Tax on Junk Food!!! It's NEAR! | Page 3 | INFJ Forum

Tax on Junk Food!!! It's NEAR!

I kind of think one of the reasons that people call America "fat" is because of how much junk food a lot of people eat. But when you think about it, it's good and it's cheap while healthy food is sometimes not good and expensive. And you need food to survive. I think a lot of poorer citizens buy junk food because of the price. Plus, junk food can get addicting. I don't know. I'm just saying. Feel free to disagree.


This is absolutely correct. And I'll tell you what: when you eat healthy, you eat less

#1. Most of the food is disgusting
#2. The food is so damn expensive in the first place that if you eat a lot of it then you end up spending a ton of money- it's kinda like being in the depression, you have to eat little and save green to buy a little bit more food to eat a little more and the save more, etc, just repeat the proccess.
 
It's actually way cheaper to eat healthy. All of the packaged and processed foods are super expensive. It is super cheap to throw together a healthy meal. I speak from the Asian diet point of view; I'm not sure what the healthy American diet is.
It is, in general, cheaper to buy noodles and vegetables and just make them yourself. But it's time consuming and I think a lot of people buy junk foor for it's 'heats up in five minutes' appeal. Also, junk food does come in bulk at certain stores for very cheap: take a look at costco. If you try to buy health foods in bulk it's not even worth it, the prices are outrageous.
 
Soups and stews are fairly cheap. Soups, and cheese sandwiches. If you really want to save money make your own soups and freeze 'em. You'll eat it for weeks.

Yeah.

Weeks.
:m080:
 
It's actually way cheaper to eat healthy. All of the packaged and processed foods are super expensive.
Exactly. Its far cheaper to buy fresh fruit and vegetables (and meat for those inclined) from local produce markets, in fact this is the sole reason I am able to maintain a high standard of living on a low income.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. Its far cheaper to buy fresh fruit and vegetables (and meat for those inclined) from local produce markets, in fact this is the sole reason I am able to maintain a high standard of living on a low income.

This should be noted, per serving. People usually think it's cheaper to buy processed food but if you look at it, the processed food meal will usually only feed one person, one time. And it might cost anywhere from $.99-$5.00. Or more.

You can buy ingredients for stews that will last you two weeks for about $15, if you make it right (and that's if you eat it breakfast, lunch, and dinner). Stews are also more filling because they're made from mostly all natural ingredients (unless they're genetically altered) and you'll eat less of it. Which could mean that it'll last you even longer.

I once made a stew that was only supposed to feed eight, but it lasted me for almost a month. And yes, I did get sick of it. But it fed me.

Heh. I used to *hate* soups and stews because my mother made them all the dang time, using the crockpot. But problem was, she kept reusing the stock until we ate it all, so it tasted horrible by the end of the week. Now I've realized that soups and stews can actually taste *good.* Go figure!
 
Aaand, this is the reason why it'll never happen in the US. *Eyeroll*.

It makes sense, and yet...

July 2, 2010
New York Drops Soda Tax Plan After Campaign
By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS

To understand why Gov. David A. Paterson
 
I don't think this is particularly fair to people who drink Diet Coke. It contains no sugar, no calories, and doesn't rot your teeth.

Bottled water is expensive, and I don't trust tap water. I don't want my cola supply limited by ignorant people who can't understand the difference between Diet and Regular soda. I eat no other junk food on a regular basis, by the way.
 
Last edited:
Well, diet soda definitely has its drawbacks. I'd say it's worse than regular soda, if you're trying to lose weight:

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20050613/drink-more-diet-soda-gain-more-weight

Partial article:

Drink More Diet Soda, Gain More Weight?
Overweight Risk Soars 41% With Each Daily Can of Diet Soft Drink
By Daniel J. DeNoon
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Charlotte E. Grayson Mathis, MD

June 13, 2005 -- People who drink diet soft drinks don't lose weight. In fact, they gain weight, a new study shows.

The findings come from eight years of data collected by Sharon P. Fowler, MPH, and colleagues at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio. Fowler reported the data at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association in San Diego.

"What didn't surprise us was that total soft drink use was linked to overweight and obesity," Fowler tells WebMD. "What was surprising was when we looked at people only drinking diet soft drinks, their risk of obesity was even higher."

In fact, when the researchers took a closer look at their data, they found that nearly all the obesity risk from soft drinks came from diet sodas.

"There was a 41% increase in risk of being overweight for every can or bottle of diet soft drink a person consumes each day," Fowler says.
More Diet Drinks, More Weight Gain

Fowler's team looked at seven to eight years of data on 1,550 Mexican-American and non-Hispanic white Americans aged 25 to 64. Of the 622 study participants who were of normal weight at the beginning of the study, about a third became overweight or obese.

For regular soft-drink drinkers, the risk of becoming overweight or obese was:

* 26% for up to 1/2 can each day
* 30.4% for 1/2 to one can each day
* 32.8% for 1 to 2 cans each day
* 47.2% for more than 2 cans each day.

For diet soft-drink drinkers, the risk of becoming overweight or obese was:

* 36.5% for up to 1/2 can each day
* 37.5% for 1/2 to one can each day
* 54.5% for 1 to 2 cans each day
* 57.1% for more than 2 cans each day.

For each can of diet soft drink consumed each day, a person's risk of obesity went up 41%.

Fowler is quick to note that a study of this kind does not prove that diet soda causes obesity. More likely, she says, it shows that something linked to diet soda drinking is also linked to obesity.

"One possible part of the explanation is that people who see they are beginning to gain weight may be more likely to switch from regular to diet soda," Fowler suggests. "But despite their switching, their weight may continue to grow for other reasons. So diet soft-drink use is a marker for overweight and obesity."

Why? Nutrition expert Leslie Bonci, MPH, RD, puts it in a nutshell.

"You have to look at what's on your plate, not just what's in your glass," Bonci tells WebMD.

People often mistake diet drinks for diets, says Bonci, director of sports nutrition at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and nutrition consultant to college and professional sports teams and to the Pittsburgh Ballet.

"A lot of people say, 'I am drinking a diet soft drink because that is better for me. But soft drinks by themselves are not the root of America's obesity problem," she says. "You can't go into a fast-food restaurant and say, 'Oh, it's OK because I had diet soda.' If you don't do anything else but switch to a diet soft drink, you are not going to lose weight."

And soda is not real food...if your body can't use it, it doesn't matter how many calories are in it; it usually stores some of it for later until it can figure out what to do with it. :p
 
Yaaaay mother hen government has come to rule our lives!:mhula::mhula::mhula:
 
Yaaaay mother hen government has come to rule our lives!:mhula::mhula::mhula:

Heh. They rule our lives every day, no matter what, Billy m'man.

FDA, FBI, CIA, USDA, ATF...you name it. If we do it, there's an organization for it.

We only *think* we're free.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rawr
Heh. They rule our lives every day, no matter what, Billy m'man.

FDA, FBI, CIA, USDA, ATF...you name it. If we do it, there's an organization for it.

We only *think* we're free.

Yeah, but theyre adding on to it every day. You know, in prison they can still take away your mattress and toilet seat and make things worse. Or put Bruno the male rapist in your bunk. When does the madness stop? What will be scary is when our technology evolves to a point where we can fuse electronic straight into our brains, they can feed video signals in now, its coming at some point. Then people will just begin having mandatory wifi chips installed and we will become a global conciousness, and because global wifi will be government owned the government will own global conciousness it can happen ARBY! IT CAN HAPPEN IF WE DONT STOP IT HERE! or uhhh... hmmm I could be jumping the gun.:m075:
 
ROFL!!

They already did that Billy! It's called HD TV!

*Feels herself dragged away to the FBI prison camps*
 
Taxes such as these on anything deemed unhealthy are regressive taxes and hit those with lower incomes.
And isn't this the group the liberal Democrats pretend to champion?
The upper middle class and above aren't phased by such taxes.

Nanny government.
 
True, I don't know any rich families who eat junk food, usually they live in areas where they can get really high quality organic whole foods that cost triple already anyway. Taxes on twinkies and ho hos and Mcdonalds is going to kill people who are broke already.
 
What really needs to happen is to even out the costs.

You're right; it costs far less to eat crap than it does to eat fresh fruit and fresh vegetables. I think it's possible for a poorer family to eat healthy, but the choices to make those changes are limited (and they'd have to learn what's good/what's not).

Problem is, everything that "tastes good" and comes from a box was manufactured that way...and the reason it tastes good is because it has no redeeming health benefits (it's all chemicals). If you're extremely poor and on food aid, you can at least choose a better variety of foods, but you're still probably going to choose foods to stretch out your food budget (i.e., junk food).

So to even out the costs, I'd mentioned this ages ago...but it's an idea. Instead of going after the tax dollars in the grocery stores, go after the vending machines. Have the vending machines raise the costs of their foods by up to one nickle per item. Just a nickle. If you know anything about vending machines and sales, it really doesn't matter how much the prices go up; people will pay it because they want their candy/soda/junk. They may grumble a bit but it doesn't stop them from purchasing.

Do this on all the "card swipe" vending machines (because it's easier to round that penny). Then use the excess costs on health care. We tax cigarettes and booze you buy, but not junk food in vending machines. Why?

If you're really poor, you might not have the additional income to waste on a vending machine (and if you do, well, why buy it in a machine? It's cheaper at the 7-11!).

If the taxes come from vending machines, it won't come from everyone's tax dollars; it'll come from those who buy out of vending machines. And then it's an absolute choice. Would some people boycott vending machines and go to the local convenience store? Probably. But it won't cut into the profits of vending machine vendors. The raised costs of soda and junk food (from say, $.50 for a can of Coke to $1.00) hasn't changed anyone's buying power at the vending machines. And now that some vending machines have swipe cards, well...it makes it even easier.

It's freedom vs. the obesity epidemic. It's easier paying smaller amounts in taxes now, or it's paying more in health care taxes later. The problem isn't going away. It's just a question of whether or not you pay now, or later.
 
True, I don't know any rich families who eat junk food, usually they live in areas where they can get really high quality organic whole foods that cost triple already anyway. Taxes on twinkies and ho hos and Mcdonalds is going to kill people who are broke already.

Even at high end restaurants the food isn't any healthier than that at any fast food joint.

You might think ordering that salad is a healthy choice, but it often has as much fat and calories as 3 quarter pounders and a large fry.

My wife has the book "Eat this, Not That" that makes side by side comparisons.
It's an eye opener.
 
I am very glad that irrational tax got canned and I hope it never comes up again. Nanny government is the number one thing that will edge me to want to leave the country and or join political groups, it really infuriates me. How dare the government try and tax us just because we are eating unhealthy. Ciggerettes I can understatand because that lead to very serious health disorders and it has a very strong and real physical addiction. Food though, is a different matter. I'm sorry but if you gain weight from eating two bags of potato chips every night then it is your own damn fault. No one else to blame and you shouldn't expect any sort of protection because you did it all to yourself. I understand that some people have a hard time losing weight. Genetics play a roll in this. However trying to regulate this in people? That feels communist to me and makes me turns really sour to these polititicans that try and force this legisalation down our throats. Thank god I am not going to live in new jersey for the rest of my life. Montana might be a little less socially progressive then NJ but it far outweights all the other nanny government crap by leaps and bounds.

I saw that they wont even allow children to bring any sort of junkfood like starburst into certain elementry schools or they get suspended. That is absolute unfair an unreasonable control. If I have a kid one day and that happens I WILL raise hell over it.
 
Ciggerettes I can understatand because that lead to very serious health disorders and it has a very strong and real physical addiction. Food though, is a different matter.
Those distinctions are dangerously close to being blown out of the water. What then?
 
Indy, you know I love you, but we're on opposite sides of the fence. Not that this is bad, not at all.

But sugar has been proven to have addictive properties: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081210090819.htm and http://www.nyorc.org/minute17Sep09.html (this second report is a far more critical examination, but the message is still distinct). You're a scientist - I think you've probably read or heard about the rats who got addicted to sugar, and it wasn't pretty. When they were denied sugar, they went after other things to get that sugar fix.

I'm putting sugar in the same categories with cigarettes and alcohol, I know. But those are choices as well. Junk food is not real food, and in my opinion it shouldn't be treated as such. But on the other side of the coin, I think people should be able to afford healthier options so they can have a higher quality of life.
 
Sugar does have addicitive properties, and that is largely due to a glitch in body metabolism. Addicictive properties, and real addition are two different things in my opinion. A lot of it is psycholigical particularly with children. If parents want to stop their children from going after junkfood, then they can, but don't force everyone to do it. It will never be the same as nicotine, not even close. Honestly part of me doesn't even like the idea of regulating ciggerets but they are too harmful not to.

I went through a class last semester; metabolic regulation. It really did show me how much of a sticky mess sugar metabolism can be. If it isn't done just right it can cause a lot of serious problems. However, I have also learned that it isn't as bad as the media makes it out to be. If you actually look at scientific papers on reports (I will use HFCS as an example), there are publishable corralations with HFCS being strongly liked to type II diabeties, but its a rather smoothe curve, the link is no where near as strong as it is with something like ciggeretts. If the science backed it up enough I probablly would be ok with regulation, but it isn't strong enough and it makes me feel like people are trying to protect ourselves from ourselves and that has never sat well with me.

The idea of taxing junkfood... maybe, maybe I could be convinced of it over time, but it just feels wrong to me in the end. At least it's better then banning it. Also the idea of bringing cheaper food up to par with more expensive food doesn't seem like a good deterrent and might make people have a tougher time affording food if they are struggling to begin with. I can't think of one, but there must be a better way.

Also as far as banned food items. I will use artifical sugars as an example. Those things are scary and I largely won't touch them. Hell I scold people who I see using them. Used regularaly, they can cause serious ill health effects and the scientists who discovered them said they should not be put on the market due to these effects. I really thought they should be banned for a while, but I looked into it more and realised, yet again, the corralations are not as strong as the public sees. Those things need to be used in moderation. Having artifical sugars every day all the time can throw your metabolism out of whack. That being said, they do have use in many items, and therefore shouldn't be banned because they are ok in moderation. EVERYTHING in moderation, that is the core of this issue for me and I just have almost no sympathy for people who can't do it.