Taxing Processed and Junk Food

Wow you obviously don't get the point. It is bigger than people being overweight, it is our freedoms. If we start taxing more things where does the line get drawn.

And do you really think upping our junk food by even ten percent, which would be a huge tax, would really stop anybody from buying them?

Uh, no some of those things are not freedoms as far as I am concerned. I'm concerned with having access to enough healthy, safe food. I'm more concerned about food safety, sustainability, and availability, which are huge issues, than I am about whether or not I can choose to eat potato chips or a candy bar for lunch. No, I don't think people shoud get to drive whatever car they want, etc. There are larger concerns than simply being able to have whatever I want, whenever I want it, just because I want it. But as I said, we can all disagree. Clearly, you and I will never agree as we are in very different places. So, go ahead and get riled up if you want to, but it serves no purpose. We disagree. The end.

Oooh, them's fightin' words. I won't even get into a definition of "freedom," as that is a hot topic.

Really? Ppffhhhht!

Definition of FREEDOM

the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence

I won't get into a definition of freedom because the forums are supposed to be free from politics, as this is a fitness and health site. As far as I'm concerned, there can be no real, non-philosophical discussion of freedom without some involvement of politics in the discussion, as I believe that most things that matter are not black and white. But you may, of course, disagree, as can we all.

Edit: perhaps a better choice of words on my part would have been "meaning" of freedom, but you get my drift.

Well, the subject of the OP was starting a new tax, which is political... no two ways about it. We have all played nice here so far and kind of danced around it. hehe

I will not continue to digress down this path though, I have made my point.

There is a bit of irony in all of this that brings a smirk to my face....
the suggestion that the junk food industry is all about the almighty dollar (which of course it is, like most business) so the consumer should be punished if he chooses to enrich the junk food baddies by..... taking the almighty dollar from him.

All this said, it isn't that I'm uneducated or uncaring, but this isn't the way to go about it. All I am saying is I want less government not more, less taxes not more, less spending not more. Time to step back, simplify, and get back to basics.

I wasn't meaning to call you uneducated or uncaring, but those who often choose to eat such things may not be educated in making other choices or if they are would rather eat the junk food. I hear what you're saying about the dollars as well, but maybe, and yes, it's a maybe, the higher cost would result in fewer purchases and thus less profit. Additionally, the sovereignty of states allows them to be places for "experimentation." So, a tax need not be federal, but a state, if it passed, could attempt such a tax. Then we would all be able to see how the experiment works. That's part of the beauty of state sovereignty - some of them can try something new without it affecting everyone. Then, if it fails, at least it didn't hit everyine and can be more easily rectified, and if it succeeds, others can follow their example. I hear what you're syaing about basics - everything has become very complicated - and that does include a certain level of government involvement in our food production. Doesn't mean it has to continue to be a negative, though, if we can redirect them in a way that is more beneficial for all of us.

I'm concerned with having access to enough healthy, safe food. I'm more concerned about food safety, sustainability, and availability, which are huge issues, than I am about whether or not I can choose to eat potato chips or a candy bar for lunch.

Honestly, I agree with you and couldn't care less about junk food or the companies that make it. But the people, you cannot change behavior by simply punishing (tax).

We grow a good bit of our own food at home in raised garden beds. It is cheap, very good for us and gives a sense of accomplishment and wonder watching it all grow. Well, it does for my wife and kids anyway, I'm not enjoying any kind of food where I'm at :-)

This is a movement that has really been catching on the last few years. You CAN change bad eating behavior by giving a friend a REAL fresh vegetable or fruit... many people have never had anything straight from the garden.

No, I don't think people shoud get to drive whatever car they want, etc. There are larger concerns than simply being able to have whatever I want, whenever I want it, just because I want it.

Wow, a whole other one there... and again I partly agree and partly disagree with you.
To your point large "gas guzzlers" got an extra tax at one point, not sure if that is still the case (but the chance of a tax ever going away is nil) but did it stop people from buying all those huge SUV's? uh, nope. Proof that taxation will NOT change people's buying habits.

No, I am not a fan of wasteful vehicles either. We could go on about this for a long, long time but I'll end this here.

See? We all have SOME common ground. Good night!

Edit: Oh, I completely agree on the garden thing. I keep saying it - bring back the Victory Garden, this time fighting for our health and independence in terms of food production. It's a shame that such a concept is not more promoted by the government, but as you said, it is a growing movement. I think that would be a great promotion for the government - just encouraging people to start their own little gardens, encouraging local governments to provide classes maybe or free seeds and the like.

It's 2.44 am here, haha, can't sleep. That's why I've been on MFP for a while reading a bunch of posts. Expanded my knowledge tonight :-)

Oooh, them's fightin' words. I won't even get into a definition of "freedom," as that is a hot topic.

Really? Ppffhhhht!

Definition of FREEDOM

the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence


there is more of course but the point stands

by that definition the aggressive marketing of foods containing HFCS (to children) constitutes coercion too. The absence of fresh produce in certain urban areas (food deserts) constitutes constraint of choice.

by that definition the aggressive marketing of foods containing HFCS (to children) constitutes coercion too. The absence of fresh produce in certain urban areas (food deserts) constitutes constraint of choice.

Well, parents... the mature responsible adults that we all know they are, have the unfathomable ability to influence their children to a higher degree than mass marketing... if they actually care to.

I don't know where you're going with this... so you are blaming marketing for the obese masses? THAT"S IT!!! TAX MARKETING!!!

Food islands? Uh, well by the definition below.....

"There are 2.3 million people living in America with no car and without a supermarket within a one-mile radius. People living in these "food deserts" are often obese and unhealthy because they're stuck eating junk food from the convenience store."

I assume that there are only convenience stores every square mile of the US. No car? Well, wouldn't a tax on junk food just TAX THE POOR EVEN MORE???? What exactly would that fix? Maybe we should give everyone a car so they wouldn't live in a food desert... or Pres O should mandate supermarkets every square mile of the country.

Good idea.

Of course my post is obtuse, still don't understand what that had to do with the definition of freedom... an absurd argument IMO. Thanks for playing.

Well then if this is your passion, go on your crusade. But I will ask you this... Do we want to become Denmark? (If you don't know, look up Denmark food and safety). They have even banned Campbell's soup.... really.

I'd live there in a heartbeat. Not just for the lack of sub-par canned soup

(And before someone says "Well then just move there and stfu" - it's not that easy to just drop everything and move half way around the world. Gotta convince my guy to move with me, but he's got a fantastic job, so I don't see us going anywhere any time soon.)

Okay.... but that ain't America, baby! Land of the free.......

I'm not as in love with this country as you seem to be lol

How many people don't smoke marijuana because it's illegal? Few, i don't think the users would increase too much if it was legalized.

Me The day it becomes legal is the day I light up. Until then, I wait. I wait, not simply because it's illegal, but rather because the repercussions are too steep. It's not worth potentially losing my job over. It's not worth potentially going to jail over. So until it's legalized (which will probably never happen), I'll keep waiting.

Increased taxes on items doesn't make people not buy said items. If that worked, then no one would smoke.

My proposal is that EBT (good stamps) be redesigned to not allow crap food - frozen dinners, cakes, sodas, candy, etc. EBT should cover the essentials to live - veggies, fruits, basic dairy, meats, grains - and not luxury foods - soda, chips. Redesigning food eligibility would still allow poorer families access to much needed government assistance, but would reduce their calorie load by default.

Poorer people often have poorer nutrition and are more likely to be obese. Instead of the government giving them free money to buy whatever they please, the government is well within their rights to put stipulations on that money. That may reduce health care costs by essentially forcing a healthier diet for poorer Americans.

If people want luxury foods, then they can pay cash.

I think this is ridiculous. What about the poor that NEED the calories? Not everyone receiving EBT is getting the full amount. What about the single mother that is working and does not have the time to cook everything and has to rely on frozen meals? How about the fact that being poor does not go hand in hand with being an idiot; these people can make choices to be healthy or not. What about the fact that being poor should not take away from someone's dignity and they, as an adult, should be allowed to purchase what they deem appropriate without being constantly reminded that theyre receiving a hand out.

I dont know what people think it's like receive EBT. I've never been in that situation, but I've been close and I KNOW the prospect of reviving government aid is humbling and embarrassing. I feel sympathy for these people.Being poor means they do not have much, so what if they want some chips here and there? YOU are paying the same taxes regardless of if they receive the money and regardless of what they buy; if they spend $5 on chips or on veggies, theyre getting the same grant so who cares? Why take away from these people one of the few luxuries they have.

Some speak in a way that implies that they believe that the EBT recipients have it good because they receive "free money." Nothing compares to financial independence knowing that you can support your family. These people deserve sympathy.

Increased taxes on items doesn't make people not buy said items. If that worked, then no one would smoke.

My proposal is that EBT (good stamps) be redesigned to not allow crap food - frozen dinners, cakes, sodas, candy, etc. EBT should cover the essentials to live - veggies, fruits, basic dairy, meats, grains - and not luxury foods - soda, chips. Redesigning food eligibility would still allow poorer families access to much needed government assistance, but would reduce their calorie load by default.

Poorer people often have poorer nutrition and are more likely to be obese. Instead of the government giving them free money to buy whatever they please, the government is well within their rights to put stipulations on that money. That may reduce health care costs by essentially forcing a healthier diet for poorer Americans.

If people want luxury foods, then they can pay cash.

I think this is ridiculous. What about the poor that NEED the calories? Not everyone receiving EBT is getting the full amount. What about the single mother that is working and does not have the time to cook everything and has to rely on frozen meals? How about the fact that being poor does not go hand in hand with being an idiot; these people can make choices to be healthy or not. What about the fact that being poor should not take away from someone's dignity and they, as an adult, should be allowed to purchase what they deem appropriate without being constantly reminded that theyre receiving a hand out.

I dont know what people think it's like receive EBT. I've never been in that situation, but I've been close and I KNOW the prospect of reviving government aid is humbling and embarrassing. I feel sympathy for these people.Being poor means they do not have much, so what if they want some chips here and there? YOU are paying the same taxes regardless of if they receive the money and regardless of what they buy; if they spend $5 on chips or on veggies, theyre getting the same grant so who cares? Why take away from these people one of the few luxuries they have.

Some speak in a way that implies that they believe that the EBT recipients have it good because they receive "free money." Nothing compares to financial independence knowing that you can support your family. These people deserve sympathy.

Bump a post that is 10-11 months old. GG.

I had a counter argument typed out, but then just said F it. Not worth it.

10-11 months??? Theres another post on here from October '11...