• 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
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

Why is that any business of yours or the federal government of the United States of America. You know "Land of the Free" and all.
 
Sin Taxes, by and large unless raised to obscene levels, are simply ways for the Government to make a profit off of something that is generally widely desired but easily demonized in a way that they can hide their true intent.

Taxing Salt and Sugar is unlikely to have any significant impact on the health of this countries population. What it's likely to have an impact on is giving the government an excuse to grow even bigger then it already is as it pulls in more revenue and requires more beurcracy to oversee the new ventures into controlling food further.

With how instrumental Salt and Sugar is to so many foods American's routinely eat, and that even includes healthy ones as well, the price raise needed to actually substantially limit their consumption to a level that has legitimate health benefits for the country would likely assure that any politician pushing such a thing would be thrown out. So what we'll see is small increases that the public can stomach, and thus doesn't change eating habits, but makes the government grow while they give the wink wink nudge nudge that it's "for your own good".

Cigerette smokers are by and large a minority that after decades of negative attitudes have been successfully demonized. The same can not be said in terms of those who enjoy Salt and Sugar.

The number of cigerette smokers compared to the number of people who say, enjoy a Candy Bar or Bag of Chips or Chocolate Chip Cookie or Pop Corn, is a far smaller size and thus not as much political worry to "target".
 
Last edited:
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
They are finding that sugar is worse that was thought. It's on the news right now. Just a note, not an advocacy for tax yet.
 
What we find incredible is what obese people have given up in order to eat certain things, and too much. We control what we eat so we do all sorts of things, e.g. participate in a sport where there is a age division that old people like us can compete in and do socially. I don't think an increase in the price of sugar & fat based foods will change behavior much. The one thing I want to know is do obese people die cheaply? If they do die cheaply on average, then there isn't much of a health care cost to be concerned about. Then I guess that I'd advocate doing nothing, especially taxes.
(Oh, I guess I have to add that this is not where I'm at nominally, i.e. somewhat progressive. This is what I'd call a conservative position.)
 
Last edited:
You guys are debating a moot issue - it's not the cost of any one particular ingredient that's the issue, here . . . salt, sugar? Why not fat, butter, eggs, dairy, cheese, chocolate, flour - since they're all equally important in making junk foods.

No - the reason why most people become overweight (not necessarily just obeses) - is quantity . . . even way too much of the RIGHT healthy foods can make you overweight . . . I dieted for about a year - I got rid of extras like snack cakes, sodas and other such junk foods. But I didn't lose all that much weight - I think I lost 7 lbs. Why? Eventually it occured to me I was just eating way too much - massive amounts of *healthy* foods = too many calories than even what I burned when I exercised routinely.

Way too much food (calories, etc) = weight issues.
 
Way too much food (calories, etc) = weight issues.

couple that with a sedentary lifestyle and well beluuugggaaa!
Athletes tend to eat more than non athletes because they need the calories they burn in training. When atheletes stop training they often don't reduce their intake that much, that is why you see so many ex footballers pork up so much when they retire.
 
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.
You want to put a dent in obesity through taxation? Tax animal fat and vegetable oil. No more cheap-ass 90% lean (= 10% fat) hamburger. No more all-grease-n-salt chips. No more "low-sugar" products that use fats as a replacement with few if any changes in calories. And you can forget the #1 meal at McD's - a lot of fat from the burger and the fries. People don't get fat sucking down a 6-pack of Coke a day, they do it eating Quarter-pounder's, french fries, and potato chips.
 
couple that with a sedentary lifestyle and well beluuugggaaa!
Athletes tend to eat more than non athletes because they need the calories they burn in training. When atheletes stop training they often don't reduce their intake that much, that is why you see so many ex footballers pork up so much when they retire.

No - I use to believe physical activity was key, I use to think I had to be rigorously active to have any success losing weight . . . I still push mow my whole law (1.5 acres) - it does far little for you than just eating the right amount of hte right foods.

I'm still active as heck = not a factor at all.
 
No more cheap-ass 90% lean (= 10% fat) hamburger.

Do you even use ground beef then?

Seriously, outside of hte occasional 93% lean ground beef the 90/10 stuff is usually the lowest fat content I find. Typically you're seeing 85/15, 80/20, etc.
 
No - I use to believe physical activity was key, I use to think I had to be rigorously active to have any success losing weight . . . I still push mow my whole law (1.5 acres) - it does far little for you than just eating the right amount of hte right foods.

I'm still active as heck = not a factor at all.

Your caloric intake has to be balanced with your output. When you statrt an exercise regime you should notice that you are hungrier and eat more. Some peopel don't realize that they are eating more but it happens. Take a couch potato, they can eat tons and grow large or eat like a mouse and remain small, but they will have little muscle and energy. basically they will be a smallish soft puffy person instead of a large blob.

If energy going in is greater than energy going out you gain weight
If energy going in is smaller than energy going out you lose weight.
If it is balanced you stay the same.

Of course you body does some self regulating, ie it doesnt necessarily use all the energy coming in, (hate to be crude but think big dumps) or may extract more depending on many facotrs such as metabolism, season(yes it has an effect), genetics, activity of the individual etc...
 
Seasoning Tax: Will marking up sugar and salt make us healthier?

No it won't, it will just make the price of food go unnecessarily go up.
 
They are finding that sugar is worse that was thought. It's on the news right now. Just a note, not an advocacy for tax yet.

Lots of sugar was never any good...we dont need a study to tell you that...we knew it rotted teeth along time ago and aided in developing Diabetes...of course "TOO MUCH" sugar is no good....but...too much beef is no good and the suddenly found it was worse for you than they thought some years ago...and salt is no good...they used to give out salt tablets at factories like candy...they actually had rules YOU HAD TO TAKE THEM.

Things change...they are always learning...what was good is now very bad thats always been....cant start ripping people off on every whim
 
Do you even use ground beef then?

Seriously, outside of hte occasional 93% lean ground beef the 90/10 stuff is usually the lowest fat content I find. Typically you're seeing 85/15, 80/20, etc.

I went to grass-fed beef sources when it's available from the butcher and I buy ground turkey from the store.
 
As a devoted slippery-slope theorist, this is exactly why I hate sin taxes. "If one worked*, maybe we can do another. (...and another, and another, and another)".

I also don't believe it is intellectually correct to slap extra taxes on things that are otherwise legal.

*- "Worked" used loosely, of course.
 
No - I use to believe physical activity was key, I use to think I had to be rigorously active to have any success losing weight . . . I still push mow my whole law (1.5 acres) - it does far little for you than just eating the right amount of hte right foods.

I'm still active as heck = not a factor at all.
Your single experience is the definitive answer for everybody?
 
Your single experience is the definitive answer for everybody?

Ask any bodybuilder or fitness expert: exercise and diet are both important - but if your diet isn't right no amount of exercise is going help you out in some ways.

I think the way I worded things made it sound odd - sorry about that.
 
Ask any bodybuilder or fitness expert: exercise and diet are both important - but if your diet isn't right no amount of exercise is going help you out in some ways.

I think the way I worded things made it sound odd - sorry about that.

You are correct Auntie as most always you are...you and your damn common sense :)


Simple math.....You take in 3,000 calories a day...you burn through exercise 2400....you gain a pound or more a week.
 
Ask any bodybuilder or fitness expert: exercise and diet are both important - but if your diet isn't right no amount of exercise is going help you out in some ways.

I think the way I worded things made it sound odd - sorry about that.
It was worded awkwardly, but I agree... it is a combination.
 
You guys have raised a lot of good points.

Assuming we don't raise taxes on sugar and salt, instead, what do you think we should do to get this problem under control? I don't want 50+% of all American adults being obese to be a reality in the future.
 
You guys have raised a lot of good points.

Assuming we don't raise taxes on sugar and salt, instead, what do you think we should do to get this problem under control? I don't want 50+% of all American adults being obese to be a reality in the future.

Well there's really nothing we can do about that - honestly. You cannot force people to eat healthy and exercise routinely. You can encourage and support it - make it sound good and ideal.

All industrialized and stratified nations have seen an increase in overweight adults and obesity since the dawning of the industrialized age.

With all the efforts - it's odd: we have a number of people overweight or obese and quite happy: and a growing number of people to the extreme opposite: overly fit, using drugs to lose weight by the score and gym memberships and fitness sales of all kinds are up. I remember quite clearly when anorexia and bulemia were leading concerns of fitness in this country - I remember the projections of the skyrocketing number of underweight and sickly individuals through future decades. Why is it that we went to the extreme opposite of that so quickly?

So why is nothing working down the middle? Whatever happend to the good old days of being healthy and happy - not excessive one way or ther other?

It seems that in an effort to subvert one problem we've created another - apparently attack on those who are overweight has caused a serious problem with those who are not in danger of it.
 
Last edited:
Imposing a salt/sugar tax would be stupid. It only drives up the cost of food and will not deter use (as if sugar and salt are inherently bad because some consume too much).
 
I do not think this approach is effective.
Education is the answer.
But, why not do this anyway and use the generated funds to support education ??
As it is with the cigarette tax, the poor and uneducated pay thru the nose.
Too bad.
 
You guys have raised a lot of good points.

Assuming we don't raise taxes on sugar and salt, instead, what do you think we should do to get this problem under control? I don't want 50+% of all American adults being obese to be a reality in the future.

I think you as an individual should start a foundation that buys television advertising and makes school visits to inform people about the dangers of salt, sugar and obesity.
 
This is the dumbest god damned thing I've ever heard. The only reason that they'd raise taxes on sugar and salt is to increase government revenues, not because they're concerned with the health and well being of the nation.

If they were so concerned with people's health then they would subsidize the production of healthy foods, fruits and vegetables and so on like they do for, say, corn. They would provide incentives for farmers to utilize non-carcinogenic fertilizers and grow organically. They wouldn't give gigantic subsidies to corn. They wouldn't provide massive tax incentives to huge food processing companies.

EDIT: Oh another thing, taxing sugar won't do that much to curb this problem, as the vast majority of sweeteners used are based on high fructose corn syrup, which is much cheaper and readily available thanks, in part, to - you guessed it - corn subsidies. In fact, because high fructose corn syrup is so much cheaper than sugar, it is used much more pervasively in cheaper products that are consumed at higher volumes by the population.

Also, the price of sugar is already driven up by government tariffs so talking about taxing it to drive it up higher is sort of silly.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom