Pope Joan wrote:sweet lattes and cappuccino. Tax Starbucks and Dunkin donuts. The stuff tastes horrible anyway.
Blasphemy! Taxing Dunkin Donuts is racist against Yankees!
Advertisement
by USS Monitor » Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:23 am
Pope Joan wrote:sweet lattes and cappuccino. Tax Starbucks and Dunkin donuts. The stuff tastes horrible anyway.
by Soldati Senza Confini » Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:24 am
Zottistan wrote:Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Really, I must have missed the biology class where they explain how soda makes you fatter then...you know...actual fat...
But yeah, lets tax sugary drinks, not foods high in saturated fats. I'm sure sugar free soda, full of sweetness that get turned directly into fat are so much better then sugary soda.
You know there are other negative effects to excess dietary sugar than obesity, right? Type-2 diabetes being probably a bigger concern. And don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure carbs actually do contribute more to obesity than fatty foods, since most of the fat you eat isn't just added on to your own. Excess carbs, on the other hand, are actually converted to fat in the body if they're not used.
That aside though I'd be all for raising taxes on foods high in saturated fats, and I'd completely approve of taxing most artificial sweeteners off the mainstream market because the things are fucking toxic and should not be marketed as a healthy alternative to anything.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by USS Monitor » Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:26 am
Tule wrote:Definitely.
Consumption of sugary drinks is one of, if not the, most important cause of the western obesity epidemic. Obesity hurts not only those who who are afflicted by it but all of society.
It's only fair that people who choose to consume soft drinks (including me on occasion) pay for the damage those drinks cause.
by Zottistan » Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:27 am
Soldati Senza Confini wrote:Zottistan wrote:Well no, it would hurt the poor's ability to buy soft drinks. Like I said before, if the shit we feed the poor nowadays becomes too expensive for them, there will finally be a competitive market for cheap healthy food.
No there wouldn't.
They would just be forced to buy the healthy food that's already expensive and puts them on the red if they do anyways.
Your entire scheme revolves around "well, junk food is less expensive than healthy food? Let's tax it until it rises in price to become more expensive than healthy food! That'll make it much cheaper!"
Just because tomorrow you pay 7 dollars for a can of soda doesn't necessarily mean you won't keep on paying 5 for a pound of onions.
by Soldati Senza Confini » Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:28 am
Tule wrote:Definitely.
Consumption of sugary drinks is one of, if not the, most important cause of the western obesity epidemic. Obesity hurts not only those who who are afflicted by it but all of society.
It's only fair that people who choose to consume soft drinks (including me on occasion) pay for the damage those drinks cause.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by USS Monitor » Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:30 am
TURTLESHROOM II wrote:YOU SINISTER JACKBOOTED GOVERNMENT REGULATORS CAN LEVY A REGRESSIVE TAX ON MY COCA-COLA ONLY IF YOU CAN TAKE IT FROM MY COLD
DEAD
HANDS
Seriously though, this is a punishment for the middle class, the poor, and Dixie. All three of those groups tend to enjoy those sorts of sugary drinks. I drink a Coke every day, my mother drinks two or more... it's a tradition in my family. It will seriously hurt the poor.
-and today it's soda. Tomorrow it's sweet tea.
by Soldati Senza Confini » Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:31 am
Zottistan wrote:And yeah, unhealthy foods becoming less accessible does necessarily mean a growth in the market for healthy food. It doesn't necessarily mean that market would be filled, but I honestly don't see why it wouldn't. I like to have more faith in our businessmen and women than that.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Zottistan » Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:32 am
Soldati Senza Confini wrote:Zottistan wrote:You know there are other negative effects to excess dietary sugar than obesity, right? Type-2 diabetes being probably a bigger concern. And don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure carbs actually do contribute more to obesity than fatty foods, since most of the fat you eat isn't just added on to your own. Excess carbs, on the other hand, are actually converted to fat in the body if they're not used.
That aside though I'd be all for raising taxes on foods high in saturated fats, and I'd completely approve of taxing most artificial sweeteners off the mainstream market because the things are fucking toxic and should not be marketed as a healthy alternative to anything.
Type 2 diabetes is a long-term condition. Meaning, it takes decades to take hold, or you have to live in an environment like a sugar mill.
It's not like tomorrow you'll suffer from diabetes from taking one can of soda.
Carbs contribute more to obesity than fatty foods, but that is because the sedentary style of living of people.
I mean, when I was back in college 5 years ago I wasn't as overweight as I am now, but then I was more active than I am today. Guess what changed? It wasn't my diet, it was my levels of activity.
by Zottistan » Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:33 am
Soldati Senza Confini wrote:Zottistan wrote:And yeah, unhealthy foods becoming less accessible does necessarily mean a growth in the market for healthy food. It doesn't necessarily mean that market would be filled, but I honestly don't see why it wouldn't. I like to have more faith in our businessmen and women than that.
As a businessman myself, I am sorry to disappoint you, but you're placing the faith on the wrong kind of people.
Businessmen live for the money, not for some moral directive you seem to think we have to live by.
by USS Monitor » Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:36 am
Tule wrote:Dooom35796821595 wrote:
And the more food you eat, the fatter you become. Suprising how that works.
Sugary drinks are an exception because they are especially effective at causing weight gain, people don't feel nearly as satiated after consuming sugary drinks as they are after eating the same amount of calories as food.
It's right in the link I posted.
by Soldati Senza Confini » Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:36 am
Zottistan wrote:Because of the heavy taxing I can't afford to maintain a heavy smoking habit. I can, however, comfortably afford a pack every week or two. Occasionally paying a bit more for occasional indulgence isn't going to bankrupt anybody. It's only the people who indulge regularly who will see any significant effect.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Soldati Senza Confini » Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:38 am
Zottistan wrote:Soldati Senza Confini wrote:
As a businessman myself, I am sorry to disappoint you, but you're placing the faith on the wrong kind of people.
Businessmen live for the money, not for some moral directive you seem to think we have to live by.
It's not a moral expectation at all. I'd just imagine that if healthy foods were being sold at an arbitrarily high price, somebody would have the common sense to undercut that price for higher sales.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by USS Monitor » Fri Dec 02, 2016 12:26 pm
by USS Monitor » Fri Dec 02, 2016 12:28 pm
Zottistan wrote:Community Values wrote:
But with all taxation on a good or service, it disproportionately affects the poor. A rich person pays 1 more dollar for a soft drink, he doesn't care, he has a lot of money. If a poor person has to pay that extra dollar, it's going to affect him much more than it would affect the rich person. This tax would hurt the poor, and make sugar a luxury only upper classes could enjoy.
Well no, it would hurt the poor's ability to buy soft drinks. Like I said before, if the shit we feed the poor nowadays becomes too expensive for them, there will finally be a competitive market for cheap healthy food.
by Community Values » Fri Dec 02, 2016 12:30 pm
Zottistan wrote:Community Values wrote:
But with all taxation on a good or service, it disproportionately affects the poor. A rich person pays 1 more dollar for a soft drink, he doesn't care, he has a lot of money. If a poor person has to pay that extra dollar, it's going to affect him much more than it would affect the rich person. This tax would hurt the poor, and make sugar a luxury only upper classes could enjoy.
Well no, it would hurt the poor's ability to buy soft drinks. Like I said before, if the shit we feed the poor nowadays becomes too expensive for them, there will finally be a competitive market for cheap healthy food.
by Soldati Senza Confini » Fri Dec 02, 2016 12:34 pm
USS Monitor wrote:Zottistan wrote:Well no, it would hurt the poor's ability to buy soft drinks. Like I said before, if the shit we feed the poor nowadays becomes too expensive for them, there will finally be a competitive market for cheap healthy food.
There already is cheap healthy food in grocery stores, and a lot of people pay more to keep buying crap.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Community Values » Fri Dec 02, 2016 12:34 pm
USS Monitor wrote:Zottistan wrote:Well no, it would hurt the poor's ability to buy soft drinks. Like I said before, if the shit we feed the poor nowadays becomes too expensive for them, there will finally be a competitive market for cheap healthy food.
There already is cheap healthy food in grocery stores, and a lot of people pay more to keep buying crap.
by Bhikkustan » Fri Dec 02, 2016 12:35 pm
by USS Monitor » Fri Dec 02, 2016 12:36 pm
Dooom35796821595 wrote:Tule wrote:
A lot of things are legal that hurt people, but we usually regulate and tax those things to mitigate the damage.
Again, sugary drinks are disproportionately likely to make poeple obese and should be subject to more scrutiny than other sources of calories.
Really, I must have missed the biology class where they explain how soda makes you fatter then...you know...actual fat...
But yeah, lets tax sugary drinks, not foods high in saturated fats. I'm sure sugar free soda, full of sweetness that get turned directly into fat are so much better then sugary soda.
by USS Monitor » Fri Dec 02, 2016 12:37 pm
Soldati Senza Confini wrote:
Just because tomorrow you pay 7 dollars for a can of soda doesn't necessarily mean you won't keep on paying 5 for a pound of onions.
by Soldati Senza Confini » Fri Dec 02, 2016 12:38 pm
USS Monitor wrote:Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Really, I must have missed the biology class where they explain how soda makes you fatter then...you know...actual fat...
But yeah, lets tax sugary drinks, not foods high in saturated fats. I'm sure sugar free soda, full of sweetness that get turned directly into fat are so much better then sugary soda.
Drinking sugary soda actually does put you at higher risk of obesity and diabetes than if you drank diet soda instead. I mean, diet soda tastes gross, but it really does have less calories.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Soldati Senza Confini » Fri Dec 02, 2016 12:41 pm
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by USS Monitor » Fri Dec 02, 2016 12:45 pm
by Soldati Senza Confini » Fri Dec 02, 2016 12:48 pm
USS Monitor wrote:Community Values wrote:
Ramen Noodles will always be cheaper than anything healthy you can offer.
Some veggies cost around the same as ramen. Some cost more, but then some junk foods cost more too.
How many of the people complaining that they can't afford to eat healthy are literally buying ramen and nothing else?
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by USS Monitor » Fri Dec 02, 2016 12:55 pm
Soldati Senza Confini wrote:USS Monitor wrote:
WTF? Onions are more like $1 a pound.
I was placing an example, you know. The numbers are arbitrary and made up.
Over here a pound of onions cost 58 cents at the cheapest. Of course, it takes me 20 minutes driving to Wal-Mart to get those 58 cent onions so in the end I end up spending about 7 dollars for onions with transport included.
And I'm sure I could find them much more expensive over here near my neighborhood (in fact, I am pretty sure I can find them at 1.50/lb at any small store within walking distance).
However, why would I spend 1.50 on a pound of onions over something that fills me like a small bag of chips, or a piece sweet bread and is about the same price as the pound of onions? My health? Over what, the fact I have, say, 10 dollars for the day to eat (which is what I used to spend as a college student)?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: El Lazaro, Floofybit, Hwiteard, Trollgaard
Advertisement