Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Would you support taxes on sugary foods, fatty foods and salty foods?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:16 PM
Original message
Would you support taxes on sugary foods, fatty foods and salty foods?
There is clearly a fear that this will happen. I say that based on hearing teevee ads calling for the avoidance of taxes on soda and "juice drinks".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tabbycat31 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. how about a two way tax
first we end the government subsidies of HFCS

Then we tax anything with HFCS in it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. That stuff is pure evil
I wouldn't tax it. I would ban it.

But I agree with your sentiment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madinmaryland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #5
17. Well, if it is banned, I think that would accomplish what you want.
There is nothing wrong with ice cream and other sweets that are made naturally (as long as it is in moderation). My grandfather and my father who both lived well into their 80's had no problem with ice cream, weight gain and other issues. Uhm, my Dad is still alive and well. No HRCS for them.

The HFCS fucks everything up in the human body.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madinmaryland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. +1. At least end the subsidies of that crap.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabbycat31 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. unfortunately that will never happen
as long as Iowa is the first state to decide the presidential nominees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abumbyanyothername Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #19
28. As a person with an interest in Iowa farmland,
it would be possible to structure Iowa's welfare around something other than corn. The subsidy lines the pockets of ADM and Kellogg more than Iowans anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brewens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
26. I was a delivery driver in the 80's and remember when we....
first got New York Seltzer. It was marketed as "no sucrose" but if you looked at the label it had fructose. I questioned our salesman about this. "So if it's not an artificial sweetener it has to be some kind of sugar right?" He danced around the question, repeating the marketing lines he'd rehearsed.
We sold a lot of it. Pushed as an all natural beverage with no artificial flavors or colors. It had what we now call HFCS.
It was like stuff that says no cholesterol. When did anyone ever put actual cholesterol in food?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FarCenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #26
38. Sucrose is 50% fructose and HFCS is about 55% fructose
Fructose and glucose are simple sugars.

High fructose corn syrup is typically 45% glucose and 55% fructose.

Sucrose (cane sugar) is a disaccharide of glucose and fructose, i.e. a molecule of each, joined together. Your digestion splits it into glucose and fructose before further metabolizing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mind_your_head Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
51. WELL....if you EVER dare to dig into the labrinyth of the "Farm Bill"......
you'd have my support as well as condolences.

It's a god-awful complicated mosh of special interests/doing things they way they always have been/folks stealing the pork, etc., etc. It's HUGE! and a huge mess of bad legislation.....every d*mn year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
2. Drinks are different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virgogal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
3. Soda and candy,yes. Maybe on the rest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
4. The opnly ine I've heard about was a 1 penny per can tax on carbonated sodas.
I really don't see that as a problem. I;m poositive it would generate a LOT of $$$, and really, if you can afford a soda, you can afford the penny more!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Would you suport a tax on sugared soda and no tax on diet sodas?
A penny a can is damned cheap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abumbyanyothername Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
31. Diet sodas have their own issues.
Sez someone who was killed by Diet Coke (arrythmia -- obviously they got the pump restarted).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #9
58. All sodas. I;ve attached a link to an article that states
each Amnrican consumes 597 cans of soda a year. If my math is right at a penny per can, and an avg. of 250 million people who drink sodas, that would produce $1.5 billion dollars in taxes per year. That would cover a nice chunk of HC.

http://www.eduplace.com/kids/mw/wr/5/wr5_08_21_5.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abumbyanyothername Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #58
63. "That would cover a nice chunk of HC."
Not even close. HC, as drafted, is a $100 billion/year issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 04:56 AM
Response to Reply #9
70. Five cents sounds better. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petronius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
6. What, have all the smokers run out of money?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
7. at the danger of being told I am for a nanny state
yes, but only with several conditions.

1.- Since it is highly regressive, that we make available to those affected water and other non sugary drinks

2.- PSAs to emphasize healthier alternatives

3.- Stores that sell such things.

4.- That we become serious as a nation about dealing with the obesity epidemic. Taxes will only make some folks feel better, but we need more than just taxes.

Oh and remove the HCFS from the damn food chain
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
21. No Bailey's!?!?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
8. Can the taxes go towards mandatory nutrition training in high school?
Even then, I say no go because ultimately, it's not that simple. It would also become another tax on the poor, since oftentimes the cheapest food at the grocery is the worst offender. It's also an unfair tax on folks that just don't know better or don't have time to prep better.

Besides, it's impossible when you add "fatty foods" as the dairy industry would lose their collective fucking minds over it and they own too many of our politicians and our subsidies just wind up...well, ironic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:28 PM
Original message
Agree -- it would end up hurting the poorest people. I'm convinced that
the obesity epidemic is because it's cheaper for people to afford the Kiddie Meals at McDonalds for their kids than it is to buy them fruit and fresh food.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:35 PM
Response to Original message
22. On that topic, not just cheaper but far easier.
Consider the single mom with 2 or 3 kids. After she's gotten off work (maybe a second job, even), picked up the kids, run the errands, etc it's far easier to swing through a drive-thru for garbage than to make a good dinner, especially since she's STILL looking at an evening of cleaning up, baths, homework, chores, etc. And God forbid she have an hour for herself, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #22
29. And I have priced the components of a kid's meal
at the store. Not just the fact that they use the cheapest ingredients. Even when I do this, the price comes to a bit more, and I am not even counting electricity. cleanup time and all that.

Now if I want to give them, god forbid, something good for them... it is even more expensive.

I mean most people don't realize an apple can be upwards of a buck during some times of the year. Right now I am taking advantage of the real cheap produce that they got overstocked with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abumbyanyothername Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. Eat in season.
In the winter and autumn switch to squash and canned (jars of) applesauce. Citrus should be cheaper too.

During the summer, cut way back on the meat and up the fresh fruit and especially melons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. Even when you do that
It is competitive if you do the mac and cheese

And this is by design by the way

Oh and no thank you for apple sauce... HFCS and all
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abumbyanyothername Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #35
44. Well I personally don't eat "products" of any kind.
If it ain't direct from the ground or the tree, I don't eat it.

But then I live near California's central valley.

And I spend about $400 per month for one person's food.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. So why tell people to go for the HFCS ladden apple sauce?
by the way, if you go ahead and price the junk for sale at Mickey Dees and try to do the SAME meal at home for a competitive price, good luck. Some of us have done the exercise... at times the difference is twenty cents, at times it is more.

But this is by design...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abumbyanyothername Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. Because when I think of applesauce
I think of apples -- sauced (at home). Without the HFCS.

But if you are out to make an enemy, or prove yourself righter than everyone, be my guest.

When it comes to food, I eat what I believe to be best and let everyone else eat what they want.

But I do believe that all products should come with an extra energy tax and an extra health impact tax.

Not so much as a tax, but just as a way of internalizing true costs. (Which in some respects the energy costs are already in there, but we should be taxing the bad (i.e., imported) energy to support the good (homegrown) energy -- as well as promoting conservation.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #49
56. It is not an enemy
just that I try to take into account how most of the country lives. And if you give the average consumer the choice of applesauce in a jar, which is dirt cheap by the way... or applessauce made at home which is more expensive and takes work... nine times out of ten, they will go for number one.

I don't do applesauce... except once a year as tradition and I do look for the already made one without sugar added or HFCS and I pay a premium. But I am not everybody, and you are not either.

When looking for solutions we need to look for then within the way most of the population lives.

Oh and as to Iowa... we do need to change the cheap food policy in place since Nixon, the cheap food policy... and when it does, it will be a shock to some of those states. It will happen. with the end of cheap oil... it is coming. And part of that policy switch is that energy tax at the point of origin... it is damn ridiculous that I can get cheaper apples from Chile... using our apples, than Washington state, or worst local.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. On price, an individual could never hope to compete
with the basement pricing of the fast-food genies. And consider what grade of meat and what "parts" are being cranked through a grinder (complete with fillers) to make a burger patty or a fish thing or a chicken filet.

It's all just crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #33
39. You and I know that but some folks
still think you can
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #22
74. But there are creative solutions to most things...
How about a Saturday or Sunday where the harried mom and a few friends get together (have hubby or relative watch the kids) and all cook up a bunch of stuff...casseroles and things.

They split it up, freeze it, and after a busy day all it takes is a bit of thawing and cooking in the microwave.

They don't even have to drive to McD's or BK...


People don't necessarily have to eat crappy fast food...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #22
78. You're right -- I hadn't even thought about the convenience. Drive thrus and
Dollar Menus must seem heaven-sent to parents. And for so long we didn't know just how bad that crap is for us. :(. Maybe it'll get to the point where they use Stevia in sodas instead of HFC. Actually Coke AND Pepsi have come out with their own versions of Stevia (with the help of Monsanto and Cargill) so I'm sure those have been altered as to be unrecognizable as stevia. Sigh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
20. How about for free health care for all? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. How about it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:42 PM
Original message
You will still have to pay for health care
it is the mechanism that you may find unpleasant, but it will not be paid with funny money
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
43. I have no idea what that means
It's the most likely way to get true universal health care in this country. Most low income people wouldn't mind paying the tax if they knew they could go to the doctor at no additional cost. Lots of low income people are already paying the extra tax on cigarettes and don't get any benefits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. You heard of Medicaid right?
Most of the people who have no insurance are too rich to qualify for medicaid and too poor to afford insurance.

And it is this simple, we want national health care, we will have to pay for it one way or the other. We do not get funny money to do that.

My preferred method would be a tax, 2-4% and a health card, but that ain't gonna happen NOW
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. Exactly. Tax booze, cigs, junk food, sugar, gas
and fund health care for all. You're not going to get it by adding a tax to people's incomes. Based on Oregon's proposals, it would be at least 6% anyway, more if you fold Medicare into that. That would mean an 18% tax for SSI and health care. People would flip out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. Good luck, by the way people may flip out
but perhaps you should check the taxation rates of countries with UNIVERSAL health care coverage, whether they use private insurance companies, Germany, Switzerland, Holland, or Tax Base system, which at least in Ontario is deducted at your pay.

Now what Baucus is doing is Toxic... and bear in mind if they manage to get a good system going I EXPECT MY HEALTH CARE COST TO GO UP... not down... and that is fine with me, as long as you get the care I have. And I expect it to go up by about 1-2%, just based on what citizens in OECD Economies pay for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
10. Junk food tax is fine with me. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grahamhgreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
11. Yes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Merlot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:26 PM
Response to Original message
12. NO, because I don't believe in "sin" taxes
Also, it is unfairly going to affect those who don't have much money, time or education to prepare and eat better food. Namely, the working poor and the elderly.

Better we should tax the yachts, luxury gas guzzlers, vacations homes and recreational airplanes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:26 PM
Response to Original message
13. On soda and candy, yes. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sebastian Doyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
15. All food taxes are regressive by nature, taxes on cheaper foods even more so.
Tax something that rich people buy. Or just tax the rich, period. Roll back the tax rates to where they were in 1960.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomCADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
16. Do Think Soda Should Be Subject To A 1 cent/oz tax
The tax on smoking dissuades people from smoking, and if the tax on soda can help lower sugar intake, then that's great. Obesity is a disease caused by the massive industrialization of teh Food industry.

I recommend Fast Food nation or Michael Pollan's books.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:33 PM
Response to Original message
18. Fast food, snacks, sugar based drinks, cigs, alcohol, gasoline
everything that makes us sick. Tax it all and give us free health care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abumbyanyothername Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #18
34. Every item sold should have
an energy tax component tacked on.

The corporations will figure out how to get products to market using less energy.

"I guarantee it."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #34
57. or exempt themselves from paying it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donheld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
23. NO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:37 PM
Response to Original message
24. Fuck yes; I'm a smoker
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burning rain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
27. Absolutely not.
They're regressive taxes and I oppose adding more regressive taxes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
30. Me no likey regressive taxy
Taxes on food is verboten as far as my principles are concerned. Tax the ingredients at the manufactures level if you must. I also don't like taxes being used to alter behavior. It rubs me the wrong way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abumbyanyothername Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. Then don't think of it as taxing to alter behavior.
Call it internalizing the whole of the true costs of the product.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #36
77. A rose by any othername
If a behavior is considered 'wrong' than ban it outright. I wouldn't mind restrictions on HFCS. Perhaps truth in labeling laws and a public ad campaign, making it clear what the effects of HFCS are would deter, food producers from using it. Taxes should be reserved for raising revenue not as a cattle prod against the public. The problem I have with it is that the cattle prod zaps lower income people they pay a steeper price for good intentions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mamaleah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
37. Why not a tax on sugar, salt, and oils or butters then?
I can whip up some extremely sugary fattening treats in my kitchen. Why not tax me into not being able to?

I don't need to buy your twinkies or chips.....I make my own own artery clogging yumminess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
40. Yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
41. Hmm it won't hurt the rich, but might impact the poor - so yes I am all for it
like other taxes that liberals are for that impact the poor more than the rich - it is good them and prevents the poor from being sinners.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #41
83. lol
:applause:

Boy, we really do go out of our way to marginalize ourselves, don't we?

But always, always, with only the best intentions. And that's what matters! :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostInAnomie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
42. Yep
We've gotta walk the walk. If we want programs to expand we have to take on some of the burden.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
46. Yes, if the tax money goes into a dedicated fund to pay for medical costs for fat-assed
Americans' health care.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TygrBright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:22 PM
Response to Original message
52. No. Sugar, salt, and many fats are ordinary food substances. High Fructose Corn Syrup, OTOH....
...tax the SHIT outta that unnatural stuff.

And any other foodlike substance made by deconstructing industrially-produced vegetable cellulose to its component molecules and reconstructing it as some weird-ass "preservative" or crappy "mouthfeel" additive.

THAT'S the crap that'll kill ya.

Oh, and those fake sweeteners. Them too.

Sugar, salt, butter, olive oil? Humans have been eating that shit for millenia without exploding epidemics of obesity and nutrition-related chronic disease.

adamantly,
Bright
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abumbyanyothername Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. I tend to blame finance not chemistry
Peter Lynch's admonition to look for companies with constantly growing earnings put a lot of pressure on food producers and distributors to move more product out the door.

The rise of Wall Street capitalized food companies also roughly coincides with the obesity epidemic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
53. wouldn't that hurt small bakery and other businesses ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NaturalHigh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
55. No.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 12:49 AM
Response to Original message
59. I'd support a tax on the top 1%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
60. How about a tax on "luxury" cars and other shit items that only lazy fucks buy. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ron Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 01:01 AM
Response to Original message
61. How about a tax on every step of processing?
So that fresh and real food is tax-free, and highly processed food is highly taxed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abumbyanyothername Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #61
64. I like it except
what is processing?

Picking fruit off the tree or pulling vegetables from the ground?
Washing?
Boxing?
Setting on a table at the farmers' market?

The problem could be solved with some definitions, but corporations might find a way around those.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ron Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #64
72. You're right that definitions would be the challenge, but I'll bet real scientists
could come up with them. Simple handling, for example, is minimally degrading to nutrition, while shipping long distances (sometimes requiring preservatives) would be taxed. Of course the use of chemical additives, bleaching, blending with corn starches and syrups, etc. are the real problems and could certainly be measured in their removal from nature and taxed accordingly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 01:05 AM
Response to Original message
62. on all non-essential foods would be fine with me
that would include:

"fast" food...eat in or take out
prepared foods
.....frozen dinners
.....pre-mixed entrees
.....deli foods
sweetened cereals
soda pop
flavored waters
personal sized water

a small tax on these, put aside for actual health care..not given to ad agencies for dumb-ass ads would go a long way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 01:29 AM
Response to Original message
65. Yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liquorice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 01:33 AM
Response to Original message
66. No I don't support extra taxes placed on food. It's regressive and punitive. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NuttyFluffers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 04:38 AM
Response to Original message
67. no. less regressive taxes, more taxes for those who can pay but won't. n/t
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 04:40 AM
Response to Original message
68. don't tax my anchovies or olives. or cheddar or feta!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 04:54 AM
Response to Original message
69. On high sugar drinks like Pepsi, for sure. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
agentS Donating Member (922 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 05:17 AM
Response to Original message
71. All of the above
Tax soda, juice drinks, luxury cars, sugar, HF Corn Syrup, credit default swaps. Tax it all at 1% or something low.
We've got too many health problems and potential problems to do this half-ass. Time to go full-ass and build the financial platform for single-payer after passing a public option of some sort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
73. Absolutely. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
75. Tax on crappy "food"? By all means...
I think most of us can agree on what is "food" and what isn't. Or what's even remotely close to being food.

Mac and cheese...borderline...not the healthiest thing in the world, but probably more redeeming qualities than Twinkies or Pepsi or a bag of potato chips. Definitely more than a Snickers bar.


So tax the real crap.


PS...I am addicted to sugary stuff myself, so it's not like I'm unfairly targeting people who just can't live without cakes and pies and other crap. In fact, if there's a tax on it, I just might decide it's not worth the money and refuse to buy it and save myself a lot of aggravation and calories.

;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TxRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
76. Yes I would, a progessive tax based on % content of them....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
79. No... and it does seem that nutrition advocates are pushing for it.
I'm not big on regressive taxes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kalyke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
80. Yes.
It's far easier to avoid fatty foods than cure an addition to nicotine (I know - I eat like a dream, but smoke). I realize there is some addiction to lard, but it's really a much easier addiction to break than nicotine.

That said: our food kills us more than cigarettes. Look at Europe. They smoke a lot, drink a lot, but eat better, take more vacations and exercise more and they live longer.

Just sayin'. :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
81. If we could go to single payer, I'd say tax everything that's bad for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
82. No, tax country music instead. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
84. I don't think it would curb appetites
A one or two cent tax would raise tax revenues, but it wouldn't change people's behavior. The only thing that would force Americans to change is maybe shutting down all fast food--and that would pretty much destroy our economy and lead to a lot of lost jobs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 01st 2014, 02:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC