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
-
suzannesimmons3 wrote: »HeidiCooksSupper wrote: »A well considered and defined tax with a designation of the proceeds for public health education and scientific research into human nutrition? Why not? We now pick and choose what to tax and what not to tax. How about taxing sugared sodas but not toilet paper, sanitary supplies, etc.?
I love how the government decided my sanitary towels were a luxury item.
Condoms, no. Tampons, yes. WTF.
Though I'd be happy if more people used condoms, on the whole.1 -
You can't increase tax on something that (by definition) doesn't exist.
Junk food can be anything that somebody consumes in excess - it is perfectly feasible that one person if calculated properly could consume their macro ratio by eating pizza (no, I'm not saying it's a good or bad idea).
To that person, pizza is a good choice for their requirements - whereas to others who are binge eating said pizza, that could fall into 'junk'.
The next question is, would it really make any positive difference?
Alcohol is taxed extra in many places and people still buy it, they just cut cost elsewhere on other things that might otherwise do them good.
Money and time is better spent teaching people, not trying to force a change they don't want.5 -
Cherimoose wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »Cherimoose wrote: »I have a novel idea - encourage citizens to be self-sufficient and pay for their own health care, instead of encouraging them to lean on the government for everything, which creates a disincentive to be accountable for their own health habits.
Because a person's health benefits only themselves, apparently?
A healthy population is a public good and therefore ought to be supported.
I don't have a problem with a small safety net, but the vast majority of people are able to pay their own way. Again, Americans are less likely to make healthy choices when someone else is paying for the cost of not making healthy choices.Americas obesity problem has become a national security threat.
A 2014 study found that an appalling 71% of 17-24 year olds were ineligible for military service. Mostly because they were too fat.
Our military is equally fat, with way too many soldiers, and troops in 150 other countries. Pull some of their funding and spend it on domestic issues.
Anyway, people aren't obese from the type of food they eat, they're obese from being in a slight calorie surplus. Most people can reverse that simply by eating 100-200 calories less, without changing the type of foods they eat. A less coercive solution than taxing fat people is to ask food manufacturers to package snacks & sodas in smaller containers. They'll happily comply because it increases profits.
That is true, but look what people eat:
What Americans Eat: Top 10 sources of calories in the U.S. diet
Grain-based desserts (cakes, cookies, donuts, pies, crisps, cobblers, and granola bars)
Yeast breads
Chicken and chicken-mixed dishes
Soda, energy drinks, and sports drinks
Pizza
Alcoholic beverages
Pasta and pasta dishes
Mexican mixed dishes
Beef and beef-mixed dishes
Dairy desserts
https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/top-10-sources-of-calories-in-the-us-diet
Grain based desserts and soda, energy drinks, sports drinks little nutritional value. The argument could be made a reduction in calories from these items (perhaps partially driven by a tax) resulting in lowering total calories 100-200 a day as you suggest as opposed to reduced calories in the overall diet would have a more positive impact from a nutritional standpoint.3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Cherimoose wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »Cherimoose wrote: »I have a novel idea - encourage citizens to be self-sufficient and pay for their own health care, instead of encouraging them to lean on the government for everything, which creates a disincentive to be accountable for their own health habits.
Because a person's health benefits only themselves, apparently?
A healthy population is a public good and therefore ought to be supported.
I don't have a problem with a small safety net, but the vast majority of people are able to pay their own way. Again, Americans are less likely to make healthy choices when someone else is paying for the cost of not making healthy choices.Americas obesity problem has become a national security threat.
A 2014 study found that an appalling 71% of 17-24 year olds were ineligible for military service. Mostly because they were too fat.
Our military is equally fat, with way too many soldiers, and troops in 150 other countries. Pull some of their funding and spend it on domestic issues.
Anyway, people aren't obese from the type of food they eat, they're obese from being in a slight calorie surplus. Most people can reverse that simply by eating 100-200 calories less, without changing the type of foods they eat. A less coercive solution than taxing fat people is to ask food manufacturers to package snacks & sodas in smaller containers. They'll happily comply because it increases profits.
That is true, but look what people eat:
What Americans Eat: Top 10 sources of calories in the U.S. diet
Grain-based desserts (cakes, cookies, donuts, pies, crisps, cobblers, and granola bars)
Yeast breads
Chicken and chicken-mixed dishes
Soda, energy drinks, and sports drinks
Pizza
Alcoholic beverages
Pasta and pasta dishes
Mexican mixed dishes
Beef and beef-mixed dishes
Dairy desserts
https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/top-10-sources-of-calories-in-the-us-diet
Grain based desserts and soda, energy drinks, sports drinks little nutritional value. The argument could be made a reduction in calories from these items (perhaps partially driven by a tax) resulting in lowering total calories 100-200 a day as you suggest as opposed to reduced calories in the overall diet would have a more positive impact from a nutritional standpoint.
None of said foods/drinks are a problem unless eaten/drunk outside of moderation.
Tax isn't going to solve obesity, people just stop spending elsewhere - people will only make choices when they're educated and ready to make them.
To me, the first thing that the government should do is outlaw the popular fad diets and instead provide nutritional education and coaching towards a healthier lifestyle.
The only things on your list I do agree with trying to curb/reduce is alcahol and sugary drinks (then again im Ttotal so, I'm biased. I despise drinking).
4 -
*waves* as I've pointed out, Australia does tax junk food, in a way. We have a Goods and Services Tax of 10% that applies to anything not on the exempt list. It came in in 2000.
In general, the exemptions are:- bread and bread rolls without icing or filling
- cooking ingredients such as flour, sugar and cake mixes
- fats and oils for cooking
- milk, cream, cheese and eggs
- spices and sauces
- fruit juice containing at least 90% by volume of juice
- bottled drinking water
- tea and coffee (unless it's ready to drink)
- baby food and infant formula
- meats for people to eat (except prepared meals or snacks)
- fruit, vegetables, fish and soup
- spreads, such as honey, jam and peanut butter
- breakfast cereals
- rice, cooked or uncooked (but not hot).
In that time, "based on figures from the National Health Survey and/or Australian Health Survey the prevalence of overweight and obesity increased from 56.3% in 1995 to 61.2% in 2007–2008 and 62.8% in 2011–2012. This was attributed largely to an increase in the level of obesity from 18.7% to 27.5% over the period, with the proportion of overweight adults remaining similar (35.3–37.6%)."
So a 10% tax has done absolutely nothing for the rise of obesity in Australia. And 10% is not an insignificant amount. If people want it, they make it work. Not to mention supermarkets still run major specials on "junk" every single week because they can offset the costs.
3 -
AdamAthletic wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Cherimoose wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »Cherimoose wrote: »I have a novel idea - encourage citizens to be self-sufficient and pay for their own health care, instead of encouraging them to lean on the government for everything, which creates a disincentive to be accountable for their own health habits.
Because a person's health benefits only themselves, apparently?
A healthy population is a public good and therefore ought to be supported.
I don't have a problem with a small safety net, but the vast majority of people are able to pay their own way. Again, Americans are less likely to make healthy choices when someone else is paying for the cost of not making healthy choices.Americas obesity problem has become a national security threat.
A 2014 study found that an appalling 71% of 17-24 year olds were ineligible for military service. Mostly because they were too fat.
Our military is equally fat, with way too many soldiers, and troops in 150 other countries. Pull some of their funding and spend it on domestic issues.
Anyway, people aren't obese from the type of food they eat, they're obese from being in a slight calorie surplus. Most people can reverse that simply by eating 100-200 calories less, without changing the type of foods they eat. A less coercive solution than taxing fat people is to ask food manufacturers to package snacks & sodas in smaller containers. They'll happily comply because it increases profits.
That is true, but look what people eat:
What Americans Eat: Top 10 sources of calories in the U.S. diet
Grain-based desserts (cakes, cookies, donuts, pies, crisps, cobblers, and granola bars)
Yeast breads
Chicken and chicken-mixed dishes
Soda, energy drinks, and sports drinks
Pizza
Alcoholic beverages
Pasta and pasta dishes
Mexican mixed dishes
Beef and beef-mixed dishes
Dairy desserts
https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/top-10-sources-of-calories-in-the-us-diet
Grain based desserts and soda, energy drinks, sports drinks little nutritional value. The argument could be made a reduction in calories from these items (perhaps partially driven by a tax) resulting in lowering total calories 100-200 a day as you suggest as opposed to reduced calories in the overall diet would have a more positive impact from a nutritional standpoint.
None of said foods/drinks are a problem unless eaten/drunk outside of moderation.
Tax isn't going to solve obesity, people just stop spending elsewhere - people will only make choices when they're educated and ready to make them.
To me, the first thing that the government should do is outlaw the popular fad diets and instead provide nutritional education and coaching towards a healthier lifestyle.
The only things on your list I do agree with trying to curb/reduce is alcahol and sugary drinks (then again im Ttotal so, I'm biased. I despise drinking).
You may have misunderstood me. I was referring to sugary drinks and grain based desserts, not the entire list. An earlier poster suggested a general reduction of 100-200 calories a day overall. My point is it would, in most cases, be better from a nutritional standpoint to cut most of the 100-200 calories from the sugary drinks/grain based desserts as opposed to more nutrient dense items in the diet.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »*waves* as I've pointed out, Australia does tax junk food, in a way. We have a Goods and Services Tax of 10% that applies to anything not on the exempt list. It came in in 2000.
In general, the exemptions are:- bread and bread rolls without icing or filling
- cooking ingredients such as flour, sugar and cake mixes
- fats and oils for cooking
- milk, cream, cheese and eggs
- spices and sauces
- fruit juice containing at least 90% by volume of juice
- bottled drinking water
- tea and coffee (unless it's ready to drink)
- baby food and infant formula
- meats for people to eat (except prepared meals or snacks)
- fruit, vegetables, fish and soup
- spreads, such as honey, jam and peanut butter
- breakfast cereals
- rice, cooked or uncooked (but not hot).
In that time, "based on figures from the National Health Survey and/or Australian Health Survey the prevalence of overweight and obesity increased from 56.3% in 1995 to 61.2% in 2007–2008 and 62.8% in 2011–2012. This was attributed largely to an increase in the level of obesity from 18.7% to 27.5% over the period, with the proportion of overweight adults remaining similar (35.3–37.6%)."
So a 10% tax has done absolutely nothing for the rise of obesity in Australia. And 10% is not an insignificant amount. If people want it, they make it work. Not to mention supermarkets still run major specials on "junk" every single week because they can offset the costs.
Interesting, Mexico has seen a significant reduction in soda sales with a 10% tax.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/upshot/soda-sales-fall-further-in-mexicos-second-year-of-taxing-them.html0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »AdamAthletic wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Cherimoose wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »Cherimoose wrote: »I have a novel idea - encourage citizens to be self-sufficient and pay for their own health care, instead of encouraging them to lean on the government for everything, which creates a disincentive to be accountable for their own health habits.
Because a person's health benefits only themselves, apparently?
A healthy population is a public good and therefore ought to be supported.
I don't have a problem with a small safety net, but the vast majority of people are able to pay their own way. Again, Americans are less likely to make healthy choices when someone else is paying for the cost of not making healthy choices.Americas obesity problem has become a national security threat.
A 2014 study found that an appalling 71% of 17-24 year olds were ineligible for military service. Mostly because they were too fat.
Our military is equally fat, with way too many soldiers, and troops in 150 other countries. Pull some of their funding and spend it on domestic issues.
Anyway, people aren't obese from the type of food they eat, they're obese from being in a slight calorie surplus. Most people can reverse that simply by eating 100-200 calories less, without changing the type of foods they eat. A less coercive solution than taxing fat people is to ask food manufacturers to package snacks & sodas in smaller containers. They'll happily comply because it increases profits.
That is true, but look what people eat:
What Americans Eat: Top 10 sources of calories in the U.S. diet
Grain-based desserts (cakes, cookies, donuts, pies, crisps, cobblers, and granola bars)
Yeast breads
Chicken and chicken-mixed dishes
Soda, energy drinks, and sports drinks
Pizza
Alcoholic beverages
Pasta and pasta dishes
Mexican mixed dishes
Beef and beef-mixed dishes
Dairy desserts
https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/top-10-sources-of-calories-in-the-us-diet
Grain based desserts and soda, energy drinks, sports drinks little nutritional value. The argument could be made a reduction in calories from these items (perhaps partially driven by a tax) resulting in lowering total calories 100-200 a day as you suggest as opposed to reduced calories in the overall diet would have a more positive impact from a nutritional standpoint.
None of said foods/drinks are a problem unless eaten/drunk outside of moderation.
Tax isn't going to solve obesity, people just stop spending elsewhere - people will only make choices when they're educated and ready to make them.
To me, the first thing that the government should do is outlaw the popular fad diets and instead provide nutritional education and coaching towards a healthier lifestyle.
The only things on your list I do agree with trying to curb/reduce is alcahol and sugary drinks (then again im Ttotal so, I'm biased. I despise drinking).
You may have misunderstood me. I was referring to sugary drinks and grain based desserts, not the entire list. An earlier poster suggested a general reduction of 100-200 calories a day overall. My point is it would, in most cases, be better from a nutritional standpoint to cut most of the 100-200 calories from the sugary drinks/grain based desserts as opposed to more nutrient dense items in the diet.
No, I fully understand you.
The point that you're making is that the government should try to reduce people's caloric intake by taxing certain things more - I stand by my point that the benefits of this would be miniscule at best.
They would be far better putting mroe funding into education and coaching people to make the right choices.
This would purely be a poor tax.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »*waves* as I've pointed out, Australia does tax junk food, in a way. We have a Goods and Services Tax of 10% that applies to anything not on the exempt list. It came in in 2000.
In general, the exemptions are:- bread and bread rolls without icing or filling
- cooking ingredients such as flour, sugar and cake mixes
- fats and oils for cooking
- milk, cream, cheese and eggs
- spices and sauces
- fruit juice containing at least 90% by volume of juice
- bottled drinking water
- tea and coffee (unless it's ready to drink)
- baby food and infant formula
- meats for people to eat (except prepared meals or snacks)
- fruit, vegetables, fish and soup
- spreads, such as honey, jam and peanut butter
- breakfast cereals
- rice, cooked or uncooked (but not hot).
In that time, "based on figures from the National Health Survey and/or Australian Health Survey the prevalence of overweight and obesity increased from 56.3% in 1995 to 61.2% in 2007–2008 and 62.8% in 2011–2012. This was attributed largely to an increase in the level of obesity from 18.7% to 27.5% over the period, with the proportion of overweight adults remaining similar (35.3–37.6%)."
So a 10% tax has done absolutely nothing for the rise of obesity in Australia. And 10% is not an insignificant amount. If people want it, they make it work. Not to mention supermarkets still run major specials on "junk" every single week because they can offset the costs.
Interesting, Mexico has seen a significant reduction in soda sales with a 10% tax.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/upshot/soda-sales-fall-further-in-mexicos-second-year-of-taxing-them.html
I wonder how much it has to do with disposable income?
In Australia, the average household net-adjusted disposable income per capita is USD 33 138 a year, more than the OECD average of USD 29 016 a year.
In Mexico, the average household net-adjusted disposable income per capita is USD 12 806 a year, less than the OECD average of USD 29 016 a year.
Both countries have the same gap between the richest and poorest – the top 20% of the population earn more than five times as much as the bottom 20%.
Countries with more disposable income are less affected by incremental tax.
I've also never grocery shopped in Mexico, but in Australia the vast, vast majority of people shop at large chain supermarkets, where you never pay full price for soda - it's always on sale. Same with convenience stores, there's always a "2 for X" deal or something.
Thing is, really - people get used to the tax, or the shops work around it. It's not like it slaps you in the face every time you go to buy the item. It normalises, and people consume as normal.0 -
AdamAthletic wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »AdamAthletic wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Cherimoose wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »Cherimoose wrote: »I have a novel idea - encourage citizens to be self-sufficient and pay for their own health care, instead of encouraging them to lean on the government for everything, which creates a disincentive to be accountable for their own health habits.
Because a person's health benefits only themselves, apparently?
A healthy population is a public good and therefore ought to be supported.
I don't have a problem with a small safety net, but the vast majority of people are able to pay their own way. Again, Americans are less likely to make healthy choices when someone else is paying for the cost of not making healthy choices.Americas obesity problem has become a national security threat.
A 2014 study found that an appalling 71% of 17-24 year olds were ineligible for military service. Mostly because they were too fat.
Our military is equally fat, with way too many soldiers, and troops in 150 other countries. Pull some of their funding and spend it on domestic issues.
Anyway, people aren't obese from the type of food they eat, they're obese from being in a slight calorie surplus. Most people can reverse that simply by eating 100-200 calories less, without changing the type of foods they eat. A less coercive solution than taxing fat people is to ask food manufacturers to package snacks & sodas in smaller containers. They'll happily comply because it increases profits.
That is true, but look what people eat:
What Americans Eat: Top 10 sources of calories in the U.S. diet
Grain-based desserts (cakes, cookies, donuts, pies, crisps, cobblers, and granola bars)
Yeast breads
Chicken and chicken-mixed dishes
Soda, energy drinks, and sports drinks
Pizza
Alcoholic beverages
Pasta and pasta dishes
Mexican mixed dishes
Beef and beef-mixed dishes
Dairy desserts
https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/top-10-sources-of-calories-in-the-us-diet
Grain based desserts and soda, energy drinks, sports drinks little nutritional value. The argument could be made a reduction in calories from these items (perhaps partially driven by a tax) resulting in lowering total calories 100-200 a day as you suggest as opposed to reduced calories in the overall diet would have a more positive impact from a nutritional standpoint.
None of said foods/drinks are a problem unless eaten/drunk outside of moderation.
Tax isn't going to solve obesity, people just stop spending elsewhere - people will only make choices when they're educated and ready to make them.
To me, the first thing that the government should do is outlaw the popular fad diets and instead provide nutritional education and coaching towards a healthier lifestyle.
The only things on your list I do agree with trying to curb/reduce is alcahol and sugary drinks (then again im Ttotal so, I'm biased. I despise drinking).
You may have misunderstood me. I was referring to sugary drinks and grain based desserts, not the entire list. An earlier poster suggested a general reduction of 100-200 calories a day overall. My point is it would, in most cases, be better from a nutritional standpoint to cut most of the 100-200 calories from the sugary drinks/grain based desserts as opposed to more nutrient dense items in the diet.
No, I fully understand you.
The point that you're making is that the government should try to reduce people's caloric intake by taxing certain things more - I stand by my point that the benefits of this would be miniscule at best.
They would be far better putting mroe funding into education and coaching people to make the right choices.
This would purely be a poor tax.
Do you honestly think people don't know that eating too much makes them fat?1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »AdamAthletic wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »AdamAthletic wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Cherimoose wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »Cherimoose wrote: »I have a novel idea - encourage citizens to be self-sufficient and pay for their own health care, instead of encouraging them to lean on the government for everything, which creates a disincentive to be accountable for their own health habits.
Because a person's health benefits only themselves, apparently?
A healthy population is a public good and therefore ought to be supported.
I don't have a problem with a small safety net, but the vast majority of people are able to pay their own way. Again, Americans are less likely to make healthy choices when someone else is paying for the cost of not making healthy choices.Americas obesity problem has become a national security threat.
A 2014 study found that an appalling 71% of 17-24 year olds were ineligible for military service. Mostly because they were too fat.
Our military is equally fat, with way too many soldiers, and troops in 150 other countries. Pull some of their funding and spend it on domestic issues.
Anyway, people aren't obese from the type of food they eat, they're obese from being in a slight calorie surplus. Most people can reverse that simply by eating 100-200 calories less, without changing the type of foods they eat. A less coercive solution than taxing fat people is to ask food manufacturers to package snacks & sodas in smaller containers. They'll happily comply because it increases profits.
That is true, but look what people eat:
What Americans Eat: Top 10 sources of calories in the U.S. diet
Grain-based desserts (cakes, cookies, donuts, pies, crisps, cobblers, and granola bars)
Yeast breads
Chicken and chicken-mixed dishes
Soda, energy drinks, and sports drinks
Pizza
Alcoholic beverages
Pasta and pasta dishes
Mexican mixed dishes
Beef and beef-mixed dishes
Dairy desserts
https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/top-10-sources-of-calories-in-the-us-diet
Grain based desserts and soda, energy drinks, sports drinks little nutritional value. The argument could be made a reduction in calories from these items (perhaps partially driven by a tax) resulting in lowering total calories 100-200 a day as you suggest as opposed to reduced calories in the overall diet would have a more positive impact from a nutritional standpoint.
None of said foods/drinks are a problem unless eaten/drunk outside of moderation.
Tax isn't going to solve obesity, people just stop spending elsewhere - people will only make choices when they're educated and ready to make them.
To me, the first thing that the government should do is outlaw the popular fad diets and instead provide nutritional education and coaching towards a healthier lifestyle.
The only things on your list I do agree with trying to curb/reduce is alcahol and sugary drinks (then again im Ttotal so, I'm biased. I despise drinking).
You may have misunderstood me. I was referring to sugary drinks and grain based desserts, not the entire list. An earlier poster suggested a general reduction of 100-200 calories a day overall. My point is it would, in most cases, be better from a nutritional standpoint to cut most of the 100-200 calories from the sugary drinks/grain based desserts as opposed to more nutrient dense items in the diet.
No, I fully understand you.
The point that you're making is that the government should try to reduce people's caloric intake by taxing certain things more - I stand by my point that the benefits of this would be miniscule at best.
They would be far better putting mroe funding into education and coaching people to make the right choices.
This would purely be a poor tax.
Do you honestly think people don't know that eating too much makes them fat?
Knowledge doesn't always equate to motvation, education is about empowering soebody to use ones knowledge and increase motivation.
I KNOW that if i purchased the correct stocks at the correct time and price, I could get VERY rich - I however lack the training and education on said subject to motivate me to do it.
Education is as much about empowerment.1 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »*waves* as I've pointed out, Australia does tax junk food, in a way. We have a Goods and Services Tax of 10% that applies to anything not on the exempt list. It came in in 2000.
In general, the exemptions are:- bread and bread rolls without icing or filling
- cooking ingredients such as flour, sugar and cake mixes
- fats and oils for cooking
- milk, cream, cheese and eggs
- spices and sauces
- fruit juice containing at least 90% by volume of juice
- bottled drinking water
- tea and coffee (unless it's ready to drink)
- baby food and infant formula
- meats for people to eat (except prepared meals or snacks)
- fruit, vegetables, fish and soup
- spreads, such as honey, jam and peanut butter
- breakfast cereals
- rice, cooked or uncooked (but not hot).
In that time, "based on figures from the National Health Survey and/or Australian Health Survey the prevalence of overweight and obesity increased from 56.3% in 1995 to 61.2% in 2007–2008 and 62.8% in 2011–2012. This was attributed largely to an increase in the level of obesity from 18.7% to 27.5% over the period, with the proportion of overweight adults remaining similar (35.3–37.6%)."
So a 10% tax has done absolutely nothing for the rise of obesity in Australia. And 10% is not an insignificant amount. If people want it, they make it work. Not to mention supermarkets still run major specials on "junk" every single week because they can offset the costs.
Interesting, Mexico has seen a significant reduction in soda sales with a 10% tax.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/upshot/soda-sales-fall-further-in-mexicos-second-year-of-taxing-them.html
I wonder how much it has to do with disposable income?
In Australia, the average household net-adjusted disposable income per capita is USD 33 138 a year, more than the OECD average of USD 29 016 a year.
In Mexico, the average household net-adjusted disposable income per capita is USD 12 806 a year, less than the OECD average of USD 29 016 a year.
Both countries have the same gap between the richest and poorest – the top 20% of the population earn more than five times as much as the bottom 20%.
Countries with more disposable income are less affected by incremental tax.
I've also never grocery shopped in Mexico, but in Australia the vast, vast majority of people shop at large chain supermarkets, where you never pay full price for soda - it's always on sale. Same with convenience stores, there's always a "2 for X" deal or something.
Thing is, really - people get used to the tax, or the shops work around it. It's not like it slaps you in the face every time you go to buy the item. It normalises, and people consume as normal.
In the US the poor have the highest rates of obesity so a reduction in soda consumption due to a tax (along with removing soda from SNAP eligibility lists) would potentially result in a reduction of consumption by this group.
Some taxing bodies have a certain amount per ounce of soda, eliminating the impact of discounts on the tax imposed.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »*waves* as I've pointed out, Australia does tax junk food, in a way. We have a Goods and Services Tax of 10% that applies to anything not on the exempt list. It came in in 2000.
In general, the exemptions are:- bread and bread rolls without icing or filling
- cooking ingredients such as flour, sugar and cake mixes
- fats and oils for cooking
- milk, cream, cheese and eggs
- spices and sauces
- fruit juice containing at least 90% by volume of juice
- bottled drinking water
- tea and coffee (unless it's ready to drink)
- baby food and infant formula
- meats for people to eat (except prepared meals or snacks)
- fruit, vegetables, fish and soup
- spreads, such as honey, jam and peanut butter
- breakfast cereals
- rice, cooked or uncooked (but not hot).
In that time, "based on figures from the National Health Survey and/or Australian Health Survey the prevalence of overweight and obesity increased from 56.3% in 1995 to 61.2% in 2007–2008 and 62.8% in 2011–2012. This was attributed largely to an increase in the level of obesity from 18.7% to 27.5% over the period, with the proportion of overweight adults remaining similar (35.3–37.6%)."
So a 10% tax has done absolutely nothing for the rise of obesity in Australia. And 10% is not an insignificant amount. If people want it, they make it work. Not to mention supermarkets still run major specials on "junk" every single week because they can offset the costs.
Interesting, Mexico has seen a significant reduction in soda sales with a 10% tax.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/upshot/soda-sales-fall-further-in-mexicos-second-year-of-taxing-them.html
I wonder how much it has to do with disposable income?
In Australia, the average household net-adjusted disposable income per capita is USD 33 138 a year, more than the OECD average of USD 29 016 a year.
In Mexico, the average household net-adjusted disposable income per capita is USD 12 806 a year, less than the OECD average of USD 29 016 a year.
Both countries have the same gap between the richest and poorest – the top 20% of the population earn more than five times as much as the bottom 20%.
Countries with more disposable income are less affected by incremental tax.
I've also never grocery shopped in Mexico, but in Australia the vast, vast majority of people shop at large chain supermarkets, where you never pay full price for soda - it's always on sale. Same with convenience stores, there's always a "2 for X" deal or something.
Thing is, really - people get used to the tax, or the shops work around it. It's not like it slaps you in the face every time you go to buy the item. It normalises, and people consume as normal.
In the US the poor have the highest rates of obesity so a reduction in soda consumption due to a tax (along with removing soda from SNAP eligibility lists) would potentially result in a reduction of consumption by this group.
Some taxing bodies have a certain amount per ounce of soda, eliminating the impact of discounts on the tax imposed.
Mmm... but if the product is on sale, the amount of tax is reduced.
I also note that in Australia shelf prices are already inclusive of tax. You have nothing showing you how much of your purchase price is tax, so nothing to stand out. 30 can cube of Coke $20 on the shelf? That's what you pay at the register.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »*waves* as I've pointed out, Australia does tax junk food, in a way. We have a Goods and Services Tax of 10% that applies to anything not on the exempt list. It came in in 2000.
In general, the exemptions are:- bread and bread rolls without icing or filling
- cooking ingredients such as flour, sugar and cake mixes
- fats and oils for cooking
- milk, cream, cheese and eggs
- spices and sauces
- fruit juice containing at least 90% by volume of juice
- bottled drinking water
- tea and coffee (unless it's ready to drink)
- baby food and infant formula
- meats for people to eat (except prepared meals or snacks)
- fruit, vegetables, fish and soup
- spreads, such as honey, jam and peanut butter
- breakfast cereals
- rice, cooked or uncooked (but not hot).
In that time, "based on figures from the National Health Survey and/or Australian Health Survey the prevalence of overweight and obesity increased from 56.3% in 1995 to 61.2% in 2007–2008 and 62.8% in 2011–2012. This was attributed largely to an increase in the level of obesity from 18.7% to 27.5% over the period, with the proportion of overweight adults remaining similar (35.3–37.6%)."
So a 10% tax has done absolutely nothing for the rise of obesity in Australia. And 10% is not an insignificant amount. If people want it, they make it work. Not to mention supermarkets still run major specials on "junk" every single week because they can offset the costs.
Interesting, Mexico has seen a significant reduction in soda sales with a 10% tax.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/upshot/soda-sales-fall-further-in-mexicos-second-year-of-taxing-them.html
When it's just not being exempted from a normal tax vs. a special tax it seems to make no difference.
The Australia situation doesn't sound much different from Chicago before the soda tax experiment (which was obviously bungled). Total sales tax in Chicago = 10.25% on most things. However, for non prepared food, non candy I think it's only 2.25% (and only 1% in IL outside of Chicago? Our stupid system is confusing so I never remember these details and I don't look at it on my receipt normally which is evidence that people may not notice it that much). Pre the soda tax the regular 10.25% tax applied to soda, as well as prepared foods, restaurant foods, and candy, plus there was already a smaller (additional) soda tax that no one seemed to think or care about.
So if that's what you are talking about it clearly has not made a difference here, or in the various other places that don't exempt certain limited food items from the sales tax but otherwise do exempt food (which is a common approach).
Like I said, I don't think it is psychologically the same thing, but I also think it has to be a quite high tax (above what you are used to paying for goods) to be given a test. The cigarette tax is quite high, for example. (And obviously we aren't going to place a high tax on "junk food" generally, for lots of reasons, so I think it's rather a non starter.
Re Mexico, soda sales have been generally declining in the US without a tax, so I wonder if Mexico's results control for shifts that might have happened anyway, and I wonder if replacement products increased. I don't know enough about their experiment, though, or what was specifically included under the tax.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »bgctrinity wrote: »Junk food is taxed. Taxed by our health. You won't get away with eating it forever, then you will certainly be paying for it physically and financially.
Care to add any context or dosage to these vague statements?
You want context on junk food being bad for you? Uh... yeah this forum doesn't have enough room for all of the proof on the "vague" inclination of junk food being bad for your health. Go ahead and google it when you have a LOT of time free. If you need "context or dosage" on hospital bills costing you money, then you clearly don't live in the USA and your profile is lying. Again, quick google of US health care costs will give you more than enough proof.7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »*waves* as I've pointed out, Australia does tax junk food, in a way. We have a Goods and Services Tax of 10% that applies to anything not on the exempt list. It came in in 2000.
In general, the exemptions are:- bread and bread rolls without icing or filling
- cooking ingredients such as flour, sugar and cake mixes
- fats and oils for cooking
- milk, cream, cheese and eggs
- spices and sauces
- fruit juice containing at least 90% by volume of juice
- bottled drinking water
- tea and coffee (unless it's ready to drink)
- baby food and infant formula
- meats for people to eat (except prepared meals or snacks)
- fruit, vegetables, fish and soup
- spreads, such as honey, jam and peanut butter
- breakfast cereals
- rice, cooked or uncooked (but not hot).
In that time, "based on figures from the National Health Survey and/or Australian Health Survey the prevalence of overweight and obesity increased from 56.3% in 1995 to 61.2% in 2007–2008 and 62.8% in 2011–2012. This was attributed largely to an increase in the level of obesity from 18.7% to 27.5% over the period, with the proportion of overweight adults remaining similar (35.3–37.6%)."
So a 10% tax has done absolutely nothing for the rise of obesity in Australia. And 10% is not an insignificant amount. If people want it, they make it work. Not to mention supermarkets still run major specials on "junk" every single week because they can offset the costs.
Interesting, Mexico has seen a significant reduction in soda sales with a 10% tax.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/upshot/soda-sales-fall-further-in-mexicos-second-year-of-taxing-them.html
When it's just not being exempted from a normal tax vs. a special tax it seems to make no difference.
The Australia situation doesn't sound much different from Chicago before the soda tax experiment (which was obviously bungled). Total sales tax in Chicago = 10.25% on most things. However, for non prepared food, non candy I think it's only 2.25% (and only 1% in IL outside of Chicago? Our stupid system is confusing so I never remember these details and I don't look at it on my receipt normally which is evidence that people may not notice it that much). Pre the soda tax the regular 10.25% tax applied to soda, as well as prepared foods, restaurant foods, and candy, plus there was already a smaller (additional) soda tax that no one seemed to think or care about.
So if that's what you are talking about it clearly has not made a difference here, or in the various other places that don't exempt certain limited food items from the sales tax but otherwise do exempt food (which is a common approach).
Like I said, I don't think it is psychologically the same thing, but I also think it has to be a quite high tax (above what you are used to paying for goods) to be given a test. The cigarette tax is quite high, for example. (And obviously we aren't going to place a high tax on "junk food" generally, for lots of reasons, so I think it's rather a non starter.
Re Mexico, soda sales have been generally declining in the US without a tax, so I wonder if Mexico's results control for shifts that might have happened anyway, and I wonder if replacement products increased. I don't know enough about their experiment, though, or what was specifically included under the tax.
Interestingly, in Australia our cigarettes are taxed up the wazoo. We have the most expensive tobacco in the world - I'm talking a pack of 30 cigarettes is $35 including the tax a rate of 66%.
Adult smokers in Australia? 14.5%. Adult smokers in the USA? 15.1%.
Doesn't look like taxing the hell out of cigarettes has discouraged that many people from smoking - though both countries have seen reductions in numbers of smokers in the last 2 decades.2 -
bgctrinity wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »bgctrinity wrote: »Junk food is taxed. Taxed by our health. You won't get away with eating it forever, then you will certainly be paying for it physically and financially.
Care to add any context or dosage to these vague statements?
You want context on junk food being bad for you? Uh... yeah this forum doesn't have enough room for all of the proof on the "vague" inclination of junk food being bad for your health. Go ahead and google it when you have a LOT of time free.
You have not defined "junk food." You have not defined any particular dosage.
If someone has some ice cream or chocolate every couple of days within their calories and while consuming a healthful diet, how does this hurt their health?
Also, some consider lots of odd things to be "junk food" (like pizza, when you can make or go out to a restaurant and get a reasonably nutrient dense pizza that has similar vegetables, calories, macros to many meals no one would call "junk").
That was (obviously) what WinoGelato was referring to.
It's odd that you think it's ridiculous to point out that CONTEXT and DOSAGE are relevant to the effect of junk food on health.3 -
bgctrinity wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »bgctrinity wrote: »Junk food is taxed. Taxed by our health. You won't get away with eating it forever, then you will certainly be paying for it physically and financially.
Care to add any context or dosage to these vague statements?
You want context on junk food being bad for you? Uh... yeah this forum doesn't have enough room for all of the proof on the "vague" inclination of junk food being bad for your health. Go ahead and google it when you have a LOT of time free. If you need "context or dosage" on hospital bills costing you money, then you clearly don't live in the USA and your profile is lying. Again, quick google of US health care costs will give you more than enough proof.
Nobody is denying that any food excess is bad for you, simply that no food is 'junk'.
Any food is made up from any/all protein/fats/carbs.
A simple thought experiment;
People have lost weight on a diet completely made up of twinkies. In this case, were twinkies 'junk'?3 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »*waves* as I've pointed out, Australia does tax junk food, in a way. We have a Goods and Services Tax of 10% that applies to anything not on the exempt list. It came in in 2000.
In general, the exemptions are:- bread and bread rolls without icing or filling
- cooking ingredients such as flour, sugar and cake mixes
- fats and oils for cooking
- milk, cream, cheese and eggs
- spices and sauces
- fruit juice containing at least 90% by volume of juice
- bottled drinking water
- tea and coffee (unless it's ready to drink)
- baby food and infant formula
- meats for people to eat (except prepared meals or snacks)
- fruit, vegetables, fish and soup
- spreads, such as honey, jam and peanut butter
- breakfast cereals
- rice, cooked or uncooked (but not hot).
In that time, "based on figures from the National Health Survey and/or Australian Health Survey the prevalence of overweight and obesity increased from 56.3% in 1995 to 61.2% in 2007–2008 and 62.8% in 2011–2012. This was attributed largely to an increase in the level of obesity from 18.7% to 27.5% over the period, with the proportion of overweight adults remaining similar (35.3–37.6%)."
So a 10% tax has done absolutely nothing for the rise of obesity in Australia. And 10% is not an insignificant amount. If people want it, they make it work. Not to mention supermarkets still run major specials on "junk" every single week because they can offset the costs.
Interesting, Mexico has seen a significant reduction in soda sales with a 10% tax.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/upshot/soda-sales-fall-further-in-mexicos-second-year-of-taxing-them.html
When it's just not being exempted from a normal tax vs. a special tax it seems to make no difference.
The Australia situation doesn't sound much different from Chicago before the soda tax experiment (which was obviously bungled). Total sales tax in Chicago = 10.25% on most things. However, for non prepared food, non candy I think it's only 2.25% (and only 1% in IL outside of Chicago? Our stupid system is confusing so I never remember these details and I don't look at it on my receipt normally which is evidence that people may not notice it that much). Pre the soda tax the regular 10.25% tax applied to soda, as well as prepared foods, restaurant foods, and candy, plus there was already a smaller (additional) soda tax that no one seemed to think or care about.
So if that's what you are talking about it clearly has not made a difference here, or in the various other places that don't exempt certain limited food items from the sales tax but otherwise do exempt food (which is a common approach).
Like I said, I don't think it is psychologically the same thing, but I also think it has to be a quite high tax (above what you are used to paying for goods) to be given a test. The cigarette tax is quite high, for example. (And obviously we aren't going to place a high tax on "junk food" generally, for lots of reasons, so I think it's rather a non starter.
Re Mexico, soda sales have been generally declining in the US without a tax, so I wonder if Mexico's results control for shifts that might have happened anyway, and I wonder if replacement products increased. I don't know enough about their experiment, though, or what was specifically included under the tax.
Interestingly, in Australia our cigarettes are taxed up the wazoo. We have the most expensive tobacco in the world - I'm talking a pack of 30 cigarettes is $35 including the tax a rate of 66%.
Adult smokers in Australia? 14.5%. Adult smokers in the USA? 15.1%.
Doesn't look like taxing the hell out of cigarettes has discouraged that many people from smoking - though both countries have seen reductions in numbers of smokers in the last 2 decades.
Our cigarette taxes are very high too, and I do think that the taxes have played a role. There are studies that suggest this, and I have anecdotal evidence for it too (I never have smoked, but I know people who say they were motivated to get around to quitting because it's so crazy expensive -- I won't claim that is actual evidence, but it does shape how I think about it).
I would have argued that the liquor tax is totally ineffective (but fine with me anyway, since it's a voluntary tax and there are overall negative externalities from alcohol), but there's evidence that it does have an effect, see here: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/the-wages-of-sin-taxes/474327/
(And liquor taxes are comparably quite high: https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicagos-total-effective-tax-rate-on-liquor-is-28/)
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 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
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions