4 ms·

You are talking about a different thing here aren't you? I am talking about a tax applied to unhealthy foods but you are just talking about the price of process

by Fogest 5y ago

You are talking about a different thing here aren't you? I am talking about a tax applied to unhealthy foods but you are just talking about the price of processed foods being cheaper. One is about the government, the other is just about the prices things happen to be set at. The government isn't setting those prices. You are right that often processed foods are cheaper, but that doesn't seem relevant to the sin tax is it? Maybe I am misreading what you are saying, but the idea is that the healthy foods don't get taxed and the unhealthy ones do. The fact that the unhealthy foods may still end up being cheaper doesn't really change that much? If they taxed the healthy foods it would just get that much worse.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
revolvingocelot 5y ago
I, what? Everyone has to eat. A "sin tax" on cheap bad food -- which is presumably cheaper because it's easier to create and less nutritive than healthy food -- doesn't strike me as a policy lever so much as a way to squeeze more money out of those who are already eating shittily for primarily economic reasons. They still have to eat, they'll just pay more for it. I think we may be talking past one another because you're likely from a country that prioritizes its citizens' health in a way that we in North America don't. "Eating shittily for primarily economic reasons" isn't a purely North American phenomenon, of course, but I note that in parts of Eastern Europe, carrots and potatoes are practically free.
- Fogest 5y ago
  No I am Canadian, so I am still in North America. And while we do prioritize health more than America, we do still have a decent amount to consider when it comes to healthy eating still. I know in America processed food is quite a bit cheaper than it is in Canada, especially things like fast food. When I have been there and seen the prices on things like food and alcohol it's quite the difference. Unfortunately though in Canada produce can still be cheap. We do subsidize produce in a lot of ways though. For example my relative has a farm. It's a relatively small farm, but he also pays almost nothing in taxes because of farm subsidies and exemptions he gets. Without those kinds of government benefits farming often wouldn't even be economical at all. However I believe even animal production is like this. In fact I believe animal production often gets even more subsidies than produce based farm operations in Canada. However, I personally don't view a lot of these taxes in the same way as sin taxes. I view the taxes on unhealthy foods as a way to try and slightly subsidize the healthier foods. Is it 100% effective? Nope, but it does help to reduce their costs a bit. But you're right that this often can end up screwing over the poor people more than other groups. I feel like this is a broader problem though. It seems like a good chunk of government policies screw over the people who are already the worst off. For example: if a millionaire gets a speeding ticket for going 20 over it barely is a blip on their radar. But if someone who is poor living paycheck to paycheck gets hit with one it can greatly impact them. And they can barely even afford to try and fight it in court because that may mean taking unpaid time off from work. This is just one example of where it seems like society is setup to feed off the middle and lower classes to keep the upper class prospering. It doesn't help that a lot of our politicians are part of that upper class and don't understand how different of a world it can be in these other classes.

by Fogest 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

revolvingocelot 5y ago

I, what? Everyone has to eat. A "sin tax" on cheap bad food -- which is presumably cheaper because it's easier to create and less nutritive than healthy food -- doesn't strike me as a policy lever so much as a way to squeeze more money out of those who are already eating shittily for primarily economic reasons. They still have to eat, they'll just pay more for it. I think we may be talking past one another because you're likely from a country that prioritizes its citizens' health in a way that we in North America don't. "Eating shittily for primarily economic reasons" isn't a purely North American phenomenon, of course, but I note that in parts of Eastern Europe, carrots and potatoes are practically free.

Fogest 5y ago
No I am Canadian, so I am still in North America. And while we do prioritize health more than America, we do still have a decent amount to consider when it comes to healthy eating still. I know in America processed food is quite a bit cheaper than it is in Canada, especially things like fast food. When I have been there and seen the prices on things like food and alcohol it's quite the difference. Unfortunately though in Canada produce can still be cheap. We do subsidize produce in a lot of ways though. For example my relative has a farm. It's a relatively small farm, but he also pays almost nothing in taxes because of farm subsidies and exemptions he gets. Without those kinds of government benefits farming often wouldn't even be economical at all. However I believe even animal production is like this. In fact I believe animal production often gets even more subsidies than produce based farm operations in Canada. However, I personally don't view a lot of these taxes in the same way as sin taxes. I view the taxes on unhealthy foods as a way to try and slightly subsidize the healthier foods. Is it 100% effective? Nope, but it does help to reduce their costs a bit. But you're right that this often can end up screwing over the poor people more than other groups. I feel like this is a broader problem though. It seems like a good chunk of government policies screw over the people who are already the worst off. For example: if a millionaire gets a speeding ticket for going 20 over it barely is a blip on their radar. But if someone who is poor living paycheck to paycheck gets hit with one it can greatly impact them. And they can barely even afford to try and fight it in court because that may mean taking unpaid time off from work. This is just one example of where it seems like society is setup to feed off the middle and lower classes to keep the upper class prospering. It doesn't help that a lot of our politicians are part of that upper class and don't understand how different of a world it can be in these other classes.