Ethics of a punitive junk food surtax

[Covenant]

Why not just add a punitive tax on fat people, just like we have extra taxes on heavy vehicles. The logic would be the same, fat people are big, noisy and cause extra damage to sidewalks, just like big trucks are big, noisy and cause extra road damage.

If these people actually walked all that much, they wouldn't be so fat. We'd be better off taxing a vehicle based on total mass of car and driver, or go back to making people pay for elevators!

I have no pro or con arguements for extra taxes on junk food, but I would say that I find it extremely annoying that I'd have to pay extra money for my occasional indulgence because a bunch of fatass morons can't make themselves eat right.

Jesus, the proposed tax isn't going to impoverish you if you treat yourself to the occasional burger. Most likely, the tax would be low enough to discourage only continual consumption of such products.

That doesn't change the fact money is coming out of my pocket to pay for other people's stupidity.

Actually it's paying for your own stupidity. But since you're stupid less often (and rarely eat crap food) you're penalized less, and it's possible that you are rewarded far more than you are penalized by decreased costs elsewhere.

[Tahlan]

We tried that solution already: We let the prepared food companies have their way. The junk food bonanza and the current obesity trend was the result.

There is not a 100% correlation between "the junk food bonanza" and "the current obesity trend." I'll agree that there is a correlation, but there are many more factors affecting obesity in the States than just junk food, and I might add, fast food, which is almost a synonym for junk food.

[Wyrm]

We tried that solution already: We let the prepared food companies have their way. The junk food bonanza and the current obesity trend was the result.

There is not a 100% correlation between "the junk food bonanza" and "the current obesity trend." I'll agree that there is a correlation, but there are many more factors affecting obesity in the States than just junk food, and I might add, fast food, which is almost a synonym for junk food.

Waddya mean "almost"? Fast food is junk food. Haven't you seen Supersize Me?

Yes, there are many factors to the obesity epidemic —excercise, for one— and yes the correlation isn't 100% (some obesity is simply caused by lack of excercise and overeating of non-junk food), but junk food is a major contributer to obesity in general, from fast food replacing normal meals, to the munching on snacks that do not satisfy you for long between meals.

The current obesity trend wouldn't be nearly as bad as it is currently without junk food. As far as I'm concerned, the major contributers to a problem share the blame, especially if there's no clearly identifiable chief contributer.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Considering that even the cost benefit of junk food has been shown here to be largely a myth, I think that the tax would be useful by changing the important thing, which is the perception among many people that healthy eating habits are substantially costlier. The tax in itself won't, however, eliminate the convenience factor. It has been pointed out that healthy convenience foods are somewhat costlier than fresh produce (I vaguely suspect this from my own spending habits, though I certainly can't quantify it), but subsidizing such products could certainly help. But I don't know what to do about the fact that people in general just like junk food. I prefer the taste of healthier fare (I'll admit, though, that I'll eat almost anything that has enouch chocolate in it), but a lot of people don't, and I think it would take some creativity to create low fat and sugar goodies that cater to people's tastes. I think once people were in the habit of eating healthy they would prefer better food, but how to start the habit?

[Darth Wong]

It's the principle, not the cost.

Please describe this ethical "principle" in detail, and explain how it relates to your ethical philosophy in general. Assuming you have one.

Ah, so I'm a completely unethical person because I don't support a direct tax on burgers? It's an ideological and not an ethical principle. Anyway, I've already agreed and conceded that the producers (such as McDonald's, Burger King etc.) could be taxed more.

I see you chose to completely ignore my request. Allow me to repeat myself, dumb-fuck. Explain precisely which ethical "principle" is involved in this pronouncement.

[Metatwaddle]

I have no pro or con arguements for extra taxes on junk food, but I would say that I find it extremely annoying that I'd have to pay extra money for my occasional indulgence because a bunch of fatass morons can't make themselves eat right.

As opposed to right now, when your tax money goes to pay for their health care? The tax would probably end up making you pay less for the mistakes of others, not more, because fewer people would be having heart problems due to eating unhealthy foods all the time.

[Darth Wong]

I have no pro or con arguements for extra taxes on junk food, but I would say that I find it extremely annoying that I'd have to pay extra money for my occasional indulgence because a bunch of fatass morons can't make themselves eat right.

Yeah, it's not as if a single penny of your tax dollars presently goes to anyone but yourself, right?

[Tahlan]

We tried that solution already: We let the prepared food companies have their way. The junk food bonanza and the current obesity trend was the result.

There is not a 100% correlation between "the junk food bonanza" and "the current obesity trend." I'll agree that there is a correlation, but there are many more factors affecting obesity in the States than just junk food, and I might add, fast food, which is almost a synonym for junk food.

Waddya mean "almost"? Fast food is junk food. Haven't you seen Supersize Me?

Yes, there are many factors to the obesity epidemic —excercise, for one— and yes the correlation isn't 100% (some obesity is simply caused by lack of excercise and overeating of non-junk food), but junk food is a major contributer to obesity in general, from fast food replacing normal meals, to the munching on snacks that do not satisfy you for long between meals.

The current obesity trend wouldn't be nearly as bad as it is currently without junk food. As far as I'm concerned, the major contributers to a problem share the blame, especially if there's no clearly identifiable chief contributer.

I think we have an issue of semantics here.

First, can we agree that "fast food" is purchased at McDonalds, Jack-in-the-Box, Burger King, What-a-Burger, Taco Bell, KFC, Subway, Quiznos, etc.?

Second, can we further agree that not all "fast food" is "junk food." E.g., a salad purchased from Jack-in-the-Box is not junk food, although it does qualify as fast food.

Third, can we also agree that "junk food" includes most fast food, but also includes all manner of chips, Ho-Hos, Twinkies, Ding-Dongs, etc. There are many more examples, and a concise definition of "junk food" that everyone agrees upon is impossible. Junk Food

Therefore, in my lexicon, "junk food" is a broad definition that includes not only most fast food, but includes a myriad of other foods as well, and I use the term "foods" loosely. Hence my statement that "fast food...is almost a synonym for junk food." Junk food is a broader category than fast food.

Since the definition of "synonym" is: 1 : one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses, I used the adverb "almost" to qualify the verb "is." And there is the issue of semantics. Perhaps you may argue that I did not need to use "almost" as a qualifier. But I did so since junk food is a much broader term than fast food, and not all fast food qualifies as junk food.

So in the end, I stand by my statement: Fast food is almost a synonym for junk food.

[Mange]

Please describe this ethical "principle" in detail, and explain how it relates to your ethical philosophy in general. Assuming you have one.

Ah, so I'm a completely unethical person because I don't support a direct tax on burgers? It's an ideological and not an ethical principle. Anyway, I've already agreed and conceded that the producers (such as McDonald's, Burger King etc.) could be taxed more.

I see you chose to completely ignore my request. Allow me to repeat myself, dumb-fuck. Explain precisely which ethical "principle" is involved in this pronouncement.

And allow me to repeat myself, you pretentious fuck: There's no ethics involved, I don't think that the government should reward "good" or "bad" behavior as we don't know where we can end up then.

[Mange]

And Mike, I may not agree with you fully but I certainly respect your opinion. I don't give a flying fuck what you think of mine, but your opinion isn't worth more than mine.

[Wyrm]

Waddya mean "almost"? Fast food is junk food. Haven't you seen Supersize Me?

Yes, there are many factors to the obesity epidemic —excercise, for one— and yes the correlation isn't 100% (some obesity is simply caused by lack of excercise and overeating of non-junk food), but junk food is a major contributer to obesity in general, from fast food replacing normal meals, to the munching on snacks that do not satisfy you for long between meals.

The current obesity trend wouldn't be nearly as bad as it is currently without junk food. As far as I'm concerned, the major contributers to a problem share the blame, especially if there's no clearly identifiable chief contributer.

I think we have an issue of semantics here.

<ker-snip>

So in the end, I stand by my statement: Fast food is almost a synonym for junk food.

Wiseass. You going to comment on the rest of my post now?

[Surlethe]

And allow me to repeat myself, you pretentious fuck: There's no ethics involved, I don't think that the government should reward "good" or "bad" behavior as we don't know where we can end up then.

Of course there are ethics involved: you're making a statement that some entity should or shouldn't do something. That's an ethical opinion.

[Darth Wong]

I see you chose to completely ignore my request. Allow me to repeat myself, dumb-fuck. Explain precisely which ethical "principle" is involved in this pronouncement.

And allow me to repeat myself, you pretentious fuck: There's no ethics involved, I don't think that the government should reward "good" or "bad" behavior as we don't know where we can end up then.

Since you apparently believe that ethics is totally irrelevant to government, what decision-making criteria do you think they should be using? Totally arbitrary bullshit? It's certainly what you seem to be basing your argument on.

You've gotta love the mindlessness of someone who, when caught saying that something shouldn't be done despite failing to provide an ethical justification, replies that he doesn't need to present any justification other than his personal opinion.

[Mange]

I see you chose to completely ignore my request. Allow me to repeat myself, dumb-fuck. Explain precisely which ethical "principle" is involved in this pronouncement.

And allow me to repeat myself, you pretentious fuck: There's no ethics involved, I don't think that the government should reward "good" or "bad" behavior as we don't know where we can end up then.

Since you apparently believe that ethics is totally irrelevant to government, what decision-making criteria do you think they should be using? Totally arbitrary bullshit? It's certainly what you seem to be basing your argument on.

You've gotta love the mindlessness of someone who, when caught saying that something shouldn't be done despite failing to provide an ethical justification, replies that he doesn't need to present any justification other than his personal opinion.

You did write "What do you think?" and I replied with my opinion as that was what you asked for. In any case, I misunderstood, I apologize and I concede. Yes, in the interest of the common good, sacrifices have to be made, but at the same time I think that people have a responsibility themselves. The correlation between junk food and obesity is, as I've already mentioned, far too simplistic as there are other factors involved (people exercise far too little, children needs to be taught about nutrition in school, more PE etc. ) and the idea that a 'fat tax' would somehow solve the problem is too naive. However, with the right incentives, perhaps some progress could be made. I would however like to see some study which outlines the possible effects of a 'fat tax' and what effects there have been in countries which have implemented 'fat tax'.

[mr friendly guy]

I also do wish people would take responsibility for themselves. Heck if they were willing to deal with the consequences of their actions by themselves it would be all fine and dandy. Unfortunately they won't. When these people present with medical complications it would be society paying for them (especially if you live in a country with socialised medicine, ie most western countries except the US).

In which case I can see the Government having a legitimate interest to curb the strain on the public purse by trying to decrease the incidence of health problems before they occur.

[Tahlan]

Waddya mean "almost"? Fast food is junk food. Haven't you seen Supersize Me?

I think we have an issue of semantics here.
<ker-snip>
So in the end, I stand by my statement: Fast food is almost a synonym for junk food.

Wiseass. You going to comment on the rest of my post now?

No, Wyrm. I agree with most of your post. Howerver, you are the one who fired the first salvo when you said,

"Waddya mean "almost"? Fast food is junk food. Haven't you seen Supersize Me?"

My intent was only to defend my statement. I meant no disrespect.

[Darth Wong]

You did write "What do you think?" and I replied with my opinion as that was what you asked for.

What are you, a goddamned retard? In this forum, you are expected to back up your opinions. That is one of our cardinal fucking rules. It is not suspended for the SLAM forum; if anything it is emphasized. And it hardly goes away because someone asks what other people think, for fuck's sake. How the fuck do you read "What do you think" as "Please give totally unsupported opinions and then refuse to back them up with anything"?

[Mange]

You did write "What do you think?" and I replied with my opinion as that was what you asked for.

What are you, a goddamned retard? In this forum, you are expected to back up your opinions. That is one of our cardinal fucking rules. It is not suspended for the SLAM forum; if anything it is emphasized. And it hardly goes away because someone asks what other people think, for fuck's sake. How the fuck do you read "What do you think" as "Please give totally unsupported opinions and then refuse to back them up with anything"?

As I've implied, that was my spontaneous reaction, I hadn't really given it any thought before. Of course I had heard about it and I have my convictions , but in all fairness, you haven't done much to back up your own position.

[Darth Wong]

You did write "What do you think?" and I replied with my opinion as that was what you asked for.

What are you, a goddamned retard? In this forum, you are expected to back up your opinions. That is one of our cardinal fucking rules. It is not suspended for the SLAM forum; if anything it is emphasized. And it hardly goes away because someone asks what other people think, for fuck's sake. How the fuck do you read "What do you think" as "Please give totally unsupported opinions and then refuse to back them up with anything"?

As I've implied, that was my spontaneous reaction, I hadn't really given it any thought before. Of course I had heard about it and I have my convictions , but in all fairness, you haven't done much to back up your own position.

You're a fucking moron. I pointed out the enormous harm caused by obesity. That is objective fact, and is vastly more justification than you have provided for your claim, which is to say "none at all".

[anybody_mcc]

If you can do that you might as well also tax all the other poor life style choices such as skiing, mountain climbing, etc.

In those cases, the small number of deaths means that the bureaucracy won't be worth it. But obesity is a HUGE problem.

-Are you so sure that there would be that big of an increase in bureaucracy/cost? The US tax code is already massively complex and these taxes could be applied to the corporations that facilitate such activities (who already have professionals do their taxes). In addition, I think you may underestimate the number of serious injuries that result from these activities. Most of the people that I know who do engage in these activities regularly have had more than one injury that was as serious or worse than a broken bone.

But what exactly do you propose to tax in case of climbing ? Because you can do it without any corporations. And by taxing equipment , you are only providing incentive to buy cheaper ergo worse equipment , which means more injuries. Also if you want to tax equipment , which one exactly , because much of the climbing equipment is used in other activities that are frankly beneficial to your health.

[Mange]

What are you, a goddamned retard? In this forum, you are expected to back up your opinions. That is one of our cardinal fucking rules. It is not suspended for the SLAM forum; if anything it is emphasized. And it hardly goes away because someone asks what other people think, for fuck's sake. How the fuck do you read "What do you think" as "Please give totally unsupported opinions and then refuse to back them up with anything"?

As I've implied, that was my spontaneous reaction, I hadn't really given it any thought before. Of course I had heard about it and I have my convictions , but in all fairness, you haven't done much to back up your own position.

You're a fucking moron. I pointed out the enormous harm caused by obesity. That is objective fact, and is vastly more justification than you have provided for your claim, which is to say "none at all".

Yes and I of course acknowledge the harm (both to the individual and to the society at large) caused by obesity (otherwise 'fucking moron' would be a proper epithet). However, correlation doesn't prove causation. Yes, junk food is certainly one of the most significant contributing factors to people becoming fat, but as I've persistently said, there are other factors as well, most notably the lack of exercise (especially perhaps among children and we're spending far too much time in front of the television and computer, we take the car to work, we use elevators instead of stairs and we generally spend far too little time on physical activities etc), too big portions of 'regular' food, socioeconomic factors etc.

Should the state from a paternalistic sense coerce the populace to eat certain kinds of foods or is it the individual who is fully responsible for his or hers choices? These are the two extremes and my position is that the state, through for example education, is responsible to give the populace the tools to make informed choices. I don't think that it's ethical for the state to tax certain kinds of foods and then distribute the money to corporations such as the Weight Watchers etc. However, if the state through an indirect tax for the consumer, taxes the producers then I certainly don't see any ethical problems. In fact, after properly reading through the arguments here and elsewhere, I think that it's outright desirable to tax for example fast food chains after the amount of fat their meals includes (the corporations must be held responsible for their products). Hopefully this could lower the fat and increase demand for low fat alternatives. However, other incentives are also necessary, I've mentioned them earlier, more physical education in school and nutritional study, but also (which I didn't mention earlier) take away the vending machines in schools (or at least change what's being offered).

However, I am interested to see what the effects have been in the U.S. states and countries where 'fat tax' have been implemented. It isn't very much discussed here in Sweden so I'm truly curious.

[Cairber]

Hmmm, do you think a tax like this would include baby formula? Most major brands have corn syrup or worse in them (near the top of the ingrediant list, or the top depending on the brand). The today show had a segment on today about how formula fed babies are really getting up there in weight, so much so that they have had to create a new growth chart to track formula and breastfed infants.

[Pick]

I expect it wouldn't, if only for the PR disaster that would prove.

[Pick]

Sorry, I forgot we were neglecting political reality in this exercise .

I don't think it should include baby formula anyway, since there are legitimate reasons why a person might need it, regardless of unhealthy properties the stuff might carry. There's no NEED for junk food.

[Cairber]

Sorry, I forgot we were neglecting political reality in this exercise .

I don't think it should include baby formula anyway, since there are legitimate reasons why a person might need it, regardless of unhealthy properties the stuff might carry. There's no NEED for junk food.

Well, I could rant on about this subject for a long time , but I see your point. It just kills me when I see these overfed infants, moms who are perfectly able to breastfeed choosing formula because they can get it free through WIC, moms starting solids early (mostly because of the myth in the USA that baby cereal mixed with formula will get your baby to sleep longer...). It sickens me. Those poor babies Yeah, they have cute chubby cheeks but their obesity risk (not to mention all the other risk increases) is through the roof.

Its gotten to the point where formula fed infants need different weight charts because they are so drastically different than breastfed infants.

Ok /end cairber rant.

This subject just really gets to me. Infants and toddlers do not need sugar and sweets and UGH...wait, I said I was done ranting...