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
-
janejellyroll wrote: »I feel all taxes are evil - because then it gives power to politicians who then get to decide how to redistribute the taxes they steal from us. And if you dont think its a from of Theft then you clearly are not working and paying any. That being said - a tax on sugar is just the Govt cutting itself in on the action. They see a large pocket of money and they want more. Same as Tobacco tax. It has nothing to do with Govt caring about citizens. That is why I will never vote for anyone who advocates raising taxes on anything. Its a sign that they are not interested in solving problems - just taking power.
I work, I pay taxes. I don't consider them theft. I understand the arguments made by people who do consider them theft, but it's ridiculous to claim that only the unemployed accept that the government requires at least some sort of funds in order to operate.
If you don't ever vote for anyone who advocates raising taxes on anything, ever, I imagine you're mostly voting for third party candidates or sitting out a lot of elections.
those would be for things that the government was originally given the power to do, such as defense and military.
1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Lone_wolf46 wrote: »Enough with the taxes already. People should exercise some self control and just don't eat it. It's that simple.
I would tend to agree, but with 70% of the US population obese or overweight, how's that working out?
that is their choice and is called free will. If someone wants to gorge themselves to the point of obesity then they are free to do so. Government has no right to be regulating personal decisions on food choice.
If we were living in the old west where when someone did something stupid, destroying their health, they just crawled back behind the barn to die and the buzzards and coyotes took care of the carcass, I'd be in full agreement with you.
Now when someone exercises their free will by gorging themselves on Coke, Ding Dongs, candy bars doughnuts, or whatever, society has to pay to fix the problem via higher taxes, higher prices on good and services, etc.
That is a false argument. Society pays for those things because the government has determined that it has the authority to take from one person and provide to another, which if you read the Constitution the government has no authority to take my wealth and give it to someone else to subsidize their poor choices.
Regardless of your interpretation of the Constitution we have taxes (taking your money) paying for obesity related poor choices (subsidies) in the form of Medicaid, Medicare, paid health insurance for government employees/military, etc.
Which of these things has been declared unconstitutional?.
it is not my interpretation, it is what the document actually says. No where in the constitution is the federal government given the power to levy taxes to redistribute it back to someone else in the form of subsidies. That power lies with each individual state, not the federal government.
Yes, the federal government has the power to tax in order fund the powers expressly given to it by the constitution.1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Interesting thing about taxes.. some people will find a way to get around them via a black market or good old fashioned resourcefulness. A few years ago New York state levied a huge tax increase on cigarettes, which made them cost considerably more than the same pack in bordering states. Politicians and bureaucrats were surprised when the tax revenue decreased because people went across the border in droves to buy cigarettes, in some cases coming back with car loads or even box trucks full (purchased legally).
Smoke running has been a thing for a long time. I live in Virginia, so we VERY often see people hitting up Wawa and Sheetz to buy the max number of cartons possible in one shot, and they always pay with cash. They also always get back into a vehicle with PA, NY, or NJ plates.
When your taxes are so stupid that it makes sense for people to drive 500+ miles to get a product, you really need to rethink your priorities. The funny part is, these taxes are usually pushed by Democrats, who are so concerned about global warming. Yeeeeah, all those people driving that far for cigs aren't helping that problem.
It's not just the driving. Eric Garner's death resulted from cigarette taxes and zealous enforcement in NYC:
"Why were the cops so hell-bent on stamping out the sales of loosies, which typically sell for 75 cents a pop in Staten Island (and two times or more that in Manhattan)? New York City boasts the highest cost for cigarettes in the nation, with a pack ranging anywhere from $12 and up. The city lays its own taxes on top of the state’s, in an effort both to raise revenue and discourage use of tobacco.
The result is a thriving market in sales of loosies and black-market cigarettes more generally (for a fascinating look of how the market in loosies operates, check out this 2007 study published by the National Institutes for Health). Since 2006, the tax on cigarettes in New York have risen 190 percent and cigarette smuggling has risen by 59 percent, writes Lawrence J. McQuillan of the Independent Institute. Whether it’s liquor, drugs, or cigarettes, when you try to stamp out something consenting adults want, you cause as many or more problems as you ameliorate."2 -
I am normally a libertarian, but sugar is not any sort of essential nutrient and it is definitely addictive and abused which causes societal costs that we all bear. Alcohol and cigarettes are similar in that vane. I wouldn't be opposed to taxing sugar or HFCS.
So...why exactly does society bear this cost to begin with? This is anti-libertarian.
Society bears the cost of sugar and HFCS via government subsidies. Your taxes are paying for sugar and corn to be grown, increasing availability and artificially depressing the prices. This makes it cheap to use in food...and food companies like cheap ingredients. Society also bears the costs of the healthcare associated with sugar and HFC overconsumption...like type 2 diabetes..via higher health insurance premiums and higher Medicare/Medicaid costs.
Avoiding the question posed.
I asked why?0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Lone_wolf46 wrote: »Enough with the taxes already. People should exercise some self control and just don't eat it. It's that simple.
I would tend to agree, but with 70% of the US population obese or overweight, how's that working out?
that is their choice and is called free will. If someone wants to gorge themselves to the point of obesity then they are free to do so. Government has no right to be regulating personal decisions on food choice.
If we were living in the old west where when someone did something stupid, destroying their health, they just crawled back behind the barn to die and the buzzards and coyotes took care of the carcass, I'd be in full agreement with you.
Now when someone exercises their free will by gorging themselves on Coke, Ding Dongs, candy bars doughnuts, or whatever, society has to pay to fix the problem via higher taxes, higher prices on good and services, etc.
That is a false argument. Society pays for those things because the government has determined that it has the authority to take from one person and provide to another, which if you read the Constitution the government has no authority to take my wealth and give it to someone else to subsidize their poor choices.
Regardless of your interpretation of the Constitution we have taxes (taking your money) paying for obesity related poor choices (subsidies) in the form of Medicaid, Medicare, paid health insurance for government employees/military, etc.
Which of these things has been declared unconstitutional?.
I would suggest starting with the tenth amendment and working back from there. Taxes were originally to provide for the common defense, not to provide well fare, medicare, medicaid, etc, etc..
It actually says "for the common defence and general welfare". So yes....taxes are meant to be used on welfare....the Constitution is why it is called welfare.1 -
I thought of this thread when I read an article on Reason the other day, so I'm glad ol' pot-stirrer Lemur Cat brought it back.
Philly heavily taxes sodas ($57 tax on a $60 bag of syrup) and hilarity (sad, ironic, predictable hilarity) ensues, at least in the first couple of months:
http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/22/with-sales-depressed-by-soda-tax-philly3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Lone_wolf46 wrote: »Enough with the taxes already. People should exercise some self control and just don't eat it. It's that simple.
I would tend to agree, but with 70% of the US population obese or overweight, how's that working out?
that is their choice and is called free will. If someone wants to gorge themselves to the point of obesity then they are free to do so. Government has no right to be regulating personal decisions on food choice.
If we were living in the old west where when someone did something stupid, destroying their health, they just crawled back behind the barn to die and the buzzards and coyotes took care of the carcass, I'd be in full agreement with you.
Now when someone exercises their free will by gorging themselves on Coke, Ding Dongs, candy bars doughnuts, or whatever, society has to pay to fix the problem via higher taxes, higher prices on good and services, etc.
That is a false argument. Society pays for those things because the government has determined that it has the authority to take from one person and provide to another, which if you read the Constitution the government has no authority to take my wealth and give it to someone else to subsidize their poor choices.
Regardless of your interpretation of the Constitution we have taxes (taking your money) paying for obesity related poor choices (subsidies) in the form of Medicaid, Medicare, paid health insurance for government employees/military, etc.
Which of these things has been declared unconstitutional?.
I would suggest starting with the tenth amendment and working back from there. Taxes were originally to provide for the common defense, not to provide well fare, medicare, medicaid, etc, etc..
It actually says "for the common defence and general welfare". So yes....taxes are meant to be used on welfare....the Constitution is why it is called welfare.
sorry, that is not at all what "general welfare" means. There was no welfare at the founding of the country so there is no way for them to have implied a welfare system that we have today. The "general welfare" was commonly understood to be roads, defense, and postal service. Try and read the federalist papers.1 -
I am normally a libertarian, but sugar is not any sort of essential nutrient and it is definitely addictive and abused which causes societal costs that we all bear. Alcohol and cigarettes are similar in that vane. I wouldn't be opposed to taxing sugar or HFCS.
So...why exactly does society bear this cost to begin with? This is anti-libertarian.
Society bears the cost of sugar and HFCS via government subsidies. Your taxes are paying for sugar and corn to be grown, increasing availability and artificially depressing the prices. This makes it cheap to use in food...and food companies like cheap ingredients. Society also bears the costs of the healthcare associated with sugar and HFC overconsumption...like type 2 diabetes..via higher health insurance premiums and higher Medicare/Medicaid costs.
Avoiding the question posed.
I asked why?
That's a really complex thing to answer. Most farm subsidies were set up in the Depression era because people were starving, the economy had tanked and the post WWI era was one of isolationism. They currently cost around $20B/yr in taxpayer funds. Higher healthcare premiums are because everyone that a healthcare company covers is in a risk pool...the higher the prevalence of ill health, the higher the costs to pay for the medical care..these costs are then apportioned out so that the healthy are subsidising the care of the sick. Medicare/Medicaid costs are going up and they are considered entitlements...or a sacred cow...in the budget..so the government pays whatever the cost is no matter how much it goes up. Extra funds are drawn from other taxes to cover any deficit. If it gets too much, the Gov can raise the %taken from each pay check in Medicare/Medicaid taxes. The government has the authority to do this for the general welfare of the US per article 1 of the Constitution. What gets funded or not funded is determined by the political process in Congress via the annual budget bills...which is influenced by lobbyists and constituents.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Lone_wolf46 wrote: »Enough with the taxes already. People should exercise some self control and just don't eat it. It's that simple.
I would tend to agree, but with 70% of the US population obese or overweight, how's that working out?
that is their choice and is called free will. If someone wants to gorge themselves to the point of obesity then they are free to do so. Government has no right to be regulating personal decisions on food choice.
If we were living in the old west where when someone did something stupid, destroying their health, they just crawled back behind the barn to die and the buzzards and coyotes took care of the carcass, I'd be in full agreement with you.
Now when someone exercises their free will by gorging themselves on Coke, Ding Dongs, candy bars doughnuts, or whatever, society has to pay to fix the problem via higher taxes, higher prices on good and services, etc.
That is a false argument. Society pays for those things because the government has determined that it has the authority to take from one person and provide to another, which if you read the Constitution the government has no authority to take my wealth and give it to someone else to subsidize their poor choices.
Regardless of your interpretation of the Constitution we have taxes (taking your money) paying for obesity related poor choices (subsidies) in the form of Medicaid, Medicare, paid health insurance for government employees/military, etc.
Which of these things has been declared unconstitutional?.
I would suggest starting with the tenth amendment and working back from there. Taxes were originally to provide for the common defense, not to provide well fare, medicare, medicaid, etc, etc..
Didn't answer the question. Which one of the programs mentioned have been eliminated due to the laws establishing them being declared unconstitutional?0 -
French_Peasant wrote: »I thought of this thread when I read an article on Reason the other day, so I'm glad ol' pot-stirrer Lemur Cat brought it back.
Philly heavily taxes sodas ($57 tax on a $60 bag of syrup) and hilarity (sad, ironic, predictable hilarity) ensues, at least in the first couple of months:
http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/22/with-sales-depressed-by-soda-tax-philly
I live on the other side of the river from Philly. The "axe the tax" commmercials are running non-stop on the local radio stations.2 -
I am normally a libertarian, but sugar is not any sort of essential nutrient and it is definitely addictive and abused which causes societal costs that we all bear. Alcohol and cigarettes are similar in that vane. I wouldn't be opposed to taxing sugar or HFCS.
So...why exactly does society bear this cost to begin with? This is anti-libertarian.
Society bears the cost of sugar and HFCS via government subsidies. Your taxes are paying for sugar and corn to be grown, increasing availability and artificially depressing the prices. This makes it cheap to use in food...and food companies like cheap ingredients. Society also bears the costs of the healthcare associated with sugar and HFC overconsumption...like type 2 diabetes..via higher health insurance premiums and higher Medicare/Medicaid costs.
Avoiding the question posed.
I asked why?
That's a really complex thing to answer. Most farm subsidies were set up in the Depression era because people were starving, the economy had tanked and the post WWI era was one of isolationism. They currently cost around $20B/yr in taxpayer funds. Higher healthcare premiums are because everyone that a healthcare company covers is in a risk pool...the higher the prevalence of ill health, the higher the costs to pay for the medical care..these costs are then apportioned out so that the healthy are subsidizing the care of the sick. Medicare/Medicaid costs are going up and they are considered entitlements...or a sacred cow...in the budget..so the government pays whatever the cost is no matter how much it goes up. Extra funds are drawn from other taxes to cover any deficit. If it gets too much, the Gov can raise the %taken from each pay check in Medicare/Medicaid taxes. The government has the authority to do this for the general welfare of the US per article 1 of the Constitution. What gets funded or not funded is determined by the political process in Congress via the annual budget bills...which is influenced by lobbyists and constituents.
The answer is quite simple - to acquire and increase power. The complexities are merely justifications for the acquisition of power.1 -
taxing junk food is not about health its about control
5 -
French_Peasant wrote: »I thought of this thread when I read an article on Reason the other day, so I'm glad ol' pot-stirrer Lemur Cat brought it back.
Philly heavily taxes sodas ($57 tax on a $60 bag of syrup) and hilarity (sad, ironic, predictable hilarity) ensues, at least in the first couple of months:
http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/22/with-sales-depressed-by-soda-tax-philly
A good friend of mine lives in Philly and has been saying that the point of the tax was revenue, not actually cutting soda consumption, so this is ironic as well as predictable, yes.2 -
On the other hand, I'm kind of hoping this thread morphs into one on the interstate commerce clause soon, the way it's going!3
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »On the other hand, I'm kind of hoping this thread morphs into one on the interstate commerce clause soon, the way it's going!
It's interesting thinking of this and the recent discussion of Philly, because while I was growing up, with living quite close to the river and thus NJ (where I live now), I can remember it being quite common for people to go to the Garden State for all sorts of things like gas and booze and cigarettes because they were so much cheaper there. Philly has always taxed the daylights out of everything.
If I'm not mistaken, people on the other end of the city were just as likely to go to Delaware for some things too.
This once again points to the issue being that those most hurt by taxes on goods are those stuck in the inner city without the means to travel to avoid them.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »On the other hand, I'm kind of hoping this thread morphs into one on the interstate commerce clause soon, the way it's going!
It's interesting thinking of this and the recent discussion of Philly, because while I was growing up, with living quite close to the river and thus NJ (where I live now), I can remember it being quite common for people to go to the Garden State for all sorts of things like gas and booze and cigarettes because they were so much cheaper there. Philly has always taxed the daylights out of everything.
If I'm not mistaken, people on the other end of the city were just as likely to go to Delaware for some things too.
This once again points to the issue being that those most hurt by taxes on goods are those stuck in the inner city without the means to travel to avoid them.
Yeap. The poor may get some benefit from the way income taxes work, but they are hit far harder, as a percentage of their income, by all of the ridiculous taxes put in place in attempts to inflict social engineering.1 -
I wish they'd tax processed food, all meat and dairy. It would fund Medicare/aid from sales of the things that cause most of the sickness. If the Big Packaged Food Corporations, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, The Sugar Association, The Egg Board, Dairy Business Association and all the rest want to act like the Tobacco Companies then they most certainly should be taxed like them.
1 -
I think we tax food with sugar, corn syrup, and other types of "bad" ingredients added. Then not tax the vegetables, fruit, and other foods that don't have those ingredients added.
People complain that healthy food is too expensive.1 -
I wish they'd tax processed food, all meat and dairy. It would fund Medicare/aid from sales of the things that cause most of the sickness. If the Big Packaged Food Corporations, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, The Sugar Association, The Egg Board, Dairy Business Association and all the rest want to act like the Tobacco Companies then they most certainly should be taxed like them.
Meat, dairy, and sugar don't cause anything negative, assuming a healthy body (no lactose intolerance, diabetes, etc.). Overconsumption of all foods is causing the ailments you are likely thinking of.
ETA: I lost over 100 lbs., by my lowest weight, and improved all of my health markers, eating all of the things I just mentioned. I'm also regaining weight slowly eating them, because I looked like an X-Files alien at 150, and decided that I needed to strap on some muscle.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions