• 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
It will make some junk foods more expensive, but I don't think that will make anyone healthier. People will still have the same poor eating habits.
 
Is that really wrong? The same is done to alcohol, and tobacco. Junk food can be just as addicting and harmful to people, imo.

I would have no problem with at least a 10% tax increase on junk food. Should we wait until the obesity epidemic in America goes from 34% of adults, to 56+%? Something needs to happen, or something is going to give out, besides clogged hearts, overburdened ligaments, etc.

Tobacco and Booze are items for adults. Food, even when you label it 'junk food', is food, that all people have the ability to eat, if they so desire. You are talking about taking away what they can eat. Yeah, fatassedness is a huge problem, the solution is not government modifying behavior through taxation. It doesn't work. Ever.
 
But wouldn't it have any positive effect? Maybe place some dent in the obesity epidemic?

I can't agree it'll have no positive effects at all.
It might have positive effects similar to the positive effects cigarette taxes have had on decreasing smoking rates. I think in order to maximize the positive effect though, there would have to be incentives for healthier food. The difference between cigarettes and food is that while people don't have to smoke, people do have to eat. Therefore, while an alternative to cigarettes does not have to exist, an alternative for junk food, particularly in poor communities, does.
 
This is such a ridiculous comment.

What is ridiculous is the leftist 'feelings', that are never actually followed up with actions to make a difference, as noted in that post. This who thread is more of the same... a desire for government to step in and 'fix' things that others with little achy hearts don't like, and don't want to put forth any effort to help fix themselves.
 
What is ridiculous is the leftist 'feelings', that are never actually followed up with actions to make a difference, as noted in that post. This who thread is more of the same... a desire for government to step in and 'fix' things that others with little achy hearts don't like, and don't want to put forth any effort to help fix themselves.
First, Wake isn't a "leftist."
Second, I've never seen so much hostility directed at the notion of sympathy and empathy. Chill bro.
 
It will make some junk foods more expensive, but I don't think that will make anyone healthier. People will still have the same poor eating habits.

Not necessarily. I think this tax increase should be done in tandem with other measures, like further education on this issue. I'd like to see less kid-targetting commercials for **** like candy and pop-tarts, and more on veggies and other actually healthy foods. I think this tax increase will affect some people in a positive way.


Tobacco and Booze are items for adults. Food, even when you label it 'junk food', is food, that all people have the ability to eat, if they so desire. You are talking about taking away what they can eat. Yeah, fatassedness is a huge problem, the solution is not government modifying behavior through taxation. It doesn't work. Ever.

I see it differently.

By taxing the junk food, there will be some less inclined to buy them, and instead opt for healthier foods around the same price, like carrots and celery. I'd rather see people buy their children baby carrots and apples over fruit loops and those fruit roll-up candies.

I would really appreciate some evidence that shows positive behavior-modification through taxation never, ever works. Would you say nations in Europe with similar methods don't work at all?
 
Taxing will not solve the problem. It didn't do it for cigs. That went down do increase education. Just because something is a problem doesn't mean you can tax it away.

Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2
 
It might have positive effects similar to the positive effects cigarette taxes have had on decreasing smoking rates. I think in order to maximize the positive effect though, there would have to be incentives for healthier food. The difference between cigarettes and food is that while people don't have to smoke, people do have to eat. Therefore, while an alternative to cigarettes does not have to exist, an alternative for junk food, particularly in poor communities, does.

While that does make sense, there's something I can't agree on so readily.

I think there are convenient ways to buy alternatives to junk food in poorer communities. Wal-Mart carries cheap vegetables like carrots, celeray, and cauliflower, as well as apples, oatmeal, rice, etc. There's also canned sardines that, while salty, are relatively cheap; methinks they'd be affected, though, which would suck since I love eating them. Then again a 10% tax increase on a roughly $1 item isn't much.

There are many yards in poorer communities. If I could have it my way people would come to the realization that lawn = potential garden plot. Grow asparagus, lettuce, brussels, tomatoes, etc! There are seed packs in Wal-Mart this very second that cost only .20¢. For $1 you can buy 5 'Danver's Half-Long Carrots' and sow all of them. They can be over-wintered for convenient access. They freeze well. They're healthy, filling, nutritious.

danvers_half_long_carrot.jpg

It doesn't take much to buy 7 $3.50 packs of 2-year-old Mary Washington asparagus crowns at x8 per pack from Menard's in Spring, planting them to rake in a massive feast next year.

Asparagus.jpg

One Mary Washington crown gives about half a pound of food. 64 crowns is 32 pounds. The plants have around a 20-year lifespan and they're very vigorous and resistant to diseases.
 
Last edited:
But wouldn't it have any positive effect? Maybe place some dent in the obesity epidemic?

I can't agree it'll have no positive effects at all.

i lost 110 pounds in the years right after i turned 30, so i have a little bit of perspective on this issue. it has to be something that you want to do, and it takes a lifelong commitment. it's entirely possible and even easy to eat enough unprocessed food to get fabulously fat.

sure, it would have some positive effects. our nation is horribly in debt and we need new revenue streams. a sin tax would raise revenue, but it would do so in the worst, regressive way.

as for making people fit? no. it's a much more complex and difficult problem.

i can tell you how many calories i ate at each meal today. i also have my meals planned out for tomorrow, and a rough idea two to three days out. i also have my exercise completed for today, and i'm planning tomorrow's. additionally, i understand and accept that i will do so every day for the rest of my life. that's what it takes to achieve and maintain weight loss for me. raising the price of salt won't make people do that.
 
It actually did work for cigarettes.

Education worked far more than overtaxing them.

First, Wake isn't a "leftist."

I said the leftist 'feelings' nonsense. If you can not tell the difference, I can offer to arrange a tutor for you.

Second, I've never seen so much hostility directed at the notion of sympathy and empathy. Chill bro.

Pointing out that your 'sympathy' for someone doesn't do any good for that person or society is not hostility. Actions matter, not feelings. Actions accomplish things, fix things, take care of things, not feelings. If you can not see that, or figure that out, the offer for a tutor stands. That is action that can fix a problem, as just having empathy for your inability to understand doesn't do anybody any good. Got it?
 
Basic health and safety practice suggests that rather than modifying behaviour, engineering out the problem is the more practical solution. Instead of messing around with taxation rates, legislate for recommended/maximum levels of the offending substances in pre prepared foodstuffs which are the main culprits, while requiring an indication on the packaging as to the content. Junk foods are particularly loaded with salt and or sugar to make them more addictive. A simple traffic-light system could show that a processed food is rated for, say, sugar, salt and fat content, with red being bad and green being good. A quick glance at a box on the side of the pack, showing red, red, red, tells you it's not the healthy option.
 
Look, if you think that people who consume lots of sugar and salt are going to suddenly look at the high-tax price on those items and say "Oh my goodness! That's too expensive.... oh look, here's some lovely asparagus and carrots that are much cheaper, let's buy that instead!"

.... then you don't know much about human nature.
 
By taxing the junk food, there will be some less inclined to buy them, and instead opt for healthier foods around the same price, like carrots and celery. I'd rather see people buy their children baby carrots and apples over fruit loops and those fruit roll-up candies.

You know what you have totally left out of the equation? The modern day lifestyle. Both parents in the house working full time jobs doesn't leave time for old style, healthy meals to be cooked all the time. You need to look at the big picture of what you are suggesting, lord knows government never does.
 
Look, if you think that people who consume lots of sugar and salt are going to suddenly look at the high-tax price on those items and say "Oh my goodness! That's too expensive.... oh look, here's some lovely asparagus and carrots that are much cheaper, let's buy that instead!"

.... then you don't know much about human nature.
It worked for cigarettes. And if my family is any indication of human nature, then increasing price has the effect on human nature that the OP seeks. When prices go up, people look for alternatives, particularly when money is stretched. If the alternatives are healthier, some of them will go for that.
 
Not true. Tax increases did contribute to decrease in smoking rates.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


Official cigarette sales yeah.... BUT... a lot of people have switched to cigars or roll-you-own with bulk tobacco, much cheaper. And cigarettes are smuggled into high-tax places like NYC from where they're cheaper, or people buy cig's from Indian Reservation sources.
 
Look, if you think that people who consume lots of sugar and salt are going to suddenly look at the high-tax price on those items and say "Oh my goodness! That's too expensive.... oh look, here's some lovely asparagus and carrots that are much cheaper, let's buy that instead!"

.... then you don't know much about human nature.

Respectfully, I disagree.

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.

Buying asparagus stalks from the store is expensive; I was advocating for buying crowns and growing them to reap massive yields. Same with other plants. Human nature is very complex. Some may be affected by this deterrment, and some may not.
 
It worked for cigarettes. And if my family is any indication of human nature, then increasing price has the effect on human nature that the OP seeks. When prices go up, people look for alternatives, particularly when money is stretched. If the alternatives are healthier, some of them will go for that.

Some perhaps... most of them will find some way to satisfy their craving for sweets and for salts, buying something sugary or salty that isn't subject to the tax, or finding alternative sources that are cheaper, like many did with cigs.


Bottom line though, it isn't the fedgov's business to regulate what people eat. If anyone can lay finger to that article of the Constitution that says "in the interest of the national health, Congress shall have the power to tax unhealthy foods more than foods it thinks people SHOULD eat..." :mrgreen:
 
Some perhaps... most of them will find some way to satisfy their craving for sweets and for salts, buying something sugary or salty that isn't subject to the tax, or finding alternative sources that are cheaper, like many did with cigs.
That's probably true as well, but I'm not entirely sure that the effort would be in vain.

Bottom line though, it isn't the fedgov's business to regulate what people eat.
I'm ambivalent about this.

If anyone can lay finger to that article of the Constitution that says "in the interest of the national health, Congress shall have the power to tax unhealthy foods more than foods it thinks people SHOULD eat..." :mrgreen:
If anyone can lay a finger to that article that says "Congress can't tax unhealthy foods," be my guest. :lol:
 
You know what you have totally left out of the equation? The modern day lifestyle. Both parents in the house working full time jobs doesn't leave time for old style, healthy meals to be cooked all the time. You need to look at the big picture of what you are suggesting, lord knows government never does.

Why must the "modern day" lifestyle dictate you can't eat healthy foods routinely? Food doesn't have to be expensive to be healthy. If I buy a head of cauliflower and cut it into pieces which I'll eat in portions every 13 hours, it's not that difficult. There are fat-free/low-fat vinagarettes that can be coupled with your portions of cauliflower. Add to the equation that there are literally billions of combinations when it comes to small containers and healthy food. Fat-free cottage chees with a squirt of raspberry dressing and/or almonds is delicious.

How about buying a pack of Chioggia beets, growing them, and eating them raw, maybe with some sort of healthy dressing? Chioggia beet has circular patterns, and is very sweet. There's also numerous root vegetables like radishes and beets and Jerusalem artichokes that are delicious when eaten raw from a container.



I have my own system. Buy the smallest-sized red-lidded Rubbermaid containers. Try 30 or so. Factor in a range of the hours per day you're able to eat food. Mine was 10am-6pm. Factor in how many portions you want per day, whether one container per hour, to maybe one per 3 hours. I did one container of healthy food per two hours.

The kind of containers I use are the ones shown in the picture with olives in them. They work excellently.

draft_lens19102251module156719741photo_1328137691rubbermaid.jpg

Point is, it can be very easy to eat cheap and healthy food conveniently. Also, I'm a big guy at 6'4", so it's undoubtedly easier for smaller people to stick to such a system.
 
I see it differently. Perhaps some behavior can be changed for the betterment of all through taxes; we do the same with alcohol and cigarettes. Also, I could have sworn nations in Europe have done similar things, resulting in decreased general obesity in the population

They have tried that here in Canada it just resulted in smuggling and crime with no extra $ to govt and no reduction in consumption.
Hence the reason I say it wont work. Honestly this is just a tax grab disguised as a program to combat obesity.
 
If anyone can lay a finger to that article that says "Congress can't tax unhealthy foods," be my guest. :lol:


So.... you figure Congress can do ANYTHING that isn't specifically forbidden in the Constitution?


..... :mrgreen: .....


Oh boy I could have tons of fun with that one.


The Constitution doesn't specifically forbid gov from doing a lot of things that I (or anyone with any sense) wouldn't want it doing.


But that is not how it works. "All powers not reserved to the Congress, nor denied the States, belong to the People, or the States".

The fedgov's powers are supposed to be quite limited. If we went with your idea that anything goes if it isn't specifically forbidden, that could go down some mighty dark pathways.
 
I'm ambivalent about this.

And it is that attitude, by the majority of the voting population that has allowed government to overstep it's bound repeatedly throughout history. Thanks for the good work.

Why must the "modern day" lifestyle dictate you can't eat healthy foods routinely? Food doesn't have to be expensive to be healthy.

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?
 
Back
Top Bottom