Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 96

Thread: Saturated Fat Food Tax, For or Against?

  1. #1

    Saturated Fat Food Tax, For or Against?

    [QUOTE]Should there be a tax on foods high in saturated fats?

    FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

    Hold that cheeseburger.

    Across the pond in Europe, Denmark is becoming the first country in the world to impose a so-called fat tax on foods high in saturated fats.

    That includes everything from cheeseburgers and pizza to butter, milk, cheese and oils. Many Danes stocked up on these yummy groceries before the tax went into effect his weekend.

    How much the "fat tax" is depends on how much saturated fat is in any given food, but it comes out to about $3 for every 2 pounds of saturated fat.

    Officials say the goal is to increase the average life expectancy in Denmark, since saturated fats can cause heart disease and cancer.

    Denmark has been a leading country when it comes to tougher policies on unhealthy foods. They have higher taxes on sodas, cigarettes and alcohol beyond what's required by the European Union. And they've increased taxes on ice cream, chocolate and sweets by a whopping 25%. Also, it's illegal for any food to have more than 2% trans fats.

    Critics say there's a "Big Brother" aspect to all this and the government has no right telling them what they should - or shouldn't - eat.

    Others suggest that any tax hikes on fatty or sugary foods should be accompanied by measures that make nutritious foods more affordable.

    Whatever Denmark's approach, it works. Danes are downright skinny compared with Americans: In Denmark, only about 10% of the population is obese. Here in the U.S., one-third of all adults and nearly 1 in 5 children are obese. And as a nation, we get fatter every day. It's disgusting.

    Plus, it's not like we couldn't use the extra tax revenue these days.[/QUOTE]

    I know at least two posters who expressed their desire for the U.S> to be more like Denmark and their Scandanavian ilk on tax and social welfare policy.

    So, what does everyone think on this one? Taxing fatty foods as social engineering?

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Boston area
    Posts
    4,477
    Most fast food consumers are lower to middle class folks...this a tax that won't fly with da working man.

  3. #3
    Against. It's a selective tax that only taxes certain foods, based on the premise that people are too stupid to make good decisions. They very well may be, but a tax won't stop them from buying unhealthy goods.

    And like PatriotReign said, this is a tax that is directed at lower income people.

  4. #4
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Parsippany, NJ
    Posts
    3,704
    [QUOTE=pauliec;4173844]Against. It's a selective tax that only taxes certain foods, based on the premise that people are too stupid to make good decisions. They very well may be, but a tax won't stop them from buying unhealthy goods.

    And like PatriotReign said, this is a tax that is directed at lower income people.[/QUOTE]

    Many people are too stupid to make smarter/healthier eating choices. Many of those same people smoke too.

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    If federal, definitely against.

    If in my state, you might be able to talk me into it.

  6. #6
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,805
    For

    And use the revenues to establish a single payer health system

  7. #7
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,385
    Strongly against. Get out of our personal choices.

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,194
    For.

    Unless the tax on cigarettes and alcohol is also dropped.

    Until then, there is no difference between a cigarette and a Big Mac. They'll both kill you.

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,472
    Against.

    Tell Dr. Oz to shut the f*&# up

  10. #10
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,385
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4174310]For.

    Unless the tax on cigarettes and alcohol is also dropped.

    Until then, there is no difference between a cigarette and a Big Mac. They'll both kill you.[/QUOTE]

    I think they should both be dropped too but adding a third product to a dumb idea is worse than not repealing the existing ones.

  11. #11
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    2,087
    strongly for with a slight twist; it shouldn't be tax but social security contribution paid directly to Social Security Administration by the sellers of the products - so no real difference for the end consumer. Same with cigarettes, alcohol and other unhealthy "lifestyle choices".

    Chances are those that consume such products will be more dependant on social security. I shouldn't have to pay for the next guy's triple by-pass.

  12. #12
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,385
    [QUOTE=The Turk;4174374]strongly for with a slight twist; it shouldn't be tax but social security contribution paid directly to Social Security Administration by the sellers of the products - so no real difference for the end consumer. Same with cigarettes, alcohol and other unhealthy "lifestyle choices".

    Chances are those that consume such products will be more dependant on social security. I shouldn't have to pay for the next guy's triple by-pass.[/QUOTE]

    Why would they be more dependent on SS?

  13. #13
    I'd usually say for but in the USA there are many "food deserts" where people can't get fresh produce or other non-terrible foods. these places exist in urban and rural areas alike. So to put this tax in without an alternative to many people seems cruel.

    A better solution might be to redirect the subsidies of corn for corn syrup and soybean for vegetable oil (deep frying) to subsidizing fresh fruit and vegetables. So that anyone anywhere could make a healthy decision if they wanted to. If you look at where Whole Foods or Trader Joes have supermarkets its always in well off, well educated areas. Private business will not open up a farm stand in the ghetto without some gov't direction. Similar to a library or a school the gov't could open up a farm stand and run it for the benefit of the community (not necessarily to turn a profit)

    And I do think we can talk about personal choices but as long as it's a law that a hospital can't turn away an emergency situation ... that diet will be an issue in this country that gov't should be involved in. the uninsured guy having a heart attack does raise prices for everyone, whether we like it or not.

  14. #14
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    2,087
    [QUOTE=Trades;4174399]Why would they be more dependent on SS?[/QUOTE]

    Because they are more likely to develop heart disease, diabetes, etc. no? At least almost all of the doctors say so...

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4174413]I'd usually say for but in the USA there are many "food deserts" where people can't get fresh produce or other non-terrible foods. these places exist in urban and rural areas alike. So to put this tax in without an alternative to many people seems cruel.

    A better solution might be to redirect the subsidies of corn for corn syrup and soybean for vegetable oil (deep frying) to subsidizing fresh fruit and vegetables. So that anyone anywhere could make a healthy decision if they wanted to. If you look at where Whole Foods or Trader Joes have supermarkets its always in well off, well educated areas. Private business will not open up a farm stand in the ghetto without some gov't direction. Similar to a library or a school the gov't could open up a farm stand and run it for the benefit of the community (not necessarily to turn a profit)

    And I do think we can talk about personal choices but as long as it's a law that a hospital can't turn away an emergency situation ... that diet will be an issue in this country that gov't should be involved in. the uninsured guy having a heart attack does raise prices for everyone, whether we like it or not.[/QUOTE]

    TLDR: The Answer? More Government.

  16. #16
    For...

    Easy way to get the bottom 50% to pay into the system, if only a little...

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4174444]TLDR: The Answer? More Government.[/QUOTE]

    read closely im not necessarily advocating more gov't just different gov't. Take the subsidies away from corn and soybeans and toward fresh veggies. no additional gov't just a redirection of resources.

    even without the gov't farm stands, if these items were cheaper and more plentiful it's feasible that bodegas, gas stations and other places would carry them. It's not correct that a great majority of the population gets their food from shops that basically only sell candy, chips and cigarettes.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4174488]Take the subsidies away from corn and soybeans and toward fresh veggies.[/QUOTE]

    Because Corn and Soybeans aren't fresh veggies? :huh:

    Or because Corn and Soybeans have alot of staurated fat? :huh:

    You don't really have a clue, do you.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4174493]Because Corn and Soybeans aren't fresh veggies? :huh:

    Or because Corn and Soybeans have alot of staurated fat? :huh:

    You don't really have a clue, do you.[/QUOTE]

    i hate the "clueless" attack

    yes I post in the politics forum for 10 years without a clue. You got me.

    but to answer your question the vast majority of soybeans and corn are not sold as whole vegetables. they are sold as frying oil and corn syrup, respectively. relatively few people go to the supermarket and pick up a bag of soybeans (edemame).

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4174521]i hate the "clueless" attack[/quote]

    It's well earend when you say corn and soybeans aren't vegetables.

    It's doubly well earned in a thread discussing unhealthy saturated food taxation-as-social-engineering, and your suggestion is to remove subsidies to one of the more protien-productive and healthy foods on the planet.

    If you want to explain how ending subsidies for the single most useful vegetable on earth is related to taxing Big Macs, by all means, let er' rip.

    [QUOTE]yes I post in the politics forum for 10 years without a clue. You got me.[/QUOTE]

    Your words.

    [QUOTE]but to answer your question the vast majority of soybeans and corn are not sold as whole vegetables. they are sold as frying oil and corn syrup, respectively[/QUOTE]

    Soybean Oil is incredably useful, as is theother major component, soybean meal. Corn Syrup is suger. Same as Cane Suger, there is notthing wrong with it as an ingredient.

    And both also provide massive exports, oil-products and animal feed. Corn and Soybeans are our #1 and #2 agricultural products for very good reasons Bit. There are two of the most useful plants that exist.

    And generally speaking, both are very healthy in human-consumed form, and when eaten in moderation.

    Now, if you want to remove "bad stuff" as a social engineer, perhaps making beef illegal would be the smart Big Government action? Since beef is incredably unhealthy unless eated in very small quantities and seldomly, and is the core components in almost all the "bad" fast food at the core of America's obescity problems.

    [quote]relatively few people go to the supermarket and pick up a bag of soybeans (edemame).[/QUOTE]

    People who care about the environment (and don't just post about it on internet message boards) consume plenty of soybean-based products.

    Then again, those folks also use alt-fuels and solar power....and we know you don't do that either.

    Funny, that.
    Last edited by Warfish; 10-04-2011 at 12:41 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us