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
-
comptonelizabeth wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »how about making healthy food cheaper instead?
So more subsidies to out-subsidize the crap that is currently being subsidized and causing the problems? Seems like a legit approach. Or maybe just pull a Venezuela, force the farmers to take a massive economic hit, and send them to jail over cauliflower and pear pricing? Explain to me the economics of this idea, and please back up your suggestions with a working knowledge of the Agricultural Act of 2014.
As has been illustrated repeatedly on this thread, that the more the petty bureaucrats and diktocrats mess with things, the more the overall market becomes screwed up, and the more unintended consequences are reaped.
So what's your answer,then?
the answer is that the governemnt has zero business/authority in being in the food business.
it is called personal responsibility and individual freedom, use it.
Just to play devils advocate here....
Americans keep becoming larger and more unhealthy, leading them to develop serious health problems. Then that causes them to not teach good habits to their children, Who end up getting heart conditions, diabetes, etc...
Doesn't that prove that over the past several decades Americans have not been able to take personal responsibility? Eating junk food have no consequences and was just frowned upon, that would be one thing. But ultimately eating a terrible diet does lead to serious health problems and is leaving children to develop what used to just be adult problems like diabetes and heart conditions. Isn't it in a way the governments job to help our society become healthier? I get the personal responsibility aspect, but Americans are becoming more obese every year and I feel like that proves a lot of them have no personal responsibility in a way. No there are certainly many other factors that are contributing to obesity that taxing would not help or change at all. But making it harder to gain access to maybe a little bit of a start.
Not trying to be rude at all, just curious what your take on that is?
Not rude at all, the only problem is that 'junk' food is not the reason that people are obese - eating too many calories is the reason that people are obese. You can (and I did) get just as fat eating healthy and wholesome food as existing entirely on 'junk' food.
And still, 57 pages into this discussion, nobody can actually define 'junk' food so wth would you tax?
I would say junk food is not the only problem that people are obese as I stated, but I don't think Society should deny that part of the reason people are overweight is because of junk food. I actually recently just commented on the thread where I said basically the same thing you did, that portion control is probably the biggest reason people are overweight. You can be choosing all the right foods but if you're going back for third or fourth servings you're still going to be overweight.
I have to be honest I didn't read all 57 pages of this thread so I can't speak to what's been shared or not shared and I'm not going to go back and read it. I think they would have to come up with something standardize to categorize junk food, as in looking that the amount of grams of sugar or fat in comparison to the nutritional content. I don't know if they've done this anywhere else but I believe in schools now they don't allow candy in the candy machines, food has to meet certain set guidelines to be allowed in the machines and they would probably have to do something like that. I don't know that semantics of that because when I was in high school they still allowed candy in school, so I'm just going off of what I've heard and read.
There are many many reasons that people are obese that can't be solved with a tax, which I believe I said. However there has to be a starting point and maybe a tax is something, and maybe it's not. All I know is that when I was in elementary school, middle school, and even high school there really weren't that many overweight classmates. Of course there were some, but I also grew up in one of the most healthy states in the US. And I don't think we can deny that there is an obesity problem in the United States and it's causing people to develop serious health conditions and kids are developing what used to be adult health conditions. Forget the vanity aspect, I think this is all about health and while it is none of my business what other people eat and what other people do, I think our society needs an overhaul when it comes to health because we're not doing that great.
But to add a flip side to my own opinion, I also think taxing unhealthier "junk" foods would unfairly target the lower income.
I just wanted to clarify that I recognize that.
1 -
Nope, the government sucks at determining this. Daycares don't provide whole milk for young children because they don't get reimbursed by the state for it because "it contributes to childhood obesity".
And then they give the children a honey bun or Twinkie for a snack.
1 -
Ultimately, I think that we should remove the subsidies on corn, soy, milk, and other commodities that make junk food prices artificially low. If the price floors on those were removed, growers would stop overproduction, and the price of junk food would go up to reflect the "true" cost of the food, which would discourage excess consumption, or at least make people think twice before buying. And it would stop those whiny complaints that "eating healthy is impossible because it costs too much vs eating junk."
That said, I highly doubt that we'll ever remove those subsidies since there's too many different private interests that lobby to keep them in place. Raising the price through taxes would be easier, but then there would have to be someone to decide what qualifies as "healthy" and what qualifies as "junk", which could be problematic. For example, soda and fruit juice are similar nutritionally (both are empty calories and mostly all sugar), but I think that soda would be taxed, while juice would be given a free pass, since it has a mistaken reputation for being healthy.
So, I guess that while I'm in favor of taxation, I think that actually applying the tax would be a logistical nightmare.2 -
DoNotSpamMe73 wrote: »Alluminati wrote: »I wish we could tax stupid. We'd be rich!
Well the thing is that the rich only get a 2% tax over there is usa while over here companies get a flat 30% (Australia). It all used to be half for the really rich companies. While even for the rich half seems a bit overboard that's who should be taxed more. Australia or USA the quality of roads in the ability, to give people all the textbooks they need and health care. Though America doesn't really do non out of pocket health care does it?
Cigarettes can kill you but have huge tax which hypothetically goes to support the country.
Alcohol - Bad, expensive, a social thing for non-alcoholics and is highly taxed which supports education, health care and construction
Soda - over here we're paying about 900% markup from the bought price. So that's a douche move.
All our numbers are pretaxed here so we never have to think about what we buy the same way though.
As to the bold...what are referring to? 2% tax on what?
0 -
peisweetpea wrote: »Junk food is learned...I am eager to see what happens now that younger folklore not watching TV. Money is invested in advertising, it works holding our thinking about our tastes. Taxes, would train me not to spend money on my personal favourites Lay's potato chips, Skor chocolate bars and gummy bears!
I don't think taxes would make a difference for me. Most of the junk food (high cal/lower nutrition for the calories) stuff I buy tends to be more expensive than it could be already -- more expensive restaurants (comes with plenty of nutrient dense things like fish and veg, but I eat in such places even though I could eat more cheaply and low cal at home), good cheese, I'm picky about the ice creams I buy so end up buying more expensive ones, I buy expensive chocolates, stuff like that.
Back when I drank I didn't care about the taxes or go for the cheaper stuff.
So it would make zero difference to the health of my diet if junk food were taxed more than currently.2 -
Strawblackcat wrote: »Ultimately, I think that we should remove the subsidies on corn, soy, milk, and other commodities that make junk food prices artificially low.
The subsidies also make other foods such as meat artificially cheap. I'm in favor of not interfering in the market, but there will be unintended consequences of getting rid of subsidies, one of which is overall increases in food prices in the US.1 -
DoNotSpamMe73 wrote: »Alluminati wrote: »I wish we could tax stupid. We'd be rich!
Well the thing is that the rich only get a 2% tax over there is usa while over here companies get a flat 30% (Australia). It all used to be half for the really rich companies. While even for the rich half seems a bit overboard that's who should be taxed more. Australia or USA the quality of roads in the ability, to give people all the textbooks they need and health care. Though America doesn't really do non out of pocket health care does it?
Cigarettes can kill you but have huge tax which hypothetically goes to support the country.
Alcohol - Bad, expensive, a social thing for non-alcoholics and is highly taxed which supports education, health care and construction
Soda - over here we're paying about 900% markup from the bought price. So that's a douche move.
All our numbers are pretaxed here so we never have to think about what we buy the same way though.
As to the bold...what are referring to? 2% tax on what?
I was also wondering about this. Maybe sales taxes are meant, but not sure how "the rich" are singled out, then, and sales taxes in the US are state-specific and ours are way more than 2%. (Not 30%, but that's because our taxes are more from other sources.)1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Strawblackcat wrote: »Ultimately, I think that we should remove the subsidies on corn, soy, milk, and other commodities that make junk food prices artificially low.
The subsidies also make other foods such as meat artificially cheap. I'm in favor of not interfering in the market, but there will be unintended consequences of getting rid of subsidies, one of which is overall increases in food prices in the US.
And increasing the price would encourage people to buy less, which would probably lower caloric intake. Prices on things that most people don't eat enough of (like fruits and veggies) wouldn't be as affected, since they aren't as subsidized. On the other hand, the prices of things that most people eat too much of (foods high in sugar, salt, unhealthy fat, and "cheap" meat/dairy products) would increase, which would discourage consumption and steer people towards more fresh foods.1 -
Strawblackcat wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Strawblackcat wrote: »Ultimately, I think that we should remove the subsidies on corn, soy, milk, and other commodities that make junk food prices artificially low.
The subsidies also make other foods such as meat artificially cheap. I'm in favor of not interfering in the market, but there will be unintended consequences of getting rid of subsidies, one of which is overall increases in food prices in the US.
And increasing the price would encourage people to buy less, which would probably lower caloric intake. Prices on things that most people don't eat enough of (like fruits and veggies) wouldn't be as affected, since they aren't as subsidized. On the other hand, the prices of things that most people eat too much of (foods high in sugar, salt, unhealthy fat, and "cheap" meat/dairy products) would increase, which would discourage consumption and steer people towards more fresh foods.
Making food expensive so it becomes scarce is hardly a good approach to obesity.
"Fresh" is kind of beside the point, as it's March, and it would have been more difficult still in January. This idea that "fresh" brought in from far away is superior to frozen always puzzles me. And while I personally dislike most canned veg (beans are another story, and are NOT always high sodium, canned tomatoes are a lot more flavorful than any "fresh" tomatoes sold in the winter, IME.
I am in favor of cutting subsidies since I generally don't like messing around in the market, but I also don't think that overall the effect is that meaningful. (It's not going to affect what people eat -- let's do it, sure, but not pretend that people are fat because of farm subsidies and will stop being fat is they end.) I do want to acknowledge that the effect is more broad than recognized by those who focus just on ultra processed foods and includes many things that people consider "healthy" or important for balanced meals, and which ALSO make food cheaper for those who are eating healthfully on a budget. (Staple foods in the 19th century, say, when we didn't have all the cheap processed things, were not primarily fruits and veg, certainly not in cities and for the majority of the population, or in late fall through early spring.)
I just hate the elitist approach to this where the fact that the effect of things like increasing the cost of food or taxing foods in a way that would primarily effect lower income people is waved away, since of course cheap foods and meats and so on are bad and people should eat more of the expensive stuff. Increasing the cost of foods that people enjoy that happen to be cheap WOULDN'T make the foods you think they should be eating less expensive, (it might make them more expensive given how interconnected everything is) and -- as being discussed in another thread -- it's yet to be shown that one can't already eat healthfully in a cheap way. And that probably includes things like cheaper cuts of meat (chicken thighs, for example, or, sure, ground beef, turkey wings and legs), as well as in season and frozen veg, things that store well like cabbage, apples, and potatoes, and things like dried grains and dried beans. Plus eggs and dairy (and adding some butter is a good way to cook that can make all of this more interesting and tasty, same with salt and pepper).6 -
-
janejellyroll wrote: »
0 -
Every place I've ever been taxes all food purchases.1
-
Every place I've ever been taxes all food purchases.
You've had bad luck where you've lived:
https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/which-states-tax-the-sale-of-food-for-home-consumption-in-2017
Excerpt:
Forty-five states and the District of Columbia levy general sales taxes. Most of those states have eliminated, reduced, or offset the tax as applied to food for home consumption. (See Figure 1.) The relief strategies include full or partial exemptions from the sales tax for food purchased for home consumption and credits or rebates to offset the food tax. Of the states with sales taxes:
Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia exempt most food purchased for consumption at home from the state sales tax. West Virginia is the state that most recently eliminated its sales tax on food (effective July 1, 2013).
Six states tax groceries at lower rates than other goods; they are Arkansas, Illinois, Missouri, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia.[1]
Four states — Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, and Oklahoma — tax groceries fully but offer credits or rebates offsetting some of the taxes paid on food by some portions of the population.[2] These credits or rebates usually are set at a flat amount per family member. The amounts and eligibility rules vary, but may be too narrow and/or insufficient to give eligible households full relief from sales taxes paid on food purchases.
Three states continue to apply their sales tax fully to food purchased for home consumption without providing any offsetting relief for low- and moderate-income families. They are Alabama, Mississippi, and South Dakota.[3]
Local governments, which in many states levy their own sales taxes, usually exempt food if food is fully exempt at the state level. Major exceptions include localities in Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Grocery food purchases in those states are fully or partially exempt at the state level, but typically taxed at the local level.1 -
-
1 -
Yes. Pigovian taxes work. Junk food has quantifiable negative externalities and should be taxed accordingly.1
-
Chicago just tried taxing soda and other specific drinks. As you can imagine this was a massive failure. Proponents of the increase predicted a 200M increase in revenue. Reality put the increase closer to 300k based on trending. Votes already came in to repeal this.
They would have been better served putting up MFP billboards.2 -
Chicago just tried taxing soda and other specific drinks. As you can imagine this was a massive failure. Proponents of the increase predicted a 200M increase in revenue. Reality put the increase closer to 300k based on trending. Votes already came in to repeal this.
They would have been better served putting up MFP billboards.
Poor implementation in Chicago. Soda tax in Mexico seems to be having desired outcome:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/upshot/soda-sales-fall-further-in-mexicos-second-year-of-taxing-them.html
From the article:
The new study, published online Wednesday in Health Affairs, shows that the results of such a tax may be far more long-lasting. The research, based on shopping data from a large sample of urban Mexican households, showed that the first year’s consumption declines continued during the second year. Over all, sugary drink sales fell by 5.5 percent in 2014 compared with the year before, and by 9.7 percent in 2015 — again compared with 2013. (The results are based on predicted volumes had there been no tax.) Once again, the largest reductions were among the poorest Mexicans.3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Chicago just tried taxing soda and other specific drinks. As you can imagine this was a massive failure. Proponents of the increase predicted a 200M increase in revenue. Reality put the increase closer to 300k based on trending. Votes already came in to repeal this.
They would have been better served putting up MFP billboards.
Poor implementation in Chicago. Soda tax in Mexico seems to be having desired outcome:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/upshot/soda-sales-fall-further-in-mexicos-second-year-of-taxing-them.html
From the article:
The new study, published online Wednesday in Health Affairs, shows that the results of such a tax may be far more long-lasting. The research, based on shopping data from a large sample of urban Mexican households, showed that the first year’s consumption declines continued during the second year. Over all, sugary drink sales fell by 5.5 percent in 2014 compared with the year before, and by 9.7 percent in 2015 — again compared with 2013. (The results are based on predicted volumes had there been no tax.) Once again, the largest reductions were among the poorest Mexicans.
Chicago and Illinois in general simply have a disastrous track record of implementing anything. The level of corruption is unparalleled. Of course in this case the tax could never work as people simply make their purchases outside city limits. Many Illinois residents do the same with food tax and make a trip to Wisconsin to avoid the high taxes.0 -
Yes. Pigovian taxes work. Junk food has quantifiable negative externalities and should be taxed accordingly.
In moderation, foods perceived as bad are generally fine. Soda was drunk for decades before obesity became an epidemic, and its decline the past 20 years doesn't correlate with the rise in obesity. The main problem with "junk food" is its contribution to a calorie surplus, and since all food can be overconsumed, all food should be taxed in proportion to its calorie content. Additionally, everything which reduces calorie output - including all technology - should also be taxed. This is a ridiculous proposition of course, which is why singling out foods perceived as bad is also a folly.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions