4 ms·
The original point is that no amount of smoking or drinking is good for you. Sugar has a threshold since fruit is healthy. Sugar gets all the blame, and fat is
by dnhz 6y ago
The original point is that no amount of smoking or drinking is good for you. Sugar has a threshold since fruit is healthy.
Sugar gets all the blame, and fat is ignored even though consumption of both have increased (in the US) over time. And fat is confusing to people because nowadays plenty of people believe saturated fat is ok. I'd support a soda tax though.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 6y agoSoda taxes are stupid. Look at cigarettes. Still in existence yet you're taxing the (more than likely) poorer class of people because they got addicted to something. If you really want to stop this, you regulate the factories that produce the goods. You can't deter economic behavior among consumers simply by charging more. You can however alter their habits if the market goods that exist change. For instance, when I buy groceries at walmart, if they don't have tyson boneless chicken that i want but instead great value boneless chicken, and I need chicken, I'm going to buy the great value chicken. Likewise in the scenario, if all fruit juices contained far less sugar, all of the country could adapt. If they want more sugar, nothing is stopping them from manually adding it themselves. Extra taxes are just imposed upon lower classes. Just because you charge more from an item doesn't stop poor people from buying it. It just makes them poorer.