Taxing unhealthy products

TheNorwegian · Apr 20, 2017

Armoured said:
I see the logic of "tax unhealthy goods", but my concern is that it becomes a defacto tax on being poor, given that healthier options are generally far more expensive. Both issues need to be addressed simultaneously.

This is a valid argument! I would think water is less expensive than soda, but this may not be true everywhere

keith99 · Apr 20, 2017

TheNorwegian said:
This is a valid argument! I would think water is less expensive than soda, but this may not be true everywhere

Actually a lot of bottled water is more expensive than soda.

But the main point was that there is a lot of high carbohydrate food that is cheaper than other 'more healthy' choices. I put 'more healthy' because I'm not at all sure that the common wisdom is correct. A lot of supposedly less healthy foods are bad only when coupled with inactivity. 'Empty Calories' are a problem for desk workers not farm workers.

Waterwerx · Apr 20, 2017

Big Drew said:
If I could like this 1000 times I would. This is probably the main reason I'm libertarian. If what I choose to put into my body only harms me then how is it a crime? Or why should I be penalized? Personally, I don't have many vices...I gave up tobacco almost two years ago, and I only drink on occasion. I do choose to eat some not so healthy foods though. But that shouldn't matter to the government. It's my life.

When I was around 18 years old my state made it mandatory that people wear a seatbelt...I always did wear one, because I don't want to be roadkill. But the day the law was passed I was pulling out of the gas station, and had forgotten to put my seatbelt on...I was in the process of putting it on when I saw blue lights. The state police gave me a ticket for not protecting myself....I think that was the moment I realized that the nanny state is stupid. All I could think while sitting there waiting on him to write my ticket was, "Isn't there a rapist or murderer you need to be looking for? But this is how you choose to spend your time?"

Equating this nonsensical food tax with seat belt laws isn't a very good comparison. Seat belts are suppose to keep you in your seat and behind the wheel so that in the event that your vehicle suddenly gets jarred and pulled to one side or the other(which can happen if one of your tires blows out) you don't end up getting thrown around in your vehicle, which will give you the opportunity to regain control of it and possibly avoid hitting other vehicles or pedestrians.

As for the food tax, it doesn't make much sense. Eating too much of anything will have adverse health effects. This is no different than some of the other stupid laws that were passed to appease the whiners and make the politicians feel good about themselves. Because Joe Shmoe in Idaho likes to eat too much Pizza and consumes a box of Cocoa Puffs for breakfast every day, I need to pay for it? This is the point where I say it's stupid.

Tull · Apr 21, 2017

For whatever a man sows that shall his neighbor also reap

Albion · Apr 21, 2017

TheNorwegian said:
The introduction of a sugar tax in Berkley has led to a significant reduction in soft drink sales
www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/first-us-sugar-tax-sees-soft-drink-sales-fall-by-almost-10-study-shows

In my country (Norway) the tax system specifically targets products that are either unhealthy for the individual (alcohol, tobacco, sugar) or for the environment (CO2 emissions, etc.). The more 'unhealthy' something is - the more it is taxed. This way of thinking has much support in Norway. Although people often think those taxes are too high - they still support the idea that it is better to tax something unhealthy (tobacco) rather than something healthy (vegetables).

However, I assume this is not very popular in the US. How do people feel about such "unhealthy-taxes"?

There's probably a bit less support in the USA, but people generally agree with the principle. The problem is that the drive for this or that tax or prohibition usually doesn't take account of the consequences. Sugar is bad, but so are artificial sweeteners. Coal-burning plants pollute, but wind turbines pollute or damage the environment in different ways. And the government, once it gets its claws into the environment or the economy always goes too far. I think Americans may be somewhat more wary of that development than some other peoples.

keith99 · Apr 21, 2017

As I see it the amount of tax makes a difference.

Berkeley, where the tax actually exists but only for soda, is in California. California already has a 8.75% . This tax is comparable to the sales tax on soda. It is hardly punitive and just adds one more instance of irony in how the taxes work out!

Oh I forgot to mention food is exempt from the sales tax. But restaurant or food truck food is taxed. Well except for cold sandwiches. So if I go to Subway my sandwich is not taxed unless they run it through the toaster, then it is taxed.

The origin of the food exception seems to be to help the poor. Which explains why vitamins are taxed. Of course the desperate occasionally get taxed. Pet food is taxable, so when you are totally down and out and have to go that route to survive you will be taxed.

Which gets back to this. The poor consume more soda, while the rich are more apt to consume their iced tea, in some cases with over twice the sugar of soda, but iced tea does not suffer this extra tax!

HannahT · Apr 21, 2017

Zoii said:
I'll use your logic to illustrate why it isnt an acceptable response. You legislate against the use of cocaine because you acknowledge the impact it has on the individual and society is very high. You dont then say well fine we legislate for this so we have to legislate for every little impact on society . You consider carefully what are the high risks to society and identify what and how you can modify or control risk.

Your example of Cocaine maybe a bad one. Remember those that get caught with the cocaine are the ones dealing with the bigger consequences of their choices.

Taxing the whole of society for sugar? The whole of society gets stuck with the consequences of those that choose to use too much sugar in their diet. So, with the logic we have here? Since society at large can't control those that eat too much sugar? We are going to have to control everyone with a tax to pay for their ill health.

The obese would have bigger consequences directed towards them like a person that got caught with the cocaine if we were to follow the logic you used. I'm not sure taxing everyone because of a group of people can't/won't modify or control the risk to their own lives.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but giving the bulk of the consequences for this group's actions doesn't seem fair to me.

Albion · Apr 21, 2017

and yet, at the same time, state after state is following the trend towards legalizing pot as the public becomes more favorable to that course of action. Yet it could easily be argued that society will have to get stuck with the consequences, no less than with obesity, etc. from sugar.

Zoii · Apr 21, 2017

HannahT said:
Your example of Cocaine maybe a bad one. Remember those that get caught with the cocaine are the ones dealing with the bigger consequences of their choices.

Taxing the whole of society for sugar? The whole of society gets stuck with the consequences of those that choose to use too much sugar in their diet. So, with the logic we have here? Since society at large can't control those that eat too much sugar? We are going to have to control everyone with a tax to pay for their ill health.

The obese would have bigger consequences directed towards them like a person that got caught with the cocaine if we were to follow the logic you used. I'm not sure taxing everyone because of a group of people can't/won't modify or control the risk to their own lives.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but giving the bulk of the consequences for this group's actions doesn't seem fair to me.

On the contrary its society that pays right now. A sugar tax effects only the users just as tobacco tax does

HannahT · Apr 21, 2017

Zoii said:
On the contrary its society that pays right now. A sugar tax effects only the users just as tobacco tax does

Nope. Sugar isn't the ingredient that causes obesity. Overeating in 98% of the cases is the cause. The volume of food is the issue. You want to ban sugar? Cool. They will move on to having too many hamburgers.

The high volume of calories individuals consume isn't going to be controlled by some sugar tax. It's rather naive to be honest to think that sugar is the main source of obesity.

Honestly? It shows they didn't put forth much thought into the issue. Clearly, they don't have a clue.

So, the sugar tax affects everyone - even those that don't consume too many calories when they use sugar. They get higher prices because people are silly enough to believe that raising taxes on sugar is going to affect anything when it comes to obesity.

To me it shows people can't put enough thought and research into something to find the core of the issue, and honestly that doesn't show how they 'care' about anyone. You don't govern by assumptions.

yeshuaslavejeff · Apr 21, 2017

TheNorwegian said:
This is a valid argument! I would think water is less expensive than soda, but this may not be true everywhere

Water is usually less expensive than milk too.
Soda and milk,
they would even give those things away free (if they had to)
like they did give cigarettes away for free back in the 60's and earlier
just to get people 'hooked' on them
and to profit from the "health" consequences on all ages of people.

Zoii · Apr 22, 2017

HannahT said:
Nope. Sugar isn't the ingredient that causes obesity. Overeating in 98% of the cases is the cause. The volume of food is the issue. You want to ban sugar? Cool. They will move on to having too many hamburgers.

The high volume of calories individuals consume isn't going to be controlled by some sugar tax. It's rather naive to be honest to think that sugar is the main source of obesity.

Honestly? It shows they didn't put forth much thought into the issue. Clearly, they don't have a clue.

So, the sugar tax affects everyone - even those that don't consume too many calories when they use sugar. They get higher prices because people are silly enough to believe that raising taxes on sugar is going to affect anything when it comes to obesity.

To me it shows people can't put enough thought and research into something to find the core of the issue, and honestly that doesn't show how they 'care' about anyone. You don't govern by assumptions.

Well your certainly right that its total kilojoules in versus total you utilize. But lots of studies have asked the question... why is sociey getting more and more obese. Lots of issues in that answer but just as you said, portion sizes are larger plus people exercise less. But the major difference is in our food structure. Foods are more energy dense.

Im not niave as you suggest... ive taken time to read the studies who have trialled taxing. I totally get gour opinion ... would you be interested in some research articles?

bhsmte · Apr 23, 2017

TheNorwegian said:
The introduction of a sugar tax in Berkley has led to a significant reduction in soft drink sales
www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/first-us-sugar-tax-sees-soft-drink-sales-fall-by-almost-10-study-shows

In my country (Norway) the tax system specifically targets products that are either unhealthy for the individual (alcohol, tobacco, sugar) or for the environment (CO2 emissions, etc.). The more 'unhealthy' something is - the more it is taxed. This way of thinking has much support in Norway. Although people often think those taxes are too high - they still support the idea that it is better to tax something unhealthy (tobacco) rather than something healthy (vegetables).

However, I assume this is not very popular in the US. How do people feel about such "unhealthy-taxes"?

Alcohol and tobacco, are already taxed heavily in the United States.

bhsmte · Apr 23, 2017

Zoii said:
Well your certainly right that its total kilojoules in versus total you utilize. But lots of studies have asked the question... why is sociey getting more and more obese. Lots of issues in that answer but just as you said, portion sizes are larger plus people exercise less. But the major difference is in our food structure. Foods are more energy dense.

Im not niave as you suggest... ive taken time to read the studies who have trialled taxing. I totally get gour opinion ... would you be interested in some research articles?

Actually, fat is the most energy dense of any food type. 1 gram of fat=9 kcal, 1 gram of carbs or protein=4kcal.

The obesity issue, is not well understood by many and what people eat and what they eat, tends to be the dominant reason many apply to the dramatic rise in obesity over the last several decades.

The fact is; in the US, we actually consume less fat today, than we did decades ago, but we are far more obese. Sugar consumption has gone up some as well. Sugar is bad, because it causes the most dramatic rise in insulin in the human body and since insulin's job is to take glucose out of the blood and either store it in the liver, in the muscles as glycogen and or in fat cells. When the amount of sugar consumed, exceeds the first two physiological needs, the excess gets stored as fat. So, on to the other most dramatic change in lifestyle over the last several decades; the percentage of people, who live sedentary lifestyles. The development of; computers, video games and television entertainment, has many more people sitting for much longer periods of time, than we saw decades ago. The human body was not meant to be sedentary and if adequate levels of physical activity are not achieved, that sugar goes towards one thing; promoting fat storage, because there is no physical demand on the body, to burn up the sugar and or to store the sugar, as glycogen for future physical activity.

IMO, lack of physical activity, is the number one reason obesity has climbed as it has. Diet is important, but diet alone becomes less crucial, the more active the human body is, because the calories get turned over and burned.

yeshuaslavejeff · Apr 23, 2017

HannahT said:
To me it shows people can't put enough thought and research into something to find the core of the issue, and honestly that doesn't show how they 'care' about anyone. You don't govern by assumptions.

Much worse than assumptions. The rules are made based on greed and deception.

If there were simply nothing unhealthy produced, sold, and consumed, people would not get fat or diabetes, or cancer or arthritis, or scurvy, or pellagra,
etc etc etc
(except rarely, of course, as not all causes would be eliminated just by eliminating most of the causes)

Zoii · Apr 23, 2017

bhsmte said:
Actually, fat is the most energy dense of any food type. 1 gram of fat=9 kcal, 1 gram of carbs or protein=4kcal.

The obesity issue, is not well understood by many and what people eat and what they eat, tends to be the dominant reason many apply to the dramatic rise in obesity over the last several decades.

The fact is; in the US, we actually consume less fat today, than we did decades ago, but we are far more obese. Sugar consumption has gone up some as well. Sugar is bad, because it causes the most dramatic rise in insulin in the human body and since insulin's job is to take glucose out of the blood and either store it in the liver, in the muscles as glycogen and or in fat cells. When the amount of sugar consumed, exceeds the first two physiological needs, the excess gets stored as fat. So, on to the other most dramatic change in lifestyle over the last several decades; the percentage of people, who live sedentary lifestyles. The development of; computers, video games and television entertainment, has many more people sitting for much longer periods of time, than we saw decades ago. The human body was not meant to be sedentary and if adequate levels of physical activity are not achieved, that sugar goes towards one thing; promoting fat storage, because there is no physical demand on the body, to burn up the sugar and or to store the sugar, as glycogen for future physical activity.

IMO, lack of physical activity, is the number one reason obesity has climbed as it has. Diet is important, but diet alone becomes less crucial, the more active the human body is, because the calories get turned over and burned.

I agree decreased physical activity is a critical component. As I mentioned before obesity arises because the Joules consumed is greater than the Joules expended.

Theres some interesting socioeconmonic factors at play from the papers I have read on the topic. In developed nations obesity levels are higher in socioeconomic areas where as the reverse is true in developing nations.

Fast food outlets concentrate in higher proportions in lower socioeconomic areas.

The energy density of foods is critical eg one glass of Cola is steeped in so much sugar that it would take an enormous amount of exercise to burn it off. Some areas are focussing their efforts on limiting the consumption of soft drinks alone.

I understand your point re the Joule value of fat and agree that it its not just sugar which is at fault. Not to mention over-eating fats increases your risk of coronary disease.

The OP was suggesting a means of discouraging people from consuming energy dense foods. Where its been trialled its worked well. But of course the political will is something else as it would not be a popular policy.

bhsmte · Apr 23, 2017

Zoii said:
I agree decreased physical activity is a critical component. As I mentioned before obesity arises because the Joules consumed is greater than the Joules expended.

Theres some interesting socioeconmonic factors at play from the papers I have read on the topic. In developed nations obesity levels are higher in socioeconomic areas where as the reverse is true in developing nations.

Fast food outlets concentrate in higher proportions in lower socioeconomic areas.

The energy density of foods is critical eg one glass of Cola is steeped in so much sugar that it would take an enormous amount of exercise to burn it off. Some areas are focussing their efforts on limiting the consumption of soft drinks alone.

I understand your point re the Joule value of fat and agree that it its not just sugar which is at fault. Not to mention over-eating fats increases your risk of coronary disease.

The OP was suggesting a means of discouraging people from consuming energy dense foods. Where its been trialled its worked well. But of course the political will is something else as it would not be a popular policy.

Here is the reality of how the human body works.

If one wants to induce positive physiological change in how the body metabolizes food, exercise is the only way to induce this change. Changing one's diet alone, doesn't change how the body metabolizes food. When one becomes physically fit, the body becomes a fat burning machine, out of the adaptations that occur through exercise.

Zoii · Apr 23, 2017

bhsmte said:
Here is the reality of how the human body works.

If one wants to induce positive physiological change in how the body metabolizes food, exercise is the only way to induce this change. Changing one's diet alone, doesn't change how the body metabolizes food. When one becomes physically fit, the body becomes a fat burning machine, out of the adaptations that occur through exercise.

I dont dispute the need for exercise. But you seem to be arguing that if you exercise then you can eat what you want and as much as you want. Thats simply false. It still comes down to Joules consumed and Joules expended. If you dont reconcile that you will gain weight.

None the less - agree the more you exercise the higher your metabolic rate and therefore the limits to what you can consume can go up without gaining weight

TheNorwegian · Apr 24, 2017

bhsmte said:
Alcohol and tobacco, are already taxed heavily in the United States.

That's interesting! Is it taxed on a state level, federal level, or what? I guess tax rates vary, but can you give a rough estimate on how much alcohol and tobacco are taxed?

bhsmte · Apr 24, 2017

Zoii said:
I dont dispute the need for exercise. But you seem to be arguing that if you exercise then you can eat what you want and as much as you want. Thats simply false. It still comes down to Joules consumed and Joules expended. If you dont reconcile that you will gain weight.
None the less - agree the more you exercise the higher your metabolic rate and therefore the limits to what you can consume can go up without gaining weight

Metabolism is basically the sum total of all the chemical reactions that occur in the body. The more active you are, requires more chemical reactions to fuel the exercise and also to sustain and rebuild lean muscle tissue. I will give you an extreme example, michael phelps would consume upwards of 12,000 calories a day while in training and his body fat is was likely in the 3-4% range. The average person cant work to this level, but regular exercise at a high enough intensity, is the only way to cause beneficial physiological change in how the body metabolizes food. Sure, exercise doesnt mean you eat like a pig, but exercise will allow one to burn higher levels of fat 24 hours a day, because the body wants to store sugar to fuel exercise. Furthermore, people tend to eat more when they are sedentary and less when they are active.

Taxing unhealthy products

Well-Known Member

sola dosis facit venenum

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

sola dosis facit venenum

Newbie

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Newbie

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Similar threads