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
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
It's not an opinion piece that is a falsehood. It is a scientific review of studies to date. It was easier to post a scientific review of dozens of studies than post each study individually. I also posted a link twice to the full text of the review which you can download for free. Please go and read it.0 -
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?2 -
VAT (value added tax) is paid on takeaway food in the UK - I think it's 20%0
-
Sorry if I'm repeating someone else's point here. This is a looong thread. To the question should we tax junk food, sure if the only reason for the tax is to raise money and irritate people. And maybe if the desired outcome is to place o e more burden on people who already have enough trouble getting enough to eat. It won't improve eating habits much. Habits are difficult to change. And so called junk food is the only food some people have any access to. It's too easy to sit high and look low for those of us who know what fresh, whole food (one broad definition of healthy) looks like, have access to in in the form of a grocery store in walking distance or reliable transportation to it, and have a reliable way to store and prepare the food before it spoils. Anyone who thinks this particular tax burden would be split equally among the classes is deluded. But again, it all depends on what the tax is designed to accomplish.4
-
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.
I don't disagree that we need to seriously discuss what is *worth* spending money on and what the government is entitled to spend money on. But I was responding to someone who said *all taxes* were theft and only the unemployed disagree with that. I don't think that is accurate.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »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.
I don't disagree that we need to seriously discuss what is *worth* spending money on and what the government is entitled to spend money on. But I was responding to someone who said *all taxes* were theft and only the unemployed disagree with that. I don't think that is accurate.
well, you need to distinguish between federal and state government. Federal government, under the constitution, has the power to levy taxes for roads, common defense, and postal service. State government then has the power to levy taxes for whatever they determine is necessary for state subsistence ..at least that is how our system was originally designed by the founders. So if California wants to tax you to death, then no problem; and if Texas wants to have minimal taxes, again no problem; the problem arises when the federal government steps in and demands x, y, z tax that are outside of their original enumerated powers.6 -
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.
2 -
I know this is going back a few pages (Can't believe this thread blew up again, lol!) but I wanted to address this:You can't test humans that way because it's unethical and against the law. You can only test animals like lab rats. In this particular study they report how rats given the choice between self administering cocaine or sucrose, chose sucrose. They also would go for the sucrose even if it meant an electric shock to get it...even though there was plain water available with no electric shock to punish them. In self assessments, humans have reported addiction symptoms and have shown addictive behaviour for sugar. But we can't do a study where we deliberately hook someone on sugar...WinoGelato 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/
Please find me a study on humans that has conclusive evidence that sugar is addictive.
and you get the same reaction in your brain to petting puppies as you do to sugar, so does that mean that petting puppies is addictive as cocaine.
Here you go. You may get the same type of reaction in brain by petting puppies..but the magnitude is far far lower. Just like the effects of paracetamol vs. Morphine. Yes both are analgesics, but paracetamol is not addictive like an opiate is.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719144.
nope, that is not what I was asking for. I mean show me a study where humans became addicted to sugar. Pleasure centers does not prove anything, because by that logic one can be addicted to racing cars, petting puppies, sitting on the beach, etc, etc...
You can't test humans that way because it's unethical and against the law. You can only test animals like lab rats. In this particular study they report how rats given the choice between self administering cocaine or sucrose, chose sucrose. They also would go for the sucrose even if it meant an electric shock to get it...even though there was plain water available with no electric shock to punish them. In self assessments, humans have reported addiction symptoms and have shown addictive behaviour for sugar. But we can't do a study where we deliberately hook someone on sugar...
So animals will go for the source that provides energy and sustenance to their body, over the source that provides a narcotic high? Smart rats...
@Macy9336 - have you ever tasted cocaine? It's nasty, nasty stuff. No surprise that the rats chose sugar water over the cocaine. Every. Single. Time. So the only thing that 'scientific experiment' proves is that sugar tastes better than cocaine, which 10/10 rats/humans would agree with.7 -
This content has been removed.
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
It's not an opinion piece that is a falsehood. It is a scientific review of studies to date. It was easier to post a scientific review of dozens of studies than post each study individually. I also posted a link twice to the full text of the review which you can download for free. Please go and read it.
If it were a meta-analysis that drew a convincing conclusion, the other poster has the credentials to have summed it up that way. She didn't.
You still haven't made your case, and it's off the topic of this thread.
I don't download things off the internet from unknown sources.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »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.
I don't disagree that we need to seriously discuss what is *worth* spending money on and what the government is entitled to spend money on. But I was responding to someone who said *all taxes* were theft and only the unemployed disagree with that. I don't think that is accurate.
well, you need to distinguish between federal and state government. Federal government, under the constitution, has the power to levy taxes for roads, common defense, and postal service. State government then has the power to levy taxes for whatever they determine is necessary for state subsistence ..at least that is how our system was originally designed by the founders. So if California wants to tax you to death, then no problem; and if Texas wants to have minimal taxes, again no problem; the problem arises when the federal government steps in and demands x, y, z tax that are outside of their original enumerated powers.
I don't think I'm required to do that in order to object to the statement that all taxes are theft. It's completely possible that *some* taxes are theft (or inappropriate in some other way) or that some revenue from taxes is used in a way that is inappropriate or unconstitutional. I think those are perfectly valid discussions.
But that wasn't what was asserted in the post that I was responding to. It said that all taxes were theft. No exception was made for taxes to fund roads, common defense, or the postal service. No exception was made for state taxes designed to support state subsistence either. I don't imagine you agree with the statement that all taxes are theft, so I'm unclear why you're responding to my objection.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
I don't disagree that we need to seriously discuss what is *worth* spending money on and what the government is entitled to spend money on. But I was responding to someone who said *all taxes* were theft and only the unemployed disagree with that. I don't think that is accurate.
well, you need to distinguish between federal and state government. Federal government, under the constitution, has the power to levy taxes for roads, common defense, and postal service. State government then has the power to levy taxes for whatever they determine is necessary for state subsistence ..at least that is how our system was originally designed by the founders. So if California wants to tax you to death, then no problem; and if Texas wants to have minimal taxes, again no problem; the problem arises when the federal government steps in and demands x, y, z tax that are outside of their original enumerated powers.
I don't think I'm required to do that in order to object to the statement that all taxes are theft. It's completely possible that *some* taxes are theft (or inappropriate in some other way) or that some revenue from taxes is used in a way that is inappropriate or unconstitutional. I think those are perfectly valid discussions.
But that wasn't what was asserted in the post that I was responding to. It said that all taxes were theft. No exception was made for taxes to fund roads, common defense, or the postal service. No exception was made for state taxes designed to support state subsistence either. I don't imagine you agree with the statement that all taxes are theft, so I'm unclear why you're responding to my objection.
Perhaps calling them extortion would be more accurate.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
I don't disagree that we need to seriously discuss what is *worth* spending money on and what the government is entitled to spend money on. But I was responding to someone who said *all taxes* were theft and only the unemployed disagree with that. I don't think that is accurate.
well, you need to distinguish between federal and state government. Federal government, under the constitution, has the power to levy taxes for roads, common defense, and postal service. State government then has the power to levy taxes for whatever they determine is necessary for state subsistence ..at least that is how our system was originally designed by the founders. So if California wants to tax you to death, then no problem; and if Texas wants to have minimal taxes, again no problem; the problem arises when the federal government steps in and demands x, y, z tax that are outside of their original enumerated powers.
I don't think I'm required to do that in order to object to the statement that all taxes are theft. It's completely possible that *some* taxes are theft (or inappropriate in some other way) or that some revenue from taxes is used in a way that is inappropriate or unconstitutional. I think those are perfectly valid discussions.
But that wasn't what was asserted in the post that I was responding to. It said that all taxes were theft. No exception was made for taxes to fund roads, common defense, or the postal service. No exception was made for state taxes designed to support state subsistence either. I don't imagine you agree with the statement that all taxes are theft, so I'm unclear why you're responding to my objection.
Perhaps calling them extortion would be more accurate.
Some taxes? Perhaps. All taxes? No. I prefer to live in a country that has some degree of national defense and infrastructure.
The amount of taxes and the use to which they're put -- those are worth discussing. The idea that all taxation is theft or extortion? If that's your position, I'm not going to try to talk you out of it, but it's not one that I can embrace.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
janejellyroll wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
I don't disagree that we need to seriously discuss what is *worth* spending money on and what the government is entitled to spend money on. But I was responding to someone who said *all taxes* were theft and only the unemployed disagree with that. I don't think that is accurate.
well, you need to distinguish between federal and state government. Federal government, under the constitution, has the power to levy taxes for roads, common defense, and postal service. State government then has the power to levy taxes for whatever they determine is necessary for state subsistence ..at least that is how our system was originally designed by the founders. So if California wants to tax you to death, then no problem; and if Texas wants to have minimal taxes, again no problem; the problem arises when the federal government steps in and demands x, y, z tax that are outside of their original enumerated powers.
I don't think I'm required to do that in order to object to the statement that all taxes are theft. It's completely possible that *some* taxes are theft (or inappropriate in some other way) or that some revenue from taxes is used in a way that is inappropriate or unconstitutional. I think those are perfectly valid discussions.
But that wasn't what was asserted in the post that I was responding to. It said that all taxes were theft. No exception was made for taxes to fund roads, common defense, or the postal service. No exception was made for state taxes designed to support state subsistence either. I don't imagine you agree with the statement that all taxes are theft, so I'm unclear why you're responding to my objection.
Perhaps calling them extortion would be more accurate.
Some taxes? Perhaps. All taxes? No. I prefer to live in a country that has some degree of national defense and infrastructure.
The amount of taxes and the use to which they're put -- those are worth discussing. The idea that all taxation is theft or extortion? If that's your position, I'm not going to try to talk you out of it, but it's not one that I can embrace.
No, I mean they are literally extortion, by definition. Try not paying them and see what happens.2 -
Sure, if they take the tax off the fruit and veggies!1
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
I don't disagree that we need to seriously discuss what is *worth* spending money on and what the government is entitled to spend money on. But I was responding to someone who said *all taxes* were theft and only the unemployed disagree with that. I don't think that is accurate.
well, you need to distinguish between federal and state government. Federal government, under the constitution, has the power to levy taxes for roads, common defense, and postal service. State government then has the power to levy taxes for whatever they determine is necessary for state subsistence ..at least that is how our system was originally designed by the founders. So if California wants to tax you to death, then no problem; and if Texas wants to have minimal taxes, again no problem; the problem arises when the federal government steps in and demands x, y, z tax that are outside of their original enumerated powers.
I don't think I'm required to do that in order to object to the statement that all taxes are theft. It's completely possible that *some* taxes are theft (or inappropriate in some other way) or that some revenue from taxes is used in a way that is inappropriate or unconstitutional. I think those are perfectly valid discussions.
But that wasn't what was asserted in the post that I was responding to. It said that all taxes were theft. No exception was made for taxes to fund roads, common defense, or the postal service. No exception was made for state taxes designed to support state subsistence either. I don't imagine you agree with the statement that all taxes are theft, so I'm unclear why you're responding to my objection.
Perhaps calling them extortion would be more accurate.
Some taxes? Perhaps. All taxes? No. I prefer to live in a country that has some degree of national defense and infrastructure.
The amount of taxes and the use to which they're put -- those are worth discussing. The idea that all taxation is theft or extortion? If that's your position, I'm not going to try to talk you out of it, but it's not one that I can embrace.
No, I mean they are literally extortion, by definition. Try not paying them and see what happens.
Thanks for clarifying your position.0 -
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).
- 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!!
- 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'm generally against this type of social engineering by taxation but on something as poorly defined as junk food any government embarking upon such an endeavour would fail.
*note that this is how the current UK traffic lights nutritional information is currently gamed and before that how we ended up with yoghurts labelled as "healthy and low fat" but with added sugars.1 -
This content has been removed.
-
zachbonner_ wrote: »"Who gets to decide what is junk food" exactly. Washington will. I don't want Washington taxing even more things it shouldn't. I don't see them complaining with their fancy city paid for by the rest of the country's money though.
This to me is the real issue.
"You can not have a free country, which is at the same time a nursery…”
–Alan Watts
4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
It's not an opinion piece that is a falsehood. It is a scientific review of studies to date. It was easier to post a scientific review of dozens of studies than post each study individually. I also posted a link twice to the full text of the review which you can download for free. Please go and read it.
If it were a meta-analysis that drew a convincing conclusion, the other poster has the credentials to have summed it up that way. She didn't.
You still haven't made your case, and it's off the topic of this thread.
I don't download things off the internet from unknown sources.
I didn't introduce the subject of sugar addiction to this thread another poster did. I merely responded to someone who said there has "never" been any evidence indicating sugar could be addictive. I simply posted a review of studies to date to show there is some evidence. I was then asked to try and post a link to the full review as some people were honestly interested in reading it. I posted it twice because others missed the link and kept asking for one. Others have jumped in claiming it's an opinion piece...so I corrected them as that is not a true statement. I'm not trying to make a case one way or the other..merely saying there is some evidence, that it is being researched. There's no need to get short with me, I was only trying to be informative not kick off a debate about sugar addiction; which is why I haven't made a case for sugar addiction (as you rightfully point out). Cheers.0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »I know this is going back a few pages (Can't believe this thread blew up again, lol!) but I wanted to address this:You can't test humans that way because it's unethical and against the law. You can only test animals like lab rats. In this particular study they report how rats given the choice between self administering cocaine or sucrose, chose sucrose. They also would go for the sucrose even if it meant an electric shock to get it...even though there was plain water available with no electric shock to punish them. In self assessments, humans have reported addiction symptoms and have shown addictive behaviour for sugar. But we can't do a study where we deliberately hook someone on sugar...WinoGelato 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/
Please find me a study on humans that has conclusive evidence that sugar is addictive.
and you get the same reaction in your brain to petting puppies as you do to sugar, so does that mean that petting puppies is addictive as cocaine.
Here you go. You may get the same type of reaction in brain by petting puppies..but the magnitude is far far lower. Just like the effects of paracetamol vs. Morphine. Yes both are analgesics, but paracetamol is not addictive like an opiate is.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719144.
nope, that is not what I was asking for. I mean show me a study where humans became addicted to sugar. Pleasure centers does not prove anything, because by that logic one can be addicted to racing cars, petting puppies, sitting on the beach, etc, etc...
You can't test humans that way because it's unethical and against the law. You can only test animals like lab rats. In this particular study they report how rats given the choice between self administering cocaine or sucrose, chose sucrose. They also would go for the sucrose even if it meant an electric shock to get it...even though there was plain water available with no electric shock to punish them. In self assessments, humans have reported addiction symptoms and have shown addictive behaviour for sugar. But we can't do a study where we deliberately hook someone on sugar...
So animals will go for the source that provides energy and sustenance to their body, over the source that provides a narcotic high? Smart rats...
@Macy9336 - have you ever tasted cocaine? It's nasty, nasty stuff. No surprise that the rats chose sugar water over the cocaine. Every. Single. Time. So the only thing that 'scientific experiment' proves is that sugar tastes better than cocaine, which 10/10 rats/humans would agree with.
No I haven't tasted cocaine, but that's a really good insight. It would explain a lot. Although not sure how we explain the taking the electric shock to get the sugar bit of the experiment.0 -
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?3 -
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 -
This content has been removed.
-
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 -
This content has been removed.
-
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
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions