Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Fri, Jan-27-17, 16:52
OceanPower OceanPower is offline
New Member
Posts: 4
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 195/190/175 Male 70
BF:
Progress:
Lightbulb Tax one-penny per net-carb.

Googling Tax one-penny per net-carb is what brought me here. Several cities and th U.K. now tax sugar. Really taxing net-carbs would be more effective at making more low-carb choices available, especially in fast food.

Anyways I live on a remote Island where low carb choices are very very limited. It's a US Protectorate so a national tax on net-carbs would apply.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Fri, Jan-27-17, 17:37
OceanPower OceanPower is offline
New Member
Posts: 4
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 195/190/175 Male 70
BF:
Progress:
Lightbulb Tax one-penny/N per net-carb

Taxing carbs is a great way to fund health care and will encourage food manufactures to innovate by adding fiber or cutting carbs while keeping low-carb products price competitive.

N could be any number from 1-20 and change each year to give food makers time to adjust. The price should show on store shelves, and restaurant menus rather than tacked on at the sales-register. Applying the tax to ingredients at the wholesale level may simplify the process.

N = 10 means a product would be taxed 1 cent for each 10 net-carbs.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Fri, Jan-27-17, 17:42
Grav Grav is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 476
 
Plan: Banting
Stats: 302/180/180 Male 175cm
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: New Zealand
Default

Well, it could work. But would it be the best solution?

One common argument I get when discussing this with people I know is that the costs of administering such a tax could be greater than the amount collected, and certainly if the tax wasn't set at a suitably meaningful amount to begin with, that could be true.

Just a few days ago I watched an interview of Robert Lustig on dietdoctor.com where they were discussing the subject of a sugar tax. He went to some lengths to emphasise that first and foremost, he is in favour of reducing sugar consumption regardless of how that might be accomplished.

I thought Lustig made a really good suggestion that would bypass the tax question altogether: cut the government subsidies that encourage such high levels of sugar production in the first place. All at once, you're simplifying the administration rather than adding to it, you're reducing supply through having reduced the incentive to produce it, you're increasing prices as a consequence of that reduced supply, and you're reducing consumption through higher prices. The same higher prices you'd get by imposing a tax upfront, except that now you're allowing market forces to play out across the board.

On this argument, Lustig was less inclined to favour a tax while Eenfeldt joked that he'd still be fine with it anyway. But it was a really insightful discussion that served to remind me about what exactly what it is that we're trying to solve here, and that while the idea of a tax might seem to have some merit on the surface, we shouldn't discount the possibility that other ideas could be just as effective, if not more so.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Fri, Jan-27-17, 19:18
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 11,370
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

With cigarettes, it's pretty certain that the cigarettes are the primary cause of disease much of the time. I don't think it's that simple with carbohydrate--it's fairly easy to demonstrate that once somebody has certain diabetes or insulin resistance, carbohydrate restriction will be effective, but a fairly high carbohydrate diet doesn't seem to cause much in the way of diabetes or insulin resistance outside of our modern diet and lifestyle. Plus, make carbohydrate too expensive to eat--and everything else gets a little more expensive as well, there's more competition for the avocadoes and bacon. This is one reason I want more study into various types of intermittent fasting, like Dr. Fung says, everybody can afford it.

Targeting sugar and corn syrup is a little less problematic, whether it's enough to decrease obesity or not (I suspect it will help) it should contribute to health. But I don't really want to be taxed into compliance, when you get down to it.

I don't think the tax has to be all that high, though--all the noise around a tax might be enough to raise awareness of the problems with sugar.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Fri, Jan-27-17, 20:48
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,714
 
Plan: HF/vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

An alternative to taxation would be removal of the government subsidies to growers of corn, sugar beets, wheat and other carbage that make them cheap to begin with. First we'd need to get governments to believe that carbs are not good for people.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Fri, Jan-27-17, 23:01
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 1,899
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deirdra
First we'd need to get governments to believe that carbs are not good for people.

That would be the primary objective, and the most difficult to achieve given today's belief's.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Sat, Jan-28-17, 01:48
Tx_Chris Tx_Chris is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 309
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 315/227/185 Male 5'9
BF:
Progress: 68%
Location: Texas
Default

As long as our food pyramid & doctors keeping pushing hclf to people this epidimic will continue. I am in same boat with teaser in that I am against being taxed into compliance. When it comes down to it each of us make choices. Each of us here made choices to try and find a better way to eat that ultimately lead us to this site. On a basic level each person has got to really want to change before anything has a chance of working. This woe although can seem easy at time is still hard & takes commitment to be part of 2-5% and that are successful long term. So many want quick fix of surgery with no commitment to changing underlying issues that got them in that shape in first place.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Sat, Jan-28-17, 08:50
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,965
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/161/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 84%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grav
I thought Lustig made a really good suggestion that would bypass the tax question altogether: cut the government subsidies that encourage such high levels of sugar production in the first place. All at once, you're simplifying the administration rather than adding to it, you're reducing supply through having reduced the incentive to produce it, you're increasing prices as a consequence of that reduced supply, and you're reducing consumption through higher prices. The same higher prices you'd get by imposing a tax upfront, except that now you're allowing market forces to play out across the board.


I think this is a far better idea. Why should we taxpayers pay them to make more sugar, then charge the taxpayers who want to consume it?

Let them, like the tobacco companies, find another line of work.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Sat, Jan-28-17, 23:50
Rosebud's Avatar
Rosebud Rosebud is offline
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23,425
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 235/135/135 Female 5'4
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Default

A couple of posts have just been removed from this thread. This is because we do not permit discussion of politics here. Please read the following post (found as a sticky in the Comments Box and Technical Questions forum) to understand: Why politics, religion and other contentious debates are not permitted here.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Sun, Jan-29-17, 05:52
inflammabl's Avatar
inflammabl inflammabl is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,825
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 296/220/205 Male 71 inches
BF:25%?
Progress: 84%
Location: Upstate South Carolina
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OceanPower
Googling Tax one-penny per net-carb is what brought me here. Several cities and th U.K. now tax sugar. Really taxing net-carbs would be more effective at making more low-carb choices available, especially in fast food.

Anyways I live on a remote Island where low carb choices are very very limited. It's a US Protectorate so a national tax on net-carbs would apply.


Net carb? Lustig doesn't have a problem with net-carbs. Just sugar. I know of no study that says net-carbs are the cause of what we are seeing today.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Sun, Jan-29-17, 06:49
Ambulo's Avatar
Ambulo Ambulo is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 774
 
Plan: No GPS/OMAD (23:1)
Stats: 150/123/120 Female 64 inches
BF:
Progress: 90%
Location: the North, England
Default

"Several cities in the UK now tax sugar"

Please explain this. Local councils can only raise money via the Council Tax. There has been discussion about the UK government putting a tax on sugary drinks, but so far nothing has come of it.
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Sun, Jan-29-17, 07:05
inflammabl's Avatar
inflammabl inflammabl is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,825
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 296/220/205 Male 71 inches
BF:25%?
Progress: 84%
Location: Upstate South Carolina
Default

Come to think of it, I think we are being trolled.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Sun, Jan-29-17, 09:34
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 1,899
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

More and more I get the feeling that as the true health impact of sugar is exposed, it will be handled in the way tobacco and alcohol are handled. Health warnings on labels and additional taxes in whatever form. I agree with the health warnings and labels, not sure how to best approach the social and health cost that it causes, as it needs to become an impact on those who make the decision to consume. When we review how much diabetes and obesity cost alone, and then we factor in the cost of the general symptoms of insulin resistance/metabolic syndrome, it becomes staggering! I've always felt that freedom of choice has a wide range as long as the impact is limited to the one making the choice. This is not an easy problem. Then, add in the massive influence from the sugar producing lobby, and you have an issue that becomes tied up with misinformation in the promotion of a healthy balanced diet. Balanced? It's tough for addicts to embrace balance.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Sun, Jan-29-17, 10:51
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,965
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/161/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 84%
Location: USA
Default

I think it was brilliant (was it Taubes?) to call it "the new tobacco." Same insidious long term damage, delayed societal recognition, skepticism, and pushback.

I agree that handling sugar the same way is the best solution.

I also think most sugar addicts don't realize that is what they are. If self-awareness spreads among the population, they can then be more conscious of their intake.
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Sun, Jan-29-17, 14:48
Seejay's Avatar
Seejay Seejay is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,025
 
Plan: Optimal Diet
Stats: 00/00/00 Female 62 inches
BF:
Progress: 8%
Default

We don't still have tobacco subsidies right? All that's left is the labels and taxes. Whereas on the sugar side there are still government policies promoting production at taxpayer cost through subsidies.

So the idea is, all of us pay to make excess sugar and starch, pay taxes for consuming it, and pay for health care when it makes us sick. What a racket!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:34.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.