20% tax on sugary drinks and sweets?

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,436
1,568
126
I've been reading this site since last night as well as watching some YouTube videos on sugar. Considering that the large amount sugar in our diet has made us Americans and the rest of the World more fat, and is a major cause of diabetes and obesity. I propose a 20% tax on sugar and sugary foods and drinks and use the money for educational programs to help people avoid health issues caused by the overconsumption of junk food. And to encourage folks to eat less of the same.

Agree or disagree?

I'm also thinking that the Farm Support our Country has tends to promote processed foods more then whole foods as well.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
24,735
14,157
136
Refined sugar is a drug that has very little use outside of medical applications, it is just bad for the human body (unless your blood sugar is very very very low).
I like the idea, like with smokes, yank the price up until ppl just quit out of "free will" hehe :).
Jokes a side, I think education is the path forward. Banning sugar should come after banning alcohol ... we've tried that.
edit : maybe something along the lines of health warnings on packs of smokes?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,775
6,514
126
A competitive capitalistic society favors those who can survive on the least, workers who will work for the least amount of income and corporations that can survive on the least amount of profit and survive. This will mean that in a competition between societies the ones who can work for peanuts and sell garbage will survive. Competition for government sources of money will go to those who can pay the biggest bribes. In order for this system to survive requires that the system become a religion, called the worship of competition and capitalism, along with self flattery at surviving ones grinding empty life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whm1974

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
24,735
14,157
136
A competitive capitalistic society favors those who can survive on the least, workers who will work for the least amount of income and corporations that can survive on the least amount of profit and survive. This will mean that in a competition between societies the ones who can work for peanuts and sell garbage will survive. Competition for government sources of money will go to those who can pay the biggest bribes. In order for this system to survive requires that the system become a religion, called the worship of competition and capitalism, along with self flattery at surviving ones grinding empty life.

Friedrich? Friedrich Nietzsche? Is that you? Tell us about the afterlife :)
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,775
6,514
126
Refined sugar is a drug that has very little use outside of medical applications, it is just bad for the human body (unless your blood sugar is very very very low).
I like the idea, like with smokes, yank the price up until ppl just quit out of "free will" hehe :).
Jokes a side, I think education is the path forward. Banning sugar should come after banning alcohol ... we've tried that.
edit : maybe something along the lines of health warnings on packs of smokes?

Two words: Adenosine triphosphate

Self explanatory, I hope......
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
24,735
14,157
136
Two words: Adenosine triphosphate

Self explanatory, I hope......

Nope, not getting it? .. sugar->atp, roughly speaking but how/where does that fit in the context of op? .. the problem with refined sugar is the massive spike in blood glucose levels that reigns hell(no pun) on the inside of our blood vessels, overtaxing insulin production etc etc.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,775
6,514
126
Nope, not getting it? .. sugar->atp, roughly speaking but how/where does that fit in the context of op? .. the problem with refined sugar is the massive spike in blood glucose levels that reigns hell(no pun) on the inside of our blood vessels(for one).
You do not need tobacco to live but you do need energy and if you have to struggle to survive you will eat the cheapest thing you can find that contains it. I think we should look not to raising the price of survival but lowering the cost of good health. This could include incentives for local gardening, subsidized healthy food, and communal kitchens supplying decent cheap meals. People need to belong to a village. King of the mountain will be won by the fattest pigs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaskalas

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,436
1,568
126
You do not need tobacco to live but you do need energy and if you have to struggle to survive you will eat the cheapest thing you can find that contains it. I think we should look not to raising the price of survival but lowering the cost of good health. This could include incentives for local gardening, subsidized healthy food, and communal kitchens supplying decent cheap meals. People need to belong to a village. King of the mountain will be won by the fattest pigs.
Well we do need to find ways to lower the cost of healthy and fresh foods and not to mention easier access to them.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
24,735
14,157
136
You do not need tobacco to live but you do need energy and if you have to struggle to survive you will eat the cheapest thing you can find that contains it. I think we should look not to raising the price of survival but lowering the cost of good health. This could include incentives for local gardening, subsidized healthy food, and communal kitchens supplying decent cheap meals. People need to belong to a village. King of the mountain will be won by the fattest pigs.

I think you are absolutely on to something right. One addition, I know of several high educated and well off people that are well obese. Some people get addicted to their taste buds, it is not just in the lower end of the social ladder.
To think to replace a McDonald with "communal kitchens supplying decent cheap meals." - I think Id shed a tear. And have a meal.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,304
14,950
146
Ban sugar!

What would I use with my extra gluten flour when making bread?!
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,000
16,120
136
Sugar isn't the problems its people. Sugar doesn't kill people, people kill people. By taxing sugary food products you are penalizing those who are responsible sugar eaters. Sugar addiction is a mental health issue and we should focus on those with sugar addictions. If we get rid of sugar food will taste bad and people will stop eating and we will have people finding other ways to get their sugar fix. What's next? Banning carbohydrates? Most people talking about banning sugar don't even understand it, artificial sweeteners isn't the same thing.
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,436
1,568
126
Sugar isn't the problems its people. Sugar doesn't kill people, people kill people. By taxing sugary food products you are penalizing those who are responsible sugar eaters. Sugar addiction is a mental health issue and we should focus on those with sugar addictions. If we get rid of sugar food will taste bad and people will stop eating and we will have people finding other ways to get their sugar fix. What's next? Banning carbohydrates? Most people talking about banning sugar don't even understand it, artificial sweeteners isn't the same thing.
Well I'm not talking about banning sugar, but a 20% tax and putting warning labels on sugary products.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,000
16,120
136
Well I'm not talking about banning sugar, but a 20% tax and putting warning labels on sugary products.

Yeah well, that's how it starts so I'm going argue against what could happen and not against your actual plan.














I hope this was a given..../s
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
14,207
9,049
136
Maybe just images of 300lb people in bikinis, "WARNING, CONSUMING THIS PRODUCT MAY RESULT IN THIS"

And all the 400lb people will be thinking "looks good, better increase my consumption of sugar!"

More seriously, I don't see there's any evidence that that approach works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
14,207
9,049
136
Well I'm not talking about banning sugar, but a 20% tax and putting warning labels on sugary products.

Maybe, but it's a question of definition, no? Alchohol and tobacco seem to be easier to identify and define. Will your tax apply to all fruit and vegetables, for example (which have a lot of sugar)?
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,436
1,568
126
Maybe, but it's a question of definition, no? Alchohol and tobacco seem to be easier to identify and define. Will your tax apply to all fruit and vegetables, for example (which have a lot of sugar)?
No, only to added sugars.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
24,735
14,157
136
Sugar isn't the problems its people. Sugar doesn't kill people, people kill people. By taxing sugary food products you are penalizing those who are responsible sugar eaters. Sugar addiction is a mental health issue and we should focus on those with sugar addictions. If we get rid of sugar food will taste bad and people will stop eating and we will have people finding other ways to get their sugar fix. What's next? Banning carbohydrates? Most people talking about banning sugar don't even understand it, artificial sweeteners isn't the same thing.
Duuuuude... thats bullet proof.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
14,207
9,049
136
No, only to added sugars.

Again, maybe. I'm honestly just not clear about how it would work. Is it simple to define 'added', though? Ban added sugar in soft drinks and won't they just start mixing in grape juice or something?

I agree with Goodrevrnd that in a sane world you'd start with getting rid of sugar grower subsidies (which are very substantial).
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,075
2,633
136
I don't care if you get sick from sugary drinks but I don't like having to pay for your healthcare. Its one thing if you get an illness that can't be prevented. Tax away
 
  • Like
Reactions: whm1974