The government should implement a special "junk food" tax
Debate Rounds (3)
To give my opponent something to work with, I'll give a hypothetical outline for such a tax. The JFT is a sales tax which is applied to all candy, soft drinks, any food with trans fats, and any foods deemed, by the decision of the local governmental food regulatory agency, to have unhealthy amounts of added fats and sugars. Most processed food should be taxed. Exempt from the tax includes raw meat, produce, dairy products, and most bread products. All restaurant food will be subject to the tax, however the restaurant/fast food chain may appeal the tax on certain foods. I imagine most salads and other healthy dining options would be exempted with very little fuss.
Now, the obvious flaw in the JFT is that it is unfair to the poor, who depend on cheap, low quality foods to survive. To remedy this flaw, part of the JFT revenue must be put into a program to ensure everyone can afford to eat. Be it food stamps, subsidies, school breakfast programs, or government funded shelters giving out meals, the JFT will not prevent anyone from being able to afford to put food on the table.
I have outlined the parameters of the tax, I turn it over to my opponent for his opening statements. After my rebuttal, I will go more in depth as to just how this tax will be beneficial.
Thanks pro, this should be interesting.
As stated in round 1, I'm not assuming any burden of proof in this debate. This lies squarely on the shoulders of my opponent.
How high is the tax?
Is it at the federal, state, or county level?
Is it optional?
I'll let my opponent elaborate more in the next round. I'm solely taking apart his plan since I'm not assuming any burden of proof.
Canuckleball forfeited this round.
My opponent's case:
A special "junk food tax" is meant to promote healthy eating and fund food stamp programs for the poor.
(1) a tax on any product forces higher prices on the consumer. Any increase in the price of a product leads to less people buying it. So while Pro figures that a tax will provide a good stream of revenue to other programs, it'll actually decrease the stream of revenue because less people will buy the product. The price elasticity of demand measures whether a 1% increase in price leads to a greater than 1% decrease in demand for it. If it exceeds a 1% loss in demand, total revenue will fall and they'd have been better off not increasing the price at all. Fast food consumers are extremely sensitive to increases in price. They have a dollar menu at practically every fast food establishment. Cheap food is a hallmark of the unhealthy food industry. The whole target market for this industry would be alienated with the introduction of a new tax. Total revenue would fall substantially. This would have greater effects throughout the economy as local communities start slowing down due to sluggish food industry sales.
(2) high calorie food isn't inherently harmful. Many body builders routinely eat in excess of 4,000 calories per day. The idea of a tax on all high calorie or "unhealthy" food is making a misguided assumption.
(3) people would greatly disagree on what is considered "unhealthy food."
(4) the food stamp program badly needs reform. Billions of tax dollars are wasted in fraudulent food stamp benefits.
Canuckleball forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Marauder 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con because he posted every round of this debate Arguments: Con because his posted the final rebuttal of this debate, and Pro in the 1 round they did post did do anything to meet a burden of proof they themselves acknowledged they had. not a single source or math equation to demonstrate that a mild increase in food bank and school breakfast programs revenue would make up for financial suffering put on the poorer families by the JFT.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate