Putting an extra tax on junk food

[allison]

Thoughts??
I personally think this should not be done. It is a matter of personal choice. The government should not be able to tell you what foods you can and cannot buy by putting sky high taxes on junk food. It is a persons personal choice to buy whatever food they want, without it having a special tax because it's "unhealthy". If they become obese well that's their own fault.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Monorail]

In Canada, with their socialized health-care, it is in the governments interest to keep the people healthy. Not only does it accomplish this, but it also funds the healthcare.

Also consider that there are already taxes placed on alcohol and tobacco in the US.

 

[allison]

In Canada, with their socialized health-care, it is in the governments interest to keep the people healthy. Not only does it accomplish this, but it also funds the healthcare.

Also consider that there are already taxes placed on alcohol and tobacco.

But what about the personal choice factor? Why can't we be free to buy what we want without worrying about an extra tax?? The government is not your mother.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Monorail]

But what about the personal choice factor? Why can't we be free to buy what we want without worrying about an extra tax?? The government is not your mother.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well are you against all other excise taxes?

 

[allison]

Well are you against all other excise taxes?

Yeah, I'm pretty much anti-tax, or keep all taxes as low as possible. If our government would cut unnecessary luxuries like free cell phones, then we could keep taxes low.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Monorail]

Yeah, I'm pretty much anti-tax, or keep all taxes as low as possible. If our government would cut unnecessary luxuries like free cell phones, then we could keep taxes low.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But something like sin tax isn't about revenue per say, it's also about decreasing the use of the commodity.

And I wouldn't say "unnecessary luxuries" are the cause of higher taxes. They can't make that big of a dent in American spending compared to wars, foreign aid, subsidies, etc. The picture is larger than minority luxuries. Just saying.

 

[allison]

But something like sin tax isn't about revenue per say, it's also about decreasing the use of the commodity.

And I wouldn't say "unnecessary luxuries" are the cause of higher taxes. They can't make that big of a dent in American spending compared to wars, foreign aid, subsidies, etc. The picture is larger than minority luxuries. Just saying.

I believe in personal responsibility. There should not be a sin tax because people need to learn how to make their own choices. America is the land of the free.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Monorail]

I believe in personal responsibility. There should not be a sin tax because people need to learn how to make their own choices. America is the land of the free.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But if the American government becomes responsible for socialized healthcare, then they become responsible financially for said choices.

I'm not saying it's right, that's just the mindset.

 

[allison]

But if the American government becomes responsible for socialized healthcare, then they become responsible financially for said choices.

I'm not saying it's right, that's just the mindset.

Socialized healthcare may work in Canada, but it is just a mess in the US. It was such a mess that the HHS secretary had to resign.
There are simply not enough young people to contribute.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Monorail]

Socialized healthcare may work in Canada, but it is just a mess in the US. It was such a mess that the HHS secretary had to resign.
There are simply not enough young people to contribute.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The AFA and Canadian socialized healthcare are in no way the same thing. They don't compare.

Edit: ACA

 

[allison]

The AFA and Canadian socialized healthcare are in no way the same thing. They don't compare.

Afa?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Monorail]

Afa?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My bad,
ACA*

 

[Whispered]

My bad,
ACA*

They aren't the same thing, they're Obama's attempt at it :P

In all seriousness, Obama wants socialized healthcare. He just doesn't know what it is or how to do it.

 

[Monorail]

They aren't the same thing, they're Obama's attempt at it :P



In all seriousness, Obama wants socialized healthcare. He just doesn't know what it is or how to do it.

He also doesn't understand the implications if it not being socialized completely.

 

[Whispered]

He also doesn't understand the implications if it not being socialized completely.

So I think we both agree that the problem with Obama is not *what* he thinks, but it's that he doesn't think past 2 inches in front of him.

 

[The_Jedi_Master]

They're right in a sense. You can't claim to be for small government and low taxes and support social security, a large standing military, medicare and medicaid.

 

[kalyee]

I'd hate to pay extra for anything considering how unaffordable a lot of groceries are on a tight budget, but I can see how this could be beneficial.
I'm at the store, on a budget, and I have to make choices. Do I load up on chips, ice cream, and hot pockets, or grab some ingredients to make bulk meals that'll be a lot healthier? I'm more inclined to pick healthier options if a tax is added to junk food, allowing those unhealthy snacks to be treats for special occasions instead of letting them take over my menu, thus improving my health overall.
Sure, we should all be allowed to make our own decisions as to what we are going to eat, but the tax wouldn't stop that.
It's encouraging you to pick healthier options.
(I've always felt healthy foods should be cheaper than junk foods, even though that'll never be possible, so the tax idea kind of works towards that in a way)

When you have such a high rate of morbid obesity, why would you not do what you can to deter people from living on cookies? Let's face it, junk food tastes great. I could eat pizza every day and be happy. People like to pick what they like and crave over what their body needs, so while it's good to have freedom and give everyone a choice, there really should be more things in place to make eating healthy and not contributing to a nation of health problems more appealing and rewarding.

 

[The_Jedi_Master]

I'd hate to pay extra for anything considering how unaffordable a lot of groceries are on a tight budget, but I can see how this could be beneficial.
I'm at the store, on a budget, and I have to make choices. Do I load up on chips, ice cream, and hot pockets, or grab some ingredients to make bulk meals that'll be a lot healthier? I'm more inclined to pick healthier options if a tax is added to junk food, allowing those unhealthy snacks to be treats for special occasions instead of letting them take over my menu, thus improving my health overall.
Sure, we should all be allowed to make our own decisions as to what we are going to eat, but the tax wouldn't stop that.
It's encouraging you to pick healthier options.
(I've always felt healthy foods should be cheaper than junk foods, even though that'll never be possible, so the tax idea kind of works towards that in a way)

When you have such a high rate of morbid obesity, why would you not do what you can to deter people from living on cookies? Let's face it, junk food tastes great. I could eat pizza every day and be happy. People like to pick what they like and crave over what their body needs, so while it's good to have freedom and give everyone a choice, there really should be more things in place to make eating healthy and not contributing to a nation of health problems more appealing and rewarding.

I would just like to remind everyone we also tax healthy food.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/madness-american-milk-prices
Let's eliminate the taxes and protectionism we have on healthy food here before we start going crazy trying to artificially raise prices on junk food.

 

[Thrill]

I will give you this one. It's a good idea in principle; junk food causes diseases, which cost taxpayers money in the form of Medicare and Medicaid. The tax fails in that it's impossible to execute. What is a "junk food?" Something with more than X Calories? If we go by serving sizes, companies just make smaller cookies, drop the serving to a single cookie, and get under the limit. Go by Calories in the package, and suddenly the government is taxing a large container of nuts -- surely, something they wouldn't ever consider. Or will the government, by hand, determine what's healthy and what isn't? That's not a good option, because until very recently, the government's nutritional guidelines were a travesty. (Now, they're still sub-par.)

Yeah, I'm pretty much anti-tax, or keep all taxes as low as possible. If our government would cut unnecessary luxuries like free cell phones, then we could keep taxes low.

Those are part of a long-running unemployment program. The cell phone is a tool by which people can find jobs. The phones receive only (heavily limited) and texts and minutes, both of which are insanely cheap through MVNOs today. Probably costs the government dollars per user. Not tens of dollars, just single-digit dollars.

 

[allison]

I will give you this one. It's a good idea in principle; junk food causes diseases, which cost taxpayers money in the form of Medicare and Medicaid. The tax fails in that it's impossible to execute. What is a "junk food?" Something with more than X Calories? If we go by serving sizes, companies just make smaller cookies, drop the serving to a single cookie, and get under the limit. Go by Calories in the package, and suddenly the government is taxing a large container of nuts -- surely, something they wouldn't ever consider. Or will the government, by hand, determine what's healthy and what isn't? That's not a good option, because until very recently, the government's nutritional guidelines were a travesty. (Now, they're still sub-par.)



Those are part of a long-running unemployment program. The cell phone is a tool by which people can find jobs. The phones receive only (heavily limited) and texts and minutes, both of which are insanely cheap through MVNOs today. Probably costs the government dollars per user. Not tens of dollars, just single-digit dollars.

It doesn't matter how cheap it is. Anything that is not necessary (sorry cell phones are not necessary, people go their whole lives without having one and turn out just fine) needs to be cut. It is the little things that add up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk