CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:10
Arguments:9
Total Votes:10
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 How does taxing fast food and soft drinks help the poor? (9)

Debate Creator

PrayerFails(11164) pic



How does taxing fast food and soft drinks help the poor?

Add New Argument
2 points

It doesn't, it just makes more money for the government. They spend on government funded programs which we don't even know. It just makes us more of a nanny state. It is just like the law about wearing seat belts, the law doesn't help save laws, its the people who decide to wear seat belts that save their own lives.

By taxing fast food it actually doesn't help the poor because they will not be able to afford it.

casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

Does the law about wearing seat belts not give an additional incentive to wear one?

should the poor be eating fast food often? Its unlikely eating out will ever be cheaper then eating in, eating out often compared to eating at home costs alot. making the difference a little larger on each visit highlights this fact for those only looking at the short term, and considering the often bleak long term condition of the poor I doubt many are looking to far ahead. Eating Fast food often adds to health costs, insurance costs, gas costs, car maintenance costs, possibly cloths and make up costs etc. Is there something wrong with providing a incentive which is more noticeable on the short term for the poor to be a little less as they are? would not eating fast food help their health and their pocket books? Seems as if we were to make it such that they can't afford it would be helping them.

More taxes on fast food and soft drinks only hurts the poor more financially, yet the liberals claim that they want to help the poor, but they insist taxing fast food and soft drink, which will only drive them further into poverty due to the suffocating taxes.

HOW?

Sales and sin taxes are the most regressive taxes.

Side: Hurts financially even more
casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

Health costs won't hurt them financially?

Is a sin tax not a type of deterrent?

Side: Hurts financially even more
HGrey87(750) Disputed
1 point

It would be a deterrent, assuming people are rational actors. But the field of economics (mostly bullshit anyway) is starting to realize that people don't always act in their own best interest. People like shitty food, so they will make room in their budget to get it.

This is even before considering the addictions to fat, salt, and sugar many people have.

Side: Hurts financially even more

It helps them by keeping them from becoming poor, fat, slobs ;)

Side: Hurts financially even more
1 point

First of all, taxing to subsidize heath care costs that are enormous due to obesity in Americans is only a band aid, it does not solve the obesity issue.

I read someone mentioned seat belts. Very different situation. You might think it should be your personal choice as an adult to wear one or not, but what about Joe taxpayer who has to pay for medical costs of the rebel who decided they don't need the seat belt, who now is in a coma with no health coverage? That law was to protect all involved and i do agree with it.

Why not tax the largest money making industry in the Us or even wider, another industry that has helped with the increase in overweight America? The video game purchases. Americans spend 25.3 billion dollars annually and rises each year on video games. I think they should even put a warning on them such as the surgeon generals on cigarettes. Then to combat the "FAT" make it mandatory to bring PE and education on nutrition back into our schools starting at grade K-12. There is currently only one state that makes PE a daily requirement in the school system. OUTRAGEOUS!!!! We have become fat and lazy...get off our butts and don't let the government disguise the FAT TAX as something to help the health of Americans, when really its just a way to help the deficit without breaking promises of NO MORE TAXES.

Side: Hurts financially even more

Taxing such commodities will have an adversarial effect on the poor.

Side: Hurts financially even more