One viral thread perfectly shares the painful reality of why poorer families buy junk food.

That escalated quickly.

The celebrity chef Jamie Oliver is currently on a tear with his #AdEnough campaign, which promotes a new sugar tax. If put into effect, the sugar tax would jack up the prices of junk food in hopes of promoting healthier eating and better cooking practices.

"This a tax for good; this is a tax for love; this is designed to protect and give to the most disadvantaged communities," Oliver said, and the tax would be part of an ongoing effort to fight childhood obesity.

However, Oliver is far from the first to propose a sugar tax to fight obesity and health issues, and this measure giving to 'the most disadvantaged communities' is not only inaccurate, but helps promote classist ideals about working class parenting.

In a now viral thread, Twitter user @sibylpain broke down why she thinks these taxes are misguided, and how they end up punishing the poor people they claim to uplift.




She opened up by sharing how her dad worked around the clock to support her brother and her, and their mother was financially out of the picture, but would show up to the home during violent outbursts.




She then went on to lay out the logistics, and how her father's work schedule only allowed him an average of four hours of sleep, and he neither had time nor money to buy food to make from scratch.








She went on to say that at the end of the day, it's far healthier for kids to eat junk food than not eat at all because their parents can no longer afford cheap food under a sugar tax. Most loving parents want the best for their kids, but if you're saddled with 60 hour work weeks, on top of potential disabilities or depression, getting lectured about not cooking stir fry is ultimately unhelpful.






To close out the thread, she laid out actual policies that would better public health and support low income families, those of which include affordable housing measures, an increased minimum wage, and better support for people with disabilities.






At the end of the day, if people have more money and time to make healthier choices, they likely will, but taxing people for buying cheap and accessible food (which usually falls under the umbrella of junk food) ends up punishing families trying to get by.

This article originally appeared on SomeeCards. You can read it here.


Culture

If you're a woman and you want to be a CEO, you should probably think about changing your name to "Jeffrey" or "Michael." Or possibly even "Michael Jeffreys" or "Jeffrey Michaels."

According to Fortune, last year, more men named Jeffrey and Michael became CEOs of America's top companies than women. A whopping total of one woman became a CEO, while two men named Jeffrey took the title, and two men named Michael moved into the C-suite as well.

The "New CEO Report" for 2018, which looks at new CEOS for the 250 largest S&P 500 companies, found that 23 people were appointed to the position of CEO. Only one of those 23 people was a woman. Michelle Gass, the new CEO of Kohl's, was the lone female on the list.

Keep Reading Show less
Business

How much of what we do is influenced by what we see on TV? When it comes to risky behavior, Netflix isn't taking any chances.

After receiving a lot of heat, the streaming platform is finally removing a controversial scenedepicting teen suicide in season one of "13 Reasons Why. The decision comes two years after the show's release after statistics reveal an uptick in teen suicide.

"As we prepare to launch season three later this summer, we've been mindful about the ongoing debate around the show. So on the advice of medical experts, including Dr. Christine Moutier, Chief Medical Officer at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, we've decided with creator Brian Yorkey and the producers to edit the scene in which Hannah takes her own life from season one," Netflix said in a statement, per The Hollywood Reporter.

Keep Reading Show less
Culture

At Trump's 'Social Media Summit' on Thursday, he bizarrely claimed Arnold Schwarzenegger had 'died' and he had witnessed said death. Wait, what?!


He didn't mean it literally - thank God. You can't be too sure! After all, he seemed to think that Frederick Douglass was still alive in February. More recently, he described a world in which the 1770s included airports. His laissez-faire approach to chronology is confusing, to say the least.

Keep Reading Show less
Democracy

Words matter. And they especially matter when we are talking about the safety and well-being of children.

While the #MeToo movement has shed light on sexual assault allegations that have long been swept under the rug, it has also brought to the forefront the language we use when discussing such cases. As a writer, I appreciate the importance of using varied wording, but it's vital we try to remain as accurate as possible in how we describe things.

There can be gray area in some topics, but some phrases being published by the media regarding sexual predation are not gray and need to be nixed completely—not only because they dilute the severity of the crime, but because they are simply inaccurate by definition.

One such phrase is "non-consensual sex with a minor." First of all, non-consensual sex is "rape" no matter who is involved. Second of all, most minors legally cannot consent to sex (the age of consent in the U.S. ranges by state from 16 to 18), so sex with a minor is almost always non-consensual by definition. Call it what it is—child rape or statutory rape, depending on circumstances—not "non-consensual sex."

Keep Reading Show less
Culture