Very soon we'll all be eating veggie burgers... there is something nauseatingly elitist about telling other people what to eat and levying a tax if they don't. I hope Obama doesn't make that mistake...
Yep...that's the way to get things done...villify and disrespect those that you need to work with to advance the societal goals. Not smart.
that is telling though. If someone actually thinks that taxing certain foods is bad policy, they are automatically an "old republican". I guess I can automatically deduce that they are racists too.
There will be some that will try to make the quantum leap in logic that if you are against taxing foods that are "bad," (an elusive definition subject to be expanded) then you are a racist because we assume that minorities will eat more of these foods and be unhealthy. How dare we be leery of the government taxing whatever foods they deem to be "bad."
I actually support two things and NOT a soda tax. 1. Government gives business tax incentives for creating and/or selling healthy food if the savings are demonstrably handed down to customers. 2. Government gives a small but non-trivial income tax break for people who submit a simple doctor's form with proof of check-up, healthy weight-for-height, & healthy blood pressure. So we're not collecting any more money, but we're giving incentives good behavior. I've come to think the stick, when it comes to eating, will be pointless. We need the literal and figurative carrot.
I know because I have done marketing on behalf of fast food companies. I know who they target and their customer base it. I have an interest in the area and have done a lot of research. There's nothing presumptious about my statements. There is no difference between using corn syrup or cane sugar. Both are equally unhealthy. Sugar is sugar.
not telling anyone what to eat at all. Just saying that if you are going to smoke, eat foods that contribute to heart disease, etc - then guess what, you can afford to pay a bit more for your risky behaviors. If you run red lights, speed, and get into accidents you have higher car insurance rates. Why shouldn't food that are terrible for you not have a bit of tax to help pay for the damage it causes everyone? This isn't about control what people eat...it's about finding a way to pay for health care and saving lives. You will save a lot more lives this way then protesting against abortion clinics - c'mon man, where's you pro-life ethos now?
Completely agree. Americans are more interested in convince than healthy. They are also more interested in taste than healthy. Neither convince or taste are common in healthy. Water and exercise are both very very cheap. Taxing won't change a thing except bring in more money. Those who choose to engage in unhealthy lifestyles should pay the price.
Problem, is, its not just the foods you eat, its your lifestyle. Your proposed tax has no idea what I do after I eat what you think is unhealthy. I could be a long distance runner or a casual body builder for all you know. Instead of a nanny state where people are punished for eating certain foods, how about incentives for healthier lifestyles? Why does everything have to involve taxes? Regardless of how altruistic your reasons are, if you tax me based on what I eat, you are controlling my eating habits. I have no idea where you are going with the whole abortion clinics, pro-life stuff. You obviously have no idea what my views on that topic are.
LOL. An advertising guru sidelining as a nutrition expert? Look it up. There are serious downsides to HFCS that are not present with cane sugar.
Diet is nearly synonymous with lifestyle. I hate to tell you, but it's fairly true. Yes there are exceptions, but if legislation had to consider exceptions, there wouldn't be any laws anyway. This doesn't control what people eat, it only uses economics to ensure national security in the form of a healthier population and eliminating the deficit. What's ironic is that you don't see the flip side. By your logic you should be horrified because basically you are your junk food loving friends are being duped into eating those foods. They are cheaper in part because of farm subsidies and benefits from the gov't. You are being taxed to be fed unhealthy food. Yet you don't see that. That's pretty funny. Frankly, it's ok if you want to eat unhealthy - go for it, I just don't want you to be a further drain on the system and worsen our deficit. It's not altruistic, it's patriotism and caring for the future. Obesity is ruining this country. You are welcome to eat your twinkies my friend, but I just wnat you to pay for the cholesterol medication, not me. If you need a financial reward to be healthy, then you've missed the whole point. Being healthy IS the reward. How many guys can dunk a basketball at the age of 37? I can. You wanna know why? The Doctor told me that unless I changed I'd be dead inside 10 years as I was showing early signs of heart disease. So I quit smoking, quit eating junk food, and lost 30 lbs. That's the reward. Guess what else, I don't get sick as much, my cholesterol has dropped below 150, and my blood pressure is under 120. A tax on junk food may change the buying habits and consumption patterns of perhaps 5% of people. It might improve the lives of a tenth of one percent. It won't have much impact on changing society. Every little bit helps. A tax will not do that. What needs to change is our culture. That won't happen in our generation, it will happen as a reaction against it at some point. But what a tax can do is pay for the damage our way of life will cause and not clog our kids futures with the excesses of our gluttony.
Healthy choices are expensive, and their prices all the time force me to choose something less healthy. Should there be high taxes on Cable & Internet, so maybe we will get off our lazy asses and start exercising?
That isn't what you said though. You said there was no difference, when in fact there are pretty important differences that make one worse than the other.
I very much like this idea. Taxing particular foods is a very slippery slope. If you tax soda, you have to define what constitutes soda. Is carbonated water a soda? How about sparkling wine? If we go by sugar content, what about kool-aid? Juices? It's so difficult to define, I can't see it really being feasible. Also, once you tax one healthy food, as discussed here, it begins to set a precedent for taxing other unhealthy foods. When would it end? Soda, according to the article, is unique in that it offers zero health benefit but comes with some harm. Fast food, while unhealthy compared to alternatives, still offers nutrition; soda does not. This makes it unique, and reducing the intake of soda across the country can easily provide health benefits for many. However, as suggested by B-Bob, penalizing people for drinking it is never a way to win their heart (or trust). Rewarding them for NOT drinking it is a much better way. Positive reinforcement is better quite often, as I think it would be here. People are in "save money" mode and this would be just another way for them to save money. I was definitely in favor of this tax at the beginning of the thread, but after thinking it over, you're walking a razor's edge by implementing such a tax. B-Bob's suggestion is the best I've seen.
