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.
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.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.
This is such a ridiculous comment.
It actually did work for cigarettes.the solution is not government modifying behavior through taxation. It doesn't work. Ever.
First, Wake isn't a "leftist."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.
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.
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.
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.
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 actually did work for cigarettes.
First, Wake isn't a "leftist."
Second, I've never seen so much hostility directed at the notion of sympathy and empathy. Chill bro.
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.
Not true. Tax increases did contribute to decrease in smoking rates.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 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.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.
Not true. Tax increases did contribute to decrease in smoking rates.
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
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.
That's probably true as well, but I'm not entirely sure that the effort would be in vain.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.
I'm ambivalent about this.Bottom line though, it isn't the fedgov's business to regulate what people eat.
If anyone can lay a finger to that article that says "Congress can't tax unhealthy foods," be my guest. :lol: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:
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.
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
If anyone can lay a finger to that article that says "Congress can't tax unhealthy foods," be my guest. :lol:
I'm ambivalent about this.
Why must the "modern day" lifestyle dictate you can't eat healthy foods routinely? Food doesn't have to be expensive to be healthy.