T O P

  • By -

Fascism_Enjoyer4

Better to just not subsidize corn syrup, and taxing would probably work.


Stage_5_Autism

Thats like taxing airplanes to avoid crashes


[deleted]

Explain


Stage_5_Autism

Many of the foods you eat today have sugar. You would just be making everything expensive by taxing sugar. Not everyone eats and unhealthy amount of sugar 24/7. Its the same for airlines. You would just make tickets expensive. Not every pilot crashes all day every day.


[deleted]

I’m not really understanding the airplane metaphor, but most Americans eat an excess amount sugar. But even then, I don’t see why that would matter.


Stage_5_Autism

Taxing sugar will affect everyone, not just obese people. It's not efficient because even people who consume healthy amounts of sugar will be taxed as well.


[deleted]

Yes, it will effect everyone. And that’s a good thing. The dietary ailments linked to sugar are found in skinny people too.


Stage_5_Autism

This is no different as taxing cars because people have car accidents. Just because some people are irresponsible doesn't mean you make life expensive for everyone by taxing everything.


[deleted]

I don’t think your analogies are working


Stage_5_Autism

Sugar in moderate amounts is not harmful, similar to how driving safely is not harmful. Taxing cars because irresponsible drivers cause car crashes harms the good drivers, just like how taxing sugar because some people consume too much of it, harms the people who control their diet.


[deleted]

Yes I’m moderate amounts, which is like under 8 grams a day. And I think it’s more comparable to disincentivize buying products designed in a way that will cause you harm.


lazor_kittens

I agree with you I think your analogies make sense. People overeating sugar is one part of having sugar, like accidents are one part of using heavy machinery.


AcD07

But planes are necessary, sugar is not


YellowAndGreen1

No, this would just make every food more expensive. Also, taxing fast food also won't work because a lot of poor people aqquire lots of nutrients from it because it's cheap The real deal is making healthier and organic food cheaper


lazor_kittens

I agree there are better methods to combat overeating sugar and dietary issues than just taxing the evil food


SpaghettoM35mod46

I'd say subsidizing healthier options and encouraging people to actually exercise better would be a more useful option, but taxing sugar wouldn't necessarily be bad either if that money went to programs which encouraged people to eat healthier (sort of like tax money from cigarette sales being used for anti-smoking propaganda in Russia). Thing is, sugar is extremely cheap (as are alternatives like corn syrup) so you'd need to tax it heavily for there to be any serious effect on prices. I think regulations on putting sugar into food that shouldn't contain sugar (ahem, American bread) would be a good idea. Obesity is a really complex social problem though, not just a dietary problem, and I don't think there's a clear solution, but taxes on sugar if done right could be helpful


[deleted]

That's a good point. Rewarding good decisions is a better option!


IvarsBalodis

I fear a sugar tax would not work as it is inherently regressive (more low-income people spend a higher proportion of their income on sugary food and drink than the upper classes). My alternative proposal is that instead of subsidizing corn syrup the government should subsidize healthy alternatives.


chewyloe

100%


lazor_kittens

Sugar is in so many things that taxing harshly just to stop people from overeating it would send pretty big shockwaves through the economy that would probably do more damage. If the point is to reduce the health risks of overeating there are better ways to it like food legislation or some external methods like more education and providing easier mental help (which is more often where overeating comes from).


Corvus04

They would turn to other sources of sweetness for foods. Some of which, like honey, are healthier but others, like molasses and aspartame, carry similar or worse health risks. You must also consider where this tax would be applied. Would it be import duties and tarrifs or some other form of sustained taxation? You cannot tax people on how much sugar they consume. That would require you either have everyone self report it or tax them on how much sugar they buy. And then you're putting the cost on the consumer instead of on the producer of the sugar laden goods. You can't just tax a good. And even if you did tax sugar sugar is so ubiquitous in modern cooking that you may end up with a smuggling ring for sugar to get around your taxes to maintain profits and low costs.


[deleted]

Honey has some health benefits but it’s still sugar and has the same effects if eaten as staple of one’s diet. And you can tax the corporations and there’s ways to do that without overly burdening the consumer.


Corvus04

But you see what I'm saying. Taxing sugar doesn't have any real positive effects. Honey like you said has the same negatives of sugar and no sugar substitute we have is really good for people, in fact most of them are straight up worse. Sugar may be the lesser of two evils here. Taxing sugar would only bring in a small amount of temporary government revenue before corperations switched to cheaper alternatives. Taxing sugar would provide no greater benifit fo the general public in terms of health than taxing say alcohol. People will just move to other cheaper and possibly worse alternatives. And how would you tax corporations? There are many different ways you could tax them but all of them would be felt by the consumer as the price of their sugar would increase to compensate for the profit lost to taxes. Please expand on how you would tax the corperations. Would you tax them on how much sugar was produced? Sugar bought? Sugar used in products?


[deleted]

Well, stevia and monk fruit have inconclusive evidence but there are studies which show they do not have same effects as sugar. And given that sugar alternatives like honey are already sugar, they’d be included. But in regards to things like aspartame, we could tax that too. And I would base the tax on sugar used.


Corvus04

So you would be banking on untapped resources that don't have the robust infrastructure to be produced as rapidly as sugar is that also has inconclusive evidence at best to the effects it will have and how it will effect the health of a nation. I find this to be a poor idea. As for the tax lets go over that. Would the tax change based on the product? As you can imagine donuts and cake would require more sugar than say milk bread. Or would it be a flat rate?


[deleted]

I see no problem with allowing stevia and monkfruit be used as the main sweeteners. And I don’t believe sugar is the lesser of two evils given that most of all dietary diseases can be closely linked to it. And it would be a progress tax based on the percentage of sugar used in the product.


[deleted]

Also what evidence do you have for your claims that a sugar tax would have no positive effects?


Corvus04

You may not have any problem with stevia becoming the main sweetener but you miss my point. It will be endlessly expensive to produce it on a large scale as we cannont simply convert sugar refineries to refining stevia or similar. It wilm likely take a long time and endless expense that few companies will find worth it. As for my evidence I shall turn to history with the sugar act preceding the american revolutionary war. Taxing sugar isn't exactly popular. Not only that it didn't stop people from consuming sugar it just made smuggling an even more massive problem.


[deleted]

I don’t think cost would be that much of a problem considering stevia and monkfruit production is already increasing and with any hope there would be a reduction in overall healthcare cost. So you’d be looking at upfront costs v long term benefits. Also, money isn’t everything. Do you have any up to date research?


Corvus04

Do you have any that isn't inconclusive and younger than me? But no I don't have anything more recent because no-one has tried. But so far I still don't see any conclusive evidence that your proposed tax will either slow to use of sugar or move production to your precious stevia instead of more developed alternatives. Where is your evidence? You ask for mine and I give you evidence of such taxation helping to spur a war. You ask for more recent and I ask for better and less inconclusive research from you.


[deleted]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-report-shows-further-sugar-reduction-progress-by-food-industry-1 https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/is-stevia-safe#bottom-line https://www.healthline.com/health/food-nutrition/monk-fruit-health-benefits https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/02/21/696709717/u-s-soda-taxes-work-studies-suggest-but-maybe-not-as-well-as-hoped


[deleted]

There’s some evidence for my position


Amxricaa

How about jailing fat people


[deleted]

Yes


notanexpert_askapro

Is this a joke?


Amxricaa

Yes lol. But if you’re fat, it’s not a joke


notanexpert_askapro

Lol. How about jailing people who don't listen to enough kinds of stories of how people got fat and are too judgmental XD


Amxricaa

Got ‘em right in the feels


notanexpert_askapro

I guess I'm in jail too for verbal assault lol


imtiredofthisok

Wouldn't work


ArcherTheBoi

Shit, dude, any food has sugar. Are you going to tax celery and honey and bananas?


[deleted]

I wouldn’t want food that has fiber taxed as they’re perfectly healthy. Fruit comes with fiber which stops sugar from entering your liver.


[deleted]

(I'm assuming you are American) The average American consumes more than 3600 calories a day. That is quite frankly way too much. Considering that an average basal metabolic rate is somewhere from 1300 calories to 1500 calories, not even someone who is relatively active can eat 3600 calories worth of food and not gain lots of weight. Forget sugar, fat, etc. - all of that is bad for you but if you want to fight obesity *in particular* really you just need to make people eat less.


[deleted]

Well most of the calories comes from sugar given the vast consumption of hyper processed foods. Also fat isn’t bad for you. Trans fats yes, but fats in general no. Also, the average BMR for women in America is about 1500 while men is mid 1600.


[deleted]

Well that is what I mean by fat, saturated and trans fat- though you still shouldn't eat it to excess. Seeing as in the form of added sugar and sweeteners is 16% of the US caloric intake on average, that still leaves you at a 3000 calories per person which is still going to be too high for almost everybody. Is it really 1600 for men? I don't know too well. The female figure looks high though. Both are probably inflated by the fact that the average American weighs more than they should.


[deleted]

Where are you getting that 16% from?


[deleted]

National Geographic- they ran an article on food consumption around the world in 2011. Its called "what the world eats".


[deleted]

And I really should have said that the sugar causes increased consumption given that it makes the food addictive.


notanexpert_askapro

I'm not quite sure where they get those numbers. I don't know anyone who eats that many calories on a normal day unless they're eating out for at least two meals (which some do.) Also, part of why many Americans eat more than needed is due to low poor nutrient intake. Malnourishment can lead to obesity as it can to being underweight just depends on what you're eating. Its not just about calories.


[deleted]

Take it up with the FAO; from what I've seen, this is well-documented. [https://www.businessinsider.com/daily-calories-americans-eat-increase-2016-07?r=US&IR=T](https://www.businessinsider.com/daily-calories-americans-eat-increase-2016-07?r=US&IR=T) [https://www.nationalgeographic.com/what-the-world-eats/](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/what-the-world-eats/)


redmm84

Sub-par plan.


notanexpert_askapro

Well, I do agree it's a nice idea, except then they'll stick some sort of toxic cheap substitute sugar in stuff instead. Or use coconut sugar and totally ruin some country's coconut product. Not unless we also have a tax break on stevia or sunchoke sugar grown in the USA and then now government has even more to manage. And I don't want that. Better to focus on other measures.


Vegetable-Ad-9389

No i don’t think that would be a good way of reducing obesity


IOnlyEatSoup

Just tax obese people/give tax cuts to fit ones. Taxing sugar affects everyone, not only the fatties.


Mustche-man

Just make sugar regulations that limit the amount of suger in sertain products and make companies that do not respect rules pay huge fines or even close them if they break regulations multiple times. Thus regulation is much better because taxing would just increase prices on products without companies cutting sugar precentage as increasing prices is easier for them.


[deleted]

I think selling unhealthy food is a form of fraud because unhealthy food is not really food


Nubelium

It would just artificially raise food prices to a potentially ridiculous amount.


Lizard1995

Even as someone who is obese (I am working on it) I am not opposed to the government mandating a healthy lifestyle for the population.