4 ms·

> What I don't understand is why people want the government dictating diet through taxes. Public health is public. > It only affects poor people anyways. Tru

by ebg13 6y ago

> What I don't understand is why people want the government dictating diet through taxes. Public health is public. > It only affects poor people anyways. True fact: poor people in the US suffer obesity at higher rates than rich people do because cheap foods are more packed full of sugar. Unregulated pollution of the poor diet is a class equity issue. The market response when sugar is penalized _correctly_ is that cheaper foods become more healthful, not that the price floor increases.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nightski 6y ago
They become more healthful at the same cost? I find that highly unlikely. What you are doing is raising the cost of food across the board. Sugar is used to make bad food more palatable. Taking away the sugar isn't going to make that food healthy and delicious at the same price point. Instead it's a regressive tax on the poor and gives the government even more power over controlling the daily lives of it's citizens. I could get behind subsidizing fresh meat and vegetables. But artificially making food more expensive seems ridiculous.
- ebg13 6y ago
  > They become more healthful at the same cost? I find that highly unlikely. What you are doing is raising the cost of food across the board. There is a real limit to how much food expenditure in general can increase. If prices had safe room to go up, they'd already be higher. You can see this by just looking at the price differences between poor area grocery stores and wealthy area grocery stores. There's a reason why poor people don't shop at Whole Foods, and it isn't because they don't like mochi ice cream and espresso bars. A very large percentage of people in the US actually don't have extra money to spend. On top of that, you're imagining that literally everything has and needs to have a bunch of sugar in it when that's just not true. What people will do first is switch to foods with less sugar, even if they don't like it as much, because the vast majority of grocery buyers are both extremely price sensitive and also adaptable. > I could get behind subsidizing fresh meat and vegetables. 1. We do that already. 2. You're the only one suggesting that a tax on sugar can't go directly and completely to additional consumer-side price subsidization of fresh meat and vegetables. I think that would be great and fully inline with the goal of taxing sugar in the first place.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

by ebg13 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

nightski 6y ago

They become more healthful at the same cost? I find that highly unlikely. What you are doing is raising the cost of food across the board. Sugar is used to make bad food more palatable. Taking away the sugar isn't going to make that food healthy and delicious at the same price point. Instead it's a regressive tax on the poor and gives the government even more power over controlling the daily lives of it's citizens. I could get behind subsidizing fresh meat and vegetables. But artificially making food more expensive seems ridiculous.

ebg13 6y ago
> They become more healthful at the same cost? I find that highly unlikely. What you are doing is raising the cost of food across the board. There is a real limit to how much food expenditure in general can increase. If prices had safe room to go up, they'd already be higher. You can see this by just looking at the price differences between poor area grocery stores and wealthy area grocery stores. There's a reason why poor people don't shop at Whole Foods, and it isn't because they don't like mochi ice cream and espresso bars. A very large percentage of people in the US actually don't have extra money to spend. On top of that, you're imagining that literally everything has and needs to have a bunch of sugar in it when that's just not true. What people will do first is switch to foods with less sugar, even if they don't like it as much, because the vast majority of grocery buyers are both extremely price sensitive and also adaptable. > I could get behind subsidizing fresh meat and vegetables. 1. We do that already. 2. You're the only one suggesting that a tax on sugar can't go directly and completely to additional consumer-side price subsidization of fresh meat and vegetables. I think that would be great and fully inline with the goal of taxing sugar in the first place.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]