Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Should junk food be taxed?
Replies
-
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).1 -
KombuchaKat wrote: »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.1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
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.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
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.0 -
KombuchaKat wrote: »
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.)0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
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.0 -
Fine, then the card tells you what to buy. You still get to choose though.
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.
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?
0 -
Welp. Totalitarian psychopaths really like cards and chips (the implantable kind, not the tasty kind), because they like to manipulate and control people, and also cards are handy items if, say, you wanted to cut off someone's food supply entirely. As noted psychopath Henry Kissinger said, "Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people." The control of food is a devastating weapon of war, whether against an enemy population or your own people, generally supported by naive young fools who take pride in stamping over a population with their jackboots, "for the children." I am suspecting this card lovin' psychopath lacks a detailed knowledge of, say, the Cultural Revolution or the Holodomor and the role political control over food played in those escapades.
Remind me to put a couple of hives and packs of bees on my Christmas list.
ETA: "Someone must do something" "for the childrens!!!" OR "for the greater good!" It is amazing that the psychopathy is spawning exponentially even as I write my post!8 -
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.1 -
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.Carlos_421 wrote: »
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.0 -
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?
Yeah, because nothing bad has ever happened "for the greater good"...
2 -
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?
It's one thing to troll. It's another thing to say something that bloody insensitive. Stop.3 -
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.
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
Also: "The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings, and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone—the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment."
If that's feeling entitled, I see nothing wrong with it, sorry.3 -
It's for the greater good that we deprive the Kulak of their food. Ha, ha! Stupid Kulak, eating their dead evil red meat as it rots in the field and protecting their bags of evil carbs!
0 -
-
jmbmilholland wrote: »"For the greater good."
Don't worry though, there's plenty of vodka to be had...0 -
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.
Interesting that a person banging on about people who have nothing to hide shouldn't be concerned about privacy, yet has their profile set to private...
It's a shame you don't have an open diary so we can all see a good example of healthy eating...11 -
It's not insensitive. We needed healthcare and I'm not even going to argue that because now we have it. Don't like it? Too bad.mskessler89 wrote: »
It's one thing to troll. It's another thing to say something that bloody insensitive. Stop.
We do need to find a way to control the costs of healthcare and getting people healthy is one good way. People need to eat healthier and be healthier. It's not fair to those who eat well to make them shoulder the burden of people who want to chow down on Oreos and Cheetos.
Can you think of an easier way than a food card?
0 -
The people who made the constitution could not have imagined how things would be today. Life is fluid and adjustments must be made. So stop with privacy this and constitution that. Entitled to Cheetos. Wake up, America.lemurcat12 wrote: »
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
Also: "The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings, and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone—the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment."
If that's feeling entitled, I see nothing wrong with it, sorry.
0 -
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?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.
Said the hypocritical troll with a private account.3 -
People were a lot less healthy back then in many ways. (And Brandeis was actually talking about how times change and the protections still apply.)
But whatever, wake up sheeple!2 -
It's not insensitive. We needed healthcare and I'm not even going to argue that because now we have it. Don't like it? Too bad.
We do need to find a way to control the costs of healthcare and getting people healthy is one good way. People need to eat healthier and be healthier. It's not fair to those who eat well to make them shoulder the burden of people who want to chow down on Oreos and Cheetos.
Can you think of an easier way than a food card?
NO OREOS!!!!!!
1 -
Can't wait 'til I start my cookie speakeasy. I am going to get SO rich.
Got to figure out the tax issue, though. That tripped up poor Capone.5 -
Go ahead and make fun. Laugh now. When the tax passes, you're going to pay it.
0 -
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.
[img][/img] 11 -
Go ahead and make fun. Laugh now. When the tax passes, you're going to pay it.
Taxes on some food items based on a definition of "junk food" may well happen and has already as discussed regarding Philadelphia.
The card system, no way. Would you have some link to where this has been thought out to some extent by someone or are you making it up as you go?0 -
And even under the ACA, we don't have healthcare - at best we have a safety net in the case of catastrophic illness or accident - for the most part, the ACA provides 2-3 Dr visits a year (physicals, mammograms, vaccinations, etc). The insurance policies that are being sold for the most part are all high-deductible policies (read 6,000 to 10,000 out-of-pocket expenses before the insurance kicks in - at 60% to 70%, with the remainder still coming out of your own pocket). Go look up the statistics - the ACA has NOT increased the number of people who regularly visit their primary care physician and ER visits for routine care have actually increased since the passage of the ACA.4
-
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.
12 -
And even under the ACA, we don't have healthcare - at best we have a safety net in the case of catastrophic illness or accident - for the most part, the ACA provides 2-3 Dr visits a year (physicals, mammograms, vaccinations, etc). The insurance policies that are being sold for the most part are all high-deductible policies (read 6,000 to 10,000 out-of-pocket expenses before the insurance kicks in - at 60% to 70%, with the remainder still coming out of your own pocket). Go look up the statistics - the ACA has NOT increased the number of people who regularly visit their primary care physician and ER visits for routine care have actually increased since the passage of the ACA.
More evidence that government involvement only makes matters worse.3 -
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 446 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions