• 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

Wake

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
18,536
Reaction score
2,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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:

But in recent years, health officials have turned to the tariff system to curb public consumption of fat, sugar, salt and more. With the obesity epidemic now claiming 34% of U.S. adults, legislators are proposing taxes on the added sugar in products like sodas and the salt in snack foods like potato chips in the hopes that higher costs will change people’s eating habits and improve their health. The latest study suggests that taxing salty foods could indeed reduce deaths from heart disease by 2% to 3% in developing countries, where rates of heart conditions are starting to climb.

At least that’s the theory. But while these sin taxes may fuel funds to fight obesity, they may not necessarily have the desired effect on our eating habits. Other studies hint that it may take as much as a 10% increase in the cost of foods like soda, candy or cake to lower consumption by only 1%. And even if a salt tax helped people avoid buying chips, for example, they might make up for the sodium deficit with extra helping from the saltshaker at the table. That explains why sin taxes have traditionally worked better for the tax taker than the sinner!

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.
 
The price of sugar is already higher, than the average global price, because of import restrictions.
People will still consume the same amounts, unless the price becomes grossly out of context with use of said product.

The only thing this will do is drive the average price of food up, for no real good reason.
 
I have little faith in govt programs to tax stuff and change consumer behavior.
 
Meanwhile, 12 months later:

Several Major Food Manufacturers in the U.S. Declare Bankruptcy Over "Sin Tax" Legislation: 100k jobs lost
 
Yes, a dumb idea. Not only will it not improve peoples heath, as mentioned it will cause further financial strain on most people, and companies.

You want to save money via more heathy people, then set limits on what the government will take care of... smokers, obesity related illnesses, all on you, your own dime, because they were your choices.
 
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?
 
The price of sugar is already higher, than the average global price, because of import restrictions.
People will still consume the same amounts, unless the price becomes grossly out of context with use of said product.

The only thing this will do is drive the average price of food up, for no real good reason.

I didn't know sugar was already higher.

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.

I have little faith in govt programs to tax stuff and change consumer behavior.

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. [I don't have sources, but I can look into it]

Meanwhile, 12 months later:

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

That's surprising. Then again, which companies were they, and what kind of food did they sell? If they sold junk food that undoubtedly contributes to obesity and rising healthcare costs, then I feel that's a necessary evil.

Yes, a dumb idea. Not only will it not improve peoples heath, as mentioned it will cause further financial strain on most people, and companies.

You want to save money via more heathy people, then set limits on what the government will take care of... smokers, obesity related illnesses, all on you, your own dime, because they were your choices.

Would you please show exactly how it won't improve peoples health? The TIME article mentions that it was effective to a degree in developing nations; there may be some positive effect in America, and it may be aquired through an 11-30% increase in taxation. If this can save people from their own stupidity, then so be it; I'm tired of seeing babies so fat that they look like they're going to explode, or seeing these behemoths in motorized carts at Wal-Mart. People get addicted to this junk food, and it tears at the heart to see them slowly kill themselves.

You do raise a good point on setting limits on what the government will take care of. I feel if you're directly responsible for, say, reaching massive obesity, then you should receive less financial support from the government. You should foot more of the bill if you've played a direct part in killing yourself, whether it's a bad heart from over-eating, a bad liver from alcoholism, or bad lungs from too much smoking, etc.
 
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.

Ever heard of the Boston Tea Party?
 
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?

That's not fair.

There are many foods that are cheap. Seriously, carrots. Celery. Oatmeal. Cauliflower. Did you know that a whole honkin' head of cauliflower supposedly contains only 32 calories?

How about rice? In moderation it should suffice, with some milk and veggies of your choice?

Carrots and other veggies and fruits don't cost much.

Grow a garden.

I busted my hump digging an [18' x 4' by 18"] deep trench into existence for an asparagus garden with 64 asparagus crowns. That will easily feed two people, for free. Grow some spinach and lettuce; grow brussels sprouts. Invest in an efficiency freezer and stock it with garden produce, whether from a plot or from containers.
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile, 12 months later:

Several Major Food Manufacturers in the U.S. Declare Bankruptcy Over "Sin Tax" Legislation: 100k jobs lost
Or "Several Major Food Manufacturers Switch Focus from Salt and Sugar to Health Food: 100k jobs gained for research and development."

I'm ambivalent about Wake's suggestion, but it could really go either way.
 
Would you please show exactly how it won't improve peoples health? The TIME article mentions that it was effective to a degree in developing nations; there may be some positive effect in America, and it may be aquired through an 11-30% increase in taxation. If this can save people from their own stupidity, then so be it; I'm tired of seeing babies so fat that they look like they're going to explode, or seeing these behemoths in motorized carts at Wal-Mart. People get addicted to this junk food, and it tears at the heart to see them slowly kill themselves.

You can not force people to eat what you (or anyone) considers 'heathy'. It is not the governments job in any way shape or form. What the hell kind of government are you looking for that tells it's people what it can and can not eat? What other parts of individuals lives do you want government to take over in?

Tears at your heart? Why? They did it to themselves.
 
You can not force people to eat what you (or anyone) considers 'heathy'. It is not the governments job in any way shape or form. What the hell kind of government are you looking for that tells it's people what it can and can not eat? What other parts of individuals lives do you want government to take over in?

Tears at your heart? Why? They did it to themselves.

Forcing someone to eat something and taxing a product are two very different things.
 
Tears at your heart? Why? They did it to themselves.
God forbid someone has empathy for people who make bad choices. Oh, the humanity!
 
Taxes on salt and sugar my ass.

The better option might be:

I think politician should be taxed a "flat rate of 50% and no deductions while serving in pulbic office. Must have salary caps. Must be against law to be a lobbyist or consultant to any elected official or any government department after leaving any public office. Then maybe they'll think really hard about running a second term.
 
Forcing someone to eat something and taxing a product are two very different things.

In the case you are pushing for, no they are not. You are suggesting raising taxes so the 'unhealthy' food is beyond the means of people, thus they can no longer eat it, and as such must eat the affordable 'heathly' food.
 
Forcing someone to eat something and taxing a product are two very different things.

Not really. One is explicit force and one is implicit force.
 
Gov needs to mind its own fracking business. What I eat is my concern. I am not a child.
 
God forbid someone has empathy for people who make bad choices. Oh, the humanity!

If you want to feel bad for them, then use up your energy on such a stupid thing. They are in that stupid chair in walmart because of their own actions (more often than not)... maybe rather than shedding internal tears, if you actually cared for them and their bad choices you'd approach them and offer to teach them about eating healthy, you'd offer to pay for a gym membership and work out with them. No, that's all too hard and requires actual effort above and beyond having bleeding heart 'feelings' for them.
 
In the case you are pushing for, no they are not. You are suggesting raising taxes so the 'unhealthy' food is beyond the means of people, thus they can no longer eat it, and as such must eat the affordable 'heathly' food.

Not really. One is explicit force and one is implicit force.

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.
 
If you knowingly harm yourself with bad food then you should have to pay for your own treatment, out of your own pocket, because of your lack of discipline.
 
no, sin taxes on salt and sugar won't make people fit.
 
no, sin taxes on salt and sugar won't make people fit.

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.
 
If you want to feel bad for them, then use up your energy on such a stupid thing. They are in that stupid chair in walmart because of their own actions (more often than not)... maybe rather than shedding internal tears, if you actually cared for them and their bad choices you'd approach them and offer to teach them about eating healthy, you'd offer to pay for a gym membership and work out with them. No, that's all too hard and requires actual effort above and beyond having bleeding heart 'feelings' for them.
This is such a ridiculous comment.
 
Back
Top Bottom