Should we tax clearly unhealthy foods , and subsidize clearly healthy ones? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is a globally leading online debate platform that is transforming the online debating experience. DebateIsland enables anyone to civilly debate online, casually or formally, with five fun debating formats: Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas. With DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use, online debate website, users can debate politics, debate science, debate technology, debate news, and just about anything else in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free while improving your debating skills with the help of Artifical Intelligence on DebateIsland.


DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Using DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use online debate website, you can debate politics, debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free using DebateIsland, a globally leading online debate website that is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.

Should we tax clearly unhealthy foods , and subsidize clearly healthy ones?

Debate Information

In my opinion foods with large amounts of procced fructose, (sugars) alcohol and fried carbs are CLEARLY unhealthy. (Not that other unhealthy foods don't exist but I am talking about foods that are clearly and without controversy are unhealthy.) And high water content vegetable's (not including potato's and the like) and legumes (beans) are clearly healthy.

The cost to the economy of unhealthy foods (both thru healthcare costs and productivity losses) is greater then the all of the profits company's make on unhealthy foods.

Now some may argue that government interference with the free market is an attack on freedom. To this I say 1. that the in the preamble of the constitution It mentions the right to life BEFORE the right to liberty or the pursuit of happiness. 2 we already subsidize and tax lots of other stuff for less compelling reasons. 3. Companies can't sell their products without  public investment (roads bridges police etc.). Therefore it is only fair that company's payback the public the FULL economic cost of there products.
CYDdharta



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



Arguments



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • Starlord616Starlord616 209 Pts   -  
    well how would we go about defining so-called 'clearly unhealthy food' and I think even more importantly how do we define healthy food?
  • yisraelmeirsobelyisraelmeirsobel 23 Pts   -   edited November 5
    Okay an unhealthy food is one that if eaten regularly with customary(for that particular food) portion size will Impair productivity MORE then the total profit made from selling that food. I use this metric for 2 reasons 1. Its apples to apples (so no how much is a life worth how much , quality of life worth  how much questions.

    2 I think that it can have more political consensus then other types of measurements. 

    As for healthy foods to subsidize I have a few criteria, 

    1. It should not taste great. This is to get political consensus to welfare subsidize (I am taking political consensus VERY seriously I don't want this stuck in congress for a million years) , the concern is always well we will get tons of lazy bums if we give out welfare so this is to combat this, the idea being that lazy bums will want more then healthy but tasteless foods. Its also to avoid controversy over animal foods.

    2. Not unhealthy (see above)
     
    3. Less then 1 in 100 million people are allergic to it.

    4. Is grown inside the nation.

    5. Subsidize apply to the food BEFORE processing

    6. Low calorie density.
     
    Maybe this list needs to be refined but I think this is a good start.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -  
    @yisraelmeirsobel
    1. It should not taste great. This is to get political consensus to welfare subsidize (I am taking political consensus VERY seriously I don't want this stuck in congress for a million years) , the concern is always well we will get tons of lazy bums if we give out welfare so this is to combat this, the idea being that lazy bums will want more then healthy but tasteless foods. Its also to avoid controversy over animal foods.
    Taste is subjective. Who is deciding how good food tastes? More to the point, why should we want to subsidise healthy foods only if they taste bad? Surely, if we subsidise great tasting, healthy food, it will be more popular?
    Starlord616
  • yisraelmeirsobelyisraelmeirsobel 23 Pts   -   edited November 5
    Well we go by a majority in regards to taste. I didn't say they have to taste bad, I just don't want them to taste great. This is because I am practical and I don't want it to be filibustered in congress for a million years, so this proposal needs a VERY wide consensus. See my 1st post for the political considerations of good tasting food. @xlJ_dolphin_473
  • Okay I think I need to explicate what a political hot potato animal products are. On one hand you have researchers point out certain risks cancer risks in casein protein (that's the main protein in animal products) and cardiovascular risks in animal fat. In addition you have animal rightist's and people who are concerned with global warming (the methane from cows) and food companies who make plant product's. On the other hand you have researcher's who tout the muscle building property's of casein and whey protein's, promote the calcium in milk, and bash plant based protein's as incomplete. You also have religions right winger's who dislike anything that smells like animal right's or environmentalism (because they believe god made the world solely for humanity's benefit). And of course the farmers and animal food companies. In short anything that change's either  the tax's or subsidizes of animal product's will be filibustered in the senate for the next trillion years, give or take a millennium. To get around this I purposely excluded from the subsidy anything that taste's good (and a few other thing's too).        
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -  
    @yisraelmeirsobel
    I'm afraid I don't understand your point about 'lazy bums'. Could you please explain?
  • yisraelmeirsobelyisraelmeirsobel 23 Pts   -   edited November 5
    Okay what I would like to do ideally is have a healthy food stamps for all program where EVERYONE gets a  free voucher every month that can be used to only buy healthy food. Now like any welfare program, opponents would immediately argue that if you give people free food, then a large number of them would either stop or be much less productive, due to not needing to worry about starving if they don't work.  Hence you give them only what is necessary for survival ( in the long term) to make certain that this doesn't get stuck in congress. (When I said Lazy bums I was paraphrasing the potential opponents thought's)@xlJ_dolphin_473
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -  
    @yisraelmeirsobel
    Why is it a bad thing for people not to have to worry about starving? Surely this is a good thing?
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 580 Pts   -  
    @yisraelmeirsobel
    No the government shouldnt be determining what you should or shouldnt be eating.
    Its a right to life, not a right for the government to control what the best way to prolong it.
  • Again I'm dealing with potential opponents (like MichellElpers). One argument they may make is that if people don't have to worry about starving they won't work. If they don't work then there won't be anything to handout because everyone will say why should I work, when I can get everything I want from the government for free including the farmers who are meant to plant the food to be handed out.  @xlJ_dolphin_473
  • yisraelmeirsobelyisraelmeirsobel 23 Pts   -   edited November 5
    @MichaelElpers If someone can't afford healthy food then how are they supposed to extend there life? No-one forcing anyone to eat healthy, I did NOT purpose to ban unhealthy foods or large portion sizes. What I am saying is 1. EVERYONE (including the poor) should have ACESS to healthy foods. (no force) 2. That unhealthy food producers should pay the FULL cost to the government for government services. Since unhealthy foods cost the government (in healthcare costs and productivity costs not to mention the lives lost and suffering caused by unhealthy foods) then companies who need government services (infrastructure , police, courts, army etc..) should pay the FULL price of what they cost the government. This is the same logic behind cigarette taxes. Incidentally do you know that right now a great portion of the food you eat is heavily subsidized?  
  • MichaelElpers said: @yisraelmeirsobel No the government shouldnt be determining what you should or shouldnt be eating.Its a right to life, not a right for the government to control what the best way to prolong it. @yisraelmeirsobel

    More importantly, no person or people should feel confident to insist on a government lie on their behalf. It is not clear that taxation power does not easily become abused when using tax code as the goal is to avoid the cost of representation in court by not filing a judicial grievance by the government as a fine.


  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 580 Pts   -   edited November 5
    @yisraelmeirsobel. You didnt just say you want to subsidize healthy foods, you said you want more heavily tax unhealthy ones.  The government shouldnt be subsidizing or taxing either, they should just flat out stay out of it.

    You say companies should have to payback the full economic cost of their products, but that would just raise the price of their products on the consumer.  Roads, bridges, ect are nonexclusive goods similar to police in military.  We dont calculate how every person in the U.S. benefits and tax them based on a calculated benefit.

    It is your responsibility to take care of your own health.  We have a right to bear arms, this doesnt mean the government should be passing out firearms to everyone. Rights shall not be infringed, youre confusing this with the government should be optimizing how you use these rights for you.
  • yisraelmeirsobelyisraelmeirsobel 23 Pts   -   edited November 5
    @MichaelElpers Taxing unhealthy foods would NOT JUST raise prices for the for the consumer it would lead to less consumption by the poorest which is exactly what we want. This reduced consumption would hit the companies. You said "We dont calculate how every person in the U.S. benefits and tax them based on a calculated benefit." Actually we do sometimes when feasible, for instance tolls, licensing fee's. I actually think that when feasible this should be always be done.

    You also said "We have a right to bear arms, this doesn't mean the government should be passing out firearms to everyone." Do you support having police? That's the government right there taking care of you.

    You said "It is your responsibility to take care of your own health."  1. If you are nearly broke and the unhealthy food is cheaper then you may need a little help in order to eat healthy. 2. Your health cost's the government (in productivity losses and healthcare cost's). Now I know you'll say the government shouldn't be subsidizing healthcare in any form but now it is and this is consistent with the current situation. 3. In order for you to be consistent the government should allow all addictive drugs on the market as well as close the FDA do you support this? 
         
  • @MichaelElpers Taxing unhealthy foods would NOT JUST raise prices for the for the consumer it would lead to less consumption by the poorest which is exactly what we want. This reduced consumption would hit the companies. You said "We don't calculate how every person in the U.S. benefits and tax them based on a calculated benefit." Actually we do sometimes when feasible, for instance tolls, licensing fee's etc.. I actually think that when feasible this should be always be done. 

    You also said "We have a right to bear arms, this doesn't mean the government should be passing out firearms to everyone." Do you support having police? That's the government right there taking care of you. 

    You said "It is your responsibility to take care of your own health."  1. If you are nearly broke and the unhealthy food is cheaper then you may need a little help in order to eat healthy. 2. Your health cost's the government (in productivity losses and healthcare cost's). Now I know you'll say the government shouldn't be subsidizing healthcare in any form but now it is and this is consistent with the current situation. 3. In order for you to be consistent the government should allow all addictive drugs on the market as well as close the FDA do you support this? 
         
  • @John_C_87 I don't consider this a punitive tax. I feel that the government has a right to demand that businesses pay the FULL economic cost of the government service's that they receive. This is just like overweight baggage  charges to flier's.  
  • It is nothing like a surcharge for flying as a passenger on an airplane. The suggestion is we charge a tax for a crime of bad eating habits and medication side effects without a law ever being written to contest in court. Your consideration is however noted it's kind of a common defense explaining how many states in America follow a legal precedent that is not part of their own nation's Supreme Court ruling.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 580 Pts   -  
    @yisraelmeirsobel. Having poorer people eat healthy food is not what i want, i want them to eat what they want/afford.

    You claimed they should pay more for roads and bridges.
    You think its feasible to track how often everyone uses a road?

    Police is completely different than owning a gun.  The governments job is to protect the people and uphold the law, thats it.  Police falls under that category as does military. Part of the reason the government illegalizes drugs is they threaten the safety of the community including those who arent using them.  I still dont think you understand what a right is.

    What you are proposing here allows the government to tax anything it declares "bad" and subsidize things that it feels is "good".  You are indeed taking away liberty and supplanting it with authoritarianism.
  • @MichaelElpers "Having poorer people eat healthy food is not what i want, i want them to eat what they want/afford."
    Even if they die from diabetes as a result of not being able to afford something healthier? What kind of right to life is that? Why would you want this?

    @MichaelElpers ;"You claimed they should pay more for roads and bridges.
    You think its feasible to track how often everyone uses a road?" I don't remember claiming that anyone should pay for roads and bridges. I did state a fact that currently the government charges tolls on some roads and bridges and that this is a positive example of the government charging for use of its services. I never said anything about extending this to all roads. 

    @MichaelElpers ;"The governments job is to protect the people and uphold the law, thats it". Well according to that view the government can't build road's bridges ect. . Fortunately here is the text of the preamble to the constitution 
       
     We the People of the United States, in Order to form a
    more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic
    Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote
    the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
    ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
    Constitution for the United States of America

    I bolded the relevant section's of the preamble. It say's "promote
    the general Welfare". This is more then "protect the people and uphold the law"  (That's already covered in  "establish Justiceinsure domestic
    Tranquility") "Promote
    the general Welfare"  includes things like roads, bridges and SAVING THE LIVES OF THE WEAK.

    @MichaelElpers "What you are proposing here allows the government to tax anything it declares "bad" and subsidize things that it feels is "good".  You are indeed taking away liberty and supplanting it with authoritarianism". 
    Not anything, it does have the right to recover the cost to the public via taxation. And yes the government has the responsibility to  "Promote
    the general Welfare".
  • @John_C_87"The suggestion is we charge a tax for a crime of bad eating habits and medication side effects" 
    The tax is on the companies who sell the food, not the consumer's. Since these company's would not be able to sell ANYTHING without the government providing it with services, it follows that the government has a right to charge them for the extra expenses to the government due to selling unhealthy food. @John_C_87 ;"without a law ever being written to contest in court."   I don't get this. Aren't all taxes laws passed in the legislature?
  •  I don't get this. Aren't all taxes laws passed in the legislature?

    Legislated laws in government do not ensure the idea behind the law was ever legal. It was one of the reasons that the Federal Reserve Note had in writing it was payable to all debt. tax is on the companies who sell the food, not the consumer's. Better yet you are now saying we should lie and write a tax law that fabricates principles of crime so people who commit wrong will not be charged and that cost will be passed on to business without recourse of law.
  • The simplest translation to what you are saying is blame business for people's mistake taxation law gives that right to the people, for the people.
  • " blame business for people's mistake taxation law gives that right to the people, for the people."@John_C_87 Why do you blame the consumer's, both the buyer's and the seller's are necessary and insufficient alone. Why do you imply that the consumers carry 100% of the blame. (Especially when a good deal of these consumer's can't afford more healthy food).   
  • piloteerpiloteer 1007 Pts   -   edited November 5
    @yisraelmeirsobel

    You would need to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that "unhealthy" foods are the sole cause, or even the leading cause of obesity. It can easily be argued that a lack of exercise is just as bad, if not worse than eating to much junk food. Another factor is a serious lack of water. Most Americans drink far less water than they should. I'm all for investing more in physical education and dietary education, but implementing taxes that will hurt the poor more than anybody else, and doing it because we think it's probably because of unhealthy foods seems more like a proposal just for the sake of raising taxes.

    Public investment in our infrastructure is not only for the benefit of companies, it is for the benefit of all of society because all of society has a vested interest in keeping our infrastructure up to date. So I fail to see why it should be businesses alone that should foot the bill for all of our infrastructure. I also do not think that the order of which ideals that were expressed in the constitution was a function of ranking their importance. It is not against the law for me to be more devoted to my pursuit of happiness than my right to life or liberty.    
    MichaelElpersJosh_Drake
  • @piloteer "You would need to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that "unhealthy" foods are the sole cause, or even the leading cause of obesity." Its not just obesity its also diabetes,  liver fat, and a whole cluster's of illness called metabolic syndrome watch this and see DR. Lustig explains at length    here's a shorter versio here http://archive.wphna.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/13-09_Credit_Suisse_Sugar_crossroads.pdf is a report by credit suiss recommending taxation of sugar as a main method of keeping healthcare cost's controllable(one of the top financial institution's).

    @piloteer ; "but implementing taxes that will hurt the poor more than anybody else, and doing it because we think it's probably because of unhealthy foods seems more like a proposal just for the sake of raising taxes".

     This is why I also want to use the money to subsidize free clearly healthy foods. The poor can also less easily afford the healthcare needed to treat there diseases hence the need to stop them from getting sick in the first place. As for the rich if they want to get sick and then spend all of there money then it's there right to be .    
  • piloteerpiloteer 1007 Pts   -  
    @yisraelmeirsobel

    I got a notification stating that you had a counterargument to my statement, but it doesn't seem to show up for some reason. Perhaps you could post it again so I can see it? It is an interesting topic and I don't want to be left out.
    Josh_Drake
  • " blame business for people's mistake taxation law gives that right to the people, for the people."@John_C_87 Why do you blame the consumer's, both the buyer's and the seller's are necessary and insufficient alone. Why do you imply that the consumers carry 100% of the blame. (Especially when a good deal of these consumer's can't afford more healthy food).   

    Not suggesting the direct use of taxation law as a fine for punishment for any reason. It does not work and undermines the legal collection of taxation as a united state for the purpose of representation to judicial constitutional separation.

    The implication of blame is made by only you, as it is within your powers to start a corporation, pay the employees who eat the best-selected diets a higher wage, and have company policies in which the employees must eat from a list of what the corporations instruct them to eat or they will be terminated. Do not incriminate the government in tyranny by your suggestion based on a declaration of your independence from basic principles.


  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 580 Pts   -  
    @yisraelmeirsobel. So it is governments job to promote welfare.  Cant people view their own welfare differently?  If i want a coke and to eat large amounts of cheese because that makes me happy that can be promoting my welfare. You shouldnt be taxing me more because you think its unhealthy.  That gets in the way of liberty.

    Also you did call for companies to pay back in taxes what they use for roads and bridges.  Heres your quote:
    "then companies who need government services (infrastructure , police, courts, army etc..) should pay the FULL price of what they cost the government."
    You're highly liberaterian on this end of the spectrum, while authoritarian on the other.

    Also are you prepared to do full on scientific studies to determine how healthy/unhealthy every food in the world is and tax them based on this?  Otherwise how are you being fair?  Id be prepared for a lot of lawsuits.

    The obsession of people today that the government should decide whats best for someone is baffling to me.
    piloteer
  • Nekron99Nekron99 3 Pts   -  
    A better question is whether or not Insurance companies have the right to insist they know what you're eating ?  If you eat pork rinds and smoke cigarettes for 40 years shouldn't you pay more for health insurance ?  Why would your poor eating habits impose higher costs on others who eat healthy and exercise ?  Micro-chips for lower insurance costs are coming....it wont be installed into society because legislation will force it on you, no.  It will surface and blossom because people will buy it by the millions until those who don't buy it will be a minority and paying a lot more for insurance.  Just another step towards Gattaca.
    piloteer
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 580 Pts   -  
    @Nekron99. If you can find an insurance company that wont impose that on you then you dont have to  but...
    Without doing so they would have to increase their rates on everyone to cover for the people doing unhealthy things such as smoking.

    So if you are a healthy person it is better for your rates if theyre asking if you are smoking, evaluate if youre overweight ect.
  • @MichaelElpers
     So it is governments job to promote welfare. 
    The Impression made for the better opion by yisraelmeirsobel is to based governing eating on a service charge, not taxation, or combinations of both tax and service charge which takes place now. Deliberately calling a service charge a tax code in tax law. The fraud in abusing perjury in have a women president, the fraud in abortion, and states following a foreign nation's supreme court ruling had not been enough in perjury crime. As the police and detectives cannot easily identify this type of crime to build a case and make arrests. Why can't it work for health issues and eating habits? it can work illegally for shaping peoples eating habits.
    piloteer
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 580 Pts   -  
    @piloteer. I mostly agree with you, but id prefer we dont invest into dietary education either.

    Dont most people who pass middleschool know what is healthy for you and whats not?  Its not rocket science that water is better than soda.  I think we should expect people to have some reeponsibility for their own well being.  Information is not hard to find these days.
  • The more interesting answer to learn in fundimental truth is where the instruction came that any guides in a constitutional preamble statement of fact, and simple truth, as a common defense to the general welfare of posterity had anything to do with fiscal health and not specifically just legal welfare. The precedent is that voters in the future could not be made to commit criminal acts like perjury by voting for elected officials who are pro-illegal law as there are several ways law can be written, then found after their creation to be constitutionally illegal.

    A written law based on a lie would be one.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1007 Pts   -   edited November 6
    @piloteer "You would need to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that "unhealthy" foods are the sole cause, or even the leading cause of obesity." Its not just obesity its also diabetes,  liver fat, and a whole cluster's of illness called metabolic syndrome watch this and see DR. Lustig explains at length    here's a shorter versio here http://archive.wphna.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/13-09_Credit_Suisse_Sugar_crossroads.pdf is a report by credit suiss recommending taxation of sugar as a main method of keeping healthcare cost's controllable(one of the top financial institution's).

    @piloteer ; "but implementing taxes that will hurt the poor more than anybody else, and doing it because we think it's probably because of unhealthy foods seems more like a proposal just for the sake of raising taxes".

     This is why I also want to use the money to subsidize free clearly healthy foods. The poor can also less easily afford the healthcare needed to treat there diseases hence the need to stop them from getting sick in the first place. As for the rich if they want to get sick and then spend all of there money then it's there right to be .    
    @yisraelmeirsobel

     So what you are saying is that poor people do not have the right to spend all their money on unhealthy foods and get sick? Why should this only be a right for the rich?

    So you've now raised the bar for yourself. Instead of proving that unhealthy foods are the sole cause of obesity, you now need to prove that it is the sole cause of all the other things you've listed. When it comes to implementing a tax that will be purposely biased toward the poor, it should probably be backed up with some documented scientific research. The video was interesting, but it doesn't clear the threshold of making your proposal beyond any doubt. 

      https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/85/3/651/4633139

    If you're willing to take on even more of a burden in this debate, then let me pile on a little more for you. Above is a documented study that suggests that sugary foods are a factor in obesity, but it is not the sole cause, or maybe not even the leading cause. Apparently it may be far more nuanced than just our diets. Remember, what your hope is is to decrease obesity, diabetes (type 2 of course, because type 1 happens at birth) liver fat, and "a whole cluster of illnesses called metabolic syndrome". Leave us also remember that if your proposal were to be implemented and somehow there was no appreciable reduction in those illnesses............well, it wouldn't make you gain many friends to say the least. So it would certainly be in your best interest to find at least one peer-reviewed study that actually has an unquestionable link between "unhealthy foods" and obesity, diabetes, liver fat, and "a whole cluster of illnesses called metabolic syndrome". After that peer-reviewed study goes through even more vigorous analysis, maybe it can then become a scientific truth. Then, and only then would you be able to clear the threshold of being beyond a reasonable doubt. Can you provide this evidence for us, or are you perfectly OK with proposing a tax that purposely hurts the poor and takes more of our liberties away and base it all on "just a hunch"?

    Or we could just entertain the idea that we are not all just mindless lemmings who cannot resist the onslaught of a capitalist commercial designed to dazzle the taste buds. We have the ability to choose for ourselves, and with a little education on the issue, perhaps more people would choose healthier foods.  I'm all for making sure everybody has access to proper healthcare, but when it becomes a meritocratic nightmare that factors our individual medical costs with our overall "worth" for society, then the initial intention of healthcare for all has been trampled on. Lets face it, most of us do not do as much manual labor as was done in the past, and it's not because we are afraid of hard work, it's because our economic system is a service based economy rather than a manufacturing economy. Does your proposal reflect the fact that we do not do as much manual labor any longer? Perhaps it would be a better idea to find treatments and more efficient exercise techniques to offset this masive change in our lifestyle. And here's one more proposal that I find to be vastly more effective than anything else, and that is to find better ways to get better foods to the poorer portions of society.          

    Thank you. Very interesting topic. 
           
    Josh_Drake
  • piloteerpiloteer 1007 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    It is a common technique now for governments to call something a "fee" or "charge" rather than a tax. If it were called a tax, it would be illegal to implement it based on individual factors. So instead it is called something else to get around that little law, but for all intents and purposes, it functions exactly like a tax.  
    John_C_87Josh_Drake
  • piloteerpiloteer 1007 Pts   -   edited November 6
    @MichaelElpers

    Incorrect information is also easy to find now. I had a debate with someone on this site who believed that humans are only supposed to eat meat, and any vegetables or fruit or nuts or wheat and grains are actually bad for our diets. I had to point out to that we have teeth that are genetically designed solely for eating foods other than meat. If what you are worried about is that more education means more taxes, I'd say cut costs elsewhere. The atrocious military budget would be a great place to start. And just because you don't agree with everything I've said, it doesn't mean you can't slap a "great argument" mark on it and give me the extra point. :D   
    John_C_87Josh_Drake
  • piloteer said: @John_C_87 It is a common technique now for governments to call something a "fee" or "charge" rather than a tax. If it were called a tax, it would be illegal to implement it based on individual factors. So instead it is called something else to get around that little law, but for all intents and purposes, it functions exactly like a tax.  

    Okay, I get where you’re coming from but by intentionally avoiding one law often means they still break a different law when writing legislation. Let's just look and marijuana law and not abortion for an example. By admitting publicly that an elected official does not follow constitution means they have in many ways simply abandon legal precedent as protection for committing crime themselves.

    Marijuana law was written as a narcotic which was an outright lie as narcotics have issues connected to U.S pattern law, and in marijuana, all chemicals are added or not added to marijuana by sellers or buyers. It is/was known not to be a narcotic. Police and detectives do not regulate by law enforcement consistently, make arrests for crimes like perjury in public even when it is blatant in the written law.

    2nd firearm issues where states are moving to purchase firearms from the civil public by use of both force and credit, some which hold a great collector’s value. The government has already set a legal precedent that it must buy its firearms from those not convicted of a felony crime. Creating the felon by writing law is a basic lie told in writing, in advance the order is for others to commit the crime on their behalf.

    3rd Pregnancy abortion where the lie is that all women who become pregnant have access to lethal force by way of medical abortion and the admission by deception is what makes them a murder. Women are tricked by the lie and instructed not only by written law but by a medical institution to lie on the official record.


    piloteer
  • piloteerpiloteer 1007 Pts   -   edited November 7
    @John_C_87

    I'm not totally sure I agree with your assertion that "avoidance of one law often still means they break another", or at least not in regards to calling a tax something other than a tax. It could just be that there is a valid loophole in the constitution and so they are "technically" not breaking any laws when they call a tax something else. Perhaps if the framers of the constitution could have seen this circumstance arise later on, they would have wanted to tactfully phrase the wording so as to avoid that circumstance. But they didn't. The politicians realized it. It was exploited. Shame on the politicians? Maybe. Shame on the American public for allowing it? More plausible. Shame on the writers of the constitution for not wording it precisely enough to have and maintain the specific intended purpose? Bullseye!!!!      
    Josh_Drake
  • piloteerpiloteer 1007 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    Am I understanding it correctly that because you are an "emerald premium member" you can give a "Highly valued "Talented" (worth three points) and "Incredible" (worth ten points) reaction to show other debaters appreciation for their arguments"? If that is true, feel free to slap one of those puppies up onto any of my arguments because I've never seen one. Gee, I wish I could think of a good argument you put one of those ten pointers on...........................woop, wait-   why don't you just toss one of those bad muthas on to this one? Please please please please please please? I just wanna see one. 
    Josh_Drake
  • piloteer said:
    @John_C_87

    I'm not totally sure I agree with your assertion that "avoidance of one law often still means they break another", or at least not in regards to calling a tax something other than a tax. It could just be that there is a valid loophole in the constitution and so they are "technically" not breaking any laws when they call a tax something else. Perhaps if the framers of the constitution could have seen this circumstance arise later on, they would have wanted to tactfully phrase the wording so as to avoid that circumstance. But they didn't. The politicians realized it. It was exploited. Shame on the politicians? Maybe. Shame on the American public for allowing it? More plausible. Shame on the writers of the constitution for not wording it precisely enough to have and maintain the specific intended purpose? Bullseye!!!!      

    There is no loophole in the word constitution you break a united state made by constitution, or you do not break a united state created by constitution. Jokes on them so to say, ha, ha, ha. Constitution is stating that a fundamental truth will be made in a simple way when related to history of law. The writers of the United State Constitution did not create the word constitution they only made room in their simple truth for expansion by new findings of simple was to explain otherwise complex crimes as people presented to become smarter. 

    Also, in principle, the declaration of independence was an admission of treason to help protect the nation had we lost the war of Independence itself a legal precedent in America as united state. General George Washington was elected as the 1st President, not holder of the exsecutive office not because a democracy at liberty willed it by vote. It was accepted by him with great reluctance for there were men who could stand for him in a court of law to swear under oath of truth he in fact sat before constitution on behalf of all men in a fundamental truth creating them all equal by the creator of grievance in law 


  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 580 Pts   -  
    @piloteer. I gave you a thumbs up.  Yeah unfortunately there are dumb people, but the government doesnt have to infringe on the rights of its citizens to help with the ignorant.  We agree on that i believe.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 580 Pts   -  
    @piloteer. I gave you a thumbs up.  Yeah unfortunately there are ignorant people, but the government doesnt have to infringe on the rights of its citizens to help with the ignorant We agree on that i believe.
    piloteerJohn_C_87
  • piloteerpiloteer 1007 Pts   -   edited November 8
    @MichaelElpers

    We do agree on that. I have no qualms with investing in productive education though. I thought you were referring to a different post. I've made a nice and lengthy one since, and it's a hum dinger if you ask me. I don't wanna oversell it though. I'll let you be the judge of the quality of its hum dingyness. Here it is.  
    @piloteer "You would need to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that "unhealthy" foods are the sole cause, or even the leading cause of obesity." Its not just obesity its also diabetes,  liver fat, and a whole cluster's of illness called metabolic syndrome watch this and see DR. Lustig explains at length    here's a shorter versio here http://archive.wphna.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/13-09_Credit_Suisse_Sugar_crossroads.pdf is a report by credit suiss recommending taxation of sugar as a main method of keeping healthcare cost's controllable(one of the top financial institution's).

    @piloteer ; "but implementing taxes that will hurt the poor more than anybody else, and doing it because we think it's probably because of unhealthy foods seems more like a proposal just for the sake of raising taxes".

     This is why I also want to use the money to subsidize free clearly healthy foods. The poor can also less easily afford the healthcare needed to treat there diseases hence the need to stop them from getting sick in the first place. As for the rich if they want to get sick and then spend all of there money then it's there right to be .    
    @piloteer said:

     So what you are saying is that poor people do not have the right to spend all their money on unhealthy foods and get sick? Why should this only be a right for the rich?

    So you've now raised the bar for yourself. Instead of proving that unhealthy foods are the sole cause of obesity, you now need to prove that it is the sole cause of all the other things you've listed. When it comes to implementing a tax that will be purposely biased toward the poor, it should probably be backed up with some documented scientific research. The video was interesting, but it doesn't clear the threshold of making your proposal beyond any doubt. 

      https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/85/3/651/4633139

    If you're willing to take on even more of a burden in this debate, then let me pile on a little more for you. Above is a documented study that suggests that sugary foods are a factor in obesity, but it is not the sole cause, or maybe not even the leading cause. Apparently it may be far more nuanced than just our diets. Remember, what your hope is is to decrease obesity, diabetes (type 2 of course, because type 1 happens at birth) liver fat, and "a whole cluster of illnesses called metabolic syndrome". Leave us also remember that if your proposal were to be implemented and somehow there was no appreciable reduction in those illnesses............well, it wouldn't make you gain many friends to say the least. So it would certainly be in your best interest to find at least one peer-reviewed study that actually has an unquestionable link between "unhealthy foods" and obesity, diabetes, liver fat, and "a whole cluster of illnesses called metabolic syndrome". After that peer-reviewed study goes through even more vigorous analysis, maybe it can then become a scientific truth. Then, and only then would you be able to clear the threshold of being beyond a reasonable doubt. Can you provide this evidence for us, or are you perfectly OK with proposing a tax that purposely hurts the poor and takes more of our liberties away and base it all on "just a hunch"?

    Or we could just entertain the idea that we are not all just mindless lemmings who cannot resist the onslaught of a capitalist commercial designed to dazzle the taste buds. We have the ability to choose for ourselves, and with a little education on the issue, perhaps more people would choose healthier foods.  I'm all for making sure everybody has access to proper healthcare, but when it becomes a meritocratic nightmare that factors our individual medical costs with our overall "worth" for society, then the initial intention of healthcare for all has been trampled on. Lets face it, most of us do not do as much manual labor as was done in the past, and it's not because we are afraid of hard work, it's because our economic system is a service based economy rather than a manufacturing economy. Does your proposal reflect the fact that we do not do as much manual labor any longer? Perhaps it would be a better idea to find treatments and more efficient exercise techniques to offset this masive change in our lifestyle. And here's one more proposal that I find to be vastly more effective than anything else, and that is to find better ways to get better foods to the poorer portions of society.          

    Thank you. Very interesting topic. 
           

    Josh_Drake
  • a report by credit suiss recommending taxation of sugar as a main method of keeping healthcare cost's controllable(one of the top financial institution's).

    The argument here is that research is the largest cost added to healthcare and becomes easily becomes disproportional and erratic as the logical course of treatment grows well beyond the affordability of the market.
  • JaceJace 134 Pts   -  
    Now some may argue that government interference with the free market is an attack on freedom. To this I say 1. that the in the preamble of the constitution It mentions the right to life BEFORE the right to liberty or the pursuit of happiness. 2 we already subsidize and tax lots of other stuff for less compelling reasons. 3. Companies can't sell their products without  public investment (roads bridges police etc.). Therefore it is only fair that company's payback the public the FULL economic cost of there products.
    1. the (american) constitution is not the last word on either prudence or ethics, and the order in which rights are listed does not immediately suggest a hierarchy of rights anyways. what matters is whether we want a life in which some individuals with more power than us coerce us into living in accordance with their values because we think that is valuable to us in some way.

    2. that we already do something does not mean that we should do more of it. that presumes that we are already doing is right or desirable. in this particular case, the reason unhealthy foods are so widely available is precisely because of practices in subsidizing the corn industry. eliminating the practice would ameliorate the problem, instead of replicating it in a different way.

    3. this i generally agree with, but that subsidies and incentives are not the only means of causing companies to internalize costs which they have improperly externalized to others.

    piloteer
  • 1. the (american) constitution is not the last word on either prudence or ethics, and the order in which rights are listed does not immediately suggest a hierarchy of rights anyways. what matters is whether we want a life in which some individuals with more power than us coerce us into living in accordance with their values because we think that is valuable to us in some way.

    1. When consitution is held united in its two states of principle, in self-evident fashion, and principles held broken with intentional interpretations, it literally is the last word, American consitution is actual supposedly the instruction of United State held between the two principles of consitution together as self-evident truth.
    2. American congress and it's United States are the history of written law forming a part of legal precedent as an official written document. Consitution is literally basic principle and law, united States Consitution is quite literally the removal of the word and in the definition of constitution,m shortening the definition of consitution itself to just the basic principle law.
  • The more perfect union.

    1. the (American) united states constitution is not the last word on either prudence or ethics, and the order in which rights are listed does not immediately suggest a hierarchy of rights anyways. what matters is whether we want a life in which some individuals with more power than us coerce us into living in accordance with they're values because we think that is valuable to us in some way.

    1. When constitution is held united in its two states of principle, in self-evident fashion, and principles held broken with intentional interpretations, it literally is the last word, American constitution is actual supposedly the instruction of United State held between the two principles of constitution together as self-evident truth.
    2. American congress and it's United States are the history of written law forming a part of legal precedent as an official written document. Constitution is literally basic principle and law, united States Constitution is quite literally the removal of the word and in the definition of constitution, m shortening the definition of constitution itself to just the basic principle law.


  • The more perfect union.
    Amendment I
    1. When constitution is held united in its two states of principle, in self-evident fashion, and principles "not" held broken with intentional interpretations, it literally is the last word, American constitution is actual supposedly the instruction of United State held between the two principles of constitution together as self-evident truth.

  • piloteerpiloteer 1007 Pts   -   edited November 8
    @Jace

    In exactly what sense is "coercion" even in play here? If you know of companies that are using force to make poor people to eat unhealthy foods, please let us all know so we can put it stop to it because that would be highly unethical. But if what you're calling "coercion" is actually just the non-coerced decisions of free individuals to choose what they want to eat, then your use of that word is nothing more than propagandist rhetoric, and the gap between your argument and reality are worlds apart.

    As I pointed out in this thread before, the entire proposal is based on an assumption that "unhealthy" foods are the sole cause, or the leading cause of obesity in the US. There are many other factors in play here that easily throws shade on the idea that this proposal would actually have any appreciable impact at all. I also made a proposal that we invest more in dietary education, including food preparation and healthier food choices. We don't necessarily need to tax "unhealthy" foods to pay for that education because we have a military budget that is nothing short of obscene that can be cut to pay for just such programs. Do we really need to inhibit our liberties as a knee jerk reaction when there are other options at our disposal that could be just as effective? 



           

    Josh_Drake
  • JaceJace 134 Pts   -   edited November 21

    there are two forms of coercion: (1) the immediate financial coercion of the individuals involved in corporate decision making, through the threat of financial harm and/or incarceration; and (2) the indirect financial coercion of individuals who are consumers into changing their eating habits, through the threat of financial harm. if there were no coercion in play then there would be no way that individuals in corporations would conform to the expectation of paying taxes.

    the rest of you post isn't responsive to mine and is generally in line with my statements, so i'm not going to address it.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2020 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch