Lifestyle

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

243 | 244 | 245

 ... 944

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 7

Next

ninjatoes

ninjatoes

Newport, KY
August 2005

JAN 17, 2006 04:00 AM

Let's face it: Americans love to eat crap. And a decade-old "fat tax" idea is once again stirring up controversy.

Popularly known as the "fat tax" or the "Twinkie tax," the concept first gained widespread attention in 1994 when Yale University psychology professor Kelly D. Brownell outlined the idea in an op-ed piece in The New York Times.

Addressing what he called a "dire set of circumstances," Brownell proposed two food-tax options: A big tax, in the range of 7 percent to 10 percent, to discourage the purchase of unhealthy processed foods while subsidizing healthier choices; or a much smaller tax to fund long-term public health nutrition programs.

The tax, said Brownell, would be a pro-active response to a food industry and consumer culture that increasingly promotes high-fat/low-nutrition products as the cheapest, tastiest, most convenient and most available dietary options.


Makes sense right? After all, we already have taxes on other items deemed "unhealthy" by the government, such as cigarettes and booze.

But the Twinkie tax has some major flaws:

One big problem is that money collected through fat taxes has typically not been earmarked for obesity-prevention programs or healthy food subsidies; instead they were often used to cover budget deficits.

Concerns have also been raised that such a tax is inherently regressive, meaning it punishes poorer people who must spend much of their limited income on food.

"It costs more to eat a healthier diet."


Chew on that next time you order your Nachos Grande.

Fixxxer

Fixxxer

Berlin, MD
August 2004

JAN 17, 2006 04:15 AM

I don't see what this would do.

just as booze and cigs, if people want them, they'll get them/eat them regardless of any extra tax(es).

besides what do they constitute as "healthy"? Those heads of lettice or gallons of milk that have tons of pesticides and growth hormones and shit in them?

If they really want to push americans to eating healthier then they need to push organic foods, not that toxic dribble that lines our grocery stores now

DeadBilly

DeadBilly

Burnt Cabins, PA
February 2004

JAN 17, 2006 04:18 AM

jmayor said:
If they really want to push americans to eating healthier then they need to push organic foods, not that toxic dribble that lines our grocery stores now



And hopefully make it affordable to 99% of the country. I had a friend who said "Sure, I'd eat organic every day, if I was a millionaire."

GramNegative

GramNegative

I'm lost
October 2004

JAN 17, 2006 04:28 AM

jmayor said:
I don't see what this would do.

just as booze and cigs, if people want them, they'll get them/eat them regardless of any extra tax(es).

besides what do they constitute as "healthy"? Those heads of lettice or gallons of milk that have tons of pesticides and growth hormones and shit in them?

If they really want to push americans to eating healthier then they need to push organic foods, not that toxic dribble that lines our grocery stores now


Organic is nice, but categorizing foods as either organic or toxic dribble is silly. Some non-organic foods are significantly healthier than others. It's not like "well I can't get organic, so cheesy-poofs are just as good as a fresh salad"

Lettuce has tons of pesticides? Any idea where you got that from?

Romaine lettuce is not a commonly allergenic food, is not known to contain measurable amounts of goitrogens, oxalates, or purines, and is also not included in the Environmental Working Group's 2003 report "Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce" as one of the 12 foods most frequently containing pesticide residues.


whfoods


[Edited on Jan 17, 2006 by GramNegative]

AndersWolleck

AndersWolleck

Astoria, NY
February 2003

JAN 17, 2006 04:45 AM

go for it

iwalktheline

iwalktheline

Minneapolis, MN
December 2005

JAN 17, 2006 05:19 AM

Silly, silly goverment. Look how it says it wants to help us, but in reality it needs to go a diet, not eat more of our money.

rdpixie

rdpixie

United Kingdom
January 2006

JAN 17, 2006 05:34 AM

I think in principle its a good idea however it would never work. As jmajor said - if you want it you will pay for it. And I feel people wouldn't support the increase in tax on "unhealthy" products unless it was guaranteed that this extra funding did go towards obesity-prevention programmes or something similar. If all it will do is cover other deficits the government have due to their inability to juggle numbers then I think you will find public opinion against the tax increase.

Toole

Toole

United Kingdom
October 2005

JAN 17, 2006 05:39 AM

Why not put that 10% tax on fatty, processed foods and then use that as a subsidy on healthy foods, to make ther healtheir stuff cheaper?

SexyBeast

SexyBeast

Covington, LA
July 2004

JAN 17, 2006 05:44 AM

I don't know if I would ever be for it. The only way that I would be totally against it, is if all taxes went towards things like obesity prevention programs, making healthy food cheaper, and encouraging healthyness in other ways. Also educating people about what's healthy/unhealthy and why.

Distra

Distra

Swannanoa, NC
April 2004

JAN 17, 2006 06:31 AM



I just moved back to America in the last month from Africa...

The Return culture shock was all of the FAT FUCKING PEOPLE....


I say tax them just because they're fat and lazy. Set the standard to like 60lbs over weight is taxable. We will still make a killing. The US is super full of huge fatties.... I didn't notice it that much until I lived in Ethiopia and Djibouti for so long. Coming home, it just sticks out like crazy puke

ThrottleBitch

ThrottleBitch

Emeryville, CA
November 2005

JAN 17, 2006 06:34 AM

Toole said:
Why not put that 10% tax on fatty, processed foods and then use that as a subsidy on healthy foods, to make ther healtheir stuff cheaper?



Totally agree. That would be worth the extra cash. It's not like all my cig taxes go to anti-smoking campaigns or smoker health care.

Kittie

Kittie

Stow, OH
August 2003

JAN 17, 2006 06:35 AM

Distra said:
I say tax them just because they're fat and lazy. Set the standard to like 60lbs over weight is taxable. We will still make a killing. The US is super full of huge fatties.... I didn't notice it that much until I lived in Ethiopia and Djibouti for so long. Coming home, it just sticks out like crazy puke


they're talking about taxing the food. not people.

Nado

Nado

Essexville, MI
March 2005

JAN 17, 2006 06:39 AM

jmayor said:
I don't see what this would do.

just as booze and cigs, if people want them, they'll get them/eat them regardless of any extra tax(es).

besides what do they constitute as "healthy"? Those heads of lettice or gallons of milk that have tons of pesticides and growth hormones and shit in them?

If they really want to push americans to eating healthier then they need to push organic foods, not that toxic dribble that lines our grocery stores now



"Organic" practices are no panacea. If I remember correctly, "organic" practices in feeding cows likely played a role in the the propogation of BSE in the UK. Reprocessing sewer waste and using it as fertilizer - despite concentrations of metals and other toxins, is also considered organic.

But more to the point - I despise sin taxes, as the the funds really aren't linked to the harm caused by the sin. For instance, I don't smoke, but it drives me nuts when they up the cigarrette taxes to pay for school programs or a new football stadium.

Distra

Distra

Swannanoa, NC
April 2004

JAN 17, 2006 06:40 AM

Kittie said:

Distra said:
I say tax them just because they're fat and lazy. Set the standard to like 60lbs over weight is taxable. We will still make a killing. The US is super full of huge fatties.... I didn't notice it that much until I lived in Ethiopia and Djibouti for so long. Coming home, it just sticks out like crazy puke


they're talking about taxing the food. not people.




Go straight to it...

It was a joke...



Eating healthy is expensive though, I spend a lot more when I shop at Earthfare

[Edited on Jan 17, 2006 by Distra]

AngelxRotten

AngelxRotten

Greensburg, PA
September 2004

JAN 17, 2006 06:48 AM

Ever been to Poland, it's way nicer than you'd think. they have no "Fat Tax". Denmark is lovely there's a stable democracy / monarchy that I hear has some really progressive social ideas ... no fat tax though. Um... lets see, Finland i believe has the highest number of women in government and really great social policies as well, free child care, abortion is legal, but they have no fat tax.

Maybe it's time to stop trying to legislate everything. Law can only go so far. Look at criminal law for example, Socially speaking is it more effective to have some kind of "morality" or will "fear of punishment" do just as well?

Just because you tax something doesn't cure a society that forgot how to feed itself properly.

Distra

Distra

Swannanoa, NC
April 2004

JAN 17, 2006 07:04 AM

AngelxRotten said:
Maybe it's time to stop trying to legislate everything.



Agreed.

Healthy food woiuld STILL be expensive

Crap food would just cost more


No win situation for the people, but the Govie gets the pay off

bcguitar33

bcguitar33

Jamaica Plain, MA
January 2004

JAN 17, 2006 07:22 AM

A fat tax would really help to create a reason for overweight people to lose weight. Too bad there aren't any now, right?

Why would money motivate where the desire for good health and the desire to fit in have failed?

Nado

Nado

Essexville, MI
March 2005

JAN 17, 2006 07:24 AM

AngelxRotten said:
Ever been to Poland, it's way nicer than you'd think. they have no "Fat Tax". Denmark is lovely there's a stable democracy / monarchy that I hear has some really progressive social ideas ... no fat tax though. Um... lets see, Finland i believe has the highest number of women in government and really great social policies as well, free child care, abortion is legal, but they have no fat tax.

Maybe it's time to stop trying to legislate everything. Law can only go so far. Look at criminal law for example, Socially speaking is it more effective to have some kind of "morality" or will "fear of punishment" do just as well?

Just because you tax something doesn't cure a society that forgot how to feed itself properly.



Great points.

Cigarette

Cigarette

Cleveland, OH
April 2004

JAN 17, 2006 07:28 AM

Only if we could also institute a stupid tax.

MisterSatan

MisterSatan

Portland, OR
August 2002

JAN 17, 2006 07:29 AM

Clov said:
Only if we could also institute a stupid tax.


We'd see most of the membership base here drop off dramatically, as they couldn't afford the nine bucks a month anymore.

MisterSatan

MisterSatan

Portland, OR
August 2002

JAN 17, 2006 07:30 AM

Distra said:
Go straight to it...

It was a joke...


Worst. backpedal. ever.

Liante

Liante

SUICIDEGIRL

Kiribati

JAN 17, 2006 07:56 AM

Yes, I'd be in favor of a fat tax. I suspect we're going to need it in the near future to defray the increased medical bills associated with higher obesity and Type II diabetes rates.

It's not a perfect solution by any means. A better solution would restrict junk food commercials pitched at kids, remove junk-food vending machines and fast-food outlets from schools, streamline cities so that it might be possible to walk and bike places instead of needing to drive everywhere, and refocus the health-care industry to place greater emphasis on low-cost, manageable chronic conditions (Type II diabetes) rather than waiting for problems to become acute and severe (stroke, heart attack, amputations, blindness as complications of Type II diabetes).

Realistically, I'm not sure a tax on junk foods is politically feasible. There's been huge resistance from the food industry against something as simple as putting a red dot sticker on junk foods with high fat/sugar/sodium and zero nutritional content. But it would probably help things and cause no real harms, so I'm in favor of the idea even if I don't expect it to actually happen.

Cigarette

Cigarette

Cleveland, OH
April 2004

JAN 17, 2006 08:02 AM

I'm serious about the Stupid Tax. I wonder which is more harmful to a nation: stupid people or fat people. I know where my money would go. Imagine what a better country this would be if everyone had a basic understanding of civics and government, grammar and composition, and logic.

GramNegative

GramNegative

I'm lost
October 2004

JAN 17, 2006 08:07 AM

Clov said:
I'm serious about the Stupid Tax. I wonder which is more harmful to a nation: stupid people or fat people. I know where my money would go. Imagine what a better country this would be if everyone had a basic understanding of civics and government, grammar and composition, and logic.


We already have the lottery. And a good chunk of it goes towards education.

MisterSatan

MisterSatan

Portland, OR
August 2002

JAN 17, 2006 08:09 AM

GramNegative said:

Clov said:
I'm serious about the Stupid Tax. I wonder which is more harmful to a nation: stupid people or fat people. I know where my money would go. Imagine what a better country this would be if everyone had a basic understanding of civics and government, grammar and composition, and logic.


We already have the lottery. And a good chunk of it goes towards education.


Hey, desperation doesn't always equal stupidity. A lot of people out there are just looking for a way out.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 7

Next