Sugar tax: Doctors call for sweet drink levy

[USS Monitor]

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?

I used to buy ramen and nothing else as a college student.

I mean, I have enough of an income now to where, you know, I eat actual food, but that doesn't mean I didn't buy ramen and literally nothing else before. Got sick of the shit, and would never touch ramen again, but I have done it.

I can't eat ramen more than once every few months without getting sick. I used to eat fairly often, but apparently I overdid it and my stomach decided I needed to stop.

[Geilinor]

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?

Some of them are. Others are eating fast food.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That's why you don't make a separate trip just to buy onions. You buy the onions and some other things on the same trip.

Also, chips and sweet bread and neither filling nor cheap. Chips are $3 or $4 a pound compared to $0.50 for potatoes to cook at home. I spend about $40 a week on groceries, which is less than $10 a day, and I have decent meals like stir fry or chicken alfredo ziti.

Oh har har. I am sure beaten by the logic of not making a separate trip to buy onions.

My household spends over a hundred dollars on food every 2 weeks, actually. So that'd come around 50-60 dollars a week on groceries, which is about 10 dollars a day or a bit more than that. And we have decent meals too.

The point here is not whether or not I can afford it, because I absolutely can afford that and more, is whether or not someone working for minimum wage can afford what I can afford. The answer is: no, they can't. Especially not when the state's minimum wage is 7.25 an hour, or if you are in SSDI/SSI, 600-700 dollars a month. Not all regions are New England.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I used to buy ramen and nothing else as a college student.

I mean, I have enough of an income now to where, you know, I eat actual food, but that doesn't mean I didn't buy ramen and literally nothing else before. Got sick of the shit, and would never touch ramen again, but I have done it.

I can't eat ramen more than once every few months without getting sick. I used to eat fairly often, but apparently I overdid it and my stomach decided I needed to stop.

I can eat it. I just don't like it. I got bored of the taste.

[USS Monitor]

That's why you don't make a separate trip just to buy onions. You buy the onions and some other things on the same trip.

Also, chips and sweet bread and neither filling nor cheap. Chips are $3 or $4 a pound compared to $0.50 for potatoes to cook at home. I spend about $40 a week on groceries, which is less than $10 a day, and I have decent meals like stir fry or chicken alfredo ziti.

Oh har har. I am sure beaten by the logic of not making a separate trip to buy onions.

My household spends over a hundred dollars on food every 2 weeks, actually. So that'd come around 50-60 dollars a week on groceries, which is about 10 dollars a day or a bit more than that. And we have decent meals too.

The point here is not whether or not I can afford it, because I absolutely can afford that and more, is whether or not someone working for minimum wage can afford what I can afford. The answer is: no, they can't.

In that case, they can't afford most of the examples you give of "cheap" food that they would buy instead of onions.

[Cetacea]

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?

Some of them are. Others are eating fast food.

as a student I was lucky enough to live next to a pie shop that would sell us 100 pies for $100 (a dollar per pie), which was our months supply so we lived on a mix of steak and cheese plus blackberry and apple pies. My brother was luvky enough to be across the road from a chinese restaurant that got in a whole pig every week and were happy to give him the head.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

In that case, they can't afford most of the examples you give of "cheap" food that they would buy instead of onions.

What I mean is: I can afford over one hundred dollars of food every two weeks. Many people cannot afford to buy over a hundred dollars a food every two weeks either. I outspend you, even, by at least 20-40 dollars every two weeks if you spend 40 a week, or 80 dollars per two weeks.

So to sit here and say "well why don't you eat healthier food and a more varied diet?" to you would be presumptuous and dickish of me since I spend more than you do on groceries, assuming you have a diet I don't consider "healthy" enough.

Poor people's diets consists of junk food. Because it is the cheapest alternative to a full meal. If I can afford over a hundred dollars every two weeks for groceries (read: actual shit to make food, not prepackaged meals), and they can't, the problem here is not that they are eating junk food, is that they are poorer than me.

[Tule]

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.

Since you obviously haven't even looked at the linkI provided I'll post some highlights for you:

It's from Harvard btw, I'm sure they know a thing or two about biology.

Sugary drinks are a major contributor to the obesity epidemic.

People who drink sugary beverages do not feel as full as if they had eaten the same calories from solid food, and studies show that people consuming sugary beverages don’t compensate for their high caloric content by eating less food.

Dozens of studies have explored possible links between soft drinks and weight, and they consistently show that increased consumption of soft drinks is associated with increased energy (caloric) intake.

Sugary drinks (soda, energy, sports drinks) are the top calorie source in teens’ diets (226 calories per day), beating out pizza (213 calories per day).

Weight gain is the result of eating more calories than you burn. Calories from sweetened beverages are far more easy to consume in excess than saturated fat in solid food.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

Since you obviously haven't even looked at the linkI provided I'll post some highlights for you:

It's from Harvard btw, I'm sure they know a thing or two about biology.

Sugary drinks are a major contributor to the obesity epidemic.

People who drink sugary beverages do not feel as full as if they had eaten the same calories from solid food, and studies show that people consuming sugary beverages don’t compensate for their high caloric content by eating less food.

Dozens of studies have explored possible links between soft drinks and weight, and they consistently show that increased consumption of soft drinks is associated with increased energy (caloric) intake.

Sugary drinks (soda, energy, sports drinks) are the top calorie source in teens’ diets (226 calories per day), beating out pizza (213 calories per day).

Note what it says though.

It says that "People who drink sugary beverages do not feel as full as if they had eaten the same calories from solid food, and studies show that people consuming sugary beverages don’t compensate for their high caloric content by eating less food". It doesn't say sugary drinks are BAD for you, it says they do not feel as full, which is true. Just drinking sugary drinks is not gonna fill you.

I mean, I guess it could if you drink a gallon or two of the thing, but it's not going to fill you as it would a full meal because it isn't solid food, nor is it enough to tell your brain "alright I am full now".

So your main problem is not the sugar, it's the fact that said drink is not nutritive enough, which I don't know what they were expecting. It's a liquid. Try drinking a gallon of water to feel full, and tell me how it goes a day later when you have released your bladder over and over.

[Tule]

Since you obviously haven't even looked at the linkI provided I'll post some highlights for you:

It's from Harvard btw, I'm sure they know a thing or two about biology.

Note what it says though.

It says that "People who drink sugary beverages do not feel as full as if they had eaten the same calories from solid food, and studies show that people consuming sugary beverages don’t compensate for their high caloric content by eating less food". It doesn't say sugary drinks are BAD for you, it says they do not feel as full, which is true. Just drinking sugary drinks is not gonna fill you.

I mean, I guess it could if you drink a gallon or two of the thing, but it's not going to fill you as it would a full meal because it isn't solid food, nor is it enough to tell your brain "alright I am full now".

So your main problem is not the sugar, it's the fact that said drink is not nutritive enough, which I don't know what they were expecting. It's a liquid. Try drinking a gallon of water to feel full, and tell me how it goes a day later when you have released your bladder over and over.

If a country struggles with an obesity epidemic and it turns out that one of the biggest sources of calories in the diet of that country is a fluid that doesn't contribute to the feeling of satiation, then it that makes it a prime target in the battle against obesity. This isn't complicated.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If a country struggles with an obesity epidemic and it turns out that one of the biggest sources of calories in the diet of that country is a fluid that doesn't contribute to the feeling of satiation, then it that makes it a prime target in the battle against obesity. This isn't complicated.

That is as complicated of a solution as Trump wanting to build a concrete wall across the border is.

We know why people are buying sugary drinks that do not contribute to the feeling of satiation, the question then becomes "why are people buying sugary drinks anyways if it doesn't satiate?"

Just declaring sugary drinks the problem and trying to tax them, while a solution, is missing the point.

[Community Values]

Note what it says though.

It says that "People who drink sugary beverages do not feel as full as if they had eaten the same calories from solid food, and studies show that people consuming sugary beverages don’t compensate for their high caloric content by eating less food". It doesn't say sugary drinks are BAD for you, it says they do not feel as full, which is true. Just drinking sugary drinks is not gonna fill you.

I mean, I guess it could if you drink a gallon or two of the thing, but it's not going to fill you as it would a full meal because it isn't solid food, nor is it enough to tell your brain "alright I am full now".

So your main problem is not the sugar, it's the fact that said drink is not nutritive enough, which I don't know what they were expecting. It's a liquid. Try drinking a gallon of water to feel full, and tell me how it goes a day later when you have released your bladder over and over.

If a country struggles with an obesity epidemic and it turns out that one of the biggest sources of calories in the diet of that country is a fluid that doesn't contribute to the feeling of satiation, then it that makes it a prime target in the battle against obesity. This isn't complicated.

Yeah, but why should obesity be the governments responsibility to fix? Last time I heard, it was the individual that was responsible for his obesity.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If a country struggles with an obesity epidemic and it turns out that one of the biggest sources of calories in the diet of that country is a fluid that doesn't contribute to the feeling of satiation, then it that makes it a prime target in the battle against obesity. This isn't complicated.

Yeah, but why should obesity be the governments responsibility to fix? Last time I heard, it was the individual that was responsible for his obesity.

Well that depends if they have a nationalized healthcare system or not.

In the United States, there's no nationalized healthcare system, so nobody cares.

In parts of the world where there is a nationalized healthcare system though is an actual public health issue given the range of issues obese people can suffer from. Which means more money spent on obese people.

[Tule]

If a country struggles with an obesity epidemic and it turns out that one of the biggest sources of calories in the diet of that country is a fluid that doesn't contribute to the feeling of satiation, then it that makes it a prime target in the battle against obesity. This isn't complicated.

Yeah, but why should obesity be the governments responsibility to fix? Last time I heard, it was the individual that was responsible for his obesity.

Because obesity hurts more than the individual. An obese society is a society with an unnecessary strain on a nation's limited healthcare resources, regardless of whether said healthcare system is private or public.

I so not want my taxes/health insurance premiums to rise because of people drinking soda to excess. If they want to drink so much soda they better pay for their own necrotic diabetic foot.

In the United States, there's no nationalized healthcare system, so nobody cares.

Except for Medicare, asingle-payer healthcare system that supports only the most fiscally burdensome healthcare users in the country using the tax money of the most healthy working-age population.

[Hectania]

If a country struggles with an obesity epidemic and it turns out that one of the biggest sources of calories in the diet of that country is a fluid that doesn't contribute to the feeling of satiation, then it that makes it a prime target in the battle against obesity. This isn't complicated.

From memory of drinking various fluids, they don't tend to contribute to the feeling of satiation that much overall. Sodas just tend to have higher calorie counts. Not always, of course, as some sodas have calorie counts comparable to things like orange juice, and there's also diet versions.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yeah, but why should obesity be the governments responsibility to fix? Last time I heard, it was the individual that was responsible for his obesity.

Because obesity hurts more than the individual. An obese society is a society with an unnecessary strain on a nation's limited healthcare resources, regardless of whether said healthcare system is private or public.

I so not want my taxes/health insurance premiums to rise because of people drinking soda to excess. If they want to drink so much soda they better pay for their own necrotic diabetic foot.

You obviously don't understand diabetes if you think sodas are the main contributor to diabetes.

[Community Values]

Yeah, but why should obesity be the governments responsibility to fix? Last time I heard, it was the individual that was responsible for his obesity.

Because obesity hurts more than the individual. An obese society is a society with an unnecessary strain on a nation's limited healthcare resources, regardless of whether said healthcare system is private or public.

I so not want my taxes/health insurance premiums to rise because of people drinking soda to excess. If they want to drink so much soda they better pay for their own necrotic diabetic foot.

...Which they would, under a private healthcare system. I'm not old enough to care about healthcare right now, but wouldn't premiums only raise for those with health issues? Is there examples of wide spread health crisis causing the rise of premiums for everyone?

[Tule]

Because obesity hurts more than the individual. An obese society is a society with an unnecessary strain on a nation's limited healthcare resources, regardless of whether said healthcare system is private or public.

I so not want my taxes/health insurance premiums to rise because of people drinking soda to excess. If they want to drink so much soda they better pay for their own necrotic diabetic foot.

You obviously don't understand diabetes if you think sodas are the main contributor to diabetes.

I never said they were a direct main contributor, but they are a main contributor to obesity which is in itself a major risk factor for type 2 diabetes.
Now you're just being pedantic.

[Tule]

Because obesity hurts more than the individual. An obese society is a society with an unnecessary strain on a nation's limited healthcare resources, regardless of whether said healthcare system is private or public.

I so not want my taxes/health insurance premiums to rise because of people drinking soda to excess. If they want to drink so much soda they better pay for their own necrotic diabetic foot.

...Which they would, under a private healthcare system. I'm not old enough to care about healthcare right now, but wouldn't premiums only raise for those with health issues? Is there examples of wide spread health crisis causing the rise of premiums for everyone?

It is not possible in practice to raise healthcare premiums for those who are ill except by a very limited amount. Individuals are very rarely able to afford to cover their own healthcare costs merely with increased premiums, healthcare is incredibly expensive and cost sharing is unavoidable. Taking care of a single diabetes sufferer (and that's just diabetes!) costs about 11k per year.

I would argue that the US is currently in such a crisis. On top of spending a comparable amount of tax dollars as a percentage of GDP on healthcare compared to most western countries, the private health insurance industry in the US spends just as much on top of that.

America is paying for two healthcare systems with the effectiveness of one.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You obviously don't understand diabetes if you think sodas are the main contributor to diabetes.

I never said they were a direct main contributor, but they are a main contributor to obesity which is in itself a major risk factor for type 2 diabetes.
Now you're just being pedantic.

You obviously don't understand diabetes if you think obesity is a "major" risk factor for type 2 diabetes.

People of any kind of complexion can get diabetes. Is not your weight that determines whether or not you will get diabetes, is whether or not you eat sugars/food all day, regardless of whether you are fit or not.

Like I said, my grandma had Type 2 diabetes and she wasn't an obese woman. She was overweight, but she never weighted to be an obese woman. She did, however, work as a cook and she always tasted the food before serving.

Some of my uncles have diabetes, some to the point of getting their legs cut off, and they don't eat sugars, but live in a sugar mill town.

Diabetes Type 2 is not a sudden failure of your pancreas, it actually starts as insulin resistance.

[Tule]

I never said they were a direct main contributor, but they are a main contributor to obesity which is in itself a major risk factor for type 2 diabetes.
Now you're just being pedantic.

You obviously don't understand diabetes if you think obesity is a "major" risk factor for type 2 diabetes.

People of any kind of complexion can get diabetes. Is not your weight that determines whether or not you will get diabetes, is whether or not you eat sugars/food all day, regardless of whether you are fit or not.

Like I said, my grandma had Type 2 diabetes and she wasn't an obese woman. She was overweight, but she never weighted to be an obese woman. She did, however, work as a cook and she always tasted the food before serving.

Some of my uncles have diabetes, some to the point of getting their legs cut off, and they don't eat sugars, but live in a sugar mill town.

Diabetes Type 2 is not a sudden failure of your pancreas, it actually starts as insulin resistance.

Weight is literally the first risk factor the Mayo Clinic mentions for type 2 diabetes.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Weight is literally the first risk factor the Mayo Clinic mentions for type 2 diabetes.

The Mayo Clinic is a basic reference guide, not a manual of pathophysiology on the causes of diabetes.

While weight is a factor, if you think weight is what causes Type 2 Diabetes then you don't know what you're talking about.

Prediabetes is basically insulin resistance. Whether or not is has to do with weight is entirely irrelevant, as many overweight people do not suffer from diabetes, and many others do, so while weight is a factor, the main factor is insulin resistance, which is an entirely different thing from weight.

Sure, being fat increases your insulin resistance, but that's not the only way to become diabetic, nor the most important.

[Flandre Remilia]

So why don't we just let those communities that want a sugar tax implement them? I think the problem with anything like this is that we always try to put it on a national or world-wide level. Its better to start small, in places where the majority of people want it, before moving to the rest of the world. If it works, other communities can copy it and work it out how they need it. If not, give up, try again, etc.

The human race is far too diverse and strange to create a single answer to this question; it can't be so black and white. We have to let people choose for themselves, on a local level where individuals have a say, but not to such a point that it is plain anarchy.

[Tule]

Weight is literally the first risk factor the Mayo Clinic mentions for type 2 diabetes.

The Mayo Clinic is a basic reference guide, not a manual of pathophysiology on the causes of diabetes.

While weight is a factor, if you think weight is what causes Type 2 Diabetes then you don't know what you're talking about.

Prediabetes is basically insulin resistance. Whether or not is has to do with weight is entirely irrelevant, as many overweight people do not suffer from diabetes, and many others do, so while weight is a factor, the main factor is insulin resistance, which is an entirely different thing from weight.

Sure, being fat increases your insulin resistance, but that's not the only way to become diabetic, nor the most important.

I am not saying, and I never said, that obesity was the only cause of diabetes, or that people with a normal weight could not develop it.

All I said was that obesity is a serious risk factor for developing diabetes, and it is.

Now, can we get back on topic?

High sugary drink consumption is associated with obesity (fact). Obesity is associated with a significantly increased risk of developing diabetes (fact). Diabetes is an extremely costly medical condition for society (fact).

Taxing a beverage that is disproportionately likely to raise a significant risk factor for the development of diabetes is likely to mitigate the cost of treating diabetes among numerous other conditions associated with obesity.

[GraySoap]

If I buy the sugar separately (i.e. coffee or tea), I avoid the tax?

Very well then.