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
-
No! We pay enough taxes.0
-
Packerjohn wrote: »Isn't candy already taxable? Could have sworn I payed tax on my candy bar the last time I purchased one....but not all candy is junk food either....what about Dark Chocolate? Sweetened drinks, why sweetened? Would that include sweet tea, lemonade, milk, chocolate milk? ----Can't find any redeeming quality about chips except they are yummy...lol
That's what I was thinking - "junk food" is already taxed.
No junk food is taxed like any other food like lettuce, apples, etc in most states. I'd assume the op is talking about something more than the regular sales tax.
When I go shopping my whole food is not taxed because it is a necessity i.e. Veggies fruits meats canned items. Food like chips, sodas, candies and pre made deli items have a sales tax placed on them.0 -
ofcsfoster36 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Isn't candy already taxable? Could have sworn I payed tax on my candy bar the last time I purchased one....but not all candy is junk food either....what about Dark Chocolate? Sweetened drinks, why sweetened? Would that include sweet tea, lemonade, milk, chocolate milk? ----Can't find any redeeming quality about chips except they are yummy...lol
That's what I was thinking - "junk food" is already taxed.
No junk food is taxed like any other food like lettuce, apples, etc in most states. I'd assume the op is talking about something more than the regular sales tax.
When I go shopping my whole food is not taxed because it is a necessity i.e. Veggies fruits meats canned items. Food like chips, sodas, candies and pre made deli items have a sales tax placed on them.
That was kind of my point with the whole thing. This is already handled on a state-by-state and locale-by-locale basis. If people in their states, cities and towns want to tax people's eating habits, let them put up pols who will do so. There's no need for this kind of thing at the federal level.2 -
ofcsfoster36 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Isn't candy already taxable? Could have sworn I payed tax on my candy bar the last time I purchased one....but not all candy is junk food either....what about Dark Chocolate? Sweetened drinks, why sweetened? Would that include sweet tea, lemonade, milk, chocolate milk? ----Can't find any redeeming quality about chips except they are yummy...lol
That's what I was thinking - "junk food" is already taxed.
No junk food is taxed like any other food like lettuce, apples, etc in most states. I'd assume the op is talking about something more than the regular sales tax.
When I go shopping my whole food is not taxed because it is a necessity i.e. Veggies fruits meats canned items. Food like chips, sodas, candies and pre made deli items have a sales tax placed on them.
It varies by state and local governmental unit. Illinois has a 1% sales tax on most food items sold at grocery stores vs. a higher rate on restaurant meals, clothing, hardware, electronics, cars, etc.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »ofcsfoster36 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Isn't candy already taxable? Could have sworn I payed tax on my candy bar the last time I purchased one....but not all candy is junk food either....what about Dark Chocolate? Sweetened drinks, why sweetened? Would that include sweet tea, lemonade, milk, chocolate milk? ----Can't find any redeeming quality about chips except they are yummy...lol
That's what I was thinking - "junk food" is already taxed.
No junk food is taxed like any other food like lettuce, apples, etc in most states. I'd assume the op is talking about something more than the regular sales tax.
When I go shopping my whole food is not taxed because it is a necessity i.e. Veggies fruits meats canned items. Food like chips, sodas, candies and pre made deli items have a sales tax placed on them.
That was kind of my point with the whole thing. This is already handled on a state-by-state and locale-by-locale basis. If people in their states, cities and towns want to tax people's eating habits, let them put up pols who will do so. There's no need for this kind of thing at the federal level.
There are already federal excise taxes that apply to sales of certain items in all states. Alcohol and gasoline/diesel fuel, phone services are some common ones. A Federal excise tax on certain foods would in not be a precedent.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »ofcsfoster36 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Isn't candy already taxable? Could have sworn I payed tax on my candy bar the last time I purchased one....but not all candy is junk food either....what about Dark Chocolate? Sweetened drinks, why sweetened? Would that include sweet tea, lemonade, milk, chocolate milk? ----Can't find any redeeming quality about chips except they are yummy...lol
That's what I was thinking - "junk food" is already taxed.
No junk food is taxed like any other food like lettuce, apples, etc in most states. I'd assume the op is talking about something more than the regular sales tax.
When I go shopping my whole food is not taxed because it is a necessity i.e. Veggies fruits meats canned items. Food like chips, sodas, candies and pre made deli items have a sales tax placed on them.
That was kind of my point with the whole thing. This is already handled on a state-by-state and locale-by-locale basis. If people in their states, cities and towns want to tax people's eating habits, let them put up pols who will do so. There's no need for this kind of thing at the federal level.
There are already federal excise taxes that apply to sales of certain items in all states. Alcohol and gasoline/diesel fuel, phone services are some common ones. A Federal excise tax on certain foods would in not be a precedent.
I am aware. And like most Federal taxes, they are invisible to people, unless they actually go looking for the rates. At least with most state sales/sin taxes, there's some kind of point of purchase reference made. The entire spirit of this idea would be completely destroyed, if no one were actually able to tell what is taxed and what isn't, given the extremely hazy nature of the very phrase "junk food".
All fuel (except dyed off-road diesel): clear and concise.
All alcohol: clear.
All tobacco: clear.
All telecomm: clear.
All "junk food": erm...what the hell was junk food again?2 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »ofcsfoster36 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Isn't candy already taxable? Could have sworn I payed tax on my candy bar the last time I purchased one....but not all candy is junk food either....what about Dark Chocolate? Sweetened drinks, why sweetened? Would that include sweet tea, lemonade, milk, chocolate milk? ----Can't find any redeeming quality about chips except they are yummy...lol
That's what I was thinking - "junk food" is already taxed.
No junk food is taxed like any other food like lettuce, apples, etc in most states. I'd assume the op is talking about something more than the regular sales tax.
When I go shopping my whole food is not taxed because it is a necessity i.e. Veggies fruits meats canned items. Food like chips, sodas, candies and pre made deli items have a sales tax placed on them.
That was kind of my point with the whole thing. This is already handled on a state-by-state and locale-by-locale basis. If people in their states, cities and towns want to tax people's eating habits, let them put up pols who will do so. There's no need for this kind of thing at the federal level.
There are already federal excise taxes that apply to sales of certain items in all states. Alcohol and gasoline/diesel fuel, phone services are some common ones. A Federal excise tax on certain foods would in not be a precedent.
I am aware. And like most Federal taxes, they are invisible to people, unless they actually go looking for the rates. At least with most state sales/sin taxes, there's some kind of point of purchase reference made. The entire spirit of this idea would be completely destroyed, if no one were actually able to tell what is taxed and what isn't, given the extremely hazy nature of the very phrase "junk food".
All fuel (except dyed off-road diesel): clear and concise.
All alcohol: clear.
All tobacco: clear.
All telecomm: clear.
All "junk food": erm...what the hell was junk food again?
From one of my earlier posts, I would say you label items on the shelve, similar to what most stores to with WIC eligible items and I would 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.
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »ofcsfoster36 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Isn't candy already taxable? Could have sworn I payed tax on my candy bar the last time I purchased one....but not all candy is junk food either....what about Dark Chocolate? Sweetened drinks, why sweetened? Would that include sweet tea, lemonade, milk, chocolate milk? ----Can't find any redeeming quality about chips except they are yummy...lol
That's what I was thinking - "junk food" is already taxed.
No junk food is taxed like any other food like lettuce, apples, etc in most states. I'd assume the op is talking about something more than the regular sales tax.
When I go shopping my whole food is not taxed because it is a necessity i.e. Veggies fruits meats canned items. Food like chips, sodas, candies and pre made deli items have a sales tax placed on them.
That was kind of my point with the whole thing. This is already handled on a state-by-state and locale-by-locale basis. If people in their states, cities and towns want to tax people's eating habits, let them put up pols who will do so. There's no need for this kind of thing at the federal level.
There are already federal excise taxes that apply to sales of certain items in all states. Alcohol and gasoline/diesel fuel, phone services are some common ones. A Federal excise tax on certain foods would in not be a precedent.
I am aware. And like most Federal taxes, they are invisible to people, unless they actually go looking for the rates. At least with most state sales/sin taxes, there's some kind of point of purchase reference made. The entire spirit of this idea would be completely destroyed, if no one were actually able to tell what is taxed and what isn't, given the extremely hazy nature of the very phrase "junk food".
All fuel (except dyed off-road diesel): clear and concise.
All alcohol: clear.
All tobacco: clear.
All telecomm: clear.
All "junk food": erm...what the hell was junk food again?
From one of my earlier posts, I would say you label items on the shelve, similar to what most stores to with WIC eligible items and I would 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.
Right but defining what should be considered "junk food" is the tricky part. You've mentioned Cola, ok, what about Diet Coke? What food products would be subjected to the tax.
I don't think the dispute is about if the tax should be explicit on the receipt, but that the very act of narrowing down the scope of what should be taxed would be extremely difficult to gain consensus.1 -
The answer is no. Its really about control...some in the govt want more and more control over you/us. If you like that idea you are crazy.2
-
WinoGelato wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »ofcsfoster36 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Isn't candy already taxable? Could have sworn I payed tax on my candy bar the last time I purchased one....but not all candy is junk food either....what about Dark Chocolate? Sweetened drinks, why sweetened? Would that include sweet tea, lemonade, milk, chocolate milk? ----Can't find any redeeming quality about chips except they are yummy...lol
That's what I was thinking - "junk food" is already taxed.
No junk food is taxed like any other food like lettuce, apples, etc in most states. I'd assume the op is talking about something more than the regular sales tax.
When I go shopping my whole food is not taxed because it is a necessity i.e. Veggies fruits meats canned items. Food like chips, sodas, candies and pre made deli items have a sales tax placed on them.
That was kind of my point with the whole thing. This is already handled on a state-by-state and locale-by-locale basis. If people in their states, cities and towns want to tax people's eating habits, let them put up pols who will do so. There's no need for this kind of thing at the federal level.
There are already federal excise taxes that apply to sales of certain items in all states. Alcohol and gasoline/diesel fuel, phone services are some common ones. A Federal excise tax on certain foods would in not be a precedent.
I am aware. And like most Federal taxes, they are invisible to people, unless they actually go looking for the rates. At least with most state sales/sin taxes, there's some kind of point of purchase reference made. The entire spirit of this idea would be completely destroyed, if no one were actually able to tell what is taxed and what isn't, given the extremely hazy nature of the very phrase "junk food".
All fuel (except dyed off-road diesel): clear and concise.
All alcohol: clear.
All tobacco: clear.
All telecomm: clear.
All "junk food": erm...what the hell was junk food again?
From one of my earlier posts, I would say you label items on the shelve, similar to what most stores to with WIC eligible items and I would 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.
Right but defining what should be considered "junk food" is the tricky part. You've mentioned Cola, ok, what about Diet Coke? What food products would be subjected to the tax.
I don't think the dispute is about if the tax should be explicit on the receipt, but that the very act of narrowing down the scope of what should be taxed would be extremely difficult impossible to gain consensus.
FIFY0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »ofcsfoster36 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Isn't candy already taxable? Could have sworn I payed tax on my candy bar the last time I purchased one....but not all candy is junk food either....what about Dark Chocolate? Sweetened drinks, why sweetened? Would that include sweet tea, lemonade, milk, chocolate milk? ----Can't find any redeeming quality about chips except they are yummy...lol
That's what I was thinking - "junk food" is already taxed.
No junk food is taxed like any other food like lettuce, apples, etc in most states. I'd assume the op is talking about something more than the regular sales tax.
When I go shopping my whole food is not taxed because it is a necessity i.e. Veggies fruits meats canned items. Food like chips, sodas, candies and pre made deli items have a sales tax placed on them.
That was kind of my point with the whole thing. This is already handled on a state-by-state and locale-by-locale basis. If people in their states, cities and towns want to tax people's eating habits, let them put up pols who will do so. There's no need for this kind of thing at the federal level.
There are already federal excise taxes that apply to sales of certain items in all states. Alcohol and gasoline/diesel fuel, phone services are some common ones. A Federal excise tax on certain foods would in not be a precedent.
I am aware. And like most Federal taxes, they are invisible to people, unless they actually go looking for the rates. At least with most state sales/sin taxes, there's some kind of point of purchase reference made. The entire spirit of this idea would be completely destroyed, if no one were actually able to tell what is taxed and what isn't, given the extremely hazy nature of the very phrase "junk food".
All fuel (except dyed off-road diesel): clear and concise.
All alcohol: clear.
All tobacco: clear.
All telecomm: clear.
All "junk food": erm...what the hell was junk food again?
From one of my earlier posts, I would say you label items on the shelve, similar to what most stores to with WIC eligible items and I would 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.
Right but defining what should be considered "junk food" is the tricky part. You've mentioned Cola, ok, what about Diet Coke? What food products would be subjected to the tax.
I don't think the dispute is about if the tax should be explicit on the receipt, but that the very act of narrowing down the scope of what should be taxed would be extremely difficult to gain consensus.
This is one reason -- along with actual practicalities, like whether it could get passed -- that I think anyone in favor of such a tax should focus on localities or at least states. Let one place try a soda and sugary drink tax (including diet soda); let another try an "added sugar" tax (once the labels allow for it); let still another try an empty calorie tax or packaged goods tax based on whatever floats their boat. Then compare results.
My sales taxes are already sky high and while this wouldn't affect me much, and while my locality is in desperate need of money, I don't see it getting passed because of the regressive nature of it. But I don't really care if people want to try it.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »ofcsfoster36 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Isn't candy already taxable? Could have sworn I payed tax on my candy bar the last time I purchased one....but not all candy is junk food either....what about Dark Chocolate? Sweetened drinks, why sweetened? Would that include sweet tea, lemonade, milk, chocolate milk? ----Can't find any redeeming quality about chips except they are yummy...lol
That's what I was thinking - "junk food" is already taxed.
No junk food is taxed like any other food like lettuce, apples, etc in most states. I'd assume the op is talking about something more than the regular sales tax.
When I go shopping my whole food is not taxed because it is a necessity i.e. Veggies fruits meats canned items. Food like chips, sodas, candies and pre made deli items have a sales tax placed on them.
That was kind of my point with the whole thing. This is already handled on a state-by-state and locale-by-locale basis. If people in their states, cities and towns want to tax people's eating habits, let them put up pols who will do so. There's no need for this kind of thing at the federal level.
There are already federal excise taxes that apply to sales of certain items in all states. Alcohol and gasoline/diesel fuel, phone services are some common ones. A Federal excise tax on certain foods would in not be a precedent.
I am aware. And like most Federal taxes, they are invisible to people, unless they actually go looking for the rates. At least with most state sales/sin taxes, there's some kind of point of purchase reference made. The entire spirit of this idea would be completely destroyed, if no one were actually able to tell what is taxed and what isn't, given the extremely hazy nature of the very phrase "junk food".
All fuel (except dyed off-road diesel): clear and concise.
All alcohol: clear.
All tobacco: clear.
All telecomm: clear.
All "junk food": erm...what the hell was junk food again?
From one of my earlier posts, I would say you label items on the shelve, similar to what most stores to with WIC eligible items and I would 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.
Right but defining what should be considered "junk food" is the tricky part. You've mentioned Cola, ok, what about Diet Coke? What food products would be subjected to the tax.
I don't think the dispute is about if the tax should be explicit on the receipt, but that the very act of narrowing down the scope of what should be taxed would be extremely difficult to gain consensus.
The WHO and CDC have specifically linked foods and drinks with added sugars to obesity and illnesses related to obesity. May be a good place to start.
In the US, we have been able to specifically identify foods that meet certain requirements for the WIC program eligibility. It's not an impossible task.1 -
billglitch wrote: »The answer is no. Its really about control...some in the govt want more and more control over you/us. If you like that idea you are crazy.
Do you enjoy paying higher taxes to pay healthcare costs related to people eating and drinking themselves sick?1 -
Didn't read this whole thread because 28 pages.
Personally would support a tax on foods with added sugars. Pretty easy to define that. Suggested it on a liberal site years ago and was generally shouted down. Said tax money should be earmarked for subsidizing whole foods and nutrition education IMO.
Right now our agriculture program subsidizes corn and soy which is basically subsidizing junk food. So if we can't make the healthy food more affordable I guess we could push for dropping the subsidies for the junk, though that would just mean higher food prices across the board which wouldn't help the people who need better nutrition the most.
Lots of articles about the subsidy issue...grabbed one:
huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/16/government-subsidies-junk-food_n_3600046.html
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »ofcsfoster36 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Isn't candy already taxable? Could have sworn I payed tax on my candy bar the last time I purchased one....but not all candy is junk food either....what about Dark Chocolate? Sweetened drinks, why sweetened? Would that include sweet tea, lemonade, milk, chocolate milk? ----Can't find any redeeming quality about chips except they are yummy...lol
That's what I was thinking - "junk food" is already taxed.
No junk food is taxed like any other food like lettuce, apples, etc in most states. I'd assume the op is talking about something more than the regular sales tax.
When I go shopping my whole food is not taxed because it is a necessity i.e. Veggies fruits meats canned items. Food like chips, sodas, candies and pre made deli items have a sales tax placed on them.
That was kind of my point with the whole thing. This is already handled on a state-by-state and locale-by-locale basis. If people in their states, cities and towns want to tax people's eating habits, let them put up pols who will do so. There's no need for this kind of thing at the federal level.
There are already federal excise taxes that apply to sales of certain items in all states. Alcohol and gasoline/diesel fuel, phone services are some common ones. A Federal excise tax on certain foods would in not be a precedent.
I am aware. And like most Federal taxes, they are invisible to people, unless they actually go looking for the rates. At least with most state sales/sin taxes, there's some kind of point of purchase reference made. The entire spirit of this idea would be completely destroyed, if no one were actually able to tell what is taxed and what isn't, given the extremely hazy nature of the very phrase "junk food".
All fuel (except dyed off-road diesel): clear and concise.
All alcohol: clear.
All tobacco: clear.
All telecomm: clear.
All "junk food": erm...what the hell was junk food again?
From one of my earlier posts, I would say you label items on the shelve, similar to what most stores to with WIC eligible items and I would 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.
Right but defining what should be considered "junk food" is the tricky part. You've mentioned Cola, ok, what about Diet Coke? What food products would be subjected to the tax.
I don't think the dispute is about if the tax should be explicit on the receipt, but that the very act of narrowing down the scope of what should be taxed would be extremely difficult to gain consensus.
This is one reason -- along with actual practicalities, like whether it could get passed -- that I think anyone in favor of such a tax should focus on localities or at least states. Let one place try a soda and sugary drink tax (including diet soda); let another try an "added sugar" tax (once the labels allow for it); let still another try an empty calorie tax or packaged goods tax based on whatever floats their boat. Then compare results.
My sales taxes are already sky high and while this wouldn't affect me much, and while my locality is in desperate need of money, I don't see it getting passed because of the regressive nature of it. But I don't really care if people want to try it.
I meant to comment on this up thread but then got distracted by something...
I wholeheartedly support the idea of small scale, localized testing with concrete baseline data to measure the impact of any proposed changes and minimize the noise. If the policy change is too widespread it will be difficult to pinpoint the actual root cause of any impact. I still think it is going to be difficult to quantify as there are too many external factors to control and the results would be generated in the long term, it's not like you put this tax in place and immediately there will be a marked decrease in the rates of obesity, pre diabetes, etc...
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »ofcsfoster36 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Isn't candy already taxable? Could have sworn I payed tax on my candy bar the last time I purchased one....but not all candy is junk food either....what about Dark Chocolate? Sweetened drinks, why sweetened? Would that include sweet tea, lemonade, milk, chocolate milk? ----Can't find any redeeming quality about chips except they are yummy...lol
That's what I was thinking - "junk food" is already taxed.
No junk food is taxed like any other food like lettuce, apples, etc in most states. I'd assume the op is talking about something more than the regular sales tax.
When I go shopping my whole food is not taxed because it is a necessity i.e. Veggies fruits meats canned items. Food like chips, sodas, candies and pre made deli items have a sales tax placed on them.
That was kind of my point with the whole thing. This is already handled on a state-by-state and locale-by-locale basis. If people in their states, cities and towns want to tax people's eating habits, let them put up pols who will do so. There's no need for this kind of thing at the federal level.
There are already federal excise taxes that apply to sales of certain items in all states. Alcohol and gasoline/diesel fuel, phone services are some common ones. A Federal excise tax on certain foods would in not be a precedent.
I am aware. And like most Federal taxes, they are invisible to people, unless they actually go looking for the rates. At least with most state sales/sin taxes, there's some kind of point of purchase reference made. The entire spirit of this idea would be completely destroyed, if no one were actually able to tell what is taxed and what isn't, given the extremely hazy nature of the very phrase "junk food".
All fuel (except dyed off-road diesel): clear and concise.
All alcohol: clear.
All tobacco: clear.
All telecomm: clear.
All "junk food": erm...what the hell was junk food again?
From one of my earlier posts, I would say you label items on the shelve, similar to what most stores to with WIC eligible items and I would 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.
Right but defining what should be considered "junk food" is the tricky part. You've mentioned Cola, ok, what about Diet Coke? What food products would be subjected to the tax.
I don't think the dispute is about if the tax should be explicit on the receipt, but that the very act of narrowing down the scope of what should be taxed would be extremely difficult to gain consensus.
The WHO and CDC have specifically linked foods and drinks with added sugars to obesity and illnesses related to obesity. May be a good place to start.
In the US, we have been able to specifically identify foods that meet certain requirements for the WIC program eligibility. It's not an impossible task.
Any added sugar? A percent of total calories as @lemurcat12 suggested earlier? So in that scenario, Diet Coke wouldn't be taxed but energy drinks would?
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »billglitch wrote: »The answer is no. Its really about control...some in the govt want more and more control over you/us. If you like that idea you are crazy.
Do you enjoy paying higher taxes to pay healthcare costs related to people eating and drinking themselves sick?
This is a completely irrelecant question. In case you hadn't noticed, the Feds are playing with Monopoly money, and our tax rate isn't going to decrease if we suddenly see a drop in obesity. They'll just find something else that needs "urgent funding and attention".4 -
Exactly. The government would love to be our solutions provider on everything. However, our government was designed to be limited, lean and out of the way.... and quite frankly our government was designed with the warning to the citizens to ***be ware of the power that we hand over to them.***Carlos_421 wrote: »Hasn't the government taken away enough of our money and Liberty already???
Besides, why should I trust the same institution responsible for the bridge to nowhere to decide what I should and shouldn't eat?
We gonna have federally employed nutritionists to decide our calorie and macro allotments and decide who should eat what so they can tax us based on individual health needs?
Of all the ill conceived ideas...
3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »ofcsfoster36 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Isn't candy already taxable? Could have sworn I payed tax on my candy bar the last time I purchased one....but not all candy is junk food either....what about Dark Chocolate? Sweetened drinks, why sweetened? Would that include sweet tea, lemonade, milk, chocolate milk? ----Can't find any redeeming quality about chips except they are yummy...lol
That's what I was thinking - "junk food" is already taxed.
No junk food is taxed like any other food like lettuce, apples, etc in most states. I'd assume the op is talking about something more than the regular sales tax.
When I go shopping my whole food is not taxed because it is a necessity i.e. Veggies fruits meats canned items. Food like chips, sodas, candies and pre made deli items have a sales tax placed on them.
That was kind of my point with the whole thing. This is already handled on a state-by-state and locale-by-locale basis. If people in their states, cities and towns want to tax people's eating habits, let them put up pols who will do so. There's no need for this kind of thing at the federal level.
There are already federal excise taxes that apply to sales of certain items in all states. Alcohol and gasoline/diesel fuel, phone services are some common ones. A Federal excise tax on certain foods would in not be a precedent.
I am aware. And like most Federal taxes, they are invisible to people, unless they actually go looking for the rates. At least with most state sales/sin taxes, there's some kind of point of purchase reference made. The entire spirit of this idea would be completely destroyed, if no one were actually able to tell what is taxed and what isn't, given the extremely hazy nature of the very phrase "junk food".
All fuel (except dyed off-road diesel): clear and concise.
All alcohol: clear.
All tobacco: clear.
All telecomm: clear.
All "junk food": erm...what the hell was junk food again?
From one of my earlier posts, I would say you label items on the shelve, similar to what most stores to with WIC eligible items and I would 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.
Right but defining what should be considered "junk food" is the tricky part. You've mentioned Cola, ok, what about Diet Coke? What food products would be subjected to the tax.
I don't think the dispute is about if the tax should be explicit on the receipt, but that the very act of narrowing down the scope of what should be taxed would be extremely difficult to gain consensus.
The WHO and CDC have specifically linked foods and drinks with added sugars to obesity and illnesses related to obesity. May be a good place to start.
Because on average foods with lots of added sugar have lots of calories (but about half from fat, usually, except with stuff like soda, which is already on the decline) and not so many micronutrients or protein. It's ultimately about calories, not some specific quality of sugar, if you read the explanations.
I think it is worth looking at places that experiment with soda or added sugar taxes and seeing what the effect would be, but nothing in the WHO or CDC or US guidelines justifies singling out added sugar vs. other sources of calories on a federal level, especially since the recommendation has to do with percentage of calories (basically just another recommendation that low nutrient foods not make up a significant portion of your calories, as you are likely to eat too much if it is).
Also, practically, it's not getting passed on the federal level. Federal sales taxes are problematic too, as they interfere with what is usually a state and local way of raising money and therefore hurt states and localities. Better to let the locals or states figure out the approach they want to try.0 -
Didn't read this whole thread because 28 pages.
Personally would support a tax on foods with added sugars. Pretty easy to define that. Suggested it on a liberal site years ago and was generally shouted down. Said tax money should be earmarked for subsidizing whole foods and nutrition education IMO.
Right now our agriculture program subsidizes corn and soy which is basically subsidizing junk food. So if we can't make the healthy food more affordable I guess we could push for dropping the subsidies for the junk, though that would just mean higher food prices across the board which wouldn't help the people who need better nutrition the most.
Lots of articles about the subsidy issue...grabbed one:
huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/16/government-subsidies-junk-food_n_3600046.html
This has already been brought up. (This is why reading the thread can be useful!)0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 390 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions