The Instigator
PoliticallyCorrect
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
acgrace
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Why Fast Food Can Be Substantial To The Recovering Economy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,109 times Debate No: 13514
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

PoliticallyCorrect

Pro

Fast Food is a big part of the economy, and is one of the fastest and cheapest ways we can obtain food. If the government were to raise taxes on Fast Food by 2-3%, it would generate millions to stimulate the economy, and could help build new schools, roads, and recreational parks. Even though Fast Food is unhealthy, it wouldn't change anything negatively, and would make the Fast Food chains lower how much money the big-wig CEO's get, making them spend more time working on making the chain more positively substantial in the food world.
acgrace

Con

A recent article from USA Today estimates that the increasing obesity rate will cost Americans $344 billion dollars by 2018. The article also reports that an astonishing 21% of health-care costs stem directly from obesity. My opponent even admitted that fast-food is unhealthy. How can they then remark that it "wouldn't change anything negatively?" With the recent health-care bill passed by the legislature, the United States will be funding health-care. How is it logical to look for income from one of your adversaries in another battle you are currently fighting? On average, Americans spend $110 billion dollars a year on fast food. Yes, this seems like a large amount of money, but when you average out the amount gained in taxes, it would only be $2.2 billion. This seems like a large amount of money, but it wouldn't even be a drop in the bucket compared to the rising costs of health care (catapulted by obesity) and the average national budget of $2.6 trillion dollars a year. Finally, there is absolutely no factual basis that CEOs of fast food chains would receive pay cuts in the event of a tax. I would like to see evidence on this claim.

My three contentions for this argument are as follows:
1. Taxing the fast food industry will not reap enough funds to risk widespread federal taxation of targeted goods.
2. Taxing the fast food industry is a weak attempt to put a band-aid on our nation's rising obesity problem. It would be much more beneficial to attack obesity at its source rather than the companies who only indirectly contribute to the issue at hand.
3. A minimal tax, like my opponent proposes, on fast food items would not produce a net benefit to our nation when considering the obscene obstacles that undertaking such a tax would present.

I will await my opponent's response. Thank you, and please vote for the negation.
Debate Round No. 1
PoliticallyCorrect

Pro

It would raise the prices of fast food, making it less obtainable. And yes, it wouldn't affect it negatively because the consumers wouldn't change whether to eat it or not. And also, obesity problems would make doctors have more customers, producing more dollars to the government through taxes. Another simple point is producing more money for parks, promoting healthiness and being active.
acgrace

Con

In response to my opponent's previous claims:
A 2% tax would raise a $5.00 meal by 10 cents. Would you consider this 10 cent different a considerable price difference that would deter buyers? I believe that your second statement and first statement contradict each other. Correct me if I am wrong. In the new healthcare plan passed by the legislature, the government actually pays considerable amounts toward individual health care. Thus, the greater prevalence of obesity, the more the government pays in health care funding.

Now I will move into crossfire questions. Please respond to the questions, and then ask me some if you have any. :)
Do you have a figure on what percentage of the federal budget is directed towards parks?
Can you please state your main contentions?
Do you believe that the federal government should tax retailed items?
If you do, then how are they going to accomplish this taxation with no current system in place?
Do you have any figures supporting lower salaries for CEOs in fast food industries that are taxed?
Do you feel that taxing fast food corporations will end obesity?
Debate Round No. 2
PoliticallyCorrect

Pro

Well, this Tax increase would add onto previous taxes, thus providing a psychologically induced thought if it being more expensive, causing consumers to divert there money into other sources of food. And, also, many companies will still give company health insurance, meaning the government health insurance wont matter. Also, many people who buy fast food frequent enough to get health problems can't afford health insurance. Onto your questions:
-Most likely 6-8%, which would amount to millions

-No
-Companies that are taxed on there food usually have to do cutbacks, which in the long run loose a lot of money, causing CEO Heads to loose good amounts of money
-No, but we live in a country that allows us to eat and drink what we want, and obesity can only be solved by obesity stricken citizens who want to change there ways.
acgrace

Con

acgrace forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
PoliticallyCorrect

Pro

PoliticallyCorrect forfeited this round.
acgrace

Con

acgrace forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
Fail?
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
If I wasn't about to throw a party in the next hour, I'd go for it.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
60 minutes to post?!
Posted by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
Off already?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
PoliticallyCorrectacgraceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50