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
13536384041104

Replies

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    Zipp237 wrote: »
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    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).

    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.

    You are telling people they can't spend their own money on a legal product? Good luck with that. And that's even apart from the privacy concerns I have raised that you have ignored.

    This is a ridiculous conversation (and you are trolling) because it will never, ever pass.

    The tax might, on a state and local basis, in a variety of states or cities, depending mainly on how desperate they are for tax dollars.
    People all over the world pay taxes on their food. Why are Americans so entitled?

    Do they? You mean because of a VAT that applies generally? Not the same thing.

    I pay a small percentage on food, but many places exempt food from sales tax because it's an essential need, so has traditionally not been taxed (especially since sales taxes are regressive). Why do you hate poor people?
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    The silly thing is calling a sugar tax a done deal when it's not even in the works.

    The idea that a tax on added sugar could pass Congress strikes me as, well, insane. Maybe someday, who knows, but it would have to prove its worth on the state level at the least.
  • chocolate_owl
    chocolate_owl Posts: 1,695 Member
    Options
    Zipp237 wrote: »
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    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).
    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.

    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?

    LOL. Too bad you weren't trolling like this a few days ago. This would have been great fodder for the 4th of July.
  • Zipp237
    Zipp237 Posts: 255 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Zipp237 wrote: »
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    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).

    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.

    You are telling people they can't spend their own money on a legal product? Good luck with that. And that's even apart from the privacy concerns I have raised that you have ignored.

    This is a ridiculous conversation (and you are trolling) because it will never, ever pass.

    The tax might, on a state and local basis, in a variety of states or cities, depending mainly on how desperate they are for tax dollars.
    People all over the world pay taxes on their food. Why are Americans so entitled?

    Do they? You mean because of a VAT that applies generally? Not the same thing.

    I pay a small percentage on food, but many places exempt food from sales tax because it's an essential need, so has traditionally not been taxed (especially since sales taxes are regressive). Why do you hate poor people?
    What privacy concerns? What do you have to hide? Yes, people all over the world pay taxes on food and Yes, Americans are so entitled. "I need Cheetos." Entitled!
  • KombuchaKat
    KombuchaKat Posts: 134 Member
    Options
    As a health nut and Liberterian I am conflicted on this. They recently passed a soda tax where I live in Philadelphia which was supposed to pay for universal pre-K, which I think would actually be a good use...however it came out that the city government earmarked a significant portion of the money to go towards the General Fund meaning bailing them out yet again from the outrageous entitlements they can't get out of for overpaid city workers' retirements. Plus it's easy for Philadelphians to drive to NJ, DE, or the suburbs to save so it very well may hurt local businesses...These things are rarely what they seem.
  • Owlie45
    Owlie45 Posts: 810 Member
    Options
    Zipp237 wrote: »
    Rottified wrote: »
    Zipp237 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!
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Zipp237 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Zipp237 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?
    None, yes, doesn't apply, doesn't apply.

    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?
    Zipp237 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?
    None, yes, doesn't apply, doesn't apply.

    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...
    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.

    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.
    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.

    If people want to load up on ice cream or Cheetos, they need help and should be stopped.

    If the card doesn't let me buy what I want then it's telling me what to buy. Get that part through your head.
    I don't *kitten* like that we have to buy health insurance. To afford health insurance my parents will have to divorce. For the next year or two it's just cheaper to pay the fine, but after that. Sorry but that piece of paper means a lot to her and she's already starts crying when the divorce part comes up. Do you want to *kitten* deal with it when it starts cause I dont. Don't you think that if people could afford it they would freaking have it!? He'll trump would have my vote for sure if I knew he was going to get rid of it. Or do some MAJOR overhaul on it.
    It is no one's place to tell someone that they can't have Cheetos or ice cream. He'll I don't even really like Cheetos and I'm allergic to a common ingredient in ice cream so if we were to get rid of them it wouldn't bother me, probably make it easier so I'm not tempted, but it's still no one's place to tell someone to have or not to have something.
  • KombuchaKat
    KombuchaKat Posts: 134 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    100df wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    100df 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.

    As a Philadelphian I can almost guarantee that if any of the money goes to education it will be minimal and only to pay lip service for this being a righteous tax. Our city government is better than it used to be but there remain major issues with corruption and as in my other post, it's come out that much of the money is going to the General Fund...so overpaid DMV workers and the like can get their inflated retirements without interruption, it's garbage!
  • KombuchaKat
    KombuchaKat Posts: 134 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    The silly thing is calling a sugar tax a done deal when it's not even in the works.

    The idea that a tax on added sugar could pass Congress strikes me as, well, insane. Maybe someday, who knows, but it would have to prove its worth on the state level at the least.

    Depends quite a bit on who wins the election. We are at a fundamental pass with many issues, of course, but in my mind a big one is how big we want our government to be and how much of our lives should be legislated. Bigger the government, more likely we will see something like a national sugar tax. I believe in our personal liberties and would rather a smaller government, but at the same time we all end up paying for people's lack of discipline in some way or another in society...so I can see arguments on both sides.
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    Options
    Zipp237 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Zipp237 wrote: »
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    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).

    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.

    You are telling people they can't spend their own money on a legal product? Good luck with that. And that's even apart from the privacy concerns I have raised that you have ignored.

    This is a ridiculous conversation (and you are trolling) because it will never, ever pass.

    The tax might, on a state and local basis, in a variety of states or cities, depending mainly on how desperate they are for tax dollars.
    People all over the world pay taxes on their food. Why are Americans so entitled?

    Do they? You mean because of a VAT that applies generally? Not the same thing.

    I pay a small percentage on food, but many places exempt food from sales tax because it's an essential need, so has traditionally not been taxed (especially since sales taxes are regressive). Why do you hate poor people?
    What privacy concerns? What do you have to hide? Yes, people all over the world pay taxes on food and Yes, Americans are so entitled. "I need Cheetos." Entitled!

    Government bureaucrats having access to my health and medical information to be able to decide what I'm allowed to buy with your stupid card.
    That's a big stinking privacy issue.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    Zipp237 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Zipp237 wrote: »
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    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).

    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.

    You are telling people they can't spend their own money on a legal product? Good luck with that. And that's even apart from the privacy concerns I have raised that you have ignored.

    This is a ridiculous conversation (and you are trolling) because it will never, ever pass.

    The tax might, on a state and local basis, in a variety of states or cities, depending mainly on how desperate they are for tax dollars.
    People all over the world pay taxes on their food. Why are Americans so entitled?

    Do they? You mean because of a VAT that applies generally? Not the same thing.

    I pay a small percentage on food, but many places exempt food from sales tax because it's an essential need, so has traditionally not been taxed (especially since sales taxes are regressive). Why do you hate poor people?
    What privacy concerns? What do you have to hide?

    I don't need to have something to hide to invoke my privacy concerns. I don't want someone monitoring what I eat in the privacy of my own home by monitoring my purchases, even if I choose to make them by cash. And I certainly don't want someone telling me I can't do a low carb diet or otherwise eat as I like (including as much red meat as I want). As it happens, I eat pretty healthfully, but the gov't has no right to monitor how I eat and whoever the third-party contractor is that runs this nonsensical card also does not.

    Anyway, you know and I know and everyone else here knows that such a card system would never get passed by Congress. I believe it would be struck down if it did -- no adequate state interest, especially given the privacy concerns. But it's never going to come to that.
    Yes, people all over the world pay taxes on food

    As do I. A general VAT (which typically has a lower rate on food if food is included) is irrelevant when the argument is for an excise tax. That's why I asked if you meant something more. I know about the recent UK law, as the Atlantic piece I cited is about it.
    and Yes, Americans are so entitled. "I need Cheetos." Entitled!

    We are entitled, but Cheetos has nothing to do with it (I don't think people in other countries are particularly different when it comes to junk food, once introduced).
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    however it came out that the city government earmarked a significant portion of the money to go towards the General Fund meaning bailing them out yet again

    Good friend of mine in Philly said before it was passed that that was the real reason for it.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    Zipp237 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Zipp237 wrote: »
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    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).

    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.

    You are telling people they can't spend their own money on a legal product? Good luck with that. And that's even apart from the privacy concerns I have raised that you have ignored.

    This is a ridiculous conversation (and you are trolling) because it will never, ever pass.

    The tax might, on a state and local basis, in a variety of states or cities, depending mainly on how desperate they are for tax dollars.
    People all over the world pay taxes on their food. Why are Americans so entitled?

    Do they? You mean because of a VAT that applies generally? Not the same thing.

    I pay a small percentage on food, but many places exempt food from sales tax because it's an essential need, so has traditionally not been taxed (especially since sales taxes are regressive). Why do you hate poor people?
    What privacy concerns? What do you have to hide? Yes, people all over the world pay taxes on food and Yes, Americans are so entitled. "I need Cheetos." Entitled!

    Government bureaucrats having access to my health and medical information to be able to decide what I'm allowed to buy with your stupid card.
    That's a big stinking privacy issue.

    Don't look now but if the government or some hacker sitting in his underwent in his mom's basement wanted your information they could get it right now.

    Not saying its right, just the truth.
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    Options
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    Zipp237 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Zipp237 wrote: »
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    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).

    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.

    You are telling people they can't spend their own money on a legal product? Good luck with that. And that's even apart from the privacy concerns I have raised that you have ignored.

    This is a ridiculous conversation (and you are trolling) because it will never, ever pass.

    The tax might, on a state and local basis, in a variety of states or cities, depending mainly on how desperate they are for tax dollars.
    People all over the world pay taxes on their food. Why are Americans so entitled?

    Do they? You mean because of a VAT that applies generally? Not the same thing.

    I pay a small percentage on food, but many places exempt food from sales tax because it's an essential need, so has traditionally not been taxed (especially since sales taxes are regressive). Why do you hate poor people?
    What privacy concerns? What do you have to hide? Yes, people all over the world pay taxes on food and Yes, Americans are so entitled. "I need Cheetos." Entitled!

    Government bureaucrats having access to my health and medical information to be able to decide what I'm allowed to buy with your stupid card.
    That's a big stinking privacy issue.

    Don't look now but if the government or some hacker sitting in his underwent in his mom's basement wanted your information they could get it right now.

    Exactly so no reason to add fuel to the fire.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    The silly thing is calling a sugar tax a done deal when it's not even in the works.

    The idea that a tax on added sugar could pass Congress strikes me as, well, insane. Maybe someday, who knows, but it would have to prove its worth on the state level at the least.

    Depends quite a bit on who wins the election. We are at a fundamental pass with many issues, of course, but in my mind a big one is how big we want our government to be and how much of our lives should be legislated. Bigger the government, more likely we will see something like a national sugar tax. I believe in our personal liberties and would rather a smaller government, but at the same time we all end up paying for people's lack of discipline in some way or another in society...so I can see arguments on both sides.

    Congress isn't going to support it either way, even if the new President would sign such a bill. (IMO, anyway.)
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    Options
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    Zipp237 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Zipp237 wrote: »
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    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).

    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.

    You are telling people they can't spend their own money on a legal product? Good luck with that. And that's even apart from the privacy concerns I have raised that you have ignored.

    This is a ridiculous conversation (and you are trolling) because it will never, ever pass.

    The tax might, on a state and local basis, in a variety of states or cities, depending mainly on how desperate they are for tax dollars.
    People all over the world pay taxes on their food. Why are Americans so entitled?

    Do they? You mean because of a VAT that applies generally? Not the same thing.

    I pay a small percentage on food, but many places exempt food from sales tax because it's an essential need, so has traditionally not been taxed (especially since sales taxes are regressive). Why do you hate poor people?
    What privacy concerns? What do you have to hide? Yes, people all over the world pay taxes on food and Yes, Americans are so entitled. "I need Cheetos." Entitled!

    Government bureaucrats having access to my health and medical information to be able to decide what I'm allowed to buy with your stupid card.
    That's a big stinking privacy issue.

    To be fair, the companies already track what you're buy (through store credit cards and discount cards) and sell that information.

    It's how Target knew a teen was pregnant before she'd told her parents. They sent an email to the parents saying congrats on the baby and here's a bunch of coupons. It went well...


    Not that I'm pro-tax. Tax all food, tax no food, whatever. But thinking that a tax on "junk" is going to change the health of people? Nope. Not going to happen.
  • Zipp237
    Zipp237 Posts: 255 Member
    Options
    Rottified wrote: »
    Zipp237 wrote: »
    Rottified wrote: »
    Zipp237 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!
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Zipp237 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Zipp237 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?
    None, yes, doesn't apply, doesn't apply.

    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?
    Zipp237 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?
    None, yes, doesn't apply, doesn't apply.

    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...
    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.

    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.
    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.

    If people want to load up on ice cream or Cheetos, they need help and should be stopped.

    If the card doesn't let me buy what I want then it's telling me what to buy. Get that part through your head.
    I don't *kitten* like that we have to buy health insurance. To afford health insurance my parents will have to divorce. For the next year or two it's just cheaper to pay the fine, but after that. Sorry but that piece of paper means a lot to her and she's already starts crying when the divorce part comes up. Do you want to *kitten* deal with it when it starts cause I dont. Don't you think that if people could afford it they would freaking have it!? He'll trump would have my vote for sure if I knew he was going to get rid of it. Or do some MAJOR overhaul on it.
    It is no one's place to tell someone that they can't have Cheetos or ice cream. He'll I don't even really like Cheetos and I'm allergic to a common ingredient in ice cream so if we were to get rid of them it wouldn't bother me, probably make it easier so I'm not tempted, but it's still no one's place to tell someone to have or not to have something.
    Fine, then the card tells you what to buy. You still get to choose though.

    That's pretty sad about your parents, but we needed national healthcare so I guess that's a price we have to pay. It's a small price for the greater good, don't you think?
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    auddii wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    Zipp237 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Zipp237 wrote: »
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    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).

    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.

    You are telling people they can't spend their own money on a legal product? Good luck with that. And that's even apart from the privacy concerns I have raised that you have ignored.

    This is a ridiculous conversation (and you are trolling) because it will never, ever pass.

    The tax might, on a state and local basis, in a variety of states or cities, depending mainly on how desperate they are for tax dollars.
    People all over the world pay taxes on their food. Why are Americans so entitled?

    Do they? You mean because of a VAT that applies generally? Not the same thing.

    I pay a small percentage on food, but many places exempt food from sales tax because it's an essential need, so has traditionally not been taxed (especially since sales taxes are regressive). Why do you hate poor people?
    What privacy concerns? What do you have to hide? Yes, people all over the world pay taxes on food and Yes, Americans are so entitled. "I need Cheetos." Entitled!

    Government bureaucrats having access to my health and medical information to be able to decide what I'm allowed to buy with your stupid card.
    That's a big stinking privacy issue.

    To be fair, the companies already track what you're buy (through store credit cards and discount cards) and sell that information.

    You can avoid this by paying cash and not using the store value card.

    That's also apart from the idea of putting medical information on the card through a third-party administrator and giving vendors access to whatever your permitted purchases are.

    Major privacy concerns.

    A different type of privacy concern is the government telling me what I can eat (legal products only) in the privacy of my own home. What if I want to make my husband a birthday cake and a steak, but he's over his sugar and red meat allowance? Now they are getting involved in my marriage, and--of course--they are going to be all over my right to decide how to feed my children in my house.

    Yep, violation of the right to privacy.
  • Zipp237
    Zipp237 Posts: 255 Member
    Options
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    Zipp237 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Zipp237 wrote: »
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    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).

    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.

    You are telling people they can't spend their own money on a legal product? Good luck with that. And that's even apart from the privacy concerns I have raised that you have ignored.

    This is a ridiculous conversation (and you are trolling) because it will never, ever pass.

    The tax might, on a state and local basis, in a variety of states or cities, depending mainly on how desperate they are for tax dollars.
    People all over the world pay taxes on their food. Why are Americans so entitled?

    Do they? You mean because of a VAT that applies generally? Not the same thing.

    I pay a small percentage on food, but many places exempt food from sales tax because it's an essential need, so has traditionally not been taxed (especially since sales taxes are regressive). Why do you hate poor people?
    What privacy concerns? What do you have to hide? Yes, people all over the world pay taxes on food and Yes, Americans are so entitled. "I need Cheetos." Entitled!

    Government bureaucrats having access to my health and medical information to be able to decide what I'm allowed to buy with your stupid card.
    That's a big stinking privacy issue.
    Stop complaining about privacy. Unless you have something to hide, you don't need it. It would help so many people. They either don't understand how to eat well or they cannot stop themselves from making bad choices. And think of all the kids being raised by people who give them cookies as treats, children who see bad examples all day long. A sugar tax isn't even close to enough to get this country healthy.