Should junk food be taxed?

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."

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?

Or we could just skip the fat shaming and let people take responsibility for their own selves.