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
-
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 -
chocolate_owl wrote: »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.
If I was in charge, the SNAP benefits would be eliminated for chips and other "junk" foods. Problem solved.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.)
Keep in mind that social security was meant to be separate and apart from the federal income tax system. You were to have gotten out of it based on what you put in. It's of course broken, just like most things any large bureaucracy touches.
I don't mind paying my taxes, but I am sick of hearing people in the zero federal income tax bracket complain about the "rich" paying their "fair share." I don't mind helping the truly poor, and I certainly don't have any desire to micromanage their grocery lists, but I would be fine with education programs designed to help with nutrition, along with budgeting and other life skills. The problem is that it all costs money, and then I get to hear yet again that I should be paying more because there isn't enough money to pay for everything. If we would just make sure our public school system actually prepared kids for life, it would be a huge benefit, both in terms of success and in terms of ultimately saving money. I'm talking life skills as well as vocational training. Otherwise, it's work at Walmart or go to college, and I've seen too many people go to college, get liberal arts degrees, graduate with mediocre GPAs, and find themselves doing jobs they could just as easily have done without the degree. It's an expensive waste for some, and many get the added fun of paying back student loans with mediocre incomes because they were told they "should" go to "college" and weren't prepared for life's realities.5 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.)
Keep in mind that social security was meant to be separate and apart from the federal income tax system. You were to have gotten out of it based on what you put in. It's of course broken, just like most things any large bureaucracy touches.
It was always more complicated than that, and not supposed to be "you get out what you put in," but that's actually not the point. What I'm saying is that a lot of people *kitten* about "the 47 percent" thinking that they are in the 53%, not realizing how the numbers are derived, and because they think of themselves as tax payers either because they are retired and WERE taxpayers or because they perceive themselves as paying taxes not realizing that they aren't really paying any federal taxes more than the taxes for SocSec and Medicare and getting the rest basically back.
Just a pet peeve.I don't mind paying my taxes, but I am sick of hearing people in the zero federal income tax bracket complain about the "rich" paying their "fair share." I don't mind helping the truly poor, and I certainly don't have any desire to micromanage their grocery lists, but I would be fine with education programs designed to help with nutrition, along with budgeting and other life skills. The problem is that it all costs money, and then I get to hear yet again that I should be paying more because there isn't enough money to pay for everything. If we would just make sure our public school system actually prepared kids for life, it would be a huge benefit, both in terms of success and in terms of ultimately saving money. I'm talking life skills as well as vocational training. Otherwise, it's work at Walmart or go to college, and I've seen too many people go to college, get liberal arts degrees, graduate with mediocre GPAs, and find themselves doing jobs they could just as easily have done without the degree. It's an expensive waste for some, and many get the added fun of paying back student loans with mediocre incomes because they were told they "should" go to "college" and weren't prepared for life's realities.
I pretty much agree with all this, although I wouldn't phrase it precisely the same way.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.)
Keep in mind that social security was meant to be separate and apart from the federal income tax system. You were to have gotten out of it based on what you put in. It's of course broken, just like most things any large bureaucracy touches.
It was always more complicated than that, and not supposed to be "you get out what you put in," but that's actually not the point. What I'm saying is that a lot of people *kitten* about "the 47 percent" thinking that they are in the 53%, not realizing how the numbers are derived, and because they think of themselves as tax payers either because they are retired and WERE taxpayers or because they perceive themselves as paying taxes not realizing that they aren't really paying any federal taxes more than the taxes for SocSec and Medicare and getting the rest basically back.
Just a pet peeve.I don't mind paying my taxes, but I am sick of hearing people in the zero federal income tax bracket complain about the "rich" paying their "fair share." I don't mind helping the truly poor, and I certainly don't have any desire to micromanage their grocery lists, but I would be fine with education programs designed to help with nutrition, along with budgeting and other life skills. The problem is that it all costs money, and then I get to hear yet again that I should be paying more because there isn't enough money to pay for everything. If we would just make sure our public school system actually prepared kids for life, it would be a huge benefit, both in terms of success and in terms of ultimately saving money. I'm talking life skills as well as vocational training. Otherwise, it's work at Walmart or go to college, and I've seen too many people go to college, get liberal arts degrees, graduate with mediocre GPAs, and find themselves doing jobs they could just as easily have done without the degree. It's an expensive waste for some, and many get the added fun of paying back student loans with mediocre incomes because they were told they "should" go to "college" and weren't prepared for life's realities.
I pretty much agree with all this, although I wouldn't phrase it precisely the same way.
Fair enough. And I agree with your point on Social Security. It was not an investment fund. It's transfer payments (workers support the retired), but the benefits do go up to a point. My concern is that I'll likely pay in my entire life and won't see a dime (I'm sure at some point they'll want SS payments on my entire income, and yet consider me too high income to ever get anything). One other beef I have with our tax system generally is that it heavily burdens working professionals more than it burdens even the truly wealthy.1 -
And to add the U.S. government wastes so much money.1
-
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.)
Keep in mind that social security was meant to be separate and apart from the federal income tax system. You were to have gotten out of it based on what you put in. It's of course broken, just like most things any large bureaucracy touches.
It was always more complicated than that, and not supposed to be "you get out what you put in," but that's actually not the point. What I'm saying is that a lot of people *kitten* about "the 47 percent" thinking that they are in the 53%, not realizing how the numbers are derived, and because they think of themselves as tax payers either because they are retired and WERE taxpayers or because they perceive themselves as paying taxes not realizing that they aren't really paying any federal taxes more than the taxes for SocSec and Medicare and getting the rest basically back.
Just a pet peeve.I don't mind paying my taxes, but I am sick of hearing people in the zero federal income tax bracket complain about the "rich" paying their "fair share." I don't mind helping the truly poor, and I certainly don't have any desire to micromanage their grocery lists, but I would be fine with education programs designed to help with nutrition, along with budgeting and other life skills. The problem is that it all costs money, and then I get to hear yet again that I should be paying more because there isn't enough money to pay for everything. If we would just make sure our public school system actually prepared kids for life, it would be a huge benefit, both in terms of success and in terms of ultimately saving money. I'm talking life skills as well as vocational training. Otherwise, it's work at Walmart or go to college, and I've seen too many people go to college, get liberal arts degrees, graduate with mediocre GPAs, and find themselves doing jobs they could just as easily have done without the degree. It's an expensive waste for some, and many get the added fun of paying back student loans with mediocre incomes because they were told they "should" go to "college" and weren't prepared for life's realities.
I pretty much agree with all this, although I wouldn't phrase it precisely the same way.
Fair enough. And I agree with your point on Social Security. It was not an investment fund. It's transfer payments (workers support the retired), but the benefits do go up to a point. My concern is that I'll likely pay in my entire life and won't see a dime (I'm sure at some point they'll want SS payments on my entire income, and yet consider me too high income to ever get anything). One other beef I have with our tax system generally is that it heavily burdens working professionals more than it burdens even the truly wealthy.
Yeah, I agree on this.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »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.
Where I live bananas were once $15 AUD for 2lbs! Broccoli was $14 for 2lbs. A small cauliflower was $8.
So yes if fresh food were cheaper, people would buy more of it.
0 -
The_Original_Beauty wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »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.
Where I live bananas were once $15 AUD for 2lbs! Broccoli was $14 for 2lbs. A small cauliflower was $8.
So yes if fresh food were cheaper, people would buy more of it.
What is ironic is that people are proposing to tax junk food to bring the cost down when many countries put high tarrifs on food imports. Tax one item more because we already tax the other at a high rate? This is the game that bureaucrats play.5 -
“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” - Ronald Reagan6
-
This is worth reading if you live in the EU. If you want to skip ahead then please start on page 33.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/320476/wrs0406e_1_.pdf0 -
The_Original_Beauty wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »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.
Where I live bananas were once $15 AUD for 2lbs! Broccoli was $14 for 2lbs. A small cauliflower was $8.
So yes if fresh food were cheaper, people would buy more of it.
I haven't seen anything supporting the idea that people don't eat as many vegetables and fruit and legumes (or even close) as recommended, or white vs. whole grains or so on, because they cannot afford the more nutrient dense foods.
I've heard theories that they don't have access to full-service supermarkets with acceptable produce, but the food desert stats which we discussed in another thread demonstrated that even if you buy the definition of a food desert (which I have some problems with, while believing there are problems in some areas), it's a pretty small percentage of the population in reality, so can't be the explanation given how widespread these issues are.
Also, as others have noted, taxing junk food (which I'm currently agnostic on, and all for different areas experimenting if they want) does nothing to decrease the (incredibly varying, but generally quite cheap where I live) cost of cauliflower, broccoli, and bananas.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »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.
Well, there ARE T-Shirts made to look like you're wearing your seat belt when you're not. People are actually paying money to avoid a ticket when they're purposely putting themselves in danger out of laziness.0 -
No. I eat junk food occasionally, but still stay under my calorie goal. I don't really feel I should be taxed for treating myself when I have the willpower to keep myself healthy.
There is also the question of what is defined as junk. Salt is a good example of how little we know, while still pushing recommended limits:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/opinion/sunday/we-only-think-we-know-the-truth-about-salt.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www&_r=1&referer0 -
I disagree that the purpose, is to protect "people (adults) from themselves"; but mostly children, from adult choices. However I am against collective punishment! Why should a person/family whom consumes "junk food" in moderation, have to pay more for it; than a person/family whom doesn't? Also junk food is subjective. Would a protein bar, be considered junk food because it's cookie, instead of fruit flavored? Also what about the people, whom's only source of groceries; is from a convenience store. Would canned, boxed, bagged & frozen food, be considered junk because of it's sodium content? That'd be taxing poverty because most convenience stores, especially in poverty stricken areas; don't sell fresh produce, meat or poultry.
Plus I disagree with justifying/comparing a tax on junk food, with cigarette tax because food is a necessity, regardless of it's nutritional content. If I am suffering from hypoglycemia, my very life'd be saved; by consuming a Snicker's bar & that'd then be, taxing a medical condition.2 -
No. I eat junk food occasionally, but still stay under my calorie goal. I don't really feel I should be taxed for treating myself when I have the willpower to keep myself healthy.
There is also the question of what is defined as junk. Salt is a good example of how little we know, while still pushing recommended limits:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/opinion/sunday/we-only-think-we-know-the-truth-about-salt.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www&_r=1&referer
I would propose if you polled the top 100 nutritional experts in the US plus the general public (if they were being honest) they would agree foods in the chip, soda, cookies/pastry and frozen treats aisles at a typical US grocery store would be a good place to start a definition of junk food.
Not to be said these things should never be eaten. They can be part of an overall healthy diet, but need to be consumed in moderation.1 -
Society is not responsible for an individual's lack of personal responsibility. We do not need another government created problem.4
-
After 30 pages, my eyes are glazing over, but my take home message is that poor children do not deserve birthday cakes. Ever.6
-
If obesity and smoking are the costliest of health care expenses what is MEDICARE? Employees pay half(1.45%) and the employer the other half. A self employed person pays 2.9 percent of their net income annually for retirees and MEDICARE. IDK, but I think it is the biggest cost to US taxpayers. And Social Security covers a few items. OASDI--OA--Old Age, S-Survivor benefits, and DI--disability income. When OASDI was adopted the average life expectancy was about 65 years. That was 1935. Had Congress had some ballz and moved the age of eligibility out with LE (life expectancy) it would be more palatable to believe young workers would receive an OA benefit in the future. Oh well. As for taxing ANYTHING....no.1
-
Society is not responsible for an individual's lack of personal responsibility. We do not need another government created problem.
@CSARdiver does that mean we do not provide health care for a person that becomes ill due the individual's lack of personal responsibility?0 -
There is certainly government control in that they may be forcing me to NOT buy items I otherwise would.Packerjohn wrote: »
One would think the failure of Obamacare to lower costs (they've gone up) would serve as evidence that government involvement in the healthcare system is not the road to lowered health care costs.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.
There is no evidence to suggest that taxing "junk food" would reduce consumption or that there is a viable mechanism by which said taxes could provide any means of assistance to those struggling to make medical payments when our government is already in trillions of dollars' worth of debt.
I propose that the public not pay for it. I propose that each individual be responsible for their own actions and that healthcare costs should be lowered by means of deregulation, tort reform and the elimination of burdensome, bureaucratic involvement (like Obamacare) so that the free market can provide a reasonable service at a reasonable price.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.5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions