• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Seasoning Tax: Will marking up sugar and salt make us healthier?

Do you think there should be a tax on salt and sugar?

  • Total voters
    36
Wouldn't the smarter route be to limit the amount of sugar/salt placed into products, rather than to tax it. Regulate the food and the producers, not the consumers.
 
tessaesque said:
Meanwhile, 12 months later:

Several Major Food Manufacturers in the U.S. Declare Bankruptcy Over "Sin Tax" Legislation: 100k jobs lost
Click to expand...

What happened? People decided to stop eating?
 
WI Crippler said:
Wouldn't the smarter route be to limit the amount of sugar/salt placed into products, rather than to tax it. Regulate the food and the producers, not the consumers.
Click to expand...

Effectively there isn't much of a difference. Regulation of the industry amounts to regulating the consumer and vice versa.
 
Arbo said:
What you are doing is pushing the way you eat, and your lifestyle on others. Preparing a good meal for a good sized family can take time that many in todays society do not have, or do not think they have. And most of society is gonna want meat in there somewhere, we are not herbivores. Thus the proliferation of pre-packed meals and easy/fast cook items, which all probably fall under your 'junk food' label.

Not to mention your whole concept of trying to force people into all the time and work involved in gardening. If they don't have time to fix a good and proper meal how the heck do you think they have time to tend a garden?
Click to expand...

I'm advocating my beliefs.

Meat can also be cheap and relatively healthy, like chicken breast. You don't have to be vegetarian to eat healthy, cheap and convenient meals. I think it's a crutch to believe the hype that people have no time to cook or eat healthy food. Even if you need an hour I'm sure you can find one to make a healthy meal. It doesn't take much time to make some oatmeal, prepare a salad, cook a little chicken breast, or cut a few asparagus spears, among other things.

Being an experienced gardener, it doesn't take as much time as you'd think. Digging an asparagus trench can be difficult, but if you find a day oo two out of a week, and have an extra pair of hands or so, it shouldn't be much trouble. It took me only two days by myself to excavate that massive trench. Now I have numerous spears poking their heads out of the soil. All free food. Also, asparagus is very quick to cook.

It doesn't take much to cook a healthy meal. Knowledge and intelligence makes it a cinch, imo.
 
Wake said:
While glossing through the 5/7/2012 volume of TIME magazine, I read about the notion of taxing both sugar and salt.

TIME magazine's website doesn't seem to let you link directly to the article in question without paying first. That said, I found the article within a seperate site discussing it:



Sin Taxes: Will marking up junk food make us healthier? | Shane Weight Loss Camps & Resorts

Personally, I think it might be a good idea. It might have somewhat of a positive effect in general. Obviously with 34% of adults in the U.S. struggling with the obesity epidemic, there must be new measures taken. The question though is to what degree. My view is that we should tax such things like soda and candy upwards of 20-30%. Sure, it may seem draconian, but this needs to stop. As we consumers feed on the garbage that's stocked in our stores, in turn said corporations feed on us, making profit. I think, no, I know they deliberately try to addict us; addiction is great for business. Why wouldn't the corporation of, say, Mountain Dew want us to become addicted to it? It's all about the money.

That's a bit aside the point. Such foods that can be easily addicted to and cause damage to your body should be taxed; not just 10%, but beyond. How many people know of kids and teenagers who were addicted to soda and candy, now suffering with cavities, without dental insurance? How many people do you know that, since childhood, became addicted to bad food? Instead of commercials advertising veggies to young children, you were bombarded with advertisements for Candy Pops and Pop-Tarts.

If a 10-30% tax increase in these foods has a positive overall effect on the country, then damn it, that's good. Take it further until it places a sizeable dent in this obesity epidemic.
Click to expand...

Since when is it the Governments job to tell its citizens what they should or shouldn't eat?

I am so sick of this mentality that promotes the government into sticking its collective nose where it does not belong.
 
Wake said:
I'm advocating my beliefs.
Click to expand...

Well, your beliefs in terms of eating, do not jibe with the limited powers the constitution grants the government. It is that simple.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
That's probably true as well, but I'm not entirely sure that the effort would be in vain.

I'm ambivalent about this.


If anyone can lay a finger to that article that says "Congress can't tax unhealthy foods," be my guest. :lol:
Click to expand...

The constitution doesn't work like that . Any power that is not written down that Fed doesn't have. It's a list of what they can do, not a list of dot's.

the_more_you_know.jpg
 
Wake said:
If the tax is raised enough, there just might be some who decide to opt for carrots, etc. I can't fathom that no one will be affected positively by this. Those who are already looking for means to be healthier may get a boost of wind in their sales from this. The tax may not deter all, but it may deter some.
Click to expand...

But the question (and the problem that I have with this) is that it's really not any of the government's business if I use salt and sugar or not. This is just one of a string of do-gooders trying to tell people how to live, what to eat, what not to smoke, and a lengthy list of other *right* things to do. It's really none of anyone else's business what I put into my body, or not. If I wanted someone to tell me how to live, I'd still be living with my parents.
 
Effectively there isn't much of a difference. Regulation of the industry amounts to regulating the consumer and vice versa.
Click to expand...

No there is a huge difference. Regulating the industry to require less salt/sugar will result in less salt/sugar. It is not too hard for the govt to enforce such a law (though I still think its kinda silly in this case), Taxing salt/sugar will not do so. That is the whole problem with the idea. If ppl want something they will spend $ to get it. If the govt artifiically increases the price too much through taxes ppl will find a way around the taxes. Increased price due to taxes is not the same as increased prices due to supply/demand. Taxes can and regularly are avoided. As a tax increases and becomes more onerous more and more ppl have less compulsion to obey the law and more and more ppl will circumvent the law. Price increases due to supply/demand cannot be avoided such as those created by tax policy, they CAN affect peoples spending habits.
 
Quag said:
No there is a huge difference. Regulating the industry to require less salt/sugar will result in less salt/sugar. It is not too hard for the govt to enforce such a law (though I still think its kinda silly in this case), Taxing salt/sugar will not do so. That is the whole problem with the idea. If ppl want something they will spend $ to get it. If the govt artifiically increases the price too much through taxes ppl will find a way around the taxes. Increased price due to taxes is not the same as increased prices due to supply/demand. Taxes can and regularly are avoided. As a tax increases and becomes more onerous more and more ppl have less compulsion to obey the law and more and more ppl will circumvent the law. Price increases due to supply/demand cannot be avoided such as those created by tax policy, they CAN affect peoples spending habits.
Click to expand...

It really depends on the elasticity of the demand for the product, and the size of the tax.
 
Canadians pay quite a bit more for alcohol than Americans. Our alcoholic consumptions are very similar.
http://www.indiana.edu/~engs/articles/canada.htm
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/college/l/blcas021217.htm

There is a fair amount of illegal (ie bootleg) alcohol here but not as bad as when they tried to use taxes to get ppl to stop smoking. There was lots of smuggling then, and the associated violence. So to have any effect the taxes have to be high enough to discourage ppl but that level of taxation leads people to find ways to avoid the taxes and creates criminal enterprises.
 
Wake said:
I didn't know sugar was already higher.
Click to expand...

The government limits the amount of sugar imported into the U.S.
They do that to support domestic producers, even though foreign producers do it more efficiently and have a better climate to grow it.

Why do you think that corn syrup is used more often, than real sugar?
It's partially because of this.

Wake said:
Perhaps the price needs to increase until it actually helps correct the obesity epidemic. If this raised the price of crap food, while leaving healthier foods like vegetablkes and oatmeal untouched, I'm completely for it.
Click to expand...

Nah, the problem is people eat to much.
Crap food or health food, people will still eat too much.
You can get fat off of healthy food.

Increasing the general price of food will reverse one of the great gains in the modern era.
The fact that food, as a percentage of household spending, has plummeted from what it used to be.
I can't be for that.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The government limits the amount of sugar imported into the U.S.
They do that to support domestic producers, even though foreign producers do it more efficiently and have a better climate to grow it.

Why do you think that corn syrup is used more often, than real sugar?
It's partially because of this.






Nah, the problem is people eat to much.
Crap food or health food, people will still eat too much.
You can get fat off of healthy food.

Increasing the general price of food will reverse one of the great gains in the modern era.
The fact that food, as a percentage of household spending, has plummeted from what it used to be.
I can't be for that.
Click to expand...


Real sugar isnt the cause of the obesity problem alone.....Id venture its a combination of Sweet drinks...Fat and Highly processed foods that give you nothing but more fat and salt...and LARDARSENESS...the age of aquarius is not the age of parketh thine arse in front of puter and talk about how old and dumb lpast is
 
Real sugar isnt the cause of the obesity problem alone.....Id venture its a combination of Sweet drinks...Fat and Highly processed foods that give you nothing but more fat and salt...and LARDARSENESS...the age of aquarius is not the age of parketh thine arse in front of puter and talk about how old and dumb lpast is
Click to expand...

I believe you hit the nail on the head with the last part there!
 
lpast said:
Real sugar isnt the cause of the obesity problem alone.....Id venture its a combination of Sweet drinks...Fat and Highly processed foods that give you nothing but more fat and salt...and LARDARSENESS...the age of aquarius is not the age of parketh thine arse in front of puter and talk about how old and dumb lpast is
Click to expand...

Part of the problem, is purely biological.
Humans lived for ages, where food was scarce.
So we are programmed to eat, as much as we can, when we can.

The second problem, that's good and bad, is that food is plentiful.

Combine those two things and we get a lot of fat people.
 
Quag said:
I believe you hit the nail on the head with the last part there!
Click to expand...

I put it in there just for you too..:) I knew you wouldnt understand the rest of the post
 
I put it in there just for you too.. I knew you wouldnt understand the rest of the post
Click to expand...

Umm did you just double insult me?
calling me a lardarse and a dimwit!
I be sad now, think i"ll go cry on my couch eat my last few twinkies and scoff down some dr pepper :2bigcry:

Seriously though good one
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Part of the problem, is purely biological.
Humans lived for ages, where food was scarce.
So we are programmed to eat, as much as we can, when we can.

The second problem, that's good and bad, is that food is plentiful.

Combine those two things and we get a lot of fat people.
Click to expand...



Boredom plays a part....Harry believe it or not in one generation the entire country changed the way it lives and works and plays.

Im 64, when I was 14 there were no computers, no copying machines, no electronic typewriters....you WROTE by hand, reasearched in the library and used carbon paper or a mimeograph machine to make copies.
No video games...after school you changed your clothes and actually WENT OUTSIDE...and played basketball, football..softball...ringalaria, johnnylumplump...You ran around...you moved constantly....there werent all these fatarse kids running around...your parents actually made you EARN any money they gave you...you had to do stuff...

Today kid comes home from school...stuffs his face with chit while his parents are working...parks his arse in front of the puter...talks dirty to people...looks at porn...and plays video games...then eats dinner and goes back and sits on his arse.....you tell me how they cant be lardarses
 
lpast said:
Boredom plays a part....Harry believe it or not in one generation the entire country changed the way it lives and works and plays.

Im 64, when I was 14 there were no computers, no copying machines, no electronic typewriters....you WROTE by hand, reasearched in the library and used carbon paper or a mimeograph machine to make copies.
No video games...after school you changed your clothes and actually WENT OUTSIDE...and played basketball, football..softball...ringalaria, johnnylumplump...You ran around...you moved constantly....there werent all these fatarse kids running around...your parents actually made you EARN any money they gave you...you had to do stuff...

Today kid comes home from school...stuffs his face with chit while his parents are working...parks his arse in front of the puter...talks dirty to people...looks at porn...and plays video games...then eats dinner and goes back and sits on his arse.....you tell me how they cant be lardarses
Click to expand...

No doubt, lifestyles have changed a lot.
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but my kids have to do chores to earn their allowance, and they have to do them right or no allowance.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
No doubt, lifestyles have changed a lot.
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but my kids have to do chores to earn their allowance, and they have to do them right or no allowance.
Click to expand...


Good for you...you would be doing them an injustice by not making them earn their keep...thats whats wrong with the entire attitude today...parents have no time to be parents...so they say...they have lots of excuses for not being parents...and the biggest is we have to work more today...BS...its easier not to be a parent and blame everything and everyone else
 
lpast said:
Good for you...you would be doing them an injustice by not making them earn their keep...thats whats wrong with the entire attitude today...parents have no time to be parents...so they say...they have lots of excuses for not being parents...and the biggest is we have to work more today...BS...its easier not to be a parent and blame everything and everyone else
Click to expand...

We agree on something. :mrgreen:
World explodes in 3...2... :2razz:
 
In the winter...when I came home from school...everyday...I changed ran down to the basement...there were several coal furnaces..one for each apt...you had your own coal bin....the coal would be spent by the time I got home...I had to shovel out the soot...shovel in new coal...start it get it going bellow it...make sure it was all safe and contained...made sure the baffle was right were my father told me to put it....and then I ran the hell out of the house to go play something...before I went to bed...back to the basement and add more coal...7days a week I did that...plus alot more...for a quarter on saturday to go to the saturaday matinee at the movie theatre....
 
Wake said:
While glossing through the 5/7/2012 volume of TIME magazine, I read about the notion of taxing both sugar and salt.

TIME magazine's website doesn't seem to let you link directly to the article in question without paying first. That said, I found the article within a seperate site discussing it:



Sin Taxes: Will marking up junk food make us healthier? | Shane Weight Loss Camps & Resorts

Personally, I think it might be a good idea. It might have somewhat of a positive effect in general. Obviously with 34% of adults in the U.S. struggling with the obesity epidemic, there must be new measures taken. The question though is to what degree. My view is that we should tax such things like soda and candy upwards of 20-30%. Sure, it may seem draconian, but this needs to stop. As we consumers feed on the garbage that's stocked in our stores, in turn said corporations feed on us, making profit. I think, no, I know they deliberately try to addict us; addiction is great for business. Why wouldn't the corporation of, say, Mountain Dew want us to become addicted to it? It's all about the money.

That's a bit aside the point. Such foods that can be easily addicted to and cause damage to your body should be taxed; not just 10%, but beyond. How many people know of kids and teenagers who were addicted to soda and candy, now suffering with cavities, without dental insurance? How many people do you know that, since childhood, became addicted to bad food? Instead of commercials advertising veggies to young children, you were bombarded with advertisements for Candy Pops and Pop-Tarts.

If a 10-30% tax increase in these foods has a positive overall effect on the country, then damn it, that's good. Take it further until it places a sizeable dent in this obesity epidemic.
Click to expand...

Senseless - we don't consume mass quantities of salt in my home; I don't even buy it - let alone eat foods taht are high in it. . .

Sugar :shrug: It's in a lot of what everyone eats if you spend time pigging out on junk food - I don't think making that more expensive is going to do *anything* - businesses aim for profit = they will profit regardless.

I think though that certain companies facing a crunch in business in the last few years that specialize in junk foods is a sign that we're eating less of it - like Twinkies, etc.

But like my husband says about high produce prices for tobacco: it just made him go with inferior products and he eventually switched to dip - not cigarettes. . . one can can satisfy for several days, far less than a pack a cigarettes would have lasted him, and it's not as inconvenient. For it to become equally expensive like cigarettes did a can will ahve to cost $10.00 @
 
Last edited:
spud_meister said:
It'll make obese people poorer, meaning they won't be able to afford quality healthcare, and they'll die sooner. Why do you want fat people to die wake?
Click to expand...

Because they are unpleasant to look at, they take up two seats in airplanes and complain when they have to pay more, they blame their obesity on everything but their own laziness and bad habits, they waste my valuable time when I have to follow them in a tight pathway and they can hardly walk, they clean out the buffet lines of all the bacon so I have to wait for some more to be brought out, they use up valuable fabric resources for the making of their clothes, their motorized scooters block the aisles at the grocery store, they give the nanny state more excuses to tax us, they spoil the view at beaches, ........
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom