The article seems to be shittily written in my opinion but I figure if you watch the video (about a minute) it will get the point across.

My question lies in, do you think this will benefit the health of the people moving forward, or do you fear it being weaponized to endorse or threaten companies to comply with the mention of Kennedy being tied to its future as mentioned in the end of the article

  • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    I don’t want more sin taxes. Sin taxes are anti choice. Subsidizing products that’s meet the healthy label I could agree with though

    Edit: aka subsidizing the crops that are used to produce and possibly writing laws to ban the taxation on foods labeled healthy. Thus making such food in states like I live cost 10% less just by banning the state taxes on them before even getting to the subsidization on the crops. Shit, forcing us to move off corn to things like sugar cane would be great. Dense, the crop cycles are better, water usage is less and overall would be easier to manage. As in if we are going to kill ourselves with gas powered cars using 10% ethanol from corn… Why not use 10% from sugarcane which is easier to acquire and better for the population long term

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Sin taxes are an incredibly effective way to reflect externalities of actions… sin taxes on offensive goods with no healthy malady are dumb as fuck - but we should be making sure that consumers are seeing a more accurate cost for expensive consumption habits. In an ideal world those revenues would be earmarked for programs to counter the societal harm (i.e. buying a pack of cigarettes would come with essentially a payroll style tax that’d fund smoking cessation programs) but America is currently deeply dysfunctional.

    • b34k@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      13 hours ago

      I think sin taxes are absolutely acceptable if the government is also fully paying for the healthcare of all citizens (which we should totally be doing).

      The combination of the two would make America a much healthier place overall.

      • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        The government is not the arbiter of morality, only legality, and I definitely don’t want a government of whatever the fuck the GOP has become deciding what’s affordable and what’s not.

        • b34k@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Right… and your comment was in reply to someone merely proposing taxes that don’t exist yet either…

            • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 hours ago

              So you’re supportive of Canadian sin taxes on sugar? Obviously America is broken as shit but let’s look at a less fundamentally awful example. Canada has a (granted smaller) issue with obesity and the costs of supporting long term care for it - a sin tax on sugar that helps support the Canadian healthcare system due to the outsized costs obesity causes.

    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Half of them are only cheap because of heavily subsidized corn being heavily processed into an inordinately cheap sugar substitute.

      Taxes aren’t really raising prices so much as undoing the subsidies distorting the market.

      • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        Then remove the fucking subsidies! What you’re proposing is that taxpayer money in the form of subsidies goes into the pockets of wealthy agricultural corporations, and then more tax payer money in the form of sin taxes goes to the government to purchase those products, which the government turns around and gives right back to the same corporations. Sheesh! Should we tip them too while we’re at it?

        • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          “Repeal farm subsidies” is one of the few things you could walk into congress and have overwhelming opposition to from both sides.

        • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          I didn’t propose anything.

          But your summary makes absolutely no sense. A tax on manufactured corn syrup after subsidizing corn is functionally the same thing as removing the subsidy for just corn used to make corn syrup.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        So your saying the sales taxes are like tariffs, as they are being used to spread the cost to all purchasers without reguard to income making them harm lower and middle class people more, without ever having to raise taxes back to reasonable levels for the high income members of society. (3 million a year+)

        • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          15 hours ago

          I’m not saying anything about sales tax.

          I’m saying that if you tax foods high in corn syrup, you’re just making it cost what it’s supposed to cost. You’re literally subsidizing the least healthy food at the moment.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Denmark instituted a sugar tax and that seemed to have very positive effects (manufacturers reduced the sugar content in various products, better health outcomes). It makes sense in countries with socialised health care systems that you’d make the people that end up costing more due to behaviours pay more into it.

    • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      It’s amazing to me how many people respond to everything with “tax it” or “ban it”. WTF happened to liberty as a national ethos?