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



## RadishRose (Jan 17, 2018)

*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


----------



## Aunt Bea (Jan 17, 2018)

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.


----------



## hollydolly (Jan 17, 2018)

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..


----------



## Buckeye (Jan 17, 2018)

I'm not sure I want to follow Mexico's lead on anything.  Just sayin'


----------



## C'est Moi (Jan 17, 2018)

Hoot N Annie said:


> I'm not sure I want to follow Mexico's lead on anything.  Just sayin'



Amen to that.


----------



## RadishRose (Jan 17, 2018)

Aunt Bea said:


> 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?


----------



## RadishRose (Jan 17, 2018)

hollydolly said:


> 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.


----------



## Marie5656 (Jan 17, 2018)

*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.
*


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 17, 2018)

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?


----------



## RadishRose (Jan 17, 2018)

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?


----------



## RadishRose (Jan 17, 2018)

Yes, I don't like government in my wallet or in my kitchen either.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 17, 2018)

Maybe they can tax the junk food establishments more heavily, unless they make their foods more healthy for the consumer?


----------



## hollydolly (Jan 17, 2018)

RadishRose said:


> 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...


----------



## RadishRose (Jan 17, 2018)

SeaBreeze said:


> Maybe they can tax the junk food establishments more heavily, unless they make their foods more healthy for the consumer?



hmmm. good food for thought, thanks SB


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 17, 2018)

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.


----------



## C'est Moi (Jan 17, 2018)

SeaBreeze said:


> Maybe they can tax the junk food establishments more heavily, unless they make their foods more healthy for the consumer?



But we would still pay the tax since the retailers would simply pass it along to the consumer.


----------



## Don M. (Jan 17, 2018)

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.


----------



## Butterfly (Jan 17, 2018)

SeaBreeze said:


> 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?



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."


----------



## Lara (Jan 18, 2018)

Marie5656 said:


> ...*I do not feel I should be taxed for occasionally indulging in a muffin, donut, chocolate or sugared soda....I think this is just another way to siphon more of our tax money.
> *


But muffins, donuts, and chocolates are health foods if you count mental health


----------



## AliceNWonderland (Jan 18, 2018)

SeaBreeze said:


> Maybe they can tax the junk food establishments more heavily, unless they make their foods more healthy for the consumer?


Yes, I believe this is a very good idea.  Tax the ones who have more money to pay the taxes until they have food that is good for us.


----------



## rkunsaw (Jan 18, 2018)

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.


----------



## dpwspringer (Jan 18, 2018)

rkunsaw said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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?


----------



## rkunsaw (Jan 18, 2018)

dpwspringer said:


> 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.


----------



## Smiling Jane (Jan 18, 2018)

rkunsaw said:


> 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.


----------



## debbie in seattle (Jan 18, 2018)

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.


----------



## dpwspringer (Jan 19, 2018)

rkunsaw said:


> 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.


Can't argue too much with that... but we have to work with what we got and/or work to fix the problems. What's the alternative with soaring medical costs that seem to be out of control?


----------



## IKE (Jan 19, 2018)

SeaBreeze said:


> What I eat, smoke or drink is a personal choice and the government should stay out of it and out of my wallet.   To me that is overreach and too much government interference.



100% agree !


----------



## Aunt Bea (Jan 19, 2018)

dpwspringer said:


> Can't argue too much with that... but we have to work with what we got and/or work to fix the problems. *What's the alternative with soaring medical costs that seem to be out of control?*



I think one thing that we, as a nation, need to do is to become more realistic about death and dying/end of life care.  I've read that 30% of the annual Medicare budget is spent on people in the last year of life.  IMO we should focus on Palliative and Hospice care for people approaching the end of their life and not allow the healthcare system to get under the hood and sell, sell, sell, like a bunch of disreputable mechanics.


----------



## Senex (Feb 6, 2018)

Totally opposed. Just more of the old "We know what's best for you' from the Social Control freaks and Nannyites. Of course the crooked politicians love it...more taxes equals more revenue equals more pork barrel funds to waste.


----------



## ProsperosDaughter (Feb 6, 2018)

I just wish they would tax me personally, or charge me double, pretty much anything to keep the junk food out of my shopping cart since I do not seem to be able to do it myself. 

Seriously though I grow weary of Government intervention into what we do with our bodies. The onus should be on each individual (or the responsible adult) to control what a person eats.


----------



## Camper6 (Feb 6, 2018)

The tax in U.S. or Canada won't work. We pay plenty for tobacco and alcohol. Affluent society.


----------



## Shalimar (Feb 6, 2018)

Don M. said:


> 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.



For the poor, carbohydrates/sugar often form the main portion of their diets because they are cheaper than healthy food. Obviously, these foods contribute to obesity. Seems unfair to penalise people for being unable to afford healthy food. Another culprit in inducing obesity is pharmaceutical meds, ie, many drugs used to treat depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, diabetes, etc. One of the most prevalent side effects is weight gain.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 6, 2018)

Save us from those who want to "save" us!


----------



## Traveler (Feb 7, 2018)

What I put in my belly is no ones business but my own. The so-called organic foods group is probably behind this wacko notion. Organic foods are almost always much more expensive than "regular" foods. If the government is allowed to get away with this, then pretty soon there will be a heavy tax on red meat. Then other meats will follow. Soon after that we will be forced to eat "vegan". God save us from the those who want to control every aspect of our lives.


----------



## terry123 (Feb 7, 2018)

C'est Moi said:


> Amen to that.


Me too!


----------



## Victor (Feb 7, 2018)

I  favor syntax   but not sin tax.


----------



## Denise1952 (Feb 7, 2018)

I'm for this if it works.  I know a couple of folks that maybe smoke less because of the high price of cigarettes, and that's a good thing.  I also know folks that will "almost" do, or pay any amount to get these kinds of things. Soda I think is a biggie, and now (however they are making it) it is so, much cheaper (brands etc.)  Also cigarettes I guess.  I smoked a bit in my 20s and remember buying the most popular brands, and now they have tons of cheaper brands and even the make-it-yourself types, roll your own is what I mean.  I saw a guy just 2 days ago going through a "cigarette" disposal box at Walmart.  OMG, the butts he had in his hand made me sick to my heart

But like I said, if it helping some folks not to eat as many bad foods, or smoke too much, I am for it.  It's such a wicked circle.  The companies that make all these things are trying to make a living, but their products can be dangerous for people who can't curb their own destructive behaviour.  I'm back on coffee after quitting for about 3 weeks when I had that tooth flare up.  But I love coffee in the a.m.'s.  I will pay as much as I can to still have the coffee too I'm betting.


----------



## Denise1952 (Feb 7, 2018)

Traveler said:


> What I put in my belly is no ones business but my own. The so-called organic foods group is probably behind this wacko notion. Organic foods are almost always much more expensive than "regular" foods. If the government is allowed to get away with this, then pretty soon there will be a heavy tax on red meat. Then other meats will follow. Soon after that we will be forced to eat "vegan". God save us from the those who want to control every aspect of our lives.



Ok, so this gave me a whole other take on it, and I do believe "as well" that if we give them an inche, they'll take a foot.  It's already pretty weird in this world, and I don't see things getting better on the whole.


----------



## WhatInThe (Feb 7, 2018)

I'd be broke and dead if junk food was that bad for you. It's all about abuse. And junk food is frequently the only available and/or affordable food. People don't have to eat as much as they think but NOT starving or fasting by eating junk food got me and others through the day. Those who buy alot of junk food will already pay a tax since many places will exempt many foods  and items from taxation. Sugary foods tend not to be on that list. 

There are too many issues around obesity, many mentioned. My thing with junk food is the preservatives. If the solid food is packaged to last what will those preservatives do once in the body and one's fat cells which wind up storing alot of this crap. Will that fat cell lose or burn as much or as fast as other body tissue without these preservatives. I've switched from packaged goods to real donuts, pastries, cookies etc and I've actually lost weight on more than one occasion.


----------



## Senex (Feb 7, 2018)

Traveler said:


> What I put in my belly is no ones business but my own. The so-called organic foods group is probably behind this wacko notion. Organic foods are almost always much more expensive than "regular" foods. If the government is allowed to get away with this, then pretty soon there will be a heavy tax on red meat. Then other meats will follow. Soon after that we will be forced to eat "vegan". God save us from the those who want to control every aspect of our lives.



The ones behind this are the same ones responsible for all the wacko ideas that are swiftly made into laws. What I call Nannyites. These are the wannabe Nanny-Nursemaids of the world that want to tell everyone else what to do, and how to do it, because they know what is best for us, and one day we will thank them for it. If you keep an eye out, you will see their work everywhere. A few years ago in NorCal we had a plastic bag ban. Now the supermarkets only issue paper bags. One can still buy plastic bags if you know where though, but the days of free plastic bags are gone, thanks to the Nannyites who had to protect us from all the plastic bags in landfills...nevermind most stores had previously switched to biodegradable bags. End result of this? Say bye-bye to the forests. Most recently the Nannyites had the soft-drink tax passed. Guess the CRV tax was just not enough to suit them. Whats next on the Nannyite agenda? How about a tax on the obese...you go to the doctor for a checkup, your height and weight are compared, and for every 5 pounds you are over your 'ideal' weight you are taxed 25 cents? Call it a fat tax. How about a car tax to help pay for road and highway repair? How about a kid tax...for every child you produce you pay 5% of your annual income to subsidize schools and what not? The vegans can get a tax passed on meat. The poor can get a luxury tax passed on caviar and truffles. I suspect any corrupt politicians reading this have started to drool worse than Homer Simpson!


----------



## Robusta (Feb 8, 2018)

Philadelphia placed a tax on soda.  My brother says that folks merely drive out of town and stock up. Tax affects no one but the merchants selling soda.

NYS decided they were going to tax the sin out of cigarettes.  Pack of smokes costs more the ten dollars.   Instant black market. It is estimated that up to 50% of the cigarettes smoked in NY are untaxed  and it is estimated that the state LOST 1.63 billion in taxes in 2015 alone.

I was a smoker when this law was passed, and I became a criminal over nite.  I smoked nothing but Rez smokes from then till the day I quit.  Ipaid $3.20 a pack at the reservation.

I truly believe that in the case of NY taxing smokes had nothing to do with health or even tax revenue. It was merely a ploy to hand the states tobacco business to the Natives as an appeasement and to buy relief from the land claims.


----------



## Don M. (Feb 8, 2018)

Robusta said:


> I truly believe that in the case of NY taxing smokes had nothing to do with health or even tax revenue. It was merely a ploy to hand the states tobacco business to the Natives as an appeasement and to buy relief from the land claims.



Ridiculous cigarette taxes in NY has been an issue for decades.  I remember when I was in the USAF in N. Carolina, for a year, in 1966....some of the guys bought large quantities of cigarettes in NC, then drove them up to NY on weekends, and made a bunch of money selling them to NY "street vendors".  Now, a pack of smokes in NY can sell for over $13...I'm sure there is a thriving Black Market in that state.


----------

