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
-
Here in Australia, fresh produce and wholefoods do not attract tax, whereas processed foods (as well as other goods and services) have a 10% tax on them.
Personal responsibility is one thing, but with poor food choices being so cheap, easy and available you get lower socioeconomic families feeding their kids non nutritious foods because its what they can afford (in both time, effort and money). We already have a mandated 30mins of physical activity per day in primary school (ages 4 - 12ish) but I'd like to see more cooking classes in all years of schooling, as well as free or cheap (govt funded) cooking classes for beneficiaries, so that throwing together a cheap healthy meal or lunchbox becomes second nature and treat foods go back into the realm of "sometimes" foods.
I would support that model so that instead of an extra tax on junk food, we would instead not charge sales tax on non processed foods...so fruits, veg, meat, nuts, some dairy. I don't believe in an extra tax on junk food...but I can get behind healthy foods being tax free as right now all food is subject to sales tax in the US.
This depends on the state. Not all states tax food.
True, I was over generalising. Fourteen states tax food/groceries in the US. Makes even more sense to expand the not taxing of basic groceries to the whole nation.0 -
In U.K., they have VAT which is a 20% sales tax. It doesn't apply to basic foods but does apply to alcohol, candy, savoury snacks/crisps, hot food, soft drinks, sports drinks, takeaway (i.e. Pizza, Chinese, etc), ice cream and mineral water.
I know some states in the US do have sales tax on alcohol, soft drinks and candy...but how would you all feel about expanding it to other categories of food?0 -
In U.K., they have VAT which is a 20% sales tax. It doesn't apply to basic foods but does apply to alcohol, candy, savoury snacks/crisps, hot food, soft drinks, sports drinks, takeaway (i.e. Pizza, Chinese, etc), ice cream and mineral water.
I know some states in the US do have sales tax on alcohol, soft drinks and candy...but how would you all feel about expanding it to other categories of food?
The US government wastes so much money, so NO!1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Here in Australia, fresh produce and wholefoods do not attract tax, whereas processed foods (as well as other goods and services) have a 10% tax on them.
Personal responsibility is one thing, but with poor food choices being so cheap, easy and available you get lower socioeconomic families feeding their kids non nutritious foods because its what they can afford (in both time, effort and money). We already have a mandated 30mins of physical activity per day in primary school (ages 4 - 12ish) but I'd like to see more cooking classes in all years of schooling, as well as free or cheap (govt funded) cooking classes for beneficiaries, so that throwing together a cheap healthy meal or lunchbox becomes second nature and treat foods go back into the realm of "sometimes" foods.
I would support that model so that instead of an extra tax on junk food, we would instead not charge sales tax on non processed foods...so fruits, veg, meat, nuts, some dairy. I don't believe in an extra tax on junk food...but I can get behind healthy foods being tax free as right now all food is subject to sales tax in the US.
This is obviously not true.
We don't have a federal sales tax in the US. States and localities have sales tax, and they vary quite a bit, but many places have none or have none on food or none on non-prepared food/non-candy or the like.
My state and county and city have insanely (IM not unreasonable O) high sales tax and an extra tax on soda and prepared foods and candy (just what you'd like!) and quite a low tax on other food. Shockingly, there are still fat people here, and the percentage of lower income folks who are obese is higher than the percent of less low income people even though the taxes are obviously more burdensome on poor people. (Sales tax is a regressive tax.)
I am unlike the majority here in that I don't really mind extra taxes on what is in essence convenience foods, as I don't really mind taxes that people can choose to pay or not by what they buy. We have enough taxes that I have to pay that I find it hard to be bothered than there are extra taxes now on soda (any more than on alcohol or cigarettes) just as I don't mind that the stupid lottery is regressive--we need the cash and if it lowers consumption some I don't think that's bad.
I admit this all makes me a bad liberal, though, or self interested, as these are regressive ways of raising money.
Don't know if it will make a difference, but to be fair, it's my understanding the Cook Co soda tax doesn't go into effect until July, 2017.
And the tax won't be applied to drinks purchased with a LINK card. IMO, that stuff should not be LINK eligible in the first place.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »nickiphillips1 wrote: »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.
Healthy food (including fruit and veg if you buy wisely) isn't that expensive.
On the other hand, my local supermarkets sell an insane amount of hugely marked up pre cut fruit and veg. That is expensive, IMO.
one of the biggest rip offs in the entire store
Not gonna lie, I buy precooked and peeled hardboiled eggs. The markup is huge, but I hate peeling eggs so much that I couldn't care less. The ones I buy in the carton are used for cooking only, where it's crack, pour, toss.
I am with you on peeling eggs. My solution is just that I almost never eat them hard-boiled.
I hate peeling them as well so I found another solution. Soft boiled. I put 4 eggs in a pot of cold water and put the heat on high. As soon as the eggs just begin to boil I take the pot off the heat and time for 4 minutes. After 4 minutes I run them under cold water to stop the cooking. Take a knife and cut the tops off and eat the whole thing with a spoon. Have not peeled an egg since...
Hmm, if I get tired of over easy, poached, and omelets, I will try this.
My sister loves hard boiled eggs and has tried every trick given for them, none all that successful yet. She sometimes buys the peeled ones too. I told her if she finds a good trick that works to let me know.
One method I use is to crack them on the top and bottom, not the sides. I get better results that way, not 100% but better...1 -
In U.K., they have VAT which is a 20% sales tax. It doesn't apply to basic foods but does apply to alcohol, candy, savoury snacks/crisps, hot food, soft drinks, sports drinks, takeaway (i.e. Pizza, Chinese, etc), ice cream and mineral water.
I know some states in the US do have sales tax on alcohol, soft drinks and candy...but how would you all feel about expanding it to other categories of food?
Nope.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »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?
None but it does not make them unconstitutional..which is why I referred you to the tenth amendment.
Your opinion does not match that of the US Supreme Court. Their opinion trumps yours.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »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?
None but it does not make them unconstitutional..which is why I referred you to the tenth amendment.
Your opinion does not match that of the US Supreme Court. Their opinion trumps yours.
To be fair, the USSC wasn't granted the power of interpretation of the Constitution in the Constitution either. Yet another power that was just kind of given to a group, by themselves. Our history is rife with such things, as are those of most (if not all) sovereign nations.3 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »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.
sugar has never been found to be an addictive substance, never.
That's not true. Sugar has been found to be highly addictive in multiple studies. In brain scans it was shown to be as addictive as cocaine.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/13/sugar-addiction-like-drug-abuse-study-reveals/
FFS, I really wish this misinterpretation would die. All that happened was that the same pleasure centers lit up between the two.
The difference is that after cocaine use, the centers dim out heavily, and repeated increased dosages are required to have the same effect, and eventually even gain normalcy. This is addiction/dependency.
This doesn't happen with sugar. Everything returns to baseline, and that's it. This is not addiction/dependency.
When was the last time you saw someone shoveling in spoonfuls of sugar? My guess is never. Handfuls of M&Ms though? Probably often.
I'm afraid that multiple scientists disagree with you, the brain does not return to baseline, it reduces dopamine receptors which mean more sugar is needed to get same "high" this kicks off cravings, etc etc just like with drugs. Please see abstract to study I posted.
The full text is behind a paywall, and even the abstract seems to have some problems.
It states sugar-laden foods, not specifically sugar. As we all know, foods end up being greater or less than the sum of their parts, based upon several factors, including but not limited to: taste, smell, mouth feel, nutritional response, etc.
If you have access to the full text, I'd appreciate you sending it to me. I would be interested to see which foodstuffs were used for these things.
I have access, it's an opinion piece which summaries studies to date. Conclusion: more research is needed.
An opinion piece. Offered as proof.
I'm not surprised.4 -
A tax on junk food is purely a money grab by the government. They like to disguise it by saying they think it will "deter" people from indulging. *kitten*, look how great the cigarette tax "deters" people from smoking...2
-
zachbonner_ wrote: »Why should I have to pay an extra tax on junk food just because other people can't control their or their kid's eating habits?
The same reason you have to pay more for beer and whiskey because others can't control their habits?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »nickiphillips1 wrote: »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.
Healthy food (including fruit and veg if you buy wisely) isn't that expensive.
On the other hand, my local supermarkets sell an insane amount of hugely marked up pre cut fruit and veg. That is expensive, IMO.
one of the biggest rip offs in the entire store
Not gonna lie, I buy precooked and peeled hardboiled eggs. The markup is huge, but I hate peeling eggs so much that I couldn't care less. The ones I buy in the carton are used for cooking only, where it's crack, pour, toss.
I am with you on peeling eggs. My solution is just that I almost never eat them hard-boiled.
I hate peeling them as well so I found another solution. Soft boiled. I put 4 eggs in a pot of cold water and put the heat on high. As soon as the eggs just begin to boil I take the pot off the heat and time for 4 minutes. After 4 minutes I run them under cold water to stop the cooking. Take a knife and cut the tops off and eat the whole thing with a spoon. Have not peeled an egg since...
The shells don't get all piecey when you do that? Soft boiled eggs have always been a mystery to me. I've always been afraid to make them.
I used to love them when I was a kid, my mother would make them for me when I was sick.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »nickiphillips1 wrote: »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.
Healthy food (including fruit and veg if you buy wisely) isn't that expensive.
On the other hand, my local supermarkets sell an insane amount of hugely marked up pre cut fruit and veg. That is expensive, IMO.
one of the biggest rip offs in the entire store
Not gonna lie, I buy precooked and peeled hardboiled eggs. The markup is huge, but I hate peeling eggs so much that I couldn't care less. The ones I buy in the carton are used for cooking only, where it's crack, pour, toss.
that's less egregious as hard boiled eggs are multiple steps and like a half hour procedure in total
Er, hard boiled eggs?? The title of this thread is "Should junk food be taxed?"
Some consider deviled eggs junk food, and you can't make a deviled egg without breaking eggs, er, I mean peeling hard boiled eggs.
This is seriously why I won't make a big deviled egg spread for Easter brunch unless I can find someone else to peel them.
You can borrow my kids. They love peeling hard boiled eggs.
When I was diagnosed with FH and had to cut back on egg consumption, they noticed that I wasn't making hard boiled eggs as much and asked when I'd be making them again because they missed peeling them for me.2 -
We pay higher taxes on sugar out in South Africa...0
-
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.
You keep using that term "general welfare clause " but you don't seem to understand what it means.
I never said '"general welfare clause" I have only said "for the common defense and general welfare" or "general welfare". I suggest you read article 1 of the Constitution which gives the Gov the authority to levy taxes and duties and so forth for the general welfare as well as common defence. I would argue you don't understand the US Constitution since you think all taxation is illegal...
And there's the rub, defining "general welfare".
Sure, you can translate that phrase pretty liberally and say this gives the government authority the power to tax almost anything. I mean, I can find vague "evidence" that any random thing causes cancer.
Personally, based on what I have studied about the beliefs and goals of the founding fathers, I feel pretty confidant they would be horrified by the extent to which the typical Americans life is taxed, and would offer to duel anyone who suggested that specific foods should be taxed based on whether they are considered "healthy" by the government at any given time. And I tend to lean left lol!7 -
In U.K., they have VAT which is a 20% sales tax. It doesn't apply to basic foods but does apply to alcohol, candy, savoury snacks/crisps, hot food, soft drinks, sports drinks, takeaway (i.e. Pizza, Chinese, etc), ice cream and mineral water.
I know some states in the US do have sales tax on alcohol, soft drinks and candy...but how would you all feel about expanding it to other categories of food?
No.
I've already stated my opinion. The other categories of food some people would like to see taxed would have the biggest negative impact on the poor, and I don't even want to think of what the declining sales would do to jobs eventually if some extremists had their way.2 -
Of late I have gone back read some very old books. Atlas Shrugged - 1984 a few others - amazing how these people so nailed the world we live in today. Particularly the attacks on free speech and the Govt picking winners and losers via the Tax Code. Just go back to Animal Farm - All Animals are equal - but some are more equal. You can see it today - some people have more protections than others.3
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