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.
So who would do this? Are you proposing that Congress pass a law saying that states and cities cannot tax groceries?
On what authority does Congress do this?1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »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.
The new soda tax doesn't, but we've had similar things for a while. To be specific:
"Although grocery items are tax exempt in most states, this does not apply to you if you live in Illinois. Grocery items are not tax exempt, but they are taxable at a reduced rate of 1%. Candy, soft drinks, alcoholic beverages, and food prepared for immediate consumption do not qualify for the 1% rate."
So they have already been getting the 10.25% rate vs. the much lower rate for food.
And that's on top of the marketing surcharge and so on for soda -- soda is not actually that cheap.
I don't think anyone much thinks the new tax is going to affect the obesity rate, but like I said I don't care about it/mind it. If we have to add more taxes I'm good with taxing soda (I drink diet coke sometimes, and my office supplies soda as a perk whether I drink it or not, and I am a partner in the business so it does come out of my pocket some, but eh, I still selfishly prefer taxes I can choose not to pay if I don't want to by not buying the product).0 -
zachbonner_ wrote: »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.
Dunno how far down the rabbit hole you've gone...but yeah, it's all part of the plan by the global elite to make us all slaves and completely dependent upon them
I like you!4 -
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.4
-
We need to solve the food desert problem first. Taxing junk food is fine, but if that's all you can get, what good is the tax other than to punish those who can least afford it? Or if you can get 5 boxes of mac and cheese for $5 or ONE salad for $5, which are you going to choose if you have a family to feed on a shoestring budget?1
-
If the thought is to decrease the use of junk food, look how "well" that has worked with tobacco and alcohol. No I do not think "junk food" should be taxed. Each person has a responsibility to themselves to chose what they want to eat. We don't need a nanny state telling us what or what not to consume. It is also not the schools place to tell parents what they should be feeding their children.3
-
We need to solve the food desert problem first. Taxing junk food is fine, but if that's all you can get, what good is the tax other than to punish those who can least afford it? Or if you can get 5 boxes of mac and cheese for $5 or ONE salad for $5, which are you going to choose if you have a family to feed on a shoestring budget?
I'm interested in the food desert issue, although I do think its effect is often overstated/exaggerated. I am curious how you would solve the problem that you think is not being done.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.
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...
[whispers] Psst....The word "clause" refers to a distinct article or section in a document. Hence, the Constitution is a document, and it contains assorted articles and/or clauses, and Article 1 is known as the General Welfare Clause.
I just thought this might be some helpful background for you as you make your case that others don't understand the Constitution. Good luck!8 -
GottaBurnEmAll 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...
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.
You give the shell a few taps with a knife (about 1/3 of the way down from the top) then cut the top right off.
Any shell pieces can be picked right off...0 -
I don't think it's a good comparison, necessarily, as we haven't even seen a reasonable proposal for a tax beyond a soda tax, and IMO those are unlikely to matter and soda sales are already declining, but I am curious about the claims that cigarette taxes don't work. On what is that based? Smoking rates have declined (yes, there are lots of reasons), but anecdotally anyway I hear people saying they quit or smoke less because it's so incredibly expensive now all the time.
The article I linked when I bumped this talks about evidence that alcohol taxes do reduce drinking (which I admit surprised me).
Whether it works is a separate issue from whether it's (a) good public policy, or (b) an ethical/just use of the taxing authority.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll 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...
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.
You give the shell a few taps with a knife (about 1/3 of the way down from the top) then cut the top right off.
Any shell pieces can be picked right off...
I'm feeling a bit poorly today. I might give this a try.
Thanks!1 -
I know, I'm all excited to go try some egg cookery, although I probably won't get around to trying anything new until the weekend. (I'm into savory oats with veg and over-easy eggs right now!)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...
I never said taxation was illegal. I said taxation should provide for the common defense, roads, and postal service, which is are the powers that congress has jurisdiction over. What I said is that the government has no right to take my wealth and redistribute it to others in the form of healthcare, wellfare, etc, because the constitution does not grant the federal government the power to that, which why I specifically referred you to the tenth amendment which states that any powers not given to the government are reserved to the states and the people.
1 -
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.
The tenth amendment is not an opinion it is in the constitution.
And no where does the supreme court have the power to declare laws unconstitutional that was a power that they granted to themselves in marburry v madison.3 -
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.
5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions