, how it would work. If you really think it's possible to just tax "junk food" and say "well, everyone knows what junk food is" to retailers, I think you have a very different understanding of how law works than I do.
My point in asking how junk food would be defined is NOT to claim it can't be defined (anything can be defined, you just need a definition -- person can be defined as including corporations, for example, and I have zero issue with that, makes total sense in context). It is to understand what is being proposed here. For example, packerjohn has now said it's not really a tax on junk food, but one on added sugar. I had follow up questions (which I'd like answered), but that's a different type of tax than one on low nutrient products with high cals (which would be quite hard to define) or one on added fat (which I personally don't see as any less or more defensible than the sugar one). So we are taxing flavored yogurt in some way, but not potato chips. You may think it's obvious how we use definitions, but I think that result would fly in the face of how many think of junk food.My comment wasn't specifically about the tax. I am sad that some people think we don't have a problem with food and eating in this country.
Not everyone does. I'm not even sure if it's a "problem with food and eating." IMO, we have a problem with obesity that is more pronounced in some subcultures and areas than others, and which relates to the prevalence and easy access to cheap, high cal, convenience foods, as well as a culture that no longer seems to regulate how we eat in any significant way (outside of a few subcultures). I am always interested in talking about that, but I don't perceive someone having a different idea about it than me to be "sad." That seems patronizing.
No, we are not discussing a proposed law; we are discussing a proposed policy that might someday become a proposed platform resolution. There is an enormous difference between these. Those who don't understand the difference here seem to want to discuss formation of a proposed bill, which is still not the same as discussing a proposed law or even a proposed bill. Those of us who understand that we are discussing a policy idea that could eventually become a proposed platform resolution and then maybe get formed into a proposed bill, then an actual bill, and ultimately a law are aware that there is no need to discuss finer details. Yes, there is a benefit to discussing for the sake of gaining understanding of others positions on those details. This is exactly the place to seek that benefit, but don't misunderstand that we are discussing a proposed law... it is far from that.midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »This whole thread just makes me weep for America.
Me too.
Why? (Carlos just gave his answer, but I seem to recall you had a different viewpoint.) Is this still because people suggested that you would actually have to have a good definition of what would be taxed if you were proposing to add a tax?
Now that this card silliness has died down, I'd really love an answer to this question. 100df?
I wasn't ignoring you, I missed your post.
I am confident that most people know what junk food is. It's only some MFP members who fight about it. In real life everyone knows what junk food is. So when MFP members say it's impossible to define, I know that's ridiculous.
I think you were missing the point. Since I am one of the people who asked how junk food would be defined, I am 100% sure about that, in fact.
We are discussing a proposed law. In order to talk about the proposed law, one has to understand what the tax would cover, how it would work. If you really think it's possible to just tax "junk food" and say "well, everyone knows what junk food is" to retailers, I think you have a very different understanding of how law works than I do.
My point in asking how junk food would be defined is NOT to claim it can't be defined (anything can be defined, you just need a definition -- person can be defined as including corporations, for example, and I have zero issue with that, makes total sense in context). It is to understand what is being proposed here. For example, packerjohn has now said it's not really a tax on junk food, but one on added sugar. I had follow up questions (which I'd like answered), but that's a different type of tax than one on low nutrient products with high cals (which would be quite hard to define) or one on added fat (which I personally don't see as any less or more defensible than the sugar one). So we are taxing flavored yogurt in some way, but not potato chips. You may think it's obvious how we use definitions, but I think that result would fly in the face of how many think of junk food.My comment wasn't specifically about the tax. I am sad that some people think we don't have a problem with food and eating in this country.
Not everyone does. I'm not even sure if it's a "problem with food and eating." IMO, we have a problem with obesity that is more pronounced in some subcultures and areas than others, and which relates to the prevalence and easy access to cheap, high cal, convenience foods, as well as a culture that no longer seems to regulate how we eat in any significant way (outside of a few subcultures). I am always interested in talking about that, but I don't perceive someone having a different idea about it than me to be "sad." That seems patronizing.
No, we are not discussing a proposed law; we are discussing a proposed policy that might someday become a proposed platform resolution. There is an enormous difference between these. Those who don't understand the difference here seem to want to discuss formation of a proposed bill, which is still not the same as discussing a proposed law or even a proposed bill. Those of us who understand that we are discussing a policy idea that could eventually become a proposed platform resolution and then maybe get formed into a proposed bill, then an actual bill, and ultimately a law are aware that there is no need to discuss finer details. Yes, there is a benefit to discussing for the sake of gaining understanding of others positions on those details. This is exactly the place to seek that benefit, but don't misunderstand that we are discussing a proposed law... it is far from that.
That's where I am coming from.
Are there policymakers creeping the MFP forums for their next platform?
I would guess that there are at least some on the forums, though not sure they would use this for that purpose. I do know that we are not discussing a proposed law, but an idea. The person I replied to said otherwise.
ETA: I'm involved with writing platforms and have been for years, but am not using this debate for that purpose.0 -
possibly should be banned... but no, not taxed. We have enough to worry about financially and people do have the right to eat badly if they choose to.0
-
reducinglisa wrote: »possibly should be banned... but no, not taxed. We have enough to worry about financially and people do have the right to eat badly if they choose to.
lol1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 941 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions