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
-
French_Peasant wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »Also - if you want to have some fun - go and look at the Net Worth of members of Congress - Prior to them being elected to Congress and after. They have pretty much made themselves exempt from insider trading. Ask yourself how a person who has only worked in Govt their whole lives can be worth 100s of Millions of $$???? How is that possible??? I wont turn this into a left right thing - I think both sides as very guilty - but I am thinking of some high profile types who worth tons and never held a real job. That is all you need to know about the Tax Code. Its about keeping control of the population. Plain and simple. Congress is nothing more than looters - they take what is not theirs and do with it as they please.
I have found it more helpful to reframe my reference baseline to the liberty vs. tyranny axis rather than the left vs. right axis as providing more illumination in understanding the power dynamics in play today. It is very difficult to control someone who takes their liberty (and its concomitant wing, responsibility, which we NEVER hear about) seriously. Today everyone seems to demand their free-dumbs, their mind-, soul- or body-corrupting vices, and rejects any obligation (such as education, civic engagement, and prudence and wisdom in personal affairs), which to me is something completely different from true liberty in the Jeffersonian sense.
If you are not a serf, slave, peasant, or royal subject, if you are a citizen, one of the most valuable properties that you own is your body, and it should be treated with respect so you can prosper and do not become a dead weight (literally or metaphorically) for your spouse, your children, your neighbors, and your community.
Another important thing to understand, and this ties into the subsidies discussion, is that food is a huge national security issue....and it is also a terrible, vicious, horrific weapon of mass destruction. If that food supply is ever yanked away, who bears the brunt....the feral, wily, mistrustful razorbacks, or the fat little piglets who are in a pen trusting the farmer to feed them? Do you ever wonder why our propaganda tells us that we are the bread basket of the world, and it is the job of our farmers and scientists to feed the world? Just some food for thought, as it were.
to the point in your first paragraph, Aristotle always said that the problem with democracy was that the people would vote for the person that promised to "open up the treasury to them." To which he asked the question "then why would anyone vote for the other person who said that he would close the treasury?" (I am paraphrasing) Which is basically the idiotic argument that we have about entitlements today, which is that we already gave it, i.e. promised it, so how can we take it away?
Exactly. Fortunately we have been blessed by the founders in their wisdom with a Republic ("if we can keep it"). It is interesting to note that both our representative republic and founding documents are under a full frontal assault today, and the linchpin of that assault is the profound and deliberately-propagated ignorance and disinterest of so many people about even the basics of our first principals.
Others of us still get pissed off about the Whiskey Tax.
Benjamin Franklin's famous words "A Republic sir, if you can keep it" the way things are going these days we are closer to losing it, IMO.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »Defending your nation with a strong army is not a choice when you are the worlds premiere superpower.
Sure it is. You can choose not to be a superpower.
Not saying we should, but the idea that a certain degree of defense spending is necessary is wrong.
Anyway, I am not unemployed (and pay a lot in taxes) and don't consider taxes theft or extortion, but part of living in a particular community. I don't care if other people think of them that way and have opinions on what they should and should not pay for, but it's simply not true to claim that only the unemployed don't consider them theft.
IMO, this whole discussion becomes rather pointless if one just thinks all taxation is wrong. The more interesting question is if you (like most people) think that some taxation is okay, and that to some extent we share the cost of health care, even if just for old people, are (a) these taxes a good idea, and (b) if not, should there be other public policies to discourage/help reduce obesity and if so, what?
(c) those kind of taxes (health care) should be at the discretion of the states. So if your state wants to increase taxes to get Granny a scooter to get around then so be it. However, the federal government has no business directing any individuals taxes to things that are not powers specifically given to the federal government.2 -
StealthHealth wrote: »The problems with taxing junk food are numerous, but off the top of my head I'd say the biggies are:
A tax of this type would not hit the intended population - It would be a tax on all not just on those that are unhealthy (and therefore likely to place more demand on the healthcare system).
Yes, I think this is a problem. Curious if any of the strong proponents for such a tax (Packerjohn, maybe Macy) have responses.Who gets to decide what is junk food - you, me, politicians, industry, doctors, scientists? I doubt you could get a list of 100 generic food items which all would agree are junk. On MFP I doubt you could get 10!!
Yep, I think this is a big issue too. Packerjohn seems to have changed his proposal to the soda tax, if memory serves (this was a long time ago in MFP time and it's too long to read back). I don't think anyone else has even addressed the question.Even if you could decide that something was Junk food, I'd assume that this would need to include some sort of content limits (for example you may decide that a specific food item contains more than xg of sugar per serving was junk and therefore taxed), manufacturers/food producers would then game the system by producing and selling items that were 1g under the limit and therefor un-taxed and cheaper (therefore sell more)
I'd guess that the response to this could be that you tax by amount or percentage of the supposedly offending item -- x cents per gram of added sugar or x cents per gram of whatever else people want to take an issue with. I also think it would be helpful for any proponents to answer how this would work or cite a current law somewhere that they think handles it correctly.0 -
zachbonner_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »Defending your nation with a strong army is not a choice when you are the worlds premiere superpower.
Sure it is. You can choose not to be a superpower.
that's quite ridiculous and shortsighted
No, it's true. No country has to be a superpower.
I'm not saying we shouldn't (I also think our defense budget could be lower without us ceasing to be a superpower, and certainly that it does not need to be increased), but to claim it's necessary and so all defense spending is not a choice is inaccurate.0 -
Ok to try and sum up the main topic for my understanding,
Majority seemed to not be in favour of taxing junk food. However, although some states already tax soda and candy bars via state sales tax, everyone seemed ok with status quo and would not want to standardise that across the US.
I saw a few people say removing farm subsidies would be a good idea (myself included) although one poster cautioned we have to view the US farming industry similar to the way the DoD views the defence industry...need to at least ensure capability to be self supporting so we can feed ourselves in event of war. Right now the way they are set up, our taxes are actually paying for junk food before we ever even buy it. $20B a year we pay in taxes for this.
So should the Government reform farm subsidies to include vegetables and fruit? Basically divvy up the funding by % so it's like we're subsidising a balanced diet rather than a grains, meat and dairy only diet? Or is the majority for just not paying any tax dollars at all towards food and let the free market govern?
0 -
zachbonner_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »Defending your nation with a strong army is not a choice when you are the worlds premiere superpower.
Sure it is. You can choose not to be a superpower.
that's quite ridiculous and shortsighted
No, it's true. No country has to be a superpower.
I'm not saying we shouldn't (I also think our defense budget could be lower without us ceasing to be a superpower, and certainly that it does not need to be increased), but to claim it's necessary and so all defense spending is not a choice is inaccurate.
whatever the military costs is infinatly more important than taxing people to eat sugar or the dozens of other things taxes pay for
Okay, but that has nothing to do with whether or not being a superpower is a choice.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »Defending your nation with a strong army is not a choice when you are the worlds premiere superpower.
Sure it is. You can choose not to be a superpower.
Not saying we should, but the idea that a certain degree of defense spending is necessary is wrong.
Anyway, I am not unemployed (and pay a lot in taxes) and don't consider taxes theft or extortion, but part of living in a particular community. I don't care if other people think of them that way and have opinions on what they should and should not pay for, but it's simply not true to claim that only the unemployed don't consider them theft.
IMO, this whole discussion becomes rather pointless if one just thinks all taxation is wrong. The more interesting question is if you (like most people) think that some taxation is okay, and that to some extent we share the cost of health care, even if just for old people, are (a) these taxes a good idea, and (b) if not, should there be other public policies to discourage/help reduce obesity and if so, what?
(c) those kind of taxes (health care) should be at the discretion of the states.
Good point, and I actually mostly think this is what's being discussed when it comes to the soda tax. Some places are trying them, some are not. I'm fine with that, although I'd also hope other public policy interventions that may have a stronger likelihood of being useful would be tried.However, the federal government has no business directing any individuals taxes to things that are not powers specifically given to the federal government.
We won't agree on this, probably -- I do agree that Congressional power is limited and certain actions are beyond its authority, but taxing power is broad (see, e.g., the ACA SC decision, whatever happens to the ACA and, for that matter, Medicaid and Medicare, going forward).0 -
zachbonner_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »Defending your nation with a strong army is not a choice when you are the worlds premiere superpower.
Sure it is. You can choose not to be a superpower.
that's quite ridiculous and shortsighted
No, it's true. No country has to be a superpower.
I'm not saying we shouldn't (I also think our defense budget could be lower without us ceasing to be a superpower, and certainly that it does not need to be increased), but to claim it's necessary and so all defense spending is not a choice is inaccurate.
whatever the military costs is infinatly more important than taxing people to eat sugar or the dozens of other things taxes pay for
No, any added cost to the military is NOT infinitely more important than absolutely anything else that taxes can pay for. There is a limit on what necessary defense spending is just as there are reasonable differences of opinion on whether some other expenditure is worth it or not.
Taxing people who eat sugar (I think that's what you meant) costs the gov't nothing, it adds to the coffers and pays for something else. That doesn't mean it should be done, but it's not an expense (unless you want to argue that it hurts the economy, of course). Medical care (which Packerjohn suggests this would pay for, I think) IS an expense, through Medicare, and one that would be extremely hard to cut politically. (Will the current admin try to cut Medicare? I dunno. Ryan wants to, but I don't think they actually will.)
Also, so far the sugar taxing seems likely to be done by the states or local gov'ts, not the feds (I am pretty confident we aren't getting a national sugar tax), and so it's not the same level of gov't that pays for the military. Now, I think Packerjohn wants a national soda tax (again, correct me if I am remembering incorrectly) and Macy suggested that Congress would force the states to change their sales tax systems, but the latter isn't possible unless I'm missing something, which is why I asked her to clarify how that would happen.0 -
zachbonner_ wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »Defending your nation with a strong army is not a choice when you are the worlds premiere superpower.
Sure it is. You can choose not to be a superpower.
that's quite ridiculous and shortsighted
No, it's true. No country has to be a superpower.
I'm not saying we shouldn't (I also think our defense budget could be lower without us ceasing to be a superpower, and certainly that it does not need to be increased), but to claim it's necessary and so all defense spending is not a choice is inaccurate.
whatever the military costs is infinatly more important than taxing people to eat sugar or the dozens of other things taxes pay for
Okay, but that has nothing to do with whether or not being a superpower is a choice.
I think you're getting hung up on the word superpower and not seeing my point
You said that one had no choice but to have a "strong" (read: expensive, given the context of the conversation) army when one is a superpower.
@lemurcat12 pointed out that being a superpower is a choice. It may be the right choice in our circumstances, but it's still a choice.
You said that was ridiculous because the military costs are more important.
I don't think I'm hung up on the word, I think I'm pointing out that even choices that have important consequences are still *choices*.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »Defending your nation with a strong army is not a choice when you are the worlds premiere superpower.
Sure it is. You can choose not to be a superpower.
Not saying we should, but the idea that a certain degree of defense spending is necessary is wrong.
Anyway, I am not unemployed (and pay a lot in taxes) and don't consider taxes theft or extortion, but part of living in a particular community. I don't care if other people think of them that way and have opinions on what they should and should not pay for, but it's simply not true to claim that only the unemployed don't consider them theft.
IMO, this whole discussion becomes rather pointless if one just thinks all taxation is wrong. The more interesting question is if you (like most people) think that some taxation is okay, and that to some extent we share the cost of health care, even if just for old people, are (a) these taxes a good idea, and (b) if not, should there be other public policies to discourage/help reduce obesity and if so, what?
(c) those kind of taxes (health care) should be at the discretion of the states.
Good point, and I actually mostly think this is what's being discussed when it comes to the soda tax. Some places are trying them, some are not. I'm fine with that, although I'd also hope other public policy interventions that may have a stronger likelihood of being useful would be tried.However, the federal government has no business directing any individuals taxes to things that are not powers specifically given to the federal government.
We won't agree on this, probably -- I do agree that Congressional power is limited and certain actions are beyond its authority, but taxing power is broad (see, e.g., the ACA SC decision, whatever happens to the ACA and, for that matter, Medicaid and Medicare, going forward).
If NYC wants to tax sugar drinks then that is their discretion and that is the true application of federalism; if the federal government wants to tax all sugar drinks then that is not constitutional.
well in my opinion the SC invented the taxing authority as cover, even though everyone knows that the individual mandate was NEVER sold as a tax. I would also argue that there is no enumerated power given to congress that would allow them to tax an individual for not buying health insurance; given that logic they can require everyone to buy a car from GM or pay a fee, because GM was partially owned by the government. Now, if an individual state wants to require their citizens to purchase health insurance, or pay a fine then they would have that power under their own state laws and or constitutions.2 -
zachbonner_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »Defending your nation with a strong army is not a choice when you are the worlds premiere superpower.
Sure it is. You can choose not to be a superpower.
that's quite ridiculous and shortsighted
No, it's true. No country has to be a superpower.
I'm not saying we shouldn't (I also think our defense budget could be lower without us ceasing to be a superpower, and certainly that it does not need to be increased), but to claim it's necessary and so all defense spending is not a choice is inaccurate.
whatever the military costs is infinatly more important than taxing people to eat sugar or the dozens of other things taxes pay for
there is a difference between provided for the country's defense, and being involved in 30+ conflicts around the world.
"no entangling alliances" as George Washington said.
I personally prefer the Monroe doctrine, stay out of your hemisphere and we will stay out of yours.6 -
Ok to try and sum up the main topic for my understanding,
Majority seemed to not be in favour of taxing junk food. However, although some states already tax soda and candy bars via state sales tax, everyone seemed ok with status quo and would not want to standardise that across the US.
I saw a few people say removing farm subsidies would be a good idea (myself included) although one poster cautioned we have to view the US farming industry similar to the way the DoD views the defence industry...need to at least ensure capability to be self supporting so we can feed ourselves in event of war. Right now the way they are set up, our taxes are actually paying for junk food before we ever even buy it. $20B a year we pay in taxes for this.
So should the Government reform farm subsidies to include vegetables and fruit? Basically divvy up the funding by % so it's like we're subsidising a balanced diet rather than a grains, meat and dairy only diet? Or is the majority for just not paying any tax dollars at all towards food and let the free market govern?
the federal government should only tax what it has been given the power to oversee - roads, bridges, post office, defense. All other forms of taxation should be reserved to the states.2 -
Macy suggested that Congress would force the states to change their sales tax systems, but the latter isn't possible unless I'm missing something, which is why I asked her to clarify how that would happen.[/quote]
Sorry missed that lemurcat!
The federal government/Congress has preempted the States' taxing authority via the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution before. An example of that is the ban on States charging sales tax on internet access done in 1998. The legality of this action is still debatable even though none of the States have challenged the law...so it's kind of moot.
If Congress were so minded, they could do the opposite of a ban and do a requirement that the States tax sugary foods. Most States already do this and so probably wouldn't challenge the law. Of course, any revenues from a sugar tax collected via State sales tax would go to the States and not the federal government.
(Reminder, I am against taxing junk food...but it could be done and could be done nationwide.)
A little tax analyst discussion on the above.
http://www.taxanalysts.org/tax-analysts-blog/when-should-congress-preempt-state-authority/2016/08/11/194501
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Taxing people who eat sugar (I think that's what you meant) costs the gov't nothing, it adds to the coffers and pays for something else. That doesn't mean it should be done, but it's not an expense (unless you want to argue that it hurts the economy, of course). Medical care (which Packerjohn suggests this would pay for, I think) IS an expense, through Medicare, and one that would be extremely hard to cut politically. (Will the current admin try to cut Medicare? I dunno. Ryan wants to, but I don't think they actually will.)
Also, so far the sugar taxing seems likely to be done by the states or local gov'ts, not the feds (I am pretty confident we aren't getting a national sugar tax), and so it's not the same level of gov't that pays for the military. Now, I think Packerjohn wants a national soda tax (again, correct me if I am remembering incorrectly) and Macy suggested that Congress would force the states to change their sales tax systems, but the latter isn't possible unless I'm missing something, which is why I asked her to clarify how that would happen.
The problems with any rise in taxes are the unintended consequences that follow (especially if the taxes have the desired result - i.e. make people stop doing something):
http://theresurgent.com/as-expected-philadelphias-tax-on-sugary-drinks-results-in-layoffs/
Yes, it's a political piece but it does serve to illustrate what could happen as a result of a massive sin-tax like a tax on 'junk' food.1 -
Taxes are resources taken by force, so by any definition this is theft. The real question lies is what percentage of theft is tolerated by the electorate. To the majority who are not taxed, any amount is acceptable as someone else is having their assets taken by force. As long as the majority see some small percentage of the take they will accept this.
Government succeeds in this endeavor through binary segregation. There are always only two sides to each argument - a third cannot be tolerated. Each new regulation/tax is implemented by only impacting an acceptable minority population. As the majority are not impacted this passes until the incremental increases become overly burdensome.
The trick of government is not to resolve problems, but to create problems that they cannot solve and increase the size and power of government - e.g. war on drugs, terrorism, poverty...
To think that at one time serfs would tithe at 10-15%...how I dream of one day becoming a serf.5 -
zachbonner_ wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »Defending your nation with a strong army is not a choice when you are the worlds premiere superpower.
Sure it is. You can choose not to be a superpower.
that's quite ridiculous and shortsighted
No, it's true. No country has to be a superpower.
I'm not saying we shouldn't (I also think our defense budget could be lower without us ceasing to be a superpower, and certainly that it does not need to be increased), but to claim it's necessary and so all defense spending is not a choice is inaccurate.
whatever the military costs is infinatly more important than taxing people to eat sugar or the dozens of other things taxes pay for
Okay, but that has nothing to do with whether or not being a superpower is a choice.
I think you're getting hung up on the word superpower and not seeing my point
You said that one had no choice but to have a "strong" (read: expensive, given the context of the conversation) army when one is a superpower.
@lemurcat12 pointed out that being a superpower is a choice. It may be the right choice in our circumstances, but it's still a choice.
You said that was ridiculous because the military costs are more important.
I don't think I'm hung up on the word, I think I'm pointing out that even choices that have important consequences are still *choices*.
yea, you're still stuck up on the superpower thing, bud.
What word would you like to use instead?
You're saying that we have no choice but to have a strong (expensive) army because . . . why? If it isn't due to the condition you named (being a superpower), why is it not a choice?0 -
To think that at one time serfs would tithe at 10-15%...how I dream of one day becoming a serf.
Being a serf was a lot rougher than tithing. A serf also owed around 100days labour a year on the lord's fields. A serf was bound to the land as a piece of chattel. Your lord of the manor would die, and you'd be part of an inheritance passed down with the estate because you were property. The lord had authority of life and death over his serfs. Also had sexual access to female serfs. A serf needed his lords permission to marry and many lords would actively breed their serfs by arranged marriages. A serf could be sold or gambled away to another lord. A serf could not own any livestock or even the hovel he lived in. Certain foods and clothing were also banned to serfs as they were deemed only for nobility. The only bright spot is if a serf could escape his manor and not be caught for a year and a day, he was free. He was also an outlaw and could be killed on sight..but hey free until he was hacked down like a dog or lynched by a roving band of men at arms. You wouldn't want to be a serf.
Maybe a yoeman, peasant, or tenant farmer...but not a serf!
0 -
zachbonner_ wrote: »I think he was joking lol. I wouldn't want to be alive in any class in that time period.
Not even as a King? Lol!
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Yep, I think this is a big issue too. Packerjohn seems to have changed his proposal to the soda tax, if memory serves (this was a long time ago in MFP time and it's too long to read back). I don't think anyone else has even addressed the question.
If I remember correctly, the answer to how "junk food" would be determined was - Well, everyone knows what junk food is, it wouldn't be difficult. (Ummm, no it would be really easy to get caught in the weeds on this, especially once lobbyists and special interests got involved). Or, anything with more than a certain number of grams of added sugar (which of course leaves out a whole host of savory junk food that people eat themselves sick on and assumes sugar is the devil).
Regardless, manufacturers would tweak the foods they could to keep them from whatever defines junk food, or would lower the price of the junk food to balance out the tax and then increase the price of other stuff they produce to make up for it and maintain their profits. And since the crux of this whole argument is that junk food is cheap, even if you levy a say 10% tax on it, we're talking about a few cents added to the point of purchase cost. So super easy for manufacturers to get creative and offset the extra tax.
It took decades and TONS of taxes to move the needle on cigarettes, and with tobacco there was no "safe" alternative for tobacco companies to easily steer consumers to as a plan B. It would take the food companies 30 seconds to reformulate, re-price, and change advertising to completely negate any possible benefit to taxing junk food across the board. As a practical matter, it would be completely useless.2 -
Ok to try and sum up the main topic for my understanding,
Majority seemed to not be in favour of taxing junk food. However, although some states already tax soda and candy bars via state sales tax, everyone seemed ok with status quo and would not want to standardise that across the US.
I'd break this down to a few questions:
(1) Should there be a national tax on "junk food"? Setting aside the basic problem of defining junk food, most seem to be against this (including me), but I think Packerjohn is arguing for a national soda tax (or maybe added sugar tax -- I feel bad, but I just don't remember). I'm sure he will correct me.
(2) If not, should there be a state tax on "junk food" that is in excess of the normal sales tax? (My county is currently adding this on soda, and Philadelphia and I think a few other places have.) My view on this is that it's probably useless but one function of local and state gov't is to try things, and I'm not strongly opposed to this being tried (and in the case of my own county which desperately needs money I prefer it to various other money raising options although I admit that's not a very liberal POV).
(3) If not, should we at least not exempt "junk food" from the lower (or 0) rate that food normally gets? I think a lot of places do this and so far as I know it's not controversial.I saw a few people say removing farm subsidies would be a good idea (myself included) although one poster cautioned we have to view the US farming industry similar to the way the DoD views the defence industry...need to at least ensure capability to be self supporting so we can feed ourselves in event of war.
Yup. I'm generally in favor of removing farm subsidies, but a few issues are related: it increases the cost of food, including meat, eggs, and dairy, which are generally cheap (food is generally cheap) in the US. Also, it's currently how we finance/compromise on SNAP and if we didn't have the farm subsidies it's not at all clear that SNAP would not end up being cut too, which is one reason it's politically hard to cut the subsidies. There are obviously many more reasons.
I'd also like to see a good analysis of the effects, although my knee-jerk view is that a freer market is better here. However, I could be swayed to the idea that some degree of crop insurance for farmers is important and to the extent the market includes more smaller farmers (these days it is largely industrial farms, of course), that is more, not less, important.
I also doubt it makes much difference in the availability/cost of junk food. But on the principle of it I'm in favor.So should the Government reform farm subsidies to include vegetables and fruit?
Here's an article that relates to this topic: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/farm-bill-why-dont-taxpayers-subsidize-the-foods-that-are-better-for-us/2014/02/14/d7642a3c-9434-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html?utm_term=.4e9ac68136a0
Again, I'd need to know more about the various effects of the proposed policies. I am not convinced there's a need to subsidize fruits and vegetables, but I'm not against the idea in principle if there is a need/it would be beneficial. I am very much in favor of the kinds of community gardens and promotion of that that French Peasant has been discussing.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions