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
-
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.
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.0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »
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.
Well then we might as well just let SNAP payments be used for booze too then, after all, why nit pick?.0 -
I think it is in some cases. Do you mean taxes like cigarettes and liquor are? I think I'd vote for NO ... it might be attractive to politicians and some officials, but I think that is a bad way to raise municipal. state, or federal funds.
PS ... and it's getting a bit too much into 'my space' also.0 -
The government needs to quit trying to control every aspect of our life. They need to control themselves and not act like totalitarians.3
-
The government needs to quit trying to control every aspect of our life. They need to control themselves and not act like totalitarians.
There is no control at all here. If there is a tax on such items nobody is forcing you to buy them, just like nobody is forcing you to buys cigs.
If you pay federal income taxes (almost 50% of the population doesn't) you are paying for government programs to pay for healthcare. Government pays for more than 50% of the healthcare cost in the US and that % and cost is increasing.
Obesity related illness is by far the fastest growing, preventable drain on healthcare. An excise tax on junk food is one way to reduce consumption and/or fund medical payments.
If you don't like a tax, how to you propose to pay for this? Note, letting people w/o insurance die or let the "rich" pay for it are not acceptable responses.0 -
Except "junk food" doesn't necessarily cause obesity.... Overeating does. You think people will stop overeating because there's a tax on junk food? I have several obese family members who never eat junk food at all so this tax wouldn't effect their obesity or health. I am bmi 20 and like the occasional treat so yeah junk food definitely makes you obese.1
-
singingflutelady wrote: »Except "junk food" doesn't necessarily cause obesity.... Overeating does. You think people will stop overeating because there's a tax on junk food? I have several obese family members who never eat junk food at all so this tax wouldn't effect their obesity or health. I am bmi 20 and like the occasional treat so yeah junk food definitely makes you obese.
Of course over eating causes obesity, but what are some of the most common foods that are over consumed are calorie, dense low nutrition items, i.e. junk food. Sugared drinks are a major contributor to the obesity epidemic per Harvard Med.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/sugary-drinks-fact-sheet/
How about starting with that?0 -
chocolate_owl wrote: »
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?
a) Yes. b) Those taxes could then be used to give additional funding to SNAP and WIC, making it possible for people with lower incomes to purchase more fresh vegetables and fruits.1 -
"Targeting obesity" via taxes is just another excuse to tax people. The government will use any "epidemic" to intrude in our daily life. Does cigarette taxes deter smoking? No. How has Michelle Obamas school lunch program worked out?2
-
No!
we are taxed to death here in Canada already! Government can help by reducing the price of nutritious foods.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »
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.
Well then we might as well just let SNAP payments be used for booze too then, after all, why nit pick?.
Nothing like a good slippery slope3 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »
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.
Well then we might as well just let SNAP payments be used for booze too then, after all, why nit pick?.
Nothing like a good slippery slope
So true where it be diet, religion, politics, etc.
Man trying to manipulate man seldom turns out well long term.2 -
We are entering the nanny state: Our government protecting us from ourselves. Surrender our freedom because the government wants to take over every aspect of your life. We are too dumb to know right from wrong and self reliance will cease to exist. Think about it.
7 -
Packerjohn wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »
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?
10000000% No.
Not even a little.0 -
No. We are adults, we can make our own choices. Why should I be taxed more on something I want to eat every now and then? Make fresh food cheaper.0
-
Packerjohn wrote: »The government needs to quit trying to control every aspect of our life. They need to control themselves and not act like totalitarians.
There is no control at all here. If there is a tax on such items nobody is forcing you to buy them, just like nobody is forcing you to buys cigs.
If you pay federal income taxes (almost 50% of the population doesn't) you are paying for government programs to pay for healthcare. Government pays for more than 50% of the healthcare cost in the US and that % and cost is increasing.
Even if you don't you are. That 47% don't pay federal income tax figure specifically excludes taxes paid for Social Security and -- relevant here -- Medicare, which far more people do pay (they may or may not pay in more than they get out at the end of the day, of course). That's why many who are in the 47% (I suspect many who complain about the percentage of people who don't pay), don't realize they are (and that they are complaining about themselves). Ah, the irony.3 -
The_Original_Beauty wrote: »No. We are adults, we can make our own choices. Why should I be taxed more on something I want to eat every now and then? Make fresh food cheaper.
How specifically do you propose to make fresh food cheaper? Raising taxes on "the rich" or corporations isn't an acceptable answer.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »The government needs to quit trying to control every aspect of our life. They need to control themselves and not act like totalitarians.
There is no control at all here. If there is a tax on such items nobody is forcing you to buy them, just like nobody is forcing you to buys cigs.
If you pay federal income taxes (almost 50% of the population doesn't) you are paying for government programs to pay for healthcare. Government pays for more than 50% of the healthcare cost in the US and that % and cost is increasing.
Even if you don't you are. That 47% don't pay federal income tax figure specifically excludes taxes paid for Social Security and -- relevant here -- Medicare, which far more people do pay (they may or may not pay in more than they get out at the end of the day, of course). That's why many who are in the 47% (I suspect many who complain about the percentage of people who don't pay), don't realize they are (and that they are complaining about themselves). Ah, the irony.
I should have listed the specific healthcare costs that are paid for by federal taxes like, Medicaid, health insurance for Federal employees, the military, subsidies for Obamacare, etc.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »The government needs to quit trying to control every aspect of our life. They need to control themselves and not act like totalitarians.
There is no control at all here. If there is a tax on such items nobody is forcing you to buy them, just like nobody is forcing you to buys cigs.
If you pay federal income taxes (almost 50% of the population doesn't) you are paying for government programs to pay for healthcare. Government pays for more than 50% of the healthcare cost in the US and that % and cost is increasing.
Even if you don't you are. That 47% don't pay federal income tax figure specifically excludes taxes paid for Social Security and -- relevant here -- Medicare, which far more people do pay (they may or may not pay in more than they get out at the end of the day, of course). That's why many who are in the 47% (I suspect many who complain about the percentage of people who don't pay), don't realize they are (and that they are complaining about themselves). Ah, the irony.
I should have listed the specific healthcare costs that are paid for by federal taxes like, Medicaid, health insurance for Federal employees, the military, subsidies for Obamacare, etc.
I understand. I wasn't disputing that but strengthening the point, I thought. (Although that 47% claim bugs me for the reasons stated before. And it's not because I don't pay federal taxes, because I pay a lot of them, under any definition.)0 -
clicketykeys wrote: »chocolate_owl wrote: »
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?
a) Yes. b) Those taxes could then be used to give additional funding to SNAP and WIC, making it possible for people with lower incomes to purchase more fresh vegetables and fruits.
a) So far the junk food tax in Mexico has only slightly altered the amount of junk food poor people buy, and it hasn't changed the behaviors of the middle and upper class at all. b) So people on welfare would get more money that they may or may not spend on fresh food. Unless you tell them that they have to spend the extra 5% on fruit and veg, they could buy more rice and beans, or since SNAP doesn't have the restrictions WIC does, they can afford to buy the taxed bag of chips. So money I pay in taxes on chips is now going to let a poor person buy chips, and no change happens.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions