Tax Junk Food

[jeskill]

Have public mess halls that anyone can eat at for free, but the food is all very nutritious, healthy food, prepared by expert chefs to make the food delicious. Maybe you are required to do exercise before eating before you are allowed this public benefit. These are financed by a progressive tax on foods generally accepted to be less healthy. Develop a food index. The higher the index, the higher the tax.

 

 

They do this in Brazil, BTW. There's a blurb in this article about "the People's Restaurants"

[Airbrush]

Justin: "Am I the only one on this forum that looks at this as a blight on personal freedom and liberty? Why not tax the air we breathe and give the money to combat co2 emmisions? Lets start taxing people's flatulance like they do livestock in Ireland. Is there some line that could be considered uncrossable when it comes to regulating and taxing for the greater good of society? If so what is it, and why is that the line? People say that the world is getting fatter, but has anyone considered that the ratio of people starving or going hungry might have dropped at a rate that corrolates with this gain in weight? Has anyone considered that most of the people that are unhealthily overweight have more reasons than just what they eat? Hey here's an idea that we can add to the food tax... Let's add a tax to people who DON'T excersize. THEY are obviously exponentially more unhealthy than people who do excersize, at least at probably close to the same ratio as fat:skinny. Why not go that route? Where do you want to draw the line on the control that a government can have on what people do with themselves? If everyone is so pissed off to have to pay into a system because of people's behavioral eticate then, by god, change the damn system. Don't keep choking people's wallets to prevent bad choices. It's beginning to look like people think of the government as a hypothetical parent."

 

You are exactly correct and I agree with you totally. And yet......the future of human survival on this little spaceship Earth is government will be VERY involved in the life styles of the Billions of citizens. Taxes will be much larger to accomplish more towards social engineering, or we all die in chaos.

 

It doesn't matter if there is a high status chef or not. If you compare any restaurant to eating food you prepare yourself, you are still ignoring the cost (and time) of someone else preparing the food. Even if it is a bunch of teenagers making minimum wage.

 

But efficiency comes with economy of scale. If you have teenagers trained by experts to produce huge vats of healthy food, earning minimum wage, that saves Billions of individuals going thru Billions of hours of toil to cook a little bit of food.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Airbrush

[Santalum]

It doesn't matter if there is a high status chef or not. If you compare any restaurant to eating food you prepare yourself, you are still ignoring the cost (and time) of someone else preparing the food. Even if it is a bunch of teenagers making minimum wage.

 

A fair comparison would be either:

 

1) Teenagers making a hamburger and chips versus teenagers cooking a simple healthy meal both with supermarket ingredients

 

2) The overweight individual cooking their own hamburger and chips versus cooking their own simple healthy meal.

 

 

Comparing restaurant food to fast food is nonsense!

 

Justin: "Am I the only one on this forum that looks at this as a blight on personal freedom and liberty? Why not tax the air we breathe and give the money to combat co2 emmisions? Lets start taxing people's flatulance like they do livestock in Ireland. Is there some line that could be considered uncrossable when it comes to regulating and taxing for the greater good of society? If so what is it, and why is that the line? People say that the world is getting fatter, but has anyone considered that the ratio of people starving or going hungry might have dropped at a rate that corrolates with this gain in weight? Has anyone considered that most of the people that are unhealthily overweight have more reasons than just what they eat? Hey here's an idea that we can add to the food tax... Let's add a tax to people who DON'T excersize. THEY are obviously exponentially more unhealthy than people who do excersize, at least at probably close to the same ratio as fat:skinny. Why not go that route? Where do you want to draw the line on the control that a government can have on what people do with themselves? If everyone is so pissed off to have to pay into a system because of people's behavioral eticate then, by god, change the damn system. Don't keep choking people's wallets to prevent bad choices. It's beginning to look like people think of the government as a hypothetical parent."

 

You are exactly correct and I agree with you totally. And yet......the future of human survival on this little spaceship Earth is government will be VERY involved in the life styles of the Billions of citizens. Taxes will be much larger to accomplish more towards social engineering, or we all die in chaos.

 

 

 

But efficiency comes with economy of scale. If you have teenagers trained by experts to produce huge vats of healthy food, earning minimum wage, that saves Billions of individuals going thru Billions of hours of toil to cook a little bit of food.

 

 

Unfortunately a fair proportion of the population are poorly educated failed adults who can't or wont see that personal freedoms and rights come with responsibilities in their wider society.

 

So unfortunately a 'governmental parent', regulating their life choices, is required in many cases.

