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?

14041434546104

Replies

  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Philosophically I'd still rather just get rid of subsidies although I do think that would have a broader effect than just on junk food.

    That it would. Ever since the loveboner for ethanol started, killing corn subsidies would end up showing a marked increase in fuel prices, especially for vehicles that run things like E85.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Probably meat too.
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Probably meat too.

    Yeap.
  • vegmebuff wrote: »
    What are your thoughts?
    Yes, junk/processed food should either be taxed or cost more. Healthy food should cost less. I think some families have no choice but to buy junk because they can't afford produce and healthier/leaner meats.

  • sunnybeaches105
    sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,831 Member
    tak13517 wrote: »
    vegmebuff wrote: »
    What are your thoughts?
    Yes, junk/processed food should either be taxed or cost more. Healthy food should cost less. I think some families have no choice but to buy junk because they can't afford produce and healthier/leaner meats.

    So you want the poor to pay more in an effectively regressive tax system?
  • chocolate_owl
    chocolate_owl Posts: 1,695 Member
    tak13517 wrote: »
    vegmebuff wrote: »
    What are your thoughts?
    Yes, junk/processed food should either be taxed or cost more. Healthy food should cost less. I think some families have no choice but to buy junk because they can't afford produce and healthier/leaner meats.

    How do you plan to lower the cost of healthy food while increasing the cost of junk? Do you think taxing chips will change behaviors for anyone outside of a low-income bracket?
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    edited September 2016
    tak13517 wrote: »
    vegmebuff wrote: »
    What are your thoughts?
    Yes, junk/processed food should either be taxed or cost more. Healthy food should cost less. I think some families have no choice but to buy junk because they can't afford produce and healthier/leaner meats.

    So you want the poor to pay more in an effectively regressive tax system?

    If someone isn't buying chips, pop, candy etc they aren't paying a tax on it. Some states are working on getting many common, high calorie, low nutrient foods removed from SNAP eligibility lists. This is a good thing IMO.

    I would support a tax on "junk food" if the proceeds were used for health education and increases in SNAP benefits so the poor could afford better quality foods (big qualifier, must remove junk foods from SNAP eligibility).
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    tak13517 wrote: »
    vegmebuff wrote: »
    What are your thoughts?
    Yes, junk/processed food should either be taxed or cost more. Healthy food should cost less. I think some families have no choice but to buy junk because they can't afford produce and healthier/leaner meats.

    How do you plan to lower the cost of healthy food while increasing the cost of junk? Do you think taxing chips will change behaviors for anyone outside of a low-income bracket?

    It might if taxes were at the level of taxes on cigarettes.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    Return2Fit wrote: »
    Why empower the government and reduce freedom ?
    If people want to eat junk, so be it, but don't come back when you're fat and sick demanding free healthcare.
    That's so typical of the herd...lol

    The thing is, they will come back fat and sick and the government will pay for it.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,926 Member
    Why not call it what it is? A FAT tax. Let's just cut to the chase and weigh people and if they are over their body fat percentage for good health, tax them. That should go over well. :s

    There are lots of people who eat junk food and are fine body weight wise. They shouldn't have to bear paying the tax for food they can control but others can't.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    tak13517 wrote: »
    vegmebuff wrote: »
    What are your thoughts?
    Yes, junk/processed food should either be taxed or cost more. Healthy food should cost less. I think some families have no choice but to buy junk because they can't afford produce and healthier/leaner meats.

    So you want the poor to pay more in an effectively regressive tax system?

    If someone isn't buying chips, pop, candy etc they aren't paying a tax on it. Some states are working on getting many common, high calorie, low nutrient foods removed from SNAP eligibility lists. This is a good thing IMO.

    I would support a tax on "junk food" if the proceeds were used for health education and increases in SNAP benefits so the poor could afford better quality foods (big qualifier, must remove junk foods from SNAP eligibility).

    Right. We definitely need to help the poor by micromanaging their grocery lists. I think that most bureaucrats are idiots, and that's why they work for the government. So it's basically the overweight and blind leading the overweight and blind.

    Not a problem, if people don't want to eat items on the list they can just skip the SNAP payments. There is already a precedent with the WIC program, just pays for a list certain foods.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    tak13517 wrote: »
    vegmebuff wrote: »
    What are your thoughts?
    Yes, junk/processed food should either be taxed or cost more. Healthy food should cost less. I think some families have no choice but to buy junk because they can't afford produce and healthier/leaner meats.

    So you want the poor to pay more in an effectively regressive tax system?

    If someone isn't buying chips, pop, candy etc they aren't paying a tax on it. Some states are working on getting many common, high calorie, low nutrient foods removed from SNAP eligibility lists. This is a good thing IMO.

    I would support a tax on "junk food" if the proceeds were used for health education and increases in SNAP benefits so the poor could afford better quality foods (big qualifier, must remove junk foods from SNAP eligibility).

    Right. We definitely need to help the poor by micromanaging their grocery lists. I think that most bureaucrats are idiots, and that's why they work for the government. So it's basically the overweight and blind leading the overweight and blind.

    Not a problem, if people don't want to eat items on the list they can just skip the SNAP payments. There is already a precedent with the WIC program, just pays for a list certain foods.

    You're right. SNAP payments shouldn't pay for ice cream because poor children will just get fat and lazy if they eat it. Probably best to rigorously control calorie intake for them too. We can have a government bureaucrat weigh little girls and make sure their BMIs are within the acceptable range.

    Seriously, why the hell do people think "helping" means "control?" They're poor not necessarily gluttons. People have bad times, don't turn it into forcing them to give up such basic rights as to choose what they eat.

    If someone is in a situation where they get government assistance don't you think the funds should be spent on nutritionally dense food?
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    tak13517 wrote: »
    vegmebuff wrote: »
    What are your thoughts?
    Yes, junk/processed food should either be taxed or cost more. Healthy food should cost less. I think some families have no choice but to buy junk because they can't afford produce and healthier/leaner meats.

    So you want the poor to pay more in an effectively regressive tax system?

    If someone isn't buying chips, pop, candy etc they aren't paying a tax on it. Some states are working on getting many common, high calorie, low nutrient foods removed from SNAP eligibility lists. This is a good thing IMO.

    I would support a tax on "junk food" if the proceeds were used for health education and increases in SNAP benefits so the poor could afford better quality foods (big qualifier, must remove junk foods from SNAP eligibility).

    Right. We definitely need to help the poor by micromanaging their grocery lists. I think that most bureaucrats are idiots, and that's why they work for the government. So it's basically the overweight and blind leading the overweight and blind.

    Not a problem, if people don't want to eat items on the list they can just skip the SNAP payments. There is already a precedent with the WIC program, just pays for a list certain foods.

    You're right. SNAP payments shouldn't pay for ice cream because poor children will just get fat and lazy if they eat it. Probably best to rigorously control calorie intake for them too. We can have a government bureaucrat weigh little girls and make sure their BMIs are within the acceptable range.

    Seriously, why the hell do people think "helping" means "control?" They're poor not necessarily gluttons. People have bad times, don't turn it into forcing them to give up such basic rights as to choose what they eat.

    If someone is in a situation where they get government assistance don't you think the funds should be spent on nutritionally dense food?

    They should eat whatever they see fit.
  • gothchiq
    gothchiq Posts: 4,590 Member
    Its already taxed like the rest of the groceries.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    gothchiq wrote: »
    Its already taxed like the rest of the groceries.

    I would assume the OP means at a higher level than other foods, an excise tax similar to those on alcohol and tobacco products.
  • sunnybeaches105
    sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,831 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    tak13517 wrote: »
    vegmebuff wrote: »
    What are your thoughts?
    Yes, junk/processed food should either be taxed or cost more. Healthy food should cost less. I think some families have no choice but to buy junk because they can't afford produce and healthier/leaner meats.

    So you want the poor to pay more in an effectively regressive tax system?

    If someone isn't buying chips, pop, candy etc they aren't paying a tax on it. Some states are working on getting many common, high calorie, low nutrient foods removed from SNAP eligibility lists. This is a good thing IMO.

    I would support a tax on "junk food" if the proceeds were used for health education and increases in SNAP benefits so the poor could afford better quality foods (big qualifier, must remove junk foods from SNAP eligibility).

    Right. We definitely need to help the poor by micromanaging their grocery lists. I think that most bureaucrats are idiots, and that's why they work for the government. So it's basically the overweight and blind leading the overweight and blind.

    Not a problem, if people don't want to eat items on the list they can just skip the SNAP payments. There is already a precedent with the WIC program, just pays for a list certain foods.

    You're right. SNAP payments shouldn't pay for ice cream because poor children will just get fat and lazy if they eat it. Probably best to rigorously control calorie intake for them too. We can have a government bureaucrat weigh little girls and make sure their BMIs are within the acceptable range.

    Seriously, why the hell do people think "helping" means "control?" They're poor not necessarily gluttons. People have bad times, don't turn it into forcing them to give up such basic rights as to choose what they eat.

    If someone is in a situation where they get government assistance don't you think the funds should be spent on nutritionally dense food?

    No, I don't. The purpose is to alleviate poverty not to nitpick their grocery lists. Cupcakes aren't a sin. Besides, every silly decision like this will only cost more money and red tape.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Why not call it what it is? A FAT tax. Let's just cut to the chase and weigh people and if they are over their body fat percentage for good health, tax them. That should go over well. :s

    Actually, I thought of this thread when reading this article:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_ladder/2016/09/workplace_wellness_programs_are_a_sham.html

    I'm not really convinced (there are some logical errors, I think), and I don't see why they couldn't be improved even if there are problems with them as is, but I'm open to being convinced either way.