this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2025
83 points (97.7% liked)

News

31294 readers
2363 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 28 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The rising price of most sweets and the continued decrease in quality is the greatest disincentive to buying them.

I'm not a regular consumer of candy bars, but I saw that the price of a regular Snickers bar at a grocery store checkout is now about $2 each. Meanwhile in that same store you can get a box of brownie mix for about $2, 2 eggs will cost you about 60 cents and a quarter cup of vegetable oil will cost you about 10 cents for a total of about $2.70 yielding an entire tray of 15 brownies (or 18 cents per brownie). I get that part of that the candy bar is paying for convenience, but the differential is just too high now unless you just down have a kitchen available to you.

[–] BigMikeInAustin@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago (2 children)

This is true.

This is the basis for taxing high sugar convenience food. It was done for cigarettes, and today, consumers overwhelmingly see it as a good program. (Of course tobacco companies lobbied hard against it)

Should there be a line on which products governments deincentivise? High sugar convenience foods have their purpose, but does it outweigh increasing obesity? Should we instead subsidize healthy foods? Or both together?

[–] SaltySalamander@fedia.io 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Gov't should subsidize healthy food. Gov't shouldn't, however, make non-healthy food astronomically pricey. People should have affordable options for both. Like it or not, government making things artificially expensive in order to disincentivise people from buying the thing is a form of authoritarianism.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 0 points 5 days ago

Like it or not, government making things artificially expensive in order to disincentivize people from buying the thing is a form of authoritarianism.

I'm struggling to think of any scenario I would agree with your statement and I'm not coming up with anything. Further, I think your statement is dangerous because it dilutes the actual dangers and restrictions an authoritarian government would put in place.

Gov’t should subsidize healthy food.

Wouldn't that meet your definition of authoritarianism because it is causing non-healthy food to be proportionally more expensive?

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

This is the basis for taxing high sugar convenience food. It was done for cigarettes, and today, consumers overwhelmingly see it as a good program. (Of course tobacco companies lobbied hard against it)

You're referring to so called "sin taxes". I'm aware those exist for cigarettes of course, and I know some places have them for sugary drinks, but I'm not aware of any sin taxes on sweet food. I know many places that do not have sales tax food have exclusions that put candy back under regular sales tax, but those aren't sin taxes, and the sales tax percentage (usually at or under 10%) wouldn't come close to the sugar drink sin taxes I've seen (which are closer to 50%). In my state there's no sin tax on sugary anything, only the rules that mean that candy bars would have regular sales tax applied (about 7% in my area).

Can you cite a particular sin tax or situation where there is excessive taxation specifically on candy?