[JohnB]

So unfortunately a 'governmental parent', regulating their life choices, is required in many cases.

A proportion of people in society require their behaviour to be heavily regulated to prevent them doing harm to themselves, others and scoiety at large.

 

Stalin thought exactly the same way. Funny how people who are certain that "they know best" care very little for the rights and liberties of others.

 

And yet......the future of human survival on this little spaceship Earth is government will be VERY involved in the life styles of the Billions of citizens.

 

Exactly right. And since the problems are so dire it is silly for us to waste valuable food and resources on creatures that no longer serve the purpose they were domesticated for. We should therefore exterminate all the dogs and cats. I presume you will put up your dog first?

 

In general, for the very first time in the entire history of our race, being overweight is a problem for more people than starvation. One would think that feeding an ever larger percentage of an evergrowing population would be cause for celebration, but some people are never happy. As to any form of "compulsory" exercise, people might want to note the rise in knee injuries being traced back to early forms of step aerobics. Those that "did the right thing" in their 20s seem to be putting extra pressure on health services in their 40s. Oops....

[CaptainPanic]

Stalin thought exactly the same way. Funny how people who are certain that "they know best" care very little for the rights and liberties of others.

Is this a sort of godwin? What's your point? All authorities are like Stalin? Anyone who tells you what to do is like Stalin?

 

All countries, all societies, both now and in history, have had rules. Maybe all of humanity is like Stalin?

 

Making some rules is not necessarily a synonym for "killing millions of people".

[swansont]

Stalin thought exactly the same way. Funny how people who are certain that "they know best" care very little for the rights and liberties of others.

 

I'll ask the same question I asked earlier. Am I free to put e.g. arsenic and lead in the food/products I sell? Is regulating that somehow restricting my right and liberties?

[john5746]

This seems like such a no brainer, why don't we hear about it? The problem is America is grossly overweight, and sickly, due for the most part in unhealthy living habits. Why not put a big tax on junk food, and use it to subsidize fruits, veges, and other quality nutritional food? Then poor people will better afford healthier food, and can't afford junk food.

 

We could start by taking farm subsidies for rice, wheat and corn(food grain) and moving that towards healthier options. Could also remove sales tax on veggies, fruit and whole grains? That's state and local tax, not federal.

 

To directly impact poor people, you could have a food stamp surcharge on unhealthy foods and a bonus on healthy foods, i.e you buy one get one free on lettuce, but you get charged more for buying chocolate puffs. That might cost too much though, I mean we have to save so that we can go invade Iran.

 

Also there should be a tax break for being very healthy, and not needing expensive health care.

 

Well, sometimes obese people cannot be covered, or they have higher rates. Living healthy will result in lower medical costs, but it would be nice to more directly tie choices to costs.

[zapatos]

We could start by taking farm subsidies for rice, wheat and corn(food grain) and moving that towards healthier options. Could also remove sales tax on veggies, fruit and whole grains?

Which options are healthier than rice, wheat and corn? And the idea of taking farm subsidies from food grains and then removing sales tax from whole grains is at odds with itself.

[JohnB]

CP and swansont. Perhaps you both don't understand the difference between rules and regulations that allow a functioning society and a "parental" government ruling the lives of people "for their own good".

 

As soon as you place a subset of your society into "regulation" for the thought crime of not agreeing with the leaders ideology then you are relegating them to "sub human" status. History has shown very well what happens to those given that status.

 

swansont you are using a false analogy. When considering the inclusion or not of various poisons in food, then regulation is reasonable for societies safety. What was being discussed was removing the freedom of choice from some people due to a percieved incapability to make the "right" choice for themselves. In this case, "right" = "agrees with leader".

 

It's the age old question. Who knows what is best for the individual? The individual or the State? I happen to believe in the individual, except in cases of criminal behaviour or proven mental incompetence. The passages quoted were definitely in favour of the State having a controlling say.

 

Oh, and I don't believe in Godwins Law. I find the logic of "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, to call it a duck is wrong." I would think it was a simple statement of fact.

[john5746]

Which options are healthier than rice, wheat and corn? And the idea of taking farm subsidies from food grains and then removing sales tax from whole grains is at odds with itself.

 

it does get kind of fuzzy, because it depends on what you do with it. White rice and corn are really shitty carbs. "Food grain" means corn grown to feed cattle, which isn't even good for the cattle. Wheat can be healthy, until you pulverize and bleach it beyond recognition.

 

Would be nice to have brussel sprout, carrot and mustard green subsidies, if we are going to have any. Whole grains would be oats, buckwheat, quinoa, millet or whole wheat. Maybe keep wheat and brown rice.

[CaptainPanic]

But the state is already controlling food supplies:

Financially: trade barriers, subsidies

Marketing: rules about packaging, commercials, and mandatory information

Health: rules about expiration dates, additives, methods for testing

 

So, what's wrong with moving the subsidies from one food group to another? Because that's all the OP seems to propose.

 

And you choose to point at a duck, mention one characteristic of a duck, and conclude it's Donald. You choose one particular duck (named Stalin).

[Phi for All]

Am I the only one on this forum that looks at this as a blight on personal freedom and liberty? Why not tax the air we breathe and give the money to combat co2 emmisions? Lets start taxing people's flatulance like they do livestock in Ireland. Is there some line that could be considered uncrossable when it comes to regulating and taxing for the greater good of society? If so what is it, and why is that the line? People say that the world is getting fatter, but has anyone considered that the ratio of people starving or going hungry might have dropped at a rate that corrolates with this gain in weight? Has anyone considered that most of the people that are unhealthily overweight have more reasons than just what they eat? Hey here's an idea that we can add to the food tax... Let's add a tax to people who DON'T excersize. THEY are obviously exponentially more unhealthy than people who do excersize, at least at probably close to the same ratio as fat:skinny. Why not go that route? Where do you want to draw the line on the control that a government can have on what people do with themselves? If everyone is so pissed off to have to pay into a system because of people's behavioral eticate then, by god, change the damn system. Don't keep choking people's wallets to prevent bad choices. It's beginning to look like people think of the government as a hypothetical parent.

Business creates some natural conflicts of interests. No matter how much you level the field to create a free market, there will always be some areas where business conflicts with something of equal or greater value, such as your health or well-being. In most instances like that, when business is favored, the result is a poor one for the individual.

 

An example is fireworks. Most places I know prohibit individuals setting off fireworks, resulting in heavy fines and even jail if you're caught. But it isn't illegal to sell them to you in the first place. The potential for skin burns, loss of sight, loss of digits, structural fire damage and more is enough to outlaw their use, but not their sale.

 

When we see evidence that supports the idea that many businesses thrive at the expense of our overall health and well-being, what options do we have? We can let the business flourish but continue to harm us, we can shut them down, we can modify their products or we can tax the bad effects to help offset the cost of the damage done. Don't you think a portion of every penny you spend on gasoline goes to pay for their next oil spill?

 

If it's known that a certain type of food causes health problems if too much is consumed, don't you think that knowledge is part of what a consumer should get before they are given their free-willed right to choose? And if it's OK to tax consumers and give some of that tax money to oil producers or tobacco or corn or sugar growers to subsidize their investments, why isn't it OK to give the money from a fast food tax to farmers who grow fresh produce?

 

Business is essential to the economy, but unregulated business is NOT stronger than regulated business, no matter what businesses would like you to believe. The government isn't so much a hypothetical parent as a means to shape regulation so as to minimize the conflicts of interest. Lots of poisons already carry their own special taxes, like liquor and tobacco. It only affects those who actually use the products, unlike subsidies that tax everyone.

 

When considering the inclusion or not of various poisons in food, then regulation is reasonable for societies safety. What was being discussed was removing the freedom of choice from some people due to a percieved incapability to make the "right" choice for themselves. In this case, "right" = "agrees with leader".

I don't perceive it that way. I see evidence that a certain market's products are causing health problems for the consumers that use them. It's not a "You can't be trusted to make the right choice" argument, it's more of a "We let the market have it's way and it's gotten unsafe now" argument.

[swansont]

CP and swansont. Perhaps you both don't understand the difference between rules and regulations that allow a functioning society and a "parental" government ruling the lives of people "for their own good".

 

As soon as you place a subset of your society into "regulation" for the thought crime of not agreeing with the leaders ideology then you are relegating them to "sub human" status. History has shown very well what happens to those given that status.

 

swansont you are using a false analogy. When considering the inclusion or not of various poisons in food, then regulation is reasonable for societies safety. What was being discussed was removing the freedom of choice from some people due to a percieved incapability to make the "right" choice for themselves. In this case, "right" = "agrees with leader".

 

It's the age old question. Who knows what is best for the individual? The individual or the State? I happen to believe in the individual, except in cases of criminal behaviour or proven mental incompetence. The passages quoted were definitely in favour of the State having a controlling say.

 

I think I do understand it, and it's a matter of degree, which means the analogy is not false. Something that kills you in a day or a week is considered a poison and is outlawed. Something that kills you over a much longer period of time often is not. It's a matter of where you draw the line, but I think that the claims that have been offered imply that there is no line at all, and I disagree with that characterization. But once you agree that the state has a compelling reason and authority to keep people from selling (or buying) food that contains harmful chemicals, how do you decide where to draw the line?

[JustinW]

Santalum,

A proportion of people in society require their behaviour to be heavily regulated to prevent them doing harm to themselves, others and scoiety at large.

Like I said, hypothetical parents. I don't know about you but I stopped needin' a wet nurse when I started wipin' my own arse. If people that need to regulate their behaviour to keep from harming themselves don't care about themselves enough to do so, why should we feel obligated to. This not only amounts to helping those that aren't even willing to help themselves, but also amounts to punnishing those that do make the right choices for behaviours of those who don't.

 

 

iNow,

No, not necessarily, but you do seem to prize personal "freedom" and liberty as the ultimate priority over absolutely everything else... And that I think is naive and short sighted. Liberty is important. So are many other things. Let's find balance instead of looking for one-dimensional answers to complex problems.

 

I can see that, but there is a method to my madness. The reason I do view personal liberty as a top priority is because once it's lost it's too damn hard to get back. And as how that is the case there isn't a balance, the proper balance should be in the ability to take it away. If it was just as hard to take away liberty as it is to gain it back then people might not look at these types of issues with a shrug of the shoulders. As a matter of question I usually view these types of taxes as greed by the government. Someone is trying to juice the books somewhere. It really doesn't seem likely that sugar is the main cause of these problems with weight related health issues. Does any of the information differentiate between people that are overweight directly because of their sugar intake to those that could have other causes for weight gain?

 

Yet the error of libertarianism lies not in championing liberty, but in championing liberty to the exclusion of all other values. Libertarians hold that individual liberty should never be sacrificed in the pursuit of other values or causes. Compassion, justice, civic responsibility, honesty, decency, humility, respect, and even survival of the poor, weak, and vulnerable -- all are to take a back seat.

I also don't agree with this (if you can believe it). How do justice, honesty, and respect come into play when talking about personal liberty? Compassion, decency, and humility do need to take a back seat if the cost of achieving those "feelings of self satisfaction" is the loss of ones ability to freely make choices. Has anyone ever asked why the poor, weak, and vulnerable are the way they are? I can tell you it's not from good behavioral choices or sound decision making. At what point in a persons life do they stop being responsible for their own choices and the populace starts to be responsible?

JohnB,

Stalin thought exactly the same way. Funny how people who are certain that "they know best" care very little for the rights and liberties of others.

Good point. Wasn't he also the one that said "one mans death is a trajedy, but a million is just a statistic"?

 

swansont,

 

I'll ask the same question I asked earlier. Am I free to put e.g. arsenic and lead in the food/products I sell? Is regulating that somehow restricting my right and liberties?

Arsenic and lead are poisonous. If you start labeling things like sugar to be poisonous where would it end. I think you could probably find adverse health effect connection in any food item. Where would you draw the line?

 

Phi,

 

If it's known that a certain type of food causes health problems if too much is consumed, don't you think that knowledge is part of what a consumer should get before they are given their free-willed right to choose? And if it's OK to tax consumers and give some of that tax money to oil producers or tobacco or corn or sugar growers to subsidize their investments, why isn't it OK to give the money from a fast food tax to farmers who grow fresh produce?

It's called a nutrition label and it's found on most food items. Also the other analogies you've mentioned are like apples and oranges. Different subjects for different reasons.

Business is essential to the economy, but unregulated business is NOT stronger than regulated business, no matter what businesses would like you to believe. The government isn't so much a hypothetical parent as a means to shape regulation so as to minimize the conflicts of interest. Lots of poisons already carry their own special taxes, like liquor and tobacco. It only affects those who actually use the products, unlike subsidies that tax everyone.

And how many people do you think a tax on sugar would affect? And how would a regulation of sugar benifit companies who use that sugar in their products? Not to mention that some of those synthetic sugars are worse for you than the real thing.

 

I don't perceive it that way. I see evidence that a certain market's products are causing health problems for the consumers that use them. It's not a "You can't be trusted to make the right choice" argument, it's more of a "We let the market have it's way and it's gotten unsafe now" argument.

But it is that way, because isn't the market in large part people's choice. The market IS the people and a direct reflection on the desicions that they make. So whether we are talking about a choice of the individual or the choice of markets the "parental government" analogy still seems correct to me.

[swansont]

Arsenic and lead are poisonous. If you start labeling things like sugar to be poisonous where would it end. I think you could probably find adverse health effect connection in any food item. Where would you draw the line?

 

That's the question, isn't it? What constitutes a poison or otherwise dangerous chemical? Why can't I put extra lead in food (or not take steps to remove it) if there's only a little bit, an amount that would kill you in 50 years? What about 30? 10?

[TonyMcC]

Why can't I put extra lead in food (or not take steps to remove it) if there's only a little bit, an amount that would kill you in 50 years?

 

As a man in his 70's who is hoping for quite a few more years can I ask you to change "50" to something a bit higher? lol.

Edited February 6, 2012 by TonyMcC

[Santalum]

Stalin thought exactly the same way. Funny how people who are certain that "they know best" care very little for the rights and liberties of others.

 

If that is how you interpret it then so be it!

 

Santalum,

 

Like I said, hypothetical parents. I don't know about you but I stopped needin' a wet nurse when I started wipin' my own arse. If people that need to regulate their behaviour to keep from harming themselves don't care about themselves enough to do so, why should we feel obligated to. This not only amounts to helping those that aren't even willing to help themselves, but also amounts to punnishing those that do make the right choices for behaviours of those who don't.

 

 

If there are enough failed adults making bad choices and harming wider society in the process then screw their individual rights to make those bad choices!

 

As with badly behaving children, they ought do what they are told not what they want to do. Either tax junk food are make the obese (and smokers) pay a premium for health services that seeks to correct the damage caused by their poor choices, perhaps with weight loss and lifestyle modification services excluded.

 

In Australia it ould be relatively easy where your medicare levi could be variable and subject to an annual medical check up. Smokers and the obese etc would pay an increased levi to compensate for the increased drain on the public health system they cause.

 

Nothing like hitting the hip pocket in modifying behaviour.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Santalum

[Phi for All]

Like I said, hypothetical parents. I don't know about you but I stopped needin' a wet nurse when I started wipin' my own arse. If people that need to regulate their behaviour to keep from harming themselves don't care about themselves enough to do so, why should we feel obligated to. This not only amounts to helping those that aren't even willing to help themselves, but also amounts to punnishing those that do make the right choices for behaviours of those who don't.

Great sound bite about the wet nurse and your arse, but inaccurate. It would be more of an incentive program paid for by a tax on the products that are causing the problem.

 

You're so keyed on the "behavior regulation" aspect that you're ignoring the fact that people like you, who eat healthy, would have lower food bills the majority of the time. Your veg and whole grains would be subsidized by the extra tax on the half-pound fried chili-cheeseburger supermeals, encouraging you to eat healthy while preserving your right to have a half-pound fried chili-cheeseburger supermeal once in a while.

 

It's called a nutrition label and it's found on most food items.

Arsenic isn't listed on those labels.

 

Also the other analogies you've mentioned are like apples and oranges. Different subjects for different reasons.

I didn't make an analogy here, I asked you why it's OK to give oil tax money back as subsidies but not OK to give fast food tax money back as a subsidy. It actually makes more sense to encourage healthy eating rather than giving money to already wealthy oil companies, doesn't it?

 

And how many people do you think a tax on sugar would affect? And how would a regulation of sugar benifit companies who use that sugar in their products? Not to mention that some of those synthetic sugars are worse for you than the real thing.

 

Who is taxing sugar? I think the tax was for the end junk food product, not ingredients. Of course, if we were to stop subsidizing sugar companies, our price for domestic sugar might go down by half, to where the rest of the world is. There are plenty of companies waiting for that to happen so they can start using real sugar again instead of synthetics.

 

But it is that way, because isn't the market in large part people's choice. The market IS the people and a direct reflection on the desicions that they make. So whether we are talking about a choice of the individual or the choice of markets the "parental government" analogy still seems correct to me.

Corporations are very big on claiming to be pro free market, but the truth is they would all jump in bed with a no-bid government contract in a heartbeat. They also want consumers to think they have complete choice, but you're only fooling yourself if you think their marketing and advertising don't work on you. Nearly every person on the planet will claim they can see through the bogus claims made by advertisers, but virtually every one of us is manipulated on a daily basis. There's a reason why US corporations spend more than most country's GNP on advertising. As a matter of fact, there are only 35 countries in the world that have a bigger GNP than what America spends on advertising alone. You may think your choice is your own but it's being tampered with psychologically, constantly.

[Appolinaria]

I'm sure that we're gonna see drastic changes to the food available to us in the coming years.

 

I'd like to see the cupcakes, ice cream, and potato chips but done without the preservatives and made with 100% organic ingredients. We can keep the junk food, just tax the poisonous versions. That would be a good start.

 

And to all of the people claiming that healthier, home-made food is more expensive than a dinner at McDonalds- do you leave your house? Have you ever been to a grocery store?

 

For example, today I passed by a Friendly's (didn't know we even had those here) and it was a special of 9.99 for an entree, a dessert and a drink. Now compare that to the price of a whole cabbage, chicken breast and a couple cups of brown rice. That would be under 5$ and would feed a family.

[TonyMcC]

There seems to be an argument about whether simple nutritious food can be cheaper than fast food.

This Sunday my wife prepared a meal for six of us. We don't bother with a starter so we had roast chicken, stuffing, potatoes, cauliflower, leeks, gravy, and cranberry sauce. To follow we had apple and blackberry crumble with custard. When we added up the cost of the ingredients it came to about £9.50, which is about $2.50 each.

When, before Christmas, my daughter asked the partner of one of my grandchildren who is about 26 years old whether she had bought her turkey the answer was "No because I wouldn't know how to cook it"! In my school days most girls learnt to budget for and cook meals and the boys learnt woodwork. I think the girls got the better bargain because not many of us boys became carpenters! Also, my wife made sure our daughters could cook before letting them loose in the world.

[JustinW]

As with badly behaving children, they ought do what they are told not what they want to do. Either tax junk food are make the obese (and smokers) pay a premium for health services that seeks to correct the damage caused by their poor choices, perhaps with weight loss and lifestyle modification services excluded.

 

In Australia it ould be relatively easy where your medicare levi could be variable and subject to an annual medical check up. Smokers and the obese etc would pay an increased levi to compensate for the increased drain on the public health system they cause.

 

Nothing like hitting the hip pocket in modifying behaviour.

It wouldn't be that way if we wouldn't have subsidised health care in the first place. I do remember what Phi told me a while back, and still agree, that no one wants to see a single mother with kids go without. But this parenting of government to control behaviour isn't like that. It's like our country wants to be grown adults who still live in there mother's basement. (Instead of your mother making you a sandwhich, you can now go down to the local "trough" and have the government make one for you. If they say it's okay first, we can't forget to get their approval first. )

 

 

 

Phi,

 

It would be more of an incentive program paid for by a tax on the products that are causing the problem.

 

Sorry Phi I don't see it as an incentive program. The only incentive goes to those who need it. Where is the incentive for the rest. Oh wait. . . It would have to be in the reduced costs of health care, right? Maybe. Read back through the beginnings of this thread where people talk about government run food bars and despensaries instead of grocery stores or restaraunts, and mandating that a doctor has to chose your menu, and what amounts to a fine if you deveate at all from that menu. I would go on a big rant about this, but I'm rather speachless at the moment due to the blatant disregard for personal freedom. If I could only find the time.

 

http://health.yahoo.net/articles/nutrition/arsenic-in-juice

Maybe arsenic isn't found on the labels but we are talking about sugars and calories and what not, aren't we? You can easily distinguish the healthy from unhealthy by looking at a nutrition label can't you?

 

I didn't make an analogy here, I asked you why it's OK to give oil tax money back as subsidies but not OK to give fast food tax money back as a subsidy. It actually makes more sense to encourage healthy eating rather than giving money to already wealthy oil companies, doesn't it?

Okay you got me there. It does make more sense, but I don't think either one is right though. We need to pay taxes to run the programs that benifit society, but I don't agree with taxing to manipulate peoples behavior. What was it that John said. . . Stalinistic!. . . I think that is a good descriptive word that describes the path that this type of behavior can lead to. The more you depend on someone else to make your choices for you, the less you depend on yourself. And it's hard to get the control back once it's gone.

 

Who is taxing sugar? I think the tax was for the end junk food product, not ingredients. Of course, if we were to stop subsidizing sugar companies, our price for domestic sugar might go down by half, to where the rest of the world is. There are plenty of companies waiting for that to happen so they can start using real sugar again instead of synthetics.

Either way, it's not right. I did wonder what you were going to say about the sugar companies though.

 

Corporations are very big on claiming to be pro free market, but the truth is they would all jump in bed with a no-bid government contract in a heartbeat. They also want consumers to think they have complete choice, but you're only fooling yourself if you think their marketing and advertising don't work on you. Nearly every person on the planet will claim they can see through the bogus claims made by advertisers, but virtually every one of us is manipulated on a daily basis. There's a reason why US corporations spend more than most country's GNP on advertising. As a matter of fact, there are only 35 countries in the world that have a bigger GNP than what America spends on advertising alone. You may think your choice is your own but it's being tampered with psychologically, constantly.

I can agree with this point on advertisement manipulation, but the manipulation through advertising is not the same as mandated manipulation through taxation. You have a choice not to watch those advertisements, you don't have a choice not to pay a tax once instituted.

[CaptainPanic]

There seems to be an argument about whether simple nutritious food can be cheaper than fast food.

This Sunday my wife prepared a meal for six of us. We don't bother with a starter so we had roast chicken, stuffing, potatoes, cauliflower, leeks, gravy, and cranberry sauce. To follow we had apple and blackberry crumble with custard. When we added up the cost of the ingredients it came to about £9.50, which is about $2.50 each.

When, before Christmas, my daughter asked the partner of one of my grandchildren who is about 26 years old whether she had bought her turkey the answer was "No because I wouldn't know how to cook it"! In my school days most girls learnt to budget for and cook meals and the boys learnt woodwork. I think the girls got the better bargain because not many of us boys became carpenters! Also, my wife made sure our daughters could cook before letting them loose in the world.

I bet your daughters are happy they learned some cooking - there's nothing like a good meal every day. It's one of the biggest pleasures in life, and the skills of cooking are hugely underappreciated in this world, because you will not get rich from it - only really happy.

 

There are multiple ways to get 'educated' in cooking. Parents are a good source of information. But fellow students or friends can be an inspiration too. And finally, you can learn to cook out of necessity. And recipes are just a google search away.

 

In the Netherlands, all students who live in a student house will have a kitchen. They all know that cooking your own food will always be cheaper than anything, and cooking for more people will make a meal cheaper than cooking for yourself alone... So they will often eat together at home... and after a couple of years of that, they can all cook some basic things.

 

Does the average American dorm (or whatever place a student lives in) have kitchens for the students? Will a college student who lives away from his/her parents learn to cook? Or is there a common dining room, with food prepared by whatever institution runs the place? I'm quite ignorant when it comes to US student housing, and US student eating habits.

[zapatos]

Does the average American dorm (or whatever place a student lives in) have kitchens for the students? Will a college student who lives away from his/her parents learn to cook? Or is there a common dining room, with food prepared by whatever institution runs the place? I'm quite ignorant when it comes to US student housing, and US student eating habits.

The American dorms I have seen typically do not have kitchens for students, although the trend as dorms are updated or new ones are created, is to add kitchens to them. If you live in a dorm, however, a meal plan is always an option, where you can pay for a set number of meals per week. I've seen plans where you can choose as few as five meals per week and as many as 21. If you participate in a meal plan you usually have many places on campus where you can eat, and the options are generally quite good.

 

My experience has also been that students tend to live in dorms for only one or two years before moving into apartments, where of course they will have kitchens. Most students I have seen can at least cook basic meals, although the options for prepared food is great and cooking for yourself on a regular basis doesn't seem to be the norm.

 

I would say that the average student eats out more often than he prepares food for himself, and that the food he eats when out is of poor nutritional value.

[Phi for All]

Sorry Phi I don't see it as an incentive program. The only incentive goes to those who need it. Where is the incentive for the rest. Oh wait. . . It would have to be in the reduced costs of health care, right? Maybe. Read back through the beginnings of this thread where people talk about government run food bars and despensaries instead of grocery stores or restaraunts, and mandating that a doctor has to chose your menu, and what amounts to a fine if you deveate at all from that menu. I would go on a big rant about this, but I'm rather speachless at the moment due to the blatant disregard for personal freedom. If I could only find the time.

Taxes are used quite frequently as incentive programs. If the government wants to give some aid to emerging energy products, a tax break encourages people to take a chance. You get tax credits for fixing up your home or buying energy-efficient appliances. The Junk Food Tax is an example of a credit that's paid for by a balancing tax. Rather than just take money from consumers as a tax, it takes the tax from people who are abusing the healthcare system and gives it to people who aren't.

 

Let me ask you this: If someone came up with a type of cigarette that satisfied smokers but didn't cause all the health problems, would you be against a government program that taxed regular cigarettes and gave that tax money as a subsidy to the new type of cigarette so it could compete? If health studies five years later confirmed that smoking-related health problems were declining, don't you think that program (which only came out of the pockets of those who insisted on smoking the old, known-carcinogen cigarettes) would be justified?

 

Maybe arsenic isn't found on the labels but we are talking about sugars and calories and what not, aren't we? You can easily distinguish the healthy from unhealthy by looking at a nutrition label can't you?

If you read back, you brought up the nutrition label when I had said, "If it's known that a certain type of food causes health problems if too much is consumed, don't you think that knowledge is part of what a consumer should get before they are given their free-willed right to choose?" This type of information is NOT on the nutrition label. People in general have probably heard that eating too much fast food is bad for you, but they hear the company's advertising a LOT more often, telling them it's OK and available 24/7 and delicious and full of good things for you and cheaper if you buy the supersized value meal.

 

For years it's been OK for a company to take advantage of people if they're stupid enough not to see the dangers. Now we have rampant obesity and attendant health problems. At a certain point, you're either going to have to allow for some type of publicly-funded solution, a solution from the private sector (good luck, they're making all kinds of money as it is) or better nutrition education. I'd actually prefer the education, but taxpayers don't seem to want to pay for schooling these days, and the fast food companies won't be thrilled about having their products actively challenged intellectually. A fast-food tax seems almost like the easiest solution.

 

Okay you got me there. It does make more sense, but I don't think either one is right though. We need to pay taxes to run the programs that benifit society, but I don't agree with taxing to manipulate peoples behavior. What was it that John said. . . Stalinistic!. . . I think that is a good descriptive word that describes the path that this type of behavior can lead to. The more you depend on someone else to make your choices for you, the less you depend on yourself. And it's hard to get the control back once it's gone.

You argue against this incentive only as manipulation of people's behavior, but you don't see it as a counter to the manipulation of advertising. You argue against this incentive as an attempt to remove choice from the people, yet you don't seem to have the same problem with The Patriot Act. This isn't about the government MAKING your choices for you; it's about making some of the choices more/less attractive than others to influence your choice. Corporations get to do it with advertising, but you're arguing that it's not right for the government. Why is that?

 

Either way, it's not right. I did wonder what you were going to say about the sugar companies though.

If you were going to do a fast food tax, it would have to be for end products, not ingredients. Sugar might be bad for you in a soft drink, but not so bad in something else.

 

But you're correct, it's not right. And no one can tell me why the US has to charge double in order to use a system "designed to put U.S. manufacturers of sugar-containing products on a level playing field in the world market", as the US Dept of Agriculture puts it. It's also keeping us from using sugarcane as biomass for ethanol. Sugar ethanol is eight times more efficient than corn ethanol. Brazil uses sustainable sugar ethanol and they have many cars that run on nothing but, AT HALF THE PRICE OF GASOLINE!

 

I can agree with this point on advertisement manipulation, but the manipulation through advertising is not the same as mandated manipulation through taxation. You have a choice not to watch those advertisements, you don't have a choice not to pay a tax once instituted.

But you do have a choice not to pay this tax. Buy healthy food and you won't be charged. In fact, it could cost you less if your veg and whole grains were subsidized by the fast food eaters.

[iNow]

I usually view these types of taxes as greed by the government. Someone is trying to juice the books somewhere. It really doesn't seem likely that sugar is the main cause of these problems with weight related health issues.

Don't be so sure. From just this morning:

 

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/02/06/146481752/taxes-and-food-stamp-restrictions-proposed-to-tame-americas-sweet-tooth

 

The American Heart Association says women should not have more than 6 teaspoons, or 30 grams, a day, which is about 100 calories of added sugar (excluding fruit). And men should try not to exceed 9 teaspoons, or 45 grams.

 

But a lot of us are eating way more.

 

"The bottom line is our sugar consumption has gone through the roof," says Robert Lustig, a professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. He says the typical American is eating nearly 450 calories of added sugar everyday.

 

In a commentary published in Nature, Lustig and his colleagues argued that this excessive consumption is linked to an increase in chronic diseases such as type-2 diabetes, fatty liver disease, metabolic disorder, heart disease as well as obesity. So, Lustig argues, we need to cut way back — by about two-thirds — on the amount of sugar we consume.

 

"That's a lot" to cut, he acknowledges. "And it can't be done unless there's a public health intervention of some sort."

 

 

 

Here is the source study from Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7383/full/482027a.html

 

Public health: The toxic truth about sugar: Added sweeteners pose dangers to health that justify controlling them like alcohol

 

More here from the American Heart Association: http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyDietGoals/Sugars-and-Carbohydrates_UCM_303296_Article.jsp#.TzFXf8h-r09