Sin Taxes and Other Government Regulation on Unhealthy Products

[Tibertus]

So, it's kinda old news, but we were recently discussing the ethical repercussions of the government not allowing people to buy soda and other junk food with food stamps. It's already impossible to buy alcohol and cigarettes with food stamps, and soda and junk foods don't offer any real nutritional value, so are just as much for recreational use as alcohol. Likewise, they can be seen as just as bad for people since a large part of Americans' calorie intake is contributed just to soda. With rising healthcare costs being attributed to obesity, is it right to try and limit people who are using government funded food stamps from buying junk food? Also, is it right to place a sin tax on the same products to try and offset costs?

I of course am all for the government slapping a good chunk of tax on sodas, chips and the like. I'm also in favor of limiting food stamp use to actual food. Food stamps are meant to make sure families don't starve, they aren't meant for buying your kids sugary treats and junky snacks in lieu of a meal. Also, with how many people purchase sodas and junk food, I think a sales tax placed on those products could be well used in the national budget.

Of course, the majority of my class is against any action like this for reasons such as: It marginalizes the poor and it places burden on corporations which provide lots of jobs for Americans. 

 

[Lyze]

The first point is partially valid. It has been shown that poor families consistently eat extremely low quality, non nutritious food, because of the price issue. This is somewhat of a vicious cycle, as such intake at a young age promotes health problems later on in life, an emotional and financial burden, and inhibits the proper physical and intellectual development of any young human.

The second point is, and has always been, a smokescreen defence raised by those corporations, if I do recall correctly.

 

[Majhudeen]

The problem is, is that these items are so cheaply made and cheaply produced that they are easy to purchase and distrubitue, thus as Lyze and you said Tibertus, easy for the lower classes to buy.

As for a tax and so forth, I don't livei n your country. But knowing my own coutnry, I can buy seafood and fruits and vedegtables cheap because it's grown and caught locally. Some area's in the Untied States don't have access to that, and I realize that.

But the solution to this in my eyes is simply encouraging home grown products. Most of the materials and products in the US to my knowledge come from abroad from high labour and low wages nations such as the Peoples Republic of China, Pakistan, India, and Indonesia, even Mexico.

The fact is, is that America imports way too many resources, exports way too much military, and has problems with regulating it's banks and various markets, due to the fact inflation soared to a horrid amount to the extent of a huge amount of debt.

With that in mind, your country, as far as Im aware, has had huge outbreaks of obesity and other health concerns due to the fact these low priced and high calorie foods are in an abundant supply. The cycle will continue until both your economic leaders and the government unites in a full on effort to reach a self supporting system with little to no reliance on foriegn products. When that happens your country can begin to enjoy the benefits of feeding it's own people proper things.

Where is the money going to come from to do this? I don't know. Im not American, and it's not my problem. But best of luck anyways.

 

[AWdeV]

I'd say that limiting Junk Food and Soda isn't any worse at all than limiting alcohol etc. Hell, it could even be a good idea. Definitely a good idea healthwise. Qualitative malnutrition is not a whole lot better than quantitative.

I'll say more later.

 

[Tibertus]

The first point is partially valid. It has been shown that poor families consistently eat extremely low quality, non nutritious food, because of the price issue. This is somewhat of a vicious cycle, as such intake at a young age promotes health problems later on in life, an emotional and financial burden, and inhibits the proper physical and intellectual development of any young human.

The second point is, and has always been, a smokescreen defence raised by those corporations, if I do recall correctly.

Wouldn't that be a reason for limiting food stamps and taxing junk food though? And to be perfectly honest, it's plenty easy to find normal food for the same price as junk food. To prove the point I have to do a bit of grocery shopping tomorrow and I'll show you guys the receipt. What I meant by "marginalizes the poor" is that it makes certain products "rich people only".

For the second point, there is some validity though. Taxes on their products will reduce their revenue and costs will have to be dealt with somewhere. That somewhere is usually employees. Also, politicians that push any type of bill that taxes junk foods or limits food stamps will see a lot of flack from those corporations.

The problem is, is that these items are so cheaply made and cheaply produced that they are easy to purchase and distrubitue, thus as Lyze and you said Tibertus, easy for the lower classes to buy.

As for a tax and so forth, I don't livei n your country. But knowing my own coutnry, I can buy seafood and fruits and vedegtables cheap because it's grown and caught locally. Some area's in the Untied States don't have access to that, and I realize that.

But the solution to this in my eyes is simply encouraging home grown products. Most of the materials and products in the US to my knowledge come from abroad from high labour and low wages nations such as the Peoples Republic of China, Pakistan, India, and Indonesia, even Mexico.

The fact is, is that America imports way too many resources, exports way too much military, and has problems with regulating it's banks and various markets, due to the fact inflation soared to a horrid amount to the extent of a huge amount of debt.

With that in mind, your country, as far as Im aware, has had huge outbreaks of obesity and other health concerns due to the fact these low priced and high calorie foods are in an abundant supply. The cycle will continue until both your economic leaders and the government unites in a full on effort to reach a self supporting system with little to no reliance on foriegn products. When that happens your country can begin to enjoy the benefits of feeding it's own people proper things.

Where is the money going to come from to do this? I don't know. Im not American, and it's not my problem. But best of luck anyways.

See my above point: Junk food is no cheaper or expensive than normal food. I'll show you guys tomorrow.

The US actually produces much of it's own food, and every city has farmland within 50 miles of it, so food is actually pretty cheap.

The US actually is a huge exporter of grain and other food products. We're one of the few countries with a food surplus this large actually. In fact, we export twice as much agricultural products as we do import.

Yes, keen observation, obesity coincides with junk food. I really don't think the low price of junk food is the main contributing factor though. The real issue is that junk food is addictive and it's simple.

The fact that you're not American shows pretty bad... yeah.

 

[Majhudeen]

Well im speaking of the majority of industry. America exported way too much of it's industry and now has to import a great deal just to meet societies demand. My opinion on home grown products still stands.

As for the prices, I had no way of knowing that. If that is the case then a encouragement to the very least of more healthy eating is in order. Just drive the prices up for it. If your in a financial crisis and you buy high priced junk food, thats your fault, not anyone elses.

 

[Tibertus]

Well im speaking of the majority of industry.

The majority of what, and what industry?

 

[Majhudeen]

Mainly with raw production of machinery and other goods like that. Automotive industries are a bit mroe localized, but all Plastic related industries and canned goods, as well as other major refinement industries are lacking in the United States, granted China is a major processor of such things. Im not saying America outright lacks industry, if anything it is a powerhosue (or was, varying on opinion) in the global market, but for substantial refining and basic production of products I find it lacks. You look on a label for nearly any product used in your daily regime, whether it's clothing, plastics, or canned items ect. All of it will ahve the label "Made in China."

 

[Tibertus]

I don't know what you're getting at. Food is a huge industry in the US.

Arguing against any of the other fallacies in your statement is useless to this discussion.

 

[FrisianDude]

I'm not sure about the sin tax, but it seems good that you can only get healthy stuff with food stamps.

 

[Tibertus]

But is it right for the government to say "Hey you, just because you're poor, you can't have soda."?

I personally don't see it that way, since they can still use their own money to buy soda, just not money taken from the government.

 

[FrisianDude]

Why yes, yes it is. In that way soda becomes more of a luxury so they'll have to earn it. Well-fed and with something to aspire to (even if it is soda) sounds good to me.

 

[Tibertus]

Why yes, yes it is. In that way soda becomes more of a luxury so they'll have to earn it. Well-fed and with something to aspire to (even if it is soda) sounds good to me.

That's just my view. I guess I'm waiting for someone to disagree, though.

 

[Orion]

The only way to pass it as law would be to limit the use of food stamps to products that meet a minimum nutritional value. I seriously doubt you could pass something so broad as "no food stamps for potato chips" because certain potato chips actually have some form of nutritional value (baked vs. fried and whatnot), and the same logic is applicable for several products. So, it only makes sense that nutritional value of individual products would have to be taken into consideration when determining their eligibility when using food stamps. The most consumer-friendly way of doing things would be to require just another bit of labeling on the nutritional information that is mandatory on all food products in the U.S. A simple "Eligible for food stamps: Yes/No" would suffice, and the burden on companies aside from a minimal loss of profit due to decreased sales would be a brief period of time in which they had to determine for each of their products whether or not they met the food stamp nutritional value standard.

If you stick with something quantitative it's much more reasonable & applicable.

As to whether it's philosophically right or not is entirely different. I suppose you could say it's justifiable because the money being used to purchase non-nutritional goods was only provided with the intention of being used to purchase nutritional goods, and it functions similarly to a breech of contract in that regard. However, you venture into the realm of free will and a philosophical debate about whether or not the government can control what we eat is going to end up poorly on this forum. That is unless we can keep certain conspiracy theorists out.

 

[Tibertus]

As to whether it's philosophically right or not is entirely different. I suppose you could say it's justifiable because the money being used to purchase non-nutritional goods was only provided with the intention of being used to purchase nutritional goods, and it functions similarly to a breech of contract in that regard.

Well, tax refunds and breaks are given in the hopes that people will spend the money and boost the economy, instead most people plop it in savings accounts, which is really the worst place to put it during a recession. Should the government be telling people "Here's your refund, buy stuff"?

However, you venture into the realm of free will and a philosophical debate about whether or not the government can control what we eat is going to end up poorly on this forum.

It's the government's money though... so it's not telling anyone who can and cannot buy certain products, just that government money can only be used for certain products.

That is unless we can keep certain conspiracy theorists out.

Impossible.

 

[Orion]

If a demographic is dependent on food stamps for survival and if there are specific standards of use for these food stamps then you are in fact "telling ... who can and cannot buy certain products." Anything not covered by the stamps is off-limits for those dependent on them.

I'm of the opinion it would only be philosophically right if the same demographic had ample opportunity to improve their circumstances and neglected to, thus prolonging their dependence on government hand-outs. Such is not the case in the United States, and if you need me to explain that you need to take an introductory sociology course (though I'm of the opinion you understand already since you can form coherent sentences that appear to be the product of logical reasoning).

 

[Devercia]

If a demographic is dependent on food stamps for survival and if there are specific standards of use for these food stamps then you are in fact "telling ... who can and cannot buy certain products."

Food stamps ensure that everyone can buy certain products. Even with limits on what products, it does not deny that a person, even a dependent, could buy products not listed. The limiter is poverty, not a bureaucrat. As stated, the purpose of food stamps is to ensure people don't starve, not to end the essence of poverty: lack of choice. It is beyond both the capability and purpose of the program to do so, and to shrink its scope to the point that it becomes fiscally viable to pay for a particular product, like soda, and not some other product, like chewing gum, brings the point around full circle.

I'd like to take this moment to point at the gigantic(that's right, I did not say ginormous, which FF recognizes as a word now) corn subsidies and how they bring down the price of junk food. Its true that if they were cut tortillas and ethanol would go up, but everyone likes flour tortillas better and ethanol...is ethanol. The only thing I would care about would be the price of beef going up too.  I am against subsidies in general, but if you aren't just divert the subsidies to something healthier and less subsidized, which uncoincedentally is just about everything.Anything. lettuce, for instance.

 

[Orion]

You seem to have missed my intended meaning of "dependent." I meant someone who has no other means by which to acquire food. Which is to say they have food stamps and nothing else. So, the qualifier for this demographic is poverty, and the limiter would be hypothetical new standards for food stamps.

I really don't understand where you're getting the notion that I said food stamps are used to bring people out of poverty. I don't recall writing that.

 

[Tibertus]

You seem to have missed my intended meaning of "dependent." I meant someone who has no other means by which to acquire food. Which is to say they have food stamps and nothing else. So, the qualifier for this demographic is poverty, and the limiter would be hypothetical new standards for food stamps.

Except that there's an extremely small, maybe even close to non-existent portion of the population which is on food-stamps and has no other income. There's several groups of people on food stamps: People with jobs but low income who now have discretionary income BECAUSE they also receive food stamps (by far the majority), people with no jobs so they are on other income assistance in addition to food stamps, people who don't pursue state aid despite their poverty status, and finally those who have food stamps and no income but are not on other income assistance for whatever reason (very small group). The fact that income assistance, housing assistance, and food stamps are all taken care of in the same building, and one worker takes care of a case means there's a very slim chance that someone will slip through with only food stamps when they need income assistance. The whole point of this is that there's quite a few people on food stamps with income to buy what they want other than with the food stamps, either from the job they work, or other income assistance they get from the government.

 

[Devercia]

You seem to have missed my intended meaning of "dependent." I meant someone who has no other means by which to acquire food. Which is to say they have food stamps and nothing else. So, the qualifier for this demographic is poverty, and the limiter would be hypothetical new standards for food stamps.

I really don't understand where you're getting the notion that I said food stamps are used to bring people out of poverty. I don't recall writing that.

I didn't misunderstand. Also, you did not say they would bring people out of poverty, nor did I. However, the likely use for food stamps other than nutritional sustenance is in all likelihood merely an alleviation of poverty, something we both agree is not the point.

If a person is dependent, and the stamps don't cover it, it does not mean they are barred from purchasing it by the limits food stamps, it merely means they cant afford it. IE poverty is the limiter.  If I cant reach the top shelf, I don't blame my shoes, my lack of a stool, or the elevation of the shelving, I blame my inability to reach the top shelf.

Of course, I am not denying the fact that it has a major, perhaps even absolute influence on what a person is allowed to buy, but that's just it. Stamps allow purchases, they do not deny them. That's how it is philosophically justifiable to me. It is just like any government grant, there are always stipulations, even on block grants.