Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Should junk food be taxed?
Options
Replies
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »No, we are not discussing a proposed law; we are discussing a proposed policy that might someday become a proposed platform resolution.
To discuss policy, as well as to discuss law, you have to identify and define the proposed policy solution. You see that here: someone is saying "oh, it's OBVIOUS what junk food is" whereas the actual proposal packerjohn is making is about added sugar, so would leave out some things normally considered junk food, while including others that normally are not. There are also a variety of different policies worldwhile. So it is essentially that anyone trying to convince others that a policy is a good idea DEFINE what that policy is.
It's not "oh, it's obvious, anyone who claims otherwise obviously does not care about health" as--IMO--has been asserted, falsely.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.
I understand the difference perfectly well. I am a lawyer. It is still necessary to demonstrate how the policy would work -- questions such as how would the tax apply? Above a particular amount, per gram, per percentage, per serving, what? As someone considering such a proposal in my own state (hypothetically) all of these would make a difference.
The level of detail being requested by some is not necessary at this stage. It is definitely important when it gets to a proposed bill; but looking for a list of specific food items, for example, is well beyond the detail ever necessary or valuable at the "idea" level.
People are asking for that level of detail to make the point that the idea itself is unrealistic and problematic. They are saying it is impossible to truly define specific foods or ingredients that across the board make people obese, because quantity is the one important factor, not the specific foods. It's a debate strategy, and this is a debate.
I was not asking it as a debate strategy. I was asking it because there are all different kinds of ideas about what should be taxed and how and I wanted to know what this proposal involved.
For the record, I'm pretty neutral on these taxes. I think there's a problem with the sugar one in that HFCS is subsidized so taxing it on this end seems odd, and I also think it would be regressive, but my personal view is that states should try various policies and then let's see how it works. I don't think it will make a difference, but I would be happy to be proven wrong if that meant there was a significant reduction in obesity.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »@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.
I find it odd that you perceive the tax as helping those with an obesity problem. Seems terribly patronizing.
I think it perhaps helps the societal problem, but someone with an obesity problem who eats these foods (not all do -- it wouldn't have affected me much at all) would actually be negatively affected for the most part. It's a tax on eating high cal foods. If one doesn't want to eat them, seems weird to say you need a tax to stop. Just stop.
Education about nutrition and CICO would help the situation. That will cost money. A tax on junk food could cover that. I am not 100% sure that a tax is the answer. I am not picketing the White House or putting a petition up on change.org for a junk food tax. I am discussing the idea on a forum.
I have not said anything patronizing or condescending.
If you look at Philadelphia, I doubt the law would be used to cover nutrition education.
Nutrition education also is happening. I would like to believe it will help, but kids get educated about government and yet can't tell us how our three branches of gov't interact and what their various roles are (or what responsibilities belong to the House and not the Senate and vice versa). Most probably can't tell you who the VP is or name any SC justices. So I am cynical.
But I am in favor of nutrition education anyway.
I think the idea that the price of junk food needs to be higher to protect fat people from eating so much of it is offensive and patronizing, and that's what I read you to be saying (perhaps colored by the other prong of the discussion where I think you insulted me for asking a perfectly legitimate question about what the law would cover and how it would work). If I misunderstood, my apologies. You didn't tell me there was more to society helping than imposing the tax in how you were thinking about it.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn 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?
Question not addressed to me, but I would propose a tax on added sugars in foods as a start. The CDC, USDA and major medical researchers have all identified added sugars as a significant contributor to obesity.
How would you do it? Based on percentage? Grams? If grams, per container?
Like I said before, I think the federal gov't should stay out and let states experiment and see what works. If a state wants to try this (or just use it as an excuse for a revenue-raising measure), it wouldn't bother me, even though it is regressive.
Worth noting (in light of 100df's suggestion that asking what "junk food" meant in this context is somehow a terrible question, instead of the kind of definition issue one must wrestle with with any law), that such a definition includes lots of non junk food (to a greater or lesser degree) and excludes lots of other foods we'd normally call junk food. Demonstrating that asking about definitions is important to understanding what you are proposing.
The WHO recommends no more than 10% of calories come from what they call "free sugars". The article linked gives a pretty specific definition.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/
Also from the article:
“We have solid evidence that keeping intake of free sugars to less than 10% of total energy intake reduces the risk of overweight, obesity and tooth decay,” says Dr Francesco Branca, Director of WHO’s Department of Nutrition for Health and Development. “Making policy changes to support this will be key if countries are to live up to their commitments to reduce the burden of noncommunicable diseases.”
Since free sugars would be a subset of total energy intake, items with maybe more than 20% of their calories from free sugars could be taxed. Would have to work through a %. Probably easier to have a tax based on calories per container from free sugar over a certain point.
I personally would like to see any action on a tax at a federal level. Would avoid people going across state lines to load up on stuff at a lower tax rate, as people do with cigarettes today. Plus, assuming proceeds would go to education on diet, possibly healthcare, this would be more effective at the national level.
I'd propose something like this for a store receipt
64 oz Cola $0.99
Federal "junk food" Tax 0.50
State/Local Sales Tax .10
Total $1.59
I would highlight the "junk food" tax in some manner for educational purposes.
Would also look at how to reasonably address "junk food" calories from other sources. At this point there is more readily available research on the sugar issue.0 -
So, if I have ice cream that keeps me at under 10% of my calories from "free sugar", am I exempt from the tax? Because less than that amount should be fine.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »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/
My bad, didn't realize he was in Germany. I work for a multi-national company so at work I have to keep a global perspective in my communication.
Will try to do better.1 -
So, if I have ice cream that keeps me at under 10% of my calories from "free sugar", am I exempt from the tax? Because less than that amount should be fine.
No the ice cream given it's composition would in my scenario most likely be subject to tax. I would have the tax trigger at something greater that 10% (20% in my example) because some foods people eat have less than 10% of their calories from free sugar, those would help weight the person's total toward the 10% goal.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn 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?
Question not addressed to me, but I would propose a tax on added sugars in foods as a start. The CDC, USDA and major medical researchers have all identified added sugars as a significant contributor to obesity.
How would you do it? Based on percentage? Grams? If grams, per container?
Like I said before, I think the federal gov't should stay out and let states experiment and see what works. If a state wants to try this (or just use it as an excuse for a revenue-raising measure), it wouldn't bother me, even though it is regressive.
Worth noting (in light of 100df's suggestion that asking what "junk food" meant in this context is somehow a terrible question, instead of the kind of definition issue one must wrestle with with any law), that such a definition includes lots of non junk food (to a greater or lesser degree) and excludes lots of other foods we'd normally call junk food. Demonstrating that asking about definitions is important to understanding what you are proposing.
The WHO recommends no more than 10% of calories come from what they call "free sugars". The article linked gives a pretty specific definition.
Yes, I know. I've cited this a million times on MFP. Please don't assume we are unfamiliar--this has nothing to do with my question. I'm not asking why added sugar. And saying no more than 10% overall doesn't say anything about a specific product (like a bag of sugar).Since free sugars would be a subset of total energy intake, items with maybe more than 20% of their calories from free sugars could be taxed. Would have to work through a %. Probably easier to have a tax based on calories per container from free sugar over a certain point.
Tax based on calories per container only applying to foods over 20% added sugar or more makes sense to me. I would not apply it to staples (like sugar itself, or honey or syrup, both of which are "free sugars" according to the WHO). The WHO also includes juice.
One problem, however, is that the WHO picks on added/free sugar not because sugar itself is a problem, but because there is a correlation with calories--products with lots of added sugar tend to be high in calories. However, with the exception of sugary beverages, the calories in these foods have as much or more to do with fat as sugar. If your tax meant more of the products were higher fat but with artificial sweetener (the reverse of the Snackwell's problem), it does no good. To read the WHO as saying that sugar is worse than sat fat, period, or matters independent of calories, would be a misunderstanding.I personally would like to see any action on a tax at a federal level. Would avoid people going across state lines to load up on stuff at a lower tax rate, as people do with cigarettes today. Plus, assuming proceeds would go to education on diet, possibly healthcare, this would be more effective at the national level.
I'm against this, since I think we need more experimentation. The existence of different state policies allows us to try different policies and compare effectiveness. Most people in the country probably don't live near enough a state line to do this in significant degrees. (I live close to the IL/IN border, and yet I'd never drive to IN to grocery shop -- the cost of the gas would probably offset the benefit. In fact, IN has a much lower sales tax than I do, and yet I shop within walking distance of my place.)
I also want to say that I really appreciate that you are thinking this through and answering my questions and engaging in the discussion, even if we don't agree, rather than insulting me for having questions.0 -
But there again, you get into things like serving size (the exact way that current companies get around the label laws) - do you base the tax on servings or do you base the tax on the entire contents of the package?!? For example, if I buy a package of Oreo's (to keep it relevant for Carlos), in my house the package will last 2-3 weeks because we only eat 1-2 cookies at a time per day, so the actual contribution to my total sugar intake for the day for a single Oreo is minimal. On the other hand, as New York tried to accomplish this same strategy by banning the sale of soft drinks that were larger than X (16 oz I believe), what is to keep a person from buying 2 or 3 smaller drinks that in effect become 1 super-sized drink (thus nullifying the INTENT of the ban)?0
-
Arguing about whether the tax is good or not is silly. It doesn't matter if you are in favor of the tax or not. It's coming. You'll pay it. Don't like it? Too bad.
Personally, I'm glad. They cannot tax junk food high enough. If you don't want to eat healthy diets, pay for your healthcare. You should be eating healthy and Yes, it is my business because we all have to pay for your bad choices!
You guys are asking for specifics that exist and are making it way more complicated than it is. YOU still buy your food. YOU still choose your food. All the card does is prevent you from eating an unhealthy diet by limiting your poor choices and encouraging good ones. The issue about money being loaded to the card was only brought up by people who didn't understand the basic concept. Yes, that is proof that people cannot understand things and do need help.WinoGelato 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.
Now this has gotten absolutely ridiculous. There is no way that you have such a fundamental lack of understanding of how basic economics works. Everyone gets the same amount on their cars, but no payment is rendered to the food providers? No one needs to understand how it works it just works? Even my 5 year old understands that food costs money, and when told he can't have something, he wants to understand why and asks limitless questions.
I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt yesterday and probe to better understand the concept you were proposing as well as see if you even understand it... Today, I'm convinced like others that you are trolling. Especially since every time someone suggests that is what is going on you insist that our questions support the need for such a ludicrously flawed system...
The business about how it cannot be done is untrue. We already do it with the WIC program and what I'm suggesting isn't close to as complicated as that. We also have food stamp cards that limit people financially. All we need to do is load info onto cards so that everyone can be prevented from making bad choices. It can be done.
It's a good idea. If this tax doesn't work, it should be implemented.
0 -
No, you're not exempt. You're paying the tax. Everyone is paying the tax. If you want to eat ice cream, pay it. If you don't want to cough up the cash, don't eat the ice cream.So, if I have ice cream that keeps me at under 10% of my calories from "free sugar", am I exempt from the tax? Because less than that amount should be fine.
Do you really need ice cream, anyway? No, you don't.
0 -
Arguing about whether the tax is good or not is silly. It doesn't matter if you are in favor of the tax or not. It's coming. You'll pay it. Don't like it? Too bad.
Personally, I'm glad. They cannot tax junk food high enough. If you don't want to eat healthy diets, pay for your healthcare. You should be eating healthy and Yes, it is my business because we all have to pay for your bad choices!
You guys are asking for specifics that exist and are making it way more complicated than it is. YOU still buy your food. YOU still choose your food. All the card does is prevent you from eating an unhealthy diet by limiting your poor choices and encouraging good ones. The issue about money being loaded to the card was only brought up by people who didn't understand the basic concept. Yes, that is proof that people cannot understand things and do need help.WinoGelato 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.
Now this has gotten absolutely ridiculous. There is no way that you have such a fundamental lack of understanding of how basic economics works. Everyone gets the same amount on their cars, but no payment is rendered to the food providers? No one needs to understand how it works it just works? Even my 5 year old understands that food costs money, and when told he can't have something, he wants to understand why and asks limitless questions.
I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt yesterday and probe to better understand the concept you were proposing as well as see if you even understand it... Today, I'm convinced like others that you are trolling. Especially since every time someone suggests that is what is going on you insist that our questions support the need for such a ludicrously flawed system...
The business about how it cannot be done is untrue. We already do it with the WIC program and what I'm suggesting isn't close to as complicated as that. We also have food stamp cards that limit people financially. All we need to do is load info onto cards so that everyone can be prevented from making bad choices. It can be done.
It's a good idea. If this tax doesn't work, it should be implemented.
No no no no. The government will not be allowed to tell us how we spend our money that we worked for. If you can't handle it then there are companies who will help you but I'm good.0 -
Arguing about whether the tax is good or not is silly. It doesn't matter if you are in favor of the tax or not. It's coming. You'll pay it. Don't like it? Too bad.
Personally, I'm glad. They cannot tax junk food high enough. If you don't want to eat healthy diets, pay for your healthcare. You should be eating healthy and Yes, it is my business because we all have to pay for your bad choices!
You guys are asking for specifics that exist and are making it way more complicated than it is. YOU still buy your food. YOU still choose your food. All the card does is prevent you from eating an unhealthy diet by limiting your poor choices and encouraging good ones. The issue about money being loaded to the card was only brought up by people who didn't understand the basic concept. Yes, that is proof that people cannot understand things and do need help.WinoGelato 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.
Now this has gotten absolutely ridiculous. There is no way that you have such a fundamental lack of understanding of how basic economics works. Everyone gets the same amount on their cars, but no payment is rendered to the food providers? No one needs to understand how it works it just works? Even my 5 year old understands that food costs money, and when told he can't have something, he wants to understand why and asks limitless questions.
I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt yesterday and probe to better understand the concept you were proposing as well as see if you even understand it... Today, I'm convinced like others that you are trolling. Especially since every time someone suggests that is what is going on you insist that our questions support the need for such a ludicrously flawed system...
The business about how it cannot be done is untrue. We already do it with the WIC program and what I'm suggesting isn't close to as complicated as that. We also have food stamp cards that limit people financially. All we need to do is load info onto cards so that everyone can be prevented from making bad choices. It can be done.
It's a good idea. If this tax doesn't work, it should be implemented.
You keep talking about this tax as if it has been defined, voted on and approved. Is this a national tax? State tax? A specific municipality? What parameters did they put on the foods that will be taxed? What percent is the tax?
I'm done talking about the card.
0 -
The silly thing is calling a sugar tax a done deal when it's not even in the works.2
-
Nobody is telling anyone what to buy, just that it must be healthy. Think of it like insurance. You're required to buy it but nobody tells you which one to buy. You still have your freedom, but you're making better choices because the card won't let you make too many bad ones.Arguing about whether the tax is good or not is silly. It doesn't matter if you are in favor of the tax or not. It's coming. You'll pay it. Don't like it? Too bad.
Personally, I'm glad. They cannot tax junk food high enough. If you don't want to eat healthy diets, pay for your healthcare. You should be eating healthy and Yes, it is my business because we all have to pay for your bad choices!
You guys are asking for specifics that exist and are making it way more complicated than it is. YOU still buy your food. YOU still choose your food. All the card does is prevent you from eating an unhealthy diet by limiting your poor choices and encouraging good ones. The issue about money being loaded to the card was only brought up by people who didn't understand the basic concept. Yes, that is proof that people cannot understand things and do need help.WinoGelato 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.
Now this has gotten absolutely ridiculous. There is no way that you have such a fundamental lack of understanding of how basic economics works. Everyone gets the same amount on their cars, but no payment is rendered to the food providers? No one needs to understand how it works it just works? Even my 5 year old understands that food costs money, and when told he can't have something, he wants to understand why and asks limitless questions.
I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt yesterday and probe to better understand the concept you were proposing as well as see if you even understand it... Today, I'm convinced like others that you are trolling. Especially since every time someone suggests that is what is going on you insist that our questions support the need for such a ludicrously flawed system...
The business about how it cannot be done is untrue. We already do it with the WIC program and what I'm suggesting isn't close to as complicated as that. We also have food stamp cards that limit people financially. All we need to do is load info onto cards so that everyone can be prevented from making bad choices. It can be done.
It's a good idea. If this tax doesn't work, it should be implemented.
No no no no. The government will not be allowed to tell us how we spend our money that we worked for. If you can't handle it then there are companies who will help you but I'm good.
If people want to load up on ice cream or Cheetos, they need help and should be stopped.
0 -
It would have to be done by states, I think. I don't know the percentage but it would have to be low at first so people wouldn't whine too much about having to pay taxes and freedom and all that nutty stuff. It will get raised over time and if you ask me, it cannot be raised high enough. Let the people eating the Oreos pay for the healthcare.WinoGelato wrote: »Arguing about whether the tax is good or not is silly. It doesn't matter if you are in favor of the tax or not. It's coming. You'll pay it. Don't like it? Too bad.
Personally, I'm glad. They cannot tax junk food high enough. If you don't want to eat healthy diets, pay for your healthcare. You should be eating healthy and Yes, it is my business because we all have to pay for your bad choices!
You guys are asking for specifics that exist and are making it way more complicated than it is. YOU still buy your food. YOU still choose your food. All the card does is prevent you from eating an unhealthy diet by limiting your poor choices and encouraging good ones. The issue about money being loaded to the card was only brought up by people who didn't understand the basic concept. Yes, that is proof that people cannot understand things and do need help.WinoGelato 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.
Now this has gotten absolutely ridiculous. There is no way that you have such a fundamental lack of understanding of how basic economics works. Everyone gets the same amount on their cars, but no payment is rendered to the food providers? No one needs to understand how it works it just works? Even my 5 year old understands that food costs money, and when told he can't have something, he wants to understand why and asks limitless questions.
I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt yesterday and probe to better understand the concept you were proposing as well as see if you even understand it... Today, I'm convinced like others that you are trolling. Especially since every time someone suggests that is what is going on you insist that our questions support the need for such a ludicrously flawed system...
The business about how it cannot be done is untrue. We already do it with the WIC program and what I'm suggesting isn't close to as complicated as that. We also have food stamp cards that limit people financially. All we need to do is load info onto cards so that everyone can be prevented from making bad choices. It can be done.
It's a good idea. If this tax doesn't work, it should be implemented.
You keep talking about this tax as if it has been defined, voted on and approved. Is this a national tax? State tax? A specific municipality? What parameters did they put on the foods that will be taxed? What percent is the tax?
I'm done talking about the card.
0 -
Authoritarian little minx aren't you?
Okay, so let's say that your little card system is actually implemented (just to take this discussion to the next logical step)... how do you propose to enforce compliance? Will the poor shmuck behind the counter be expected to yank the offending items from your cart and toss them into a 'rejects' bin to be re-shelved for the next person? Will you give that poor shmuck extra training so that they can deal with the verbal abuse that they are going to receive on a daily basis for doing their job? Will you give them extended health care benefits for the physical abuse that they are going to receive as a result of doing their job (if you don't believe this will happen, I invite you to go look up 'black Friday' videos on UTube to see exactly what people are capable of doing).
But let's say that the stores do not want the liability of having to police your little system - what then? Do we create a whole new boondoggle (that would also be horribly expensive) by putting 'food cops' in every retail outlet to enforce the new procedures? How about the black markets (both in food and in 'food cards) and new venues for identity theft that you create thru the use of such a system? Please don't tell me the cards won't be able to be duplicated - they have said the same things about all the new advances in credit cards and yet identity theft is among the fastest going crimes in the world...
And then, we get to the bottom line - who pays for all of this nightmare? You can't possible create a 'fat' tax that would be high enough to cover the costs without crashing the entire economy (I won't go into an economics lesson on this but it's simple - raise the price, people buy less, production falls, people loose their jobs, less money to spend, a never ending cycle that results in the crash).2 -
Just like the WIC, if you're not allowed to buy it you don't. We already do this on a limited basis. It works fine.Authoritarian little minx aren't you?
Okay, so let's say that your little card system is actually implemented (just to take this discussion to the next logical step)... how do you propose to enforce compliance? Will the poor shmuck behind the counter be expected to yank the offending items from your cart and toss them into a 'rejects' bin to be re-shelved for the next person? Will you give that poor shmuck extra training so that they can deal with the verbal abuse that they are going to receive on a daily basis for doing their job? Will you give them extended health care benefits for the physical abuse that they are going to receive as a result of doing their job (if you don't believe this will happen, I invite you to go look up 'black Friday' videos on UTube to see exactly what people are capable of doing).
But let's say that the stores do not want the liability of having to police your little system - what then? Do we create a whole new boondoggle (that would also be horribly expensive) by putting 'food cops' in every retail outlet to enforce the new procedures? How about the black markets (both in food and in 'food cards) and new venues for identity theft that you create thru the use of such a system? Please don't tell me the cards won't be able to be duplicated - they have said the same things about all the new advances in credit cards and yet identity theft is among the fastest going crimes in the world...
And then, we get to the bottom line - who pays for all of this nightmare? You can't possible create a 'fat' tax that would be high enough to cover the costs without crashing the entire economy (I won't go into an economics lesson on this but it's simple - raise the price, people buy less, production falls, people loose their jobs, less money to spend, a never ending cycle that results in the crash).
You can have a fat tax. You will have a fat tax. Don't like it, don't buy unhealthy food items. People all over the world pay taxes on their food. Why are Americans so entitled?
0 -
Isn't ALL food taxed? If you mean like extra tax on junk food..then no.
EDITED TO UPDATE: Just looked it up. I did not know all states did NOT tax groceries. Mine taxes everything.0 -
No, you're not exempt. You're paying the tax. Everyone is paying the tax. If you want to eat ice cream, pay it. If you don't want to cough up the cash, don't eat the ice cream.So, if I have ice cream that keeps me at under 10% of my calories from "free sugar", am I exempt from the tax? Because less than that amount should be fine.
Do you really need ice cream, anyway? No, you don't.
Thank you for telling me what I should and should not eat.
How did I ever survive my life before you came into it?4 -
You guys are asking for specifics that exist and are making it way more complicated than it is. YOU still buy your food. YOU still choose your food. All the card does is prevent you from eating an unhealthy diet by limiting your poor choices and encouraging good ones. The issue about money being loaded to the card was only brought up by people who didn't understand the basic concept. Yes, that is proof that people cannot understand things and do need help.
The business about how it cannot be done is untrue. We already do it with the WIC program and what I'm suggesting isn't close to as complicated as that. We also have food stamp cards that limit people financially. All we need to do is load info onto cards so that everyone can be prevented from making bad choices. It can be done.
It's a good idea. If this tax doesn't work, it should be implemented.
In response to the bold:
The fact that you lack the ability to think logically, let alone communicate effectively, does not mean that others are incapable of understanding.
Furthermore, even if people did struggle with understanding the concepts of a proposed governmental program, this does not illustrate any need for assistance with their nutrition because the two are completely unrelated.
Your inability to understand this illustrates why so many people are frustrated with you and your incapacity to so much as entertain an intelligent thought.2
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
- 940 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions