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
-
snickerscharlie wrote: »So, Jen is now Lassiela?
I need a score card. And the list of 60 sugars, please.
Did you find that on Google? We never solved the Stephen Hopkins mystery.
Space alien. <nods>2 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »So, Jen is now Lassiela?
I need a score card. And the list of 60 sugars, please.
Did you find that on Google? We never solved the Stephen Hopkins mystery.
Space alien. <nods>
Space aliens should pay extra taxes on their sugar.
To pay for the space wall that Trump's gonna build to keep em out.
1 -
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Oh, is this now a general political thread?
Funny thing with me and some others - when you propose a TAX on us, we tend to take that as a politically motivated move.
Which it is.
After you tax us, who is going to use that money? Oh yes, the people who taxed you, AKA the government.
I tend to find it quite political when the GOVERNMENT gets involved in anything, don't you?
Or are you one of those people who feels that the government is an organic entity of the people and therefore the discussion of taxation is nothing more than the discussion of the people and nothing more?
Seriously, when was this NOT a general political thread?
If you don't want to discuss politics, don't bring up what the government should "do" for its people.
Quod erat demonstrandum8 -
No...0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Oh, is this now a general political thread?
Funny thing with me and some others - when you propose a TAX on us, we tend to take that as a politically motivated move.
Thrilling, but (1) I didn't propose a tax (let alone on "you"); and (2) I was not objecting to the discussion of the specific tax under discussion, but Gale's effort to turn it into a broad-based partisan discussion about the actions of gov't over the past 40 years specifically.After you tax us
"You"? Who is "you"? Please. Please don't personalize this, or if so at least direct the comments at people proposing the tax in question.I tend to find it quite political when the GOVERNMENT gets involved in anything, don't you?
The government is involved already, as we have many sales taxes of various sorts. Thus, I think this topic is about the merits of a specific proposed tax within a system that does, in fact, tax specific sales of specific products (i.e., sales tax, alcohol tax, other taxes). WinoGelato's post upthread did a good job in setting out the issues under discussion.
I think we are discussing the merits of a specific policy proposal, and if it turns into a debate on gov't in general or libertarianism or whatever (or Dem vs. Republican) it's basically off-topic. I mean, if the response is to get into a debate over whether the gov't should be funding highway repair or trains or firefighting, then it's hardly really on topic in MFP, is it?
Unlike this, focusing on, say, being against "sin taxes" would be a relevant policy position that can be discussed, although then people should be lobbying to get rid of the ones we have. (Personally I think I come down in favor of the alcohol tax anyway--so, yawn, if you want to rant against "me" for wanting to talk "you" you can use that one, not like I don't pay plenty of taxes, but it's interesting given the number of people who like to go on about taxation in general that there's no effective movement against that one. I do think some discussion of this aspect of the question would be relevant.)
(For the record I'm not for junk food taxes -- I'd vote/argue against them locally, without caring much, but am fine with other places experimenting with them. I believe in local/state gov't as a forum for the experimentation with different policy positions. So while I think packerjohn is predicting inaccurately in saying these would be useful, I admit I could be wrong and some locality or state that tries them may provide evidence of this. Then we can decide if it's simply wrong to have sin taxes and ideally act consistently if we think there is.)
If you want to say "as a libertarian (or whatever) I'm against adding a junk food tax," well, duh. But that's a discussion of what the proper taxing authority should be, not a junk food tax specifically. On the other hand, pointing out (again) objections to taxes being used to encourage behavior or regressive taxation (and arguing that this is, as it pretty much is) or the like strike me as more on point. (The comment I objected to didn't really do either, it was just a off-topic slam on gov't or gov't post 1976, whatever.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Thrilling, but (1) I didn't propose a tax (let alone on "you"); and (2) I was not objecting to the discussion of the specific tax under discussion, but Gale's effort to turn it into a broad-based partisan discussion about the actions of gov't over the past 40 years specifically.
Title: SHOULD JUNK FOOD BE TAXED?
No idea where I got the notion someone wanted to toss another tax on us. That's all I was referring to, not to you specifically.
Speaking of which...lemurcat12 wrote: »"You"? Who is "you"? Please. Please don't personalize this, or if so at least direct the comments at people proposing the tax in question.
"You" was a generic "you" as I was speaking in general over those interested in tossing a tax out there on junk food, ie - the main topic of this conversation. It wasn't a specific "you" as in "you, lemurcat12, you are trying to tax us!"
It was as generic of a word as WE is, as in WE the people, not WE the generic group on MFP or WE are the world. Just the generic, not the specific. Apologies if you felt I was attacking you for wanting to raise taxes on something (especially when you don't).lemurcat12 wrote: »The government is involved already, as we have many sales taxes of various sorts. Thus, I think this topic is about the merits of a specific proposed tax within a system that does, in fact, tax specific sales of specific products (i.e., sales tax, alcohol tax, other taxes). WinoGelato's post upthread did a good job in setting out the issues under discussion.
I think we are discussing the merits of a specific policy proposal, and if it turns into a debate on gov't in general or libertarianism or whatever (or Dem vs. Republican) it's basically off-topic. I mean, if the response is to get into a debate over whether the gov't should be funding highway repair or trains or firefighting, then it's hardly really on topic in MFP, is it?
Unlike this, focusing on, say, being against "sin taxes" would be a relevant policy position that can be discussed, although then people should be lobbying to get rid of the ones we have. (Personally I think I come down in favor of the alcohol tax anyway--so, yawn, if you want to rant against "me" for wanting to talk "you" you can use that one, not like I don't pay plenty of taxes, but it's interesting given the number of people who like to go on about taxation in general that there's no effective movement against that one. I do think some discussion of this aspect of the question would be relevant.)
(For the record I'm not for junk food taxes -- I'd vote/argue against them locally, without caring much, but am fine with other places experimenting with them. I believe in local/state gov't as a forum for the experimentation with different policy positions. So while I think packerjohn is predicting inaccurately in saying these would be useful, I admit I could be wrong and some locality or state that tries them may provide evidence of this. Then we can decide if it's simply wrong to have sin taxes and ideally act consistently if we think there is.)
If you want to say "as a libertarian (or whatever) I'm against adding a junk food tax," well, duh. But that's a discussion of what the proper taxing authority should be, not a junk food tax specifically. On the other hand, pointing out (again) objections to taxes being used to encourage behavior or regressive taxation (and arguing that this is, as it pretty much is) or the like strike me as more on point. (The comment I objected to didn't really do either, it was just a off-topic slam on gov't or gov't post 1976, whatever.)
Well, although I do agree with you for the most part over this and I have been known to rant a bit about politics, it is only for the very real reason that we are being overly taxed everywhere because people want to "help others" and we're going to wind up helping people to death.
Because of that, I feel that there's a very serious split in our country that comes down to a borderline Socialist Democrat/Liberal side and a borderline Fascist Republican/Conservative side. As someone who's a big fan of thinking for themselves, I'm not a fan of either group.
When it comes to taxes in general or taxes on a specific entity (such as a sin-tax on junk food) then I think we're talking about something a lot more fundamental than should we tax junk food to make people healthy. I think we're talking about freedom.
Every time there's a new tax, there's a new level of control that we're giving up as a nation and handing over to the government.
I mean, holy carp...that seriously sends a chill down my spine even typing that sentence out. But that's the reality.
I think it's pretty important that we discuss the foundation of the tax, not just the surface of the tax. The surface of it is "I want to help others and if we let the government do it through a series of taxes, then it helps ALL of us at the same time, isn't that super?"
When in reality what's under the surface is this: "When I suggest a tax on something, I'm actually suggesting I feel we should give up our freedom just a little bit more, which in turn I feel will ultimately help others." Because a tax on *anything* means more government power, authority and control. The more control the government has, the less control the body public has.
It seems every single time someone comes up with another brilliant idea on how to save the world from (fill in the blank) their solution is to rev up the government engine, throw money at it and pat themselves on the back for doing a good job.
Meanwhile, those of us who are still above (just) the poverty line are seeing our economic status slipping further and further down into the "poor as a church mouse" level because of the excessive taxation.
But, I can understand that many people don't feel "taxes" and "politics" go directly hand-in-hand and I do apologize if I've hurt anyone's feelings or changed anyone's political viewpoint in any way. I do understand that can be regarded as a sin by some nowadays. </sarcasm>
So, in the spirit of the conversation, let me sum up my response as simply as I can:
"Should junk food be taxed?"
"No."6 -
Instead of trying to "tax" foods, the govt. needs to stop chemical companies from destroying our food supply and pharmaceuticals to stop using fillers that they know make people gain weight needlessly. What about all those growth hormones in plants and animals today? What about all that soy products that are manipulated by Monsanto chemical company?0
-
trilakegrandma wrote: »Instead of trying to "tax" foods, the govt. needs to stop chemical companies from destroying our food supply and pharmaceuticals to stop using fillers that they know make people gain weight needlessly. What about all those growth hormones in plants and animals today? What about all that soy products that are manipulated by Monsanto chemical company?
7 -
Taxes have such a bad connotation and many seem to doubt the tax money would actually go into programs fighting obesity, so let's just put a scale at the register so when you check out if you are trying to buy junk food, you have to step on the scale and your weight would be announced over the loudspeaker.
I know for me, this would be a GREAT deterrent to buying junk food.1 -
Jonesingmucho wrote: »Taxes have such a bad connotation and many seem to doubt the tax money would actually go into programs fighting obesity, so let's just put a scale at the register so when you check out if you are trying to buy junk food, you have to step on the scale and your weight would be announced over the loudspeaker.
I know for me, this would be a GREAT deterrent to buying junk food.
then that should be a requirement for all foods, because all calories make you fat not just "junk"...1 -
Jonesingmucho wrote: »Taxes have such a bad connotation and many seem to doubt the tax money would actually go into programs fighting obesity, so let's just put a scale at the register so when you check out if you are trying to buy junk food, you have to step on the scale and your weight would be announced over the loudspeaker.
I know for me, this would be a GREAT deterrent to buying junk food.
then that should be a requirement for all foods, because all calories make you fat not just "junk"...
Oh man! You are right! I retract my idea! I would never be able to buy food again if my idea was put into play. I would have to hire surrogate shoppers.
How about if you buy zero calorie foods you don't have to weigh? I'm not sure how long I could live on celery and Diet Coke, but...
Wait! Let's link the scale to MFP so that your exercise calories can cancel out what you are buying! You would have to create a deficit by exercising before you buy food. If the exercise caloric deficit doesn't balance out food purchases, you have to put back higher calorie items until you balance.
Wait! I need to figure this out so that I can become filthy rich off my idea since everyone would have to register for MFP. I need some kind of referral bonus from Reebok or whoever owns MFP now...
x hits pause button to craft evil mastermind get rich scheme x
0 -
Or we could just skip the fat shaming and let people take responsibility for their own selves.5
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »Or we could just skip the fat shaming and let people take responsibility for their own selves.
Indeed...0 -
Why not ban all happiness ?0
-
Taxing is a bit extreme. Self control maybe? Side note, can you imagine telling all the criminals banged out in the slammer they should just have some self control. Lolz.0
-
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »
For my amusement, yes. Yes we are.2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Or we could just skip the fat shaming and let people take responsibility for their own selves.
We could skip government funded medical care for those who willingly abuse food & drugs as well and let people take responsibility for themselves.0 -
no they should not tax junk food. The US govt has already overstepped its authority in so many ways. The govt is the the answer to almost nothing, its the problem for almost everything3
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »Or we could just skip the fat shaming and let people take responsibility for their own selves.
We could skip government funded medical care for those who willingly abuse food & drugs as well and let people take responsibility for themselves.
Fixed it and yup.6 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Or we could just skip the fat shaming and let people take responsibility for their own selves.
We could skip government funded medical care for those who willingly abuse food & drugs as well and let people take responsibility for themselves.
Fixed it and yup.
I approve of this message.2 -
Jonesingmucho wrote: »Jonesingmucho wrote: »Taxes have such a bad connotation and many seem to doubt the tax money would actually go into programs fighting obesity, so let's just put a scale at the register so when you check out if you are trying to buy junk food, you have to step on the scale and your weight would be announced over the loudspeaker.
I know for me, this would be a GREAT deterrent to buying junk food.
then that should be a requirement for all foods, because all calories make you fat not just "junk"...
Oh man! You are right! I retract my idea! I would never be able to buy food again if my idea was put into play. I would have to hire surrogate shoppers.
How about if you buy zero calorie foods you don't have to weigh? I'm not sure how long I could live on celery and Diet Coke, but...
Wait! Let's link the scale to MFP so that your exercise calories can cancel out what you are buying! You would have to create a deficit by exercising before you buy food. If the exercise caloric deficit doesn't balance out food purchases, you have to put back higher calorie items until you balance.
Wait! I need to figure this out so that I can become filthy rich off my idea since everyone would have to register for MFP. I need some kind of referral bonus from Reebok or whoever owns MFP now...
x hits pause button to craft evil mastermind get rich scheme x
you could still by food, you just be shamed for buying excess calories instead of xyz food that has been deemed "bad" because it is "junk"...which is a totally subjective term...0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Or we could just skip the fat shaming and let people take responsibility for their own selves.
We could skip government funded medical care for those who willingly abuse food & drugs as well and let people take responsibility for themselves.
Fixed it and yup.
I can get behind this idea...well, I've been there for some time, but still, yeap.1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Or we could just skip the fat shaming and let people take responsibility for their own selves.
We could skip government funded medical care for those who willingly abuse food & drugs as well and let people take responsibility for themselves.
Fixed it and yup.
+1 on that1 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »Define junk.
This. It's such a subjective term that is really meaningless. I'm in excellent health and have a BMI of under 22. I eat a wide variety of foods. Why should I have to pay any more for the chocolate chips I buy versus the mushrooms I buy? They both fit into my healthy diet and lifestyle.4 -
Packerjohn wrote: »We start taxing junk food then what? Then someone will realize that junk food is made from healthy items as well.. so heck no to more freaking government!
Freedom to be fat, freedom to be thin, freedom to just be!!!
So are you okay with your taxes going up to pay for the healthcare of the 30% of the population that will have diabetes in 2050? If not we need to start doing something about it now.
I honestly don't think it will help. Cigarettes can be given up, but people eat what they eat. The reason we have an obesity epidemic is because people don't think about food, they just grab what's there and insist they don't have time to change. People will just think, "Oh well, food prices are going up" which is what they do anyway, as they buy the same stuff they always do. At best, some people who are on the borderline where they are carefully counting their pennies may start making better choices to save a buck. But we would still be paying for say 27% of the population having diabetes PLUS paying extra for junk food, which you don't have to give up entirely to have a healthy diet.
And as others have said, I'm sure people like potato, corn, and wheat producers would fight against it, as those non-junk foods are ingredients in plenty of junk foods.
And companies that produce junk food also produce healthy foods, so chances are they would raise the price of their healthier offerings to offset the reduction in price they would put on the "junk food" so people would not notice the extra tax on it and keep buying it.
Agreed.. good post
Now that I am more aware, have you ever watched someone in the grocery store actually buy food, they are clueless about food in general. I am not talking an over weight person either.
Have you ever been behind someone in a buffet restaurant that piles food on top of food and these overweight individuals, want to be over weight. I cannot stop a human from the buffet line.
Are we gonna shock people when they pick up the junk food in the store, are we gonna have to stop over weight people from going into buffet restaurants..
This goes way way beyond junk food.. Junk food is food too.. ITS NOT ABOUT JUNK FOOD!
Many times we don't have the full picture either. I shop at two different stores, we get our meat from a local farm share, get our eggs from a local source, get most of our bread from a local bakery and I also have permission to take what I want from our neighbors garden
Oh, and our alcohol and tea comes from a specially shop as well lol. If you saw me at one of the stores though, you'd have no idea of this and would probably be pretty judgmental of what I was buying. As far as buffet eating-I went several times when I was in my active weight loss phase and I'm sure people looked at me and saw a fat person loading up a plate and probably judged. But, what they weren't seeing was that I allotted calories for that meal, and if they really looked carefully would have seen a lot of low calorie options mixed in with the higher ones. 1 -
I don't think so. Honestly it would mean I would just be fat and even more broke than I already am1
-
crzycatlady1 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Define junk.
This. It's such a subjective term that is really meaningless. I'm in excellent health and have a BMI of under 22. I eat a wide variety of foods. Why should I have to pay any more for the chocolate chips I buy versus the mushrooms I buy? They both fit into my healthy diet and lifestyle.
Just as a counter argument, someone in good health, not overweight drinks beer or wine occasionally, why should that person pay more in taxes on the product that someone who drinks Coke?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions