Post: #1

We have sin taxes on Alcohol and Tobacco. Many states with high taxes have shown that taxing tobacco has led to decreased consumption. This is one public health cause America has actually been succeding at, reducing smoking rates.

So why not put sin taxes on junk food? I don't know where you'd draw the line, but packaged processed stuff gets a tax. Double, triple, quadruple the price of soda, chips, microwave dinners, etc.

Use that money to subsidize natural foods, meat, fruit, vegetables...

To me, this is nothing but sensible.

I am sure "real Americans" will be up in arms about the invasion of their "right" to drink Coke and eat chips though.

The right to gluttony is practically the only right Americans care about saving these days.

Post: #2

Agree with all those taxes as I've stated before in the 'unpopular opinions' thread. The main thing is to not make anything illegal, just tax them. It is logic as well, all those things lead to an unhealthier lifestyle which lead to medical costs which can put a burder on a society (depending on your system, more appropriate in socialist Europe I guess).

Crucial offcourse is to reinvest that income in pro health initiatives (think gyms, sport programmes for school, infrastructure, etc. and healthy food in general).

I am surprised no country has tried this yet. Except perhaps Denmark to an extent where they had a Fat tax, but it failed somehow, I don't know the specifics.

Post: #3

I honestly hate taxes, think they are messed up and unconstitutional. But if there is taxes on tobacco, alcohol, then there should be some sort of Sugar Tax (oh wait didn't we see this before prior to 1776?)

Post: #4

tough call because then it can become a very slippery slope. Once taxes are being collected more and more items will be viewed as a potential revenue stream. While I do agree with your principle I would fear the long term consequences. RPGG

Post: #5

I'd support it, especially a tax on high-fructose corn syrup. It would encourage consumers to make healthier choices and it might even motivate the food industry to pay closer attention to quality.

As it happens, the US government essentially subsidizes junk food. To help matters, you wouldn't have to tax anything, just discontinue this harmful and frankly stupid set of policies.

Post: #6

No I don't support sin taxes. I do support taxing the obese though.

Post: #7

It's possible to gain just as much weight with healthy foods as junk foods. Calories may be an oversimplification which doesn't factor in fiber and vitamins, but using them for example, all tree nuts contain more calories per gram than potato chips. Juice has as many calories and sugar as soda. Fructose is fruit sugar, and all sugars break down into glucose at similar rates. High fructose corn syrup is no worse for somebody than a glass of high fructose OJ. Packaged, prepared foods like hummus, yogurt, and many microwave dinners are healthier in some ways than fruits like bananas, vegetables like potatoes, and raw goods like pasta.

At the end of the day lobbyists would write the regulations and we'd have another messy tax structure to attempt to enforce, the revenue from which they would happily squander and which wouldn't change anything anyway. You could subsidize gyms, but the vast majority of people with memberships rarely go even when they pay for them, they certainly wouldn't go when they didn't. And how many people actually have said, "I better not have another beer tonight because I saw that DUI ad on Youtube earlier today". Regulators are just going to waste money and fat people still gonna fat.

The biggest thing that sucks about the status quo is that soon everyone everywhere will pay the same health care costs based only on age, and not even a true reflection of actual age costs thanks to the ACA, rather than paying a higher rate which reflects their smoking and obesity, but we should focus on fixing that rather than making everything else more complicated.

Post: #8

Yes. Sugar/processed-carb is a dangerous and addictive drug just like alcohol & cigs, and should be classified as such.

Post: #9

(08-26-2014 12:21 PM)frenchie Wrote:  No I don't support sin taxes. I do support taxing the obese though.

So you want to set up a government weigh-in station with government observers to verify everyone's weight once a year to pay a fat tax, yet think sin taxes are government overreach

Post: #10

(08-26-2014 01:36 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 12:21 PM)frenchie Wrote:  No I don't support sin taxes. I do support taxing the obese though.

So you want to set up a government weigh-in station with government observers to verify everyone's weight once a year to pay a fat tax, yet think sin taxes are government overreach

Post: #11

You gotta love people who believe that they can tax their way to heath/prosperity/"add your favorite end result here". Well, that is, until the taxers get around to taxing something that THEY happen to like. Then all of a sudden it's not so super cool.


Accepting regulation through taxes is a complete and total surrender to the nanny State, and an absolute abdication of any personal responsibility. People who advocate it MUST logically believe that the State should have full authority to regulate every aspect of your daily life.

Perhaps there should be meters attached to all televisions to monitor how long you watch TV. Sitting idle watching TV contributes to obesity, therefore subject to a "Heathy Living Tax."

Having a BBQ this weekend? That smoke contributes to "climate change" so you'll be subject to a "Carbon Emission" tax... Say , I just noticed that you're grilling steaks. In addition to that "Carbon Tax" we'll be adding a "Bovine Flatulence Tax" (everyone knows that cows contribute to climate change via greenhouse gasses in their farts) and as everybody also knows, red meat contributes to heart disease, so we'll also be adding a "Heart Health Diet Tax" as well. Enjoy!

There is literally no limit to how many regulatory taxes can be created to satiate the bloated beast of government.

I honestly wonder if humans even deserve freedom anymore. They sure don't act like it.

Post: #12

(08-26-2014 02:14 PM)Baphomet Wrote:  You gotta love people who believe that they can tax their way to heath/prosperity/"add your favorite end result here". Well, that is, until the taxers get around to taxing something that THEY happen to like. Then all of a sudden it's not so super cool.


Accepting regulation through taxes is a complete and total surrender to the nanny State, and an absolute abdication of any personal responsibility. People who advocate it MUST logically believe that the State should have full authority to regulate every aspect of your daily life.

Perhaps there should be meters attached to all televisions to monitor how long you watch TV. Sitting idle watching TV contributes to obesity, therefore subject to a "Heathy Living Tax."

Having a BBQ this weekend? That smoke contributes to "climate change" so you'll be subject to a "Carbon Emission" tax... Say , I just noticed that you're grilling steaks. In addition to that "Carbon Tax" we'll be adding a "Bovine Flatulence Tax" (everyone knows that cows contribute to climate change via greenhouse gasses in their farts) and as everybody also knows, red meat contributes to heart disease, so we'll also be adding a "Heart Health Diet Tax" as well. Enjoy!

There is literally no limit to how many regulatory taxes can be created to satiate the bloated beast of government.

I honestly wonder if humans even deserve freedom anymore. They sure don't act like it.

"I honestly wonder if humans even deserve freedom anymore. They sure don't act like it."

This is exactly why I am in favor. Humanity shows day in day out that on both societal as well as an individual level they cannot act responsible with the long term in mind.

There are some key remarks though:

-What state are we talking about? In a social state with universal medcare, such as in most of Europe, everyone pays for the unhealthy. It would therefore be logical to offset these payments by taxing what causes the diseases and unhealthy conditions and subsidizing what prevents them. In a very liberal state the discussion is more difficult, but if you look at the US on many levels, including health, media and so on, it is clear that the private market approach only results in gain for a select group and that the average individual does not have the mental capacity to withstand the lure of market goods.

-the current situation is not neutral as said before. We are already taxing certain things and subsidizing others. However at this point we are mostly subsidizing the worst things, such as high fructose corn syrup. Taxing unhealthy products and subsidizing healthy ones will not necessarily increase your expenses, only if you like sugar and fat. It will also not delimit your freedom, it will just incentizice your for choosing better options. It adds to the nanny state yes, but is the alternative of a world full of fat and unhealthy people any better?

-The biggest difficulty lies in determining what and what not to tax/subsidize. Interest groups would make this a very difficult thing. In Europe a simple notification on food packages giving indications of its health impact did not come through after extremely heavy lobbying from the food industry. Nevertheless some basic principles can be agreed upon I believe. No one is stating that green veggies are bad or that white sugar can be beneficial for you.

Post: #13

(08-26-2014 02:14 PM)Baphomet Wrote:  Accepting regulation through taxes is a complete and total surrender to the nanny State, and an absolute abdication of any personal responsibility. People who advocate it MUST logically believe that the State should have full authority to regulate every aspect of your daily life.

Your slippery slope argument is not true.

We live in a society where the government taxes certain things to varying degrees. You and I already live here.

There are taxes on cigarettes, which have helped curb the use of an addicting substance that causes all sorts of disease.

Taxes on bad food would do the same thing.

That does not mean I think the government should regulate every aspect of our lives. However, when there is a problem that is affecting almost all of society, such as obesity, which people are not solving but getting deeper and deeper into, it is the job of the government to act responsibly.

If there were poison in the water, it would be the government's responsibility to clean it up. You drink "nanny-state" purified water every day. Your air is breathable because a nanny-state official made sure factories didn't pump poison into the air. A nanny-state government program created the internet, etc.

I advocate a lot less government action overall, but in public health crises created by free market sales of goods, it is within the scope of the government to act.

If you want to go be a libertarian it would be nice if you were at least consistent and didn't leech off the nanny state clean water and just acted like a real man and got water from a river.

Post: #14

(08-26-2014 02:36 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 02:14 PM)Baphomet Wrote:  Accepting regulation through taxes is a complete and total surrender to the nanny State, and an absolute abdication of any personal responsibility. People who advocate it MUST logically believe that the State should have full authority to regulate every aspect of your daily life.

Your slippery slope argument is not true.

We live in a society where the government taxes certain things to varying degrees. You and I already live here.

There are taxes on cigarettes, which have helped curb the use of an addicting substance that causes all sorts of disease.

Taxes on bad food would do the same thing.

That does not mean I think the government should regulate every aspect of our lives. However, when there is a problem that is affecting almost all of society, such as obesity, which people are not solving but getting deeper and deeper into, it is the job of the government to act responsibly.

If there were poison in the water, it would be the government's responsibility to clean it up. You drink "nanny-state" purified water every day. Your air is breathable because a nanny-state official made sure factories didn't pump poison into the air. A nanny-state government program created the internet, etc.

I advocate a lot less government action overall, but in public health crises created by free market sales of goods, it is within the scope of the government to act.

If you want to go be a libertarian it would be nice if you were at least consistent and didn't leech off the nanny state clean water and just acted like a real man and got water from a river.

Not to mention one would have to defend themselves with their own hands instead of relying on criminals knowing there's military and police security being provided.

Because lets face it, we would all act like hooligans if there were no police.

Post: #15

Dumping PCBs in a river affects thousands of people's health, and is something a person downstream has no control over - "Tragedy of the Commons". Drinking too much soda (or OJ) only affects one's own health and is something a person has complete control over. The comparison is nonsensical.

As stated earlier, "high fructose" juice, which is all of them, contributes to obesity at the exact same rate as soda. In any case, someone who drinks a soda and goes to the gym for an hour will have a different outcome than someone who drinks a soda and sits on the couch. The aim is to curb obesity, not curb soda drinking. It is more fair and effective to simply eliminate the subsidies for health care brought on by obesity than it is to punish innocent people who may consume the same food products but do not contribute to health care costs because they limit calorie intake or burn them off.

(08-26-2014 11:25 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Double, triple, quadruple the price of soda, chips, microwave dinners, etc.

Calories in 290 grams of this microwave meal = 300



Calories in 290 grams of all natural, lower fat, flax enhanced peanut butter = 1,400


Which one should be taxed?

Post: #16

(08-26-2014 12:21 PM)Gorgiass Wrote:  .

At the end of the day lobbyists would write the regulations and we'd have another messy tax structure to attempt to enforce, the revenue from which they would happily squander and which wouldn't change anything anyway. You could subsidize gyms, but the vast majority of people with memberships rarely go even when they pay for them, they certainly wouldn't go when they didn't. And how many people actually have said, "I better not have another beer tonight because I saw that DUI ad on Youtube earlier today". Regulators are just going to waste money and fat people still gonna fat.

^ This right here is the truth ^

So many of these questions are based on a false premise that the government is able to act without the lobbyists collective stamp of approval. Of course that's before they implement the new tax, the new regulation.

Once implemented, externalities be damned! They'll wind up spending more of our money to fix the problems with the fix for the problems that they were trying to tackle... with our money.

I realize this reads like a bitter phone call to a right-wing talk show, but it's all so well entrenched and gaining momentum with no end in sight.

Post: #17

^^If I'm not mistaken, it's a myth that all calories have the same effect on weight gain. Perhaps a food expert can chime in on this. Calories are not the debate, the debate resolves around unhealthy food, that transcends looking at only obesity.

Post: #18

Tax the fat fucks, jack their insurance up.

Reward good choices, punish bad ones. Of course it'll never fly.

Post: #19

Comparing two distinctly different foods per 290g is an illogical argument.

That's like justifying taking 100lbs of feathers over 100lbs of gold because you'd get so much more feathers.

Post: #20

There are too many taxes, and that taxed money just goes into some govt. bureaucrat's pockets.
Bring back public shaming.

   

Edit: i shoulda photoshopped out that wedding ring. That kinda shit ain't gonna happen.

Post: #21

We already have Federal taxes on tobacco, alcohol, indoor tanning, and gambling, among other things.

(08-26-2014 12:14 PM)Saga Wrote:  I'd support it, especially a tax on high-fructose corn syrup. It would encourage consumers to make healthier choices and it might even motivate the food industry to pay closer attention to quality.

As it happens, the US government essentially subsidizes junk food. To help matters, you wouldn't have to tax anything, just discontinue this harmful and frankly stupid set of policies.

I agree with Sega above, reforming the subsidies would be helpful, but that's a debate that goes back to the English Corn Laws, and the last two decades of farm and trade policy history suggest that's easier said than done.

From a practical perspective, what would be taxed? The indoor tanning tax, or "Snooki Tax", indicates that the legal mechanism exists for a Federal tax on at least some services, but I'm at a loss to suggest how to enact a statue that taxes only some foods.

Going back to the discussions that lead to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), a "10-cent excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages" was proposed, but I don't believe that any final language was proposed.

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/03/white-h...612health/

In theory, I'd prefer first to have some sort of "claw-back" of subsidies that reduce the production cost of low-nutrition food, but I'm not even sure if that's practical.

TL;DR - I'd prefer to reform subsidies first, and a tax regime might not be practical.

Post: #22

(08-26-2014 01:36 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 12:21 PM)frenchie Wrote:  No I don't support sin taxes. I do support taxing the obese though.

So you want to set up a government weigh-in station with government observers to verify everyone's weight once a year to pay a fat tax, yet think sin taxes are government overreach

Not a bad suggestion.

I was more thinking along the lines of having the doctors do it. Fat people go to the doctor more often. Have an incentive for the doctor to levy the "fat tax".

And instead of using BMI, we can use body fat percentages to define what is healthy and isn't. Add a sliding scale too can make it more functional.

I'm tired of hearing fat people whine and complain. We have all of the food we could ever possibly want to eat. Self f*cking control.

Post: #23

sin tax? shit should be banned.

Post: #24

Tax the fatties, I would like to be able to get a snickers bar when I've been good.

Post: #25

I love junk food .McDonald's all that shit.
it's stupid to put a tax on it out ban it.

what's the point