How Do We Feel About A Special Tax On "Junk Food"?

RadishRose

SF VIP
Location
Connecticut, USA
Mexico and Hungary tried junk food taxes — and they seem to be working


The case for a junk food tax in America.

By Julia Belluz@juliaoftorontojulia.belluz@voxmedia.com Updated Jan 17, 2018, 12:04pm EST

In part-

"From morning muffins that pack as much sugar as an icing-topped cupcake, to chocolate bars that contain more than 600 calories, it’s extremely easy to overindulge in America.

What’s less clear is exactly what to do about that. Some kind of government intervention in the food environment probably has to be part of the solution. Taxes have been an effective, though still controversial, approach to curbing the consumption of tobacco, alcohol, and soda.

Only Hungary and Mexico have junk food taxes so far

Health researchers and officials have long contemplated junk food taxes, but have focused most of their energy on soda taxes to date. Sugary drinks were a natural starting place to experiment with government intervention in the food environment since there’s a lot of evidence linking sugary beverages to diet-related disease, and soda is an easily modifiable part of the diet.

In 2011, Hungary put a 4-cent tax
on packaged foods and drinks that contain high levels of sugar and salt in certain product categories, including soft drinks, candy, salty snacks, condiments, and fruit jams.

In 2013, Mexico passed an 8 percent tax
on foods including snacks, sweets, nut butters, cereal-based prepared products — all “non-essential” foods. Within these categories, foods that surpass a calorie density threshold (more than 275 calories per 100 grams) are taxed.

These countries decided to tax junk food because it’s become such a prominent component of people’s diets — and budgets."


https://www.vox.com/2018/1/17/16870014/junk-food-tax
 

I'm not a big fan of sin taxes or the government telling me how I should live but they do seem to work.

I think that the tax should be considered as one of many tools to help modify behavior. IMO it would take the sting out of the tax if the money went to improve school lunches, provide additional educational resources on nutrition, exercise, subsidize healthcare, etc... and not just add to the general fund.
 
The Uk is talking about doing that now... and like Aunt Bea I'm not a fan of ''sin' taxes, or any kind of Big brother actions, but I do think taxes on junk food and alcohol and cigarettes work so I'm not against it... simply for the fact it will save millions of avoidable illnesses and early deaths..
 

I'm not a big fan of sin taxes or the government telling me how I should live but they do seem to work.

I think that the tax should be considered as one of many tools to help modify behavior. IMO it would take the sting out of the tax if the money went to improve school lunches, provide additional educational resources on nutrition, exercise, subsidize healthcare, etc... and not just add to the general fund.

Taking "the sting out of the tax if the money went to improve school lunches, etc......" is interesting Bea. Could be counter-productive?
 
The Uk is talking about doing that now... and like Aunt Bea I'm not a fan of ''sin' taxes, or any kind of Big brother actions, but I do think taxes on junk food and alcohol and cigarettes work so I'm not against it... simply for the fact it will save millions of avoidable illnesses and early deaths..

"Sin taxes" and Big Brother rub me the wrong way, too! But the illness multiply, our health care premiums go up and the NHS funds suffer.

People suffer and die from poor diet, obesity and it's related diseases, I can't think of anything else that would deter the junk trend.
 
I am not sure about this. In recent years, I have really endeavored to modify my diet. I have replaced red meat with chicken, turkey and fish. Eat a lot of vegies. Make more things from scratch and have been consistently losing weight, and keeping my health in check. I do not feel I should be taxed for occasionally indulging in a muffin, donut, chocolate or sugared soda.
High tobacco taxes do not stop people from smoking. I think this is just another way to siphon more of our tax money.
 
I agree with Marie, I've avoided fast food places for decades now and eat a healthier diet than I did when I was young. I didn't eat healthier because the government was babysitting me and taking more of my hard earned savings in taxes, and I didn't stop smoking because of the higher taxes on cigarettes at the time. What I eat, smoke or drink is a personal choice and the government should stay out of it and out of my wallet. Wasn't it in NY where they banned soft drinks of a certain size? To me that is overreach and too much government interference, they have nothing better to do with their time and our money? :rolleyes:
 
I see your point Marie, but that's you. Not everyone is as savvy as you are about what you eat. I also feel bad that smart people like like yourself could be taxed for the occasional bad foods.

I do know people who actually have given up smoking at least partly because they can't afford it anymore, me included.

More ideas?
 
Maybe they can tax the junk food establishments more heavily, unless they make their foods more healthy for the consumer?
 
I see your point Marie, but that's you. Not everyone is as savvy as you are about what you eat. I also feel bad that smart people like like yourself could be taxed for the occasional bad foods.

I do know people who actually have given up smoking at least partly because they can't afford it anymore, me included.

More ideas?

I agree, I know many people who have given up smoking due to the high cost of cigarettes now...and many more who have taken up the very much cheaper alternative of E-smoking...
 
They are talking about a sugar tax in Australia. We already have a sort of reverse tax in the form of the 10% GST (goods and services) Manufactured/processed foods are GST taxed but fresh/raw foods are exempt. I do think the price differential needs to be tipped in favour of fresh food. For example soft drinks(soda) should be more expensive than plain milk for the same volume. Flavoured milk should cost a lot more.
 
Last edited:
A tax on junk food Might work...the First thing I would tax would be Diet Soda. That crap is probably the worst thing a person can drink.

Rather than taxing the food and drinks...I think health insurance premiums should be tied to a person's weight....the more Obese they are, the higher their insurance costs. Smoking has been known to cause health problems for years, and smokers pay a premium on their insurance....why not the same for the Fatso's? After all, the data at the CDC clearly shows that at least 30% of our nation's health problems, AND costs, are Obesity related. If poor diet, and lack of exercise started hitting people in their wallets, perhaps they might begin to adopt a healthier lifestyle.
 
I agree with Marie, I've avoided fast food places for decades now and eat a healthier diet than I did when I was young. I didn't eat healthier because the government was babysitting me and taking more of my hard earned savings in taxes, and I didn't stop smoking because of the higher taxes on cigarettes at the time. What I eat, smoke or drink is a personal choice and the government should stay out of it and out of my wallet. Wasn't it in NY where they banned soft drinks of a certain size? To me that is overreach and too much government interference, they have nothing better to do with their time and our money? :rolleyes:

I agree. I don't want the government into everything I do. I mean I see the point of all this, but I just don't like the idea of the government sticking its nose into our personal lives. Maybe a better approach would be making healthy foods more available to people in "food deserts."
 
Instead of taxing junk food they could just lower or eliminate taxes on healthy food. They won't do that, of course, because it's really about the money.

And who gets to decide what is junk food and what is healthy food? They have been wrong so many times in the past. Eggs were bad, butter was bad, lard was bad. Many of the healthiest foods were once considered bad and the replacements that were considered good have been proven to be very bad.


It's best the government stay out of our food supply.
 
Instead of taxing junk food they could just lower or eliminate taxes on healthy food. They won't do that, of course, because it's really about the money.

And who gets to decide what is junk food and what is healthy food? They have been wrong so many times in the past. Eggs were bad, butter was bad, lard was bad. Many of the healthiest foods were once considered bad and the replacements that were considered good have been proven to be very bad.


It's best the government stay out of our food supply.
I see your point and agree with you for the most part. What I have a problem with is if the government is involved with medical costs and medical costs are outrageously high, doesn't that give them some leeway in trying to influence bad behavior/habits that have a negative effect on medical costs?
 
I see your point and agree with you for the most part. What I have a problem with is if the government is involved with medical costs and medical costs are outrageously high, doesn't that give them some leeway in trying to influence bad behavior/habits that have a negative effect on medical costs?

The problem is that the government doesn't know what's good or what's bad. They depend on lobbyist with an agenda and money to tell them. They have been so wrong so many times and have probably ruined the health of millions by promoting the unhealthy "food" that they had been convinced were good.
 
The problem is that the government doesn't know what's good or what's bad. They depend on lobbyist with an agenda and money to tell them. They have been so wrong so many times and have probably ruined the health of millions by promoting the unhealthy "food" that they had been convinced were good.

Knowing the way the government operates, they would probably assign the task of deciding what's healthy to Monsanto executives.
 
Jan 1 the city of Seattle started taxing ‘sugary’ drinks. I don’t drink sugary anything. I think some day we’re going to be taxed for breathing the air.
 


Back
Top