I believe that they should be case dependent as some may be able to afford it, some Might not. Let me know your opinion in the comments

  • Nollij@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    2·
    22 hours ago

    This has a long history under the term ‘sin tax’. I.e. taxing vices (sins) that no one needs for survival to discourage their use. Traditionally referring to things like alcohol and tobacco, but I’ve seen applied to movie tickets and even sugar. The fact that sugar kind of functions as food does make it a bit more complicated.

      • Nollij@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        2·
        21 hours ago

        Most of the “sins” are luxuries you can do without, and will probably be better off. Food is not a luxury; it’s a necessity. Sugar is a terrible food, but it’s often a large part of the cheapest (most affordable) food items available. Taxing sugar puts an extra burden on those who can least afford it.

        While they would be better off eating food without sugar, the real option might be not eating at all.