Bread is Gods gift to us.
Advertisement
by Minzerland » Sun Aug 14, 2016 11:42 pm
by Conserative Morality » Sun Aug 14, 2016 11:44 pm
Lunalia wrote:I do agree that there are people with extremely high metabolisms who can get away with eating an entire loaf of bread at once. Mom likes to tell me the story of how she and dad were living on low income while he was in medical school and he came home one day, converted the loaf of bread that was supposed to last them a week into grilled cheese sandwiches, ate them all, and was still hungry. And dad absolutely does not need to lose weight.
Minzerland wrote:Bread is Gods gift to us.
by Renewed Imperial Germany » Sun Aug 14, 2016 11:47 pm
Costa Fierro wrote:Renewed Imperial Germany wrote:A 'sin tax' on junk food would only hurt poor people living in food deserts.
No it wouldn't. Because you wouldn't have the sugar tax and then keep other taxes on other food. Rather, you make fruit and vegetables cheaper and regular foods cheaper too, such as pasta, bread, milk etc. The sugar tax would be applied to things such as fizz/soda, ice cream, chocolate bars, chocolate biscuits etc.
by Renewed Imperial Germany » Sun Aug 14, 2016 11:48 pm
by Minzerland » Sun Aug 14, 2016 11:49 pm
by Gurori » Sun Aug 14, 2016 11:50 pm
by Minzerland » Sun Aug 14, 2016 11:51 pm
by Conserative Morality » Sun Aug 14, 2016 11:51 pm
Renewed Imperial Germany wrote:Shitty foods are inherently cheaper that good foods like fresh vegetables. In all likelihood, they'd still be cheaper.
by Bhikkustan » Sun Aug 14, 2016 11:51 pm
by Lunalia » Sun Aug 14, 2016 11:53 pm
Bhikkustan wrote:I have a better idea. A gains tax. You pay an amount of tax on how much weight you gain, but if you lose wait you got money.
Conserative Morality wrote:Not universally true. I can buy a shitton of bananas for a dollar. I can buy a week's worth of food in bananas for a fiver. Bananas are hella cheap.
by Bhikkustan » Sun Aug 14, 2016 11:55 pm
Lunalia wrote:Bhikkustan wrote:I have a better idea. A gains tax. You pay an amount of tax on how much weight you gain, but if you lose wait you got money.
This penalizes people with medical conditions which cause weight gain.
Or people who are trying to put on muscle.
Or people who are severely underweight because of medical conditions and are trying to put on weight to reach a healthy weight.
by Lunalia » Sun Aug 14, 2016 11:58 pm
Bhikkustan wrote:Lunalia wrote:This penalizes people with medical conditions which cause weight gain.
Or people who are trying to put on muscle.
Or people who are severely underweight because of medical conditions and are trying to put on weight to reach a healthy weight.
Of course there would be medical exemptions or if you could prove that it was muscle. But on the whole this would do better.
by Costa Fierro » Mon Aug 15, 2016 12:02 am
Lunalia wrote:As a side note, I once ate nothing but two slices of blueberry pie with a scoop of ice cream each day for a month, and I actually lost weight. Kind of wish I hadn't gotten sick of the taste of blueberry pie and kept at it, because after I resumed eating healthier foods I gained the weight back. I maintain that a sugar tax does nothing to make people stop gaining weight, and that portion size is far more important than what you're eating.
by USS Monitor » Mon Aug 15, 2016 12:03 am
The Serbian Empire wrote:After seeing studies on tobacco graphic warning labels suggesting fewer smokers will start as a result, I'd like to believe GWLs could be used to discourage overconsumption of snack foods. Images such as diabetic gangrene would be plastered on food as to show consumers what can happen by eating too much of these unhealthy products. So NSG, do you think graphic warning labels actually discourage potential smokers from starting in the first place and do you think it would reduce snack food consumption?
Personally, I believe that the warning labels are effective and that it would deter over-consumption of food.
by Lunalia » Mon Aug 15, 2016 12:04 am
Costa Fierro wrote:Lunalia wrote:As a side note, I once ate nothing but two slices of blueberry pie with a scoop of ice cream each day for a month, and I actually lost weight. Kind of wish I hadn't gotten sick of the taste of blueberry pie and kept at it, because after I resumed eating healthier foods I gained the weight back. I maintain that a sugar tax does nothing to make people stop gaining weight, and that portion size is far more important than what you're eating.
Body weight and obesity is down to a lot of things and simply slapping taxes on unhealthy foods is a simplistic, if somewhat politically convenient, method of "solving" the issue.
by USS Monitor » Mon Aug 15, 2016 12:04 am
The Serbian Empire wrote:Pope Joan wrote:If you are a food addict, you will sit down and eat a whole loaf of bread at one sitting.
Where do you put all the warning labels?
ABED is a serious condition.
On the wrappers. And it won't stop the binge eaters, but it might discourage people from eating indiscriminately otherwise. As in only 10% of Americans would qualify for an ED with most of them as ABED. The other 25% of obese people? Chronic snackers or overeaters who have portion control issues.
by Wallenburg » Mon Aug 15, 2016 12:07 am
by Conserative Morality » Mon Aug 15, 2016 12:09 am
Lunalia wrote:I think I would throw up after trying to eat that many bananas...
by Costa Fierro » Mon Aug 15, 2016 12:16 am
Renewed Imperial Germany wrote:Shitty foods are inherently cheaper that good foods like fresh vegetables. In all likelihood, they'd still be cheaper.
by USS Monitor » Mon Aug 15, 2016 12:19 am
Renewed Imperial Germany wrote:Costa Fierro wrote:
No it wouldn't. Because you wouldn't have the sugar tax and then keep other taxes on other food. Rather, you make fruit and vegetables cheaper and regular foods cheaper too, such as pasta, bread, milk etc. The sugar tax would be applied to things such as fizz/soda, ice cream, chocolate bars, chocolate biscuits etc.
Shitty foods are inherently cheaper that good foods like fresh vegetables. In all likelihood, they'd still be cheaper.
by USS Monitor » Mon Aug 15, 2016 12:25 am
Conserative Morality wrote:Renewed Imperial Germany wrote:Shitty foods are inherently cheaper that good foods like fresh vegetables. In all likelihood, they'd still be cheaper.
Not universally true. I can buy a shitton of bananas for a dollar. I can buy a week's worth of food in bananas for a fiver. Bananas are hella cheap.
by USS Monitor » Mon Aug 15, 2016 12:27 am
Wallenburg wrote:I'm quite underweight already. Having those sort of graphics on everything that contains fructose, fat, cholesterol and so on would make that even more of a problem.
by Wallenburg » Mon Aug 15, 2016 1:17 am
USS Monitor wrote:Wallenburg wrote:I'm quite underweight already. Having those sort of graphics on everything that contains fructose, fat, cholesterol and so on would make that even more of a problem.
This raises a good point.
Graphic labels would make things harder for people like recovering anorexics that need to gain weight.
by Urran » Mon Aug 15, 2016 1:51 am
Wallenburg wrote:I'm quite underweight already. Having those sort of graphics on everything that contains fructose, fat, cholesterol and so on would make that even more of a problem.
The Blood Ravens wrote: How wonderful. Its like Japan, and 1950''s America had a baby. All the racism of the 50s, and everything else Japanese.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Ancientania, Eahland, Ethel mermania, Gorutimania, Kostane, New-Minneapolis, Plan Neonie, Ravemath, Simonia, Statesburg, The Overmind, The root beer, The Two Jerseys
Advertisement