var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
October 16, 2009 4:45 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

If the tax could actually help make healthy food more affordable...sure why not. I've paid taxes on smokes and booze, why not on hangover food.

Reply
10 replies
\"user-pic\"
fxsoap
October 19, 2009 8:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The Porkchop Express:

Shitty crap fast food should be taxed to even up prices with organic food. Would lower costs of health care if people switched by 3/4th. ---See article I don't have handy.

People who care about their health shouldn't be penalized for trying to maintain it vs those who don't care and have increased the overall cost to america in the last 60 years.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
lmarconi
October 16, 2009 11:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The Porkchop Express: As someone who doesn't make a lot of money but loves to cook with fresh ingredients, I would support this ONLY if it resulted in tax subsidies for fresh fruits and vegetables.
I lived in the UK recently and fresh meat, milk, fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables were at least half the price of here, with 1.5% inflation. Our country has a serious problem - rather than subsidizing US farmers, we need to start subsidizing the goods they produce to make them more affordable for families. NY Times Magazine has a great article on UK chef Jamie Oliver's travels in America's most obese county along these lines - [www.nytimes.com]
Otherwise, if it's solely a tax on junk food with no other repercussions, I agree, it's a tax on the poor. Rather than cutting into the limited funds people already have, we need to find solutions to make healthy food affordable and easy to prepare.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
winshape
October 16, 2009 6:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The Porkchop Express: It won't. The gov't may get in influx of cash in the early stages, then that cash will drop off.

Any money gained from these taxes will immediately be earmarked for something more important...like naming a bridge after a local senator...and nothing will ever go towards subsidizing healthy foods.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Nogard13
October 16, 2009 5:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The Porkchop Express: There is no need for a junk food tax. Just stop subsidizing corn and big agriculture and fast food prices will rise all on their own. Plus, we get to save our tax dollars twice (not paying a fast food tax and not having our taxed dollars wasted in subsidies).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kaceetheconsumer
October 17, 2009 9:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nogard13: But you're using sense and logic. That won't fly in the face of agribusiness lobbies.

Sadly, what is more likely to happen is that the tax on junk food (which is made largely from corn) will be turned around to subsidize more corn production to lower the price of corn even further.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
October 16, 2009 11:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nogard13: Just move the subsidy from corn & big ag to produce, and other healthy foods to help drive the price of those down.

A bag of Doritos was already about $4 and deterred me from buying it. It was the same price as a pork roast. It just seemed impractical to waste $4 or Doritos that have no real nutritional benefit.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
October 16, 2009 6:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nogard13: good point, but if it could help with the healthy food getting in the hands of those who can't afford it...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kateblack
October 16, 2009 6:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nogard13: This.

End subsidies for crap. Prices will regulate themselves.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
madanthony
October 16, 2009 4:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think the hardest thing is going to be deciding what junk food is. Sure, regular soda is bad, but what about diet soda? What about fruit juice that has just as much sugar/carbs naturally as soda or fruit drink?

Are pretzels junk food? What about sticks of butter or lard? Are baked chips OK? What about \"light\" versions of bad food - light ice cream? frozen yogurt? I could go on in this vein through every isle of the grocery store, and to do a \"junk food tax\", someone will have to do exactly that.

I enjoy an occasional splurge, but I also exercise pretty much daily, so I'd be annoyed to have to pay extra for my occasional treat. I'm even more annoyed at the thought of the government deciding what I should be eating more or less of. And it seems odd that the goverment wants to tax stuff while at the same time having agriculture policies (like subsidizing corn and putting high tarriffs on cane sugar imports) that don't exactly promote great health - I don't think HF Corn Syrup is any worse than sugar, but I don't think taxpayers should be subsidizing it either.

Reply
9 replies
\"user-pic\"
BytheSea
October 17, 2009 4:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@madanthony: The FDA has legal definitions of how much nutrients, fat, calories, etc a food hasto have in it to be called \"light\" or \"low fat.\" These catagories already exist.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RogerTheAlien
October 16, 2009 8:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@madanthony: Well, there's an alternative to taxing food, but it may not be that much better. In Japan, they're instituting a fat LAW. Basically, employers get fined or otherwise penalized for overweight employees. So, it's up to companies to ensure healthy, non-obese people are staying that way. Besides, in a country with socialized healthcare, like the US is proposing, it's in the gov't's best interests to ensure people are healthy (saves money - which is usually the bottom line).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kaceetheconsumer
October 17, 2009 9:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RogerTheAlien: But being overweight in and of itself is not proof of lack of health. I've been overweight all my life despite diets and exercise. When I finally found out that it was because of PCOS, I was able to adjust my diet to an extent and take metformin to compensate, which dropped a bunch of weight fast, but I'm still overweight.

I'll grant that my health right now isn't great because I've had foot problems for a couple of years that we're hoping will be resolved as I continue to heal from the surgery I had on it in May, but prior to my foot problems I was more active than many skinny people I know. Hell, back in university, I could out-bike (in both speed and endurance) ALL of my friends, and when I did a bike ride for charity, a guy on the Canadian Olympic team told me he was using me for pacing because I was going along so fast for so long.

Skinny people are not necessarily healthy. I guarantee you that, aside from my foot problem, I could outrun, outhike, or outbike most skinny smokers. Smoking helps keep you thin, after all.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sburnap42
October 16, 2009 6:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@madanthony: This is a royal pain in the ass. I used to work for a large retailer of cookware, and figuring out if confectioner's sugar was a food or a snack in various particular states was not trivial.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RvLeshrac
October 16, 2009 9:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sburnap42:


That's pretty cut-and-dried. Confectioner's Sugar is a baking ingredient, which makes it a food. Why would anyone think it was a snack? Who sits at home eating spoonfuls of confectioner's sugar?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
winshape
October 16, 2009 6:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@madanthony: Think of all the new government jobs that will be created!

What, are you anti-job? Someone might start to question your patriotism, comrade.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
subtlefrog
October 16, 2009 6:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@madanthony: What about a healthy meal, but deep fried? This was my first thought, too.

I\"m with wallspray, I don't think it doesn't mean it should be done, but if it were, there's no way it would be implemented without pissing a large percentage of people off, because something would be in there that someone would argue shouldn't be.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
wallspray
October 16, 2009 5:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@madanthony: saying something is complicated is not the same as saying it's not worth doing.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
October 16, 2009 5:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@madanthony: States already do things like this -- with WIC, with school lunches, with taxes differentials on \"good\" and \"bad\" food (my state has one now) ... it'd work pretty much the same. They'd start with junk food categories, some manufacturers would game it, they'd adjust, some legislator we get ketchup declared a vegetable, etc.

There's a lot of screwing around on the margins, as there is in any system, but the system tends to work reasonably well.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh
October 16, 2009 4:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hm.. as far as I know here in Houston we already pay sales taxes on these kinds of foods.. so I guess it doesn't really make that much of a difference.


Instead of the \"Dollar Menu\" I bet McD will come out with the \"Tax Free Menu\"..

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Scuba Steve
October 16, 2009 4:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It seems like its just picking an undesirable demographic and taxing it.


Not only that, but completely negates the two main reasons people choose it over healthy choices:


1. Healthy choices are often not conveinent. (Produce spoils, properly prepared meals take time)


2. Healthy choices often do not taste as good as junk alternatives.


You can't tax, or legislate, or force people to eat right because honestly, each person has their own reason for doing it.


I submit, that people generally DO listen to doctors and free regular doctors visits would help this nation's obesity and heart disease problems immensely!


The first trip to the hospital for people shouldn't be the Emergency room.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
H3ion
October 16, 2009 11:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Scuba Steve: The first trip to the hospital is usually the delivery room.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thehouserules
October 16, 2009 7:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Scuba Steve: I think a junk food tax would give fast food places a reason to innovate. Right now there are not very many healthy options at most fast food restaurants. I am guessing the reason for that is that there is limited demand for healthy products. How do you increase demand? Lower relative prices.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Kogenta
October 16, 2009 5:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Scuba Steve: I dunno, isn't there some weird stigma in the states about telling people that they're obese? I remember reading something a couple of years ago about how doctors won't say your kid is obese no matter how much they weigh, they just say that they're \"at risk\" of becoming obese so the kid/parents don't get depressed over it.

Too many people will take it as an insult, or a personal attack even if it's their medical professional telling them.

And then there's the problem that a lot of people won't start to take their health seriously until they suffer a major problem like a heart attack or a stroke because of the \"it'll never happen to me\" mentality.

I'm not sure that taxing unhealthy food (who gets to decide what's unhealthy anyhow) is the correct method to use, but there definitely needs to be some sort of cost incentive to go for healthy alternatives. Currently, there's disincentive to buy wholesome foods because as mentioned, it generally costs more and you get less of it when you compare it to a standard fast food meal.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Blueskylaw
October 16, 2009 7:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kogenta:


The doctors don't say you're fat, they say \"well nourished male\" to be politically correct.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
BluePlastic
October 17, 2009 4:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Blueskylaw: I'm a medical transcriptionist and I don't usually see that too much. I know it's not representative of ALL doctors/hospitals everywhere, but I personally get \"thin,\" \"well nourished, \"overweight,\" \"obese,\" or \"morbidly obese\" in the dictation I do.

I've never transcribed a note in which the doctor said \"overly nourished.\" Never.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RogerTheAlien
October 16, 2009 8:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Blueskylaw: Which is the most ridiculous thing ever. I'd like to see a coroner's report on a morbidly obese individual, who died from said obesity, but with cause of death listed as \"overly nourished.\" That is just assenine.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RvLeshrac
October 16, 2009 9:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RogerTheAlien:


You can't die from obesity. You can die from complications that might arise from obesity, but \"fat\" isn't a cause of death.


If a distance-runner dies from a heart attack during a marathon, we don't say they died from \"being too athletic.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JulesNoctambule
October 16, 2009 6:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kogenta: Over here, it's often not so much that people don't take health issues seriously but that people can't afford to take their health issues seriously until they have no other choice.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
mrs.bunnykins
October 16, 2009 4:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I personally think it is a good idea. 1st off, for an ex-smokers perspective, the hike in prices helped me with the decision to quit. Taxing unhealthy snacks would probably make someone think twice before grabbing junk over fruit. Also, an obvious perk would be a lot of people would probably trim down.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
MooseOfReason
October 17, 2009 6:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mrs.bunnykins: What authority do you have to tell people what they should or shouldn't eat?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Nogard13
October 16, 2009 5:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mrs.bunnykins: Are you thinking this through? First of all, increasing taxes is usually a bad idea. Secondly, junk food is only cheap because of farm subsidies (especially corn). Why not stop those instead and save taxpayer money? Oh, right, poor big agra! Third, fruit is normally a spring/summer food. The only reason we have fruit available here in 4 months out of the year is because it's imported from Chile or some other far away place. That is bad for the environment (which affects us all, as opposed to one person eating a cheeseburger, which only affects his health, not mine). Fourthly, this is a tax on poor people. It is the poor who generally eat more fast food and junk because they can't afford to buy the real food. There will be a lot more starving children in the US if fast food is taxed.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bjcolby15
October 16, 2009 6:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nogard13: You are very much correct.

I think this movement towards taxing junk food is more of an effort to impose the will of the super-elite than any effort to promote good health. The super-elite have access to fresh foods and vegetables; those who aren't are left with the cheap junk food.

And it IS the poor who will pay these taxes because this is all they can get. Improving access and reducing prices to the good foods (fruits, vegetables, etc.) would improve this avenue considerably, but thanks to the convenience story lobby, who offer cheap energy, putting good food in there will face a ton of resistance. Convenience stores already mark up fruits by an obscene margin, and high protein/high fiber/low sugar bars are double the price of a candy bar.

The convenience stores in my area make tons of $$ from the school kids from urban areas, who snap up as much of the junk food as they can. If the elite think the urban kids will take an apple rather than a bag of Funyuns and some Ho-Hos, they're oversimplifying the problem, which is access to healthier foods.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LadyTL
October 17, 2009 2:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bjcolby15: Any thought on making those high protein/high fiber/low suger bars taste like something other than dirt or paper though? Cause if they did maybe more people would choose to get them.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Aaronjk
October 16, 2009 4:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mrs.bunnykins:
They would just buy garbage with a green check mark on the front.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Scoobatz
October 16, 2009 4:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

No. Taxes should not be used for social engineering, and I don't believe for a second the additional tax revenue will be used appropriately and effectively.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
jscott73
October 16, 2009 4:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Scoobatz: I see your point but this in not social engineering, this is trying to cut the health care cost burden of the tax payer due to obesity. If people make slightly healthier choices due to a program like that it will help eliminate a small percentage, but substantial in dollar amount, of tax dollars being spent to treat uninsured or under-insured people.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
treimel
October 16, 2009 5:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jscott73:
Ahem, that's textbook social engineering--just a little lexical FYI.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
lawnmowerdeth
October 16, 2009 5:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jscott73: You say it's not social engineering, then you go and explain how it's social engineering.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
amorris525
October 16, 2009 4:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

How is that fair to those of us who are either underweight or at normal weight and just want to have junk food on occasion. Why should we be taxed?

Reply
13 replies
\"user-pic\"
BytheSea
October 17, 2009 4:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@amorris525: Being skinny doesn't mean that kind of food is good for you.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NickelMD
October 16, 2009 11:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@amorris525: Because the negative effects of junk food are not limited to obesity. Read \"Super Size Me\" if you'd like more information about what junkfood does to your body.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
CFinWV
October 16, 2009 6:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@amorris525: It's tax, since when are they meant to be fair?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mizike
October 16, 2009 5:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@amorris525: I agree; I only drink alcohol rarely, so I don't see why I should pay tax on it. I don't see why I should have to pay tax if I want to have the occasional drink.


I also don't own a car, have any children, and am completely illiterate so I don't see why I should pay taxes for roads, schools or libraries.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
October 16, 2009 7:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mizike: I think you broke everyone's sarcasm detectors, lol.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Stoli
October 16, 2009 6:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mizike: Not sure about the other stuff, but you've never used a road in your life? Never had someone drive you somewhere, never taken the bus? Do you work for a business that receives deliveries?


If not, you must live out in some cave. ^_^

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Scuba Steve
October 16, 2009 6:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mizike: Roads, schools, and libraries are a societal need, therefore spread out amongst society. I'm not sure what Alcohol taxes go to, but I'd be against them as well if they're not going to support a societal need that relates to alchohol.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sicknick
October 16, 2009 5:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Method of Steepest Descent: Ok, this is a fallacy. Just because there are more poor, uneducated people who shop at the local gas station or 7-11 instead of going to appropriate, fully stocked options doesn't mean poor people have no options.


I live literally a half mile north of the border of Detroit. The best farmers market in southeast michigan happens in the city at Eastern Market, every Saturday, with more fresh, local goods then you could ever hope to need. Locally grown veggies, meats, honey, herbs, etc. I shop there because I'm poor, and it's cheaper to shop there then at the Kroger's across the street from my house just north of the famed 8 mile border.


At the overpriced Kroger, I can find the other things I need. I choose when I don't eat healthy by picking up non-diet soda or chips.


It's only a poor tax if you're too lazy or stupid to buy what is offered that isn't easy.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
October 16, 2009 5:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@amorris525: Well, we would only be taxed on that rare occasion that we want junk. also, some thin people who eat this shit really aren't as healthy as they look.


As I said up top, if it would help with the costs of healthy foods or help care for those who eat this crap all the time, I'm cool with it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HIcycles
October 16, 2009 7:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The Porkchop Express: The problem I have with this tax, and a great many of our taxes, is that it becomes a way for the government to regulate my life without creating law.

It's easier for the government to tax us so that we behave the way they want us to, than it is for the government to outright create a list of approve foods that we can eat.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
smiling1809
October 16, 2009 5:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@amorris525: It's not about weight, it's about health. I know plenty of thin people who live off 100 calorie packs or chips and Coke. Being thin, doesn't make the food any better for you, and it doesn't mean that these foods won't cause disease to your body.


Maybe it will make junk and even more occasional treat for thin people. That can't hurt.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Nidoking
October 16, 2009 5:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@smiling1809: Some of us have very high calorie needs and would end up spending more to afford enough \"healthy\" food to sustain our diets. I don't eat junk as a treat... I eat it because if I don't, I just get hungry again immediately.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
October 16, 2009 6:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nidoking: umm, if you eat healthier, more calorie dense foods...you may not be hungry again in ten minutes like I am after eating any container of chips.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Laura Northrup
October 16, 2009 4:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@amorris525: That's why the term \"fat tax\" isn't appropriate. It's not a tax on being fat, it's a tax on the consumption junk food. If you eat junk food once a week, it's less of a burden. If you have two double cheeseburgers for lunch every day, it's a significant enough issue to change your behavior.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Aaronjk
October 16, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

We should also tax tea, sugar, stamps, whiskey, oh wait....

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
shepd
October 16, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yes. I also believe countries with socialized medicine should have a health-care-increased-usage-tax on most all sports, especially ones where mistakes generally prove fatal (airshows, sky diving, parachuting, etc).

Oh, wait, I vote no to both.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Scuba Steve
October 16, 2009 6:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shepd: I don't think fatal mistakes are the ones we spend healthcare on.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RvLeshrac
October 16, 2009 9:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Scuba Steve:


And if we DO spend money treating the deceased...

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
bjdhtgjvbhdgd
October 16, 2009 4:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This will be just another tax on the poor. I'd rather see a tax on luxury automobiles, flights, or cruises than a tax on the things poor people buy.

As far as subsidizing good food with bad, that's an idea that's doomed to fail. It it actually has the desired consequence of increasing demand for good food, then the source of the subsidy will dry up. If it doesn't, then the tax was in vain and again, the poor will carry the heaviest burden.

Reply
9 replies
\"user-pic\"
Scoobatz
October 16, 2009 8:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Method of Steepest Descent: Why is everyone so quick to suggest alternatives to what should be taxed, if not junk food? More and more taxes is not the answer! Just ask anyone who lives in NJ and is paying property taxes. Try to convince them that the state's financial problems will be solved with even higher taxes, not finding better ways to effectively use the money the state pulls in already.


Enough already.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Daveinva
October 16, 2009 7:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Method of Steepest Descent: \"I'd rather see a tax on luxury automobiles, flights, or cruises than a tax on the things poor people buy.\"

I'd rather see NO taxes, as your tax on \"luxury automobiles, flights or cruises\" just puts out the middle- and lower-class individuals who build and repair those items.

Remember the \"Yacht Tax\" in the 1990s? Oh-so-specially targeted to soak the rich? It nearly destroyed the American boating industry, putting thousands out of work. All it did to the \"rich\" was convince them to either not buy a boat at all or buy one overseas(10% tax on a zero sale is zero revenue).

[www.pbs.org]

Taxes affect behavior. Tax deductions and tax credits affect behavior. The Laffer Curve isn't just some fairy tale told by tea-party conservatives who hate paying taxes-- it's Economics 101. As in, science. For every tax, and all taxes in total, there is a \"sweet spot\" where once you pass it, you're going to collect *less* revenue as people change their behavior to avoid paying those taxes.

LOWER taxes, and we'll realize more revenue.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Decubitus
October 16, 2009 6:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Method of Steepest Descent: You're right. It is a tax on the poor. And the rich. And the middle class. All the different people who contribute to our rising health care costs because of obesity and the various health issues it brings.

I would rather the poor contribute in some fashion to their health care costs (to the extent they continue to eat junk food), than have me pay for most of it because I pay taxes and health insurance premiums.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mizike
October 16, 2009 6:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Method of Steepest Descent: A hugely disproportionate number of smokers are poor, do you also suggest doing away with taxes on cigarettes?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kateblack
October 16, 2009 6:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mizike: Cigarettes aren't a necessity. Food is.

When the only food available to you is unhealthy, you eat unhealthy food.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
October 16, 2009 5:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Method of Steepest Descent: meanwhile the poor are apparently eating all this stuff while not having health insurance and needing more care due to eating this crap...rinse. repeat.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
October 16, 2009 6:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The Porkchop Express: A lot of the poor are on EBT/Foodstamps so the government is picking up the tab for a lot of their food anyway, all this would mean is that the foodstamps don't go as far as they used to.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
prag
October 16, 2009 5:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Method of Steepest Descent:

Yeah. The poor often don't have as many options and access for healthy foods. They tend to shop at local convenience stores rather than fully stocked supermarkets either because, for example, lack of access to a car. Convenience stores are full of high calorie and low nutrition foods. Forget that convenience stores are typically higher priced if the items are further taxed the poor will suffer and no one will be any healthier.

Why not find ways to make healthier foods more affordable and accessible? Why not subsidize growers of leafy greens rather than growers of corn which is the basis of just about every junk food?

A tax isn't going to help here.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bjdhtgjvbhdgd
October 16, 2009 5:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Method of Steepest Descent: @Zeratul010: What do you say to the 15% of American who are unemployed (and many more underemployed) given that healthy food is more expensive than bad food? \"Sorry there aren't any jobs, here, you can pay this extra tax because some people are fat and that offends me.\"

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
nbs2
October 16, 2009 4:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The idea is good, I suppose - the risk I see is that we will end up treating junk taxes the way that the cig, gambling, and alcohol taxes are. Rather than utilizing the taxes to mitigate the social costs of those items, we will see legislatures raiding the funds for pet projects.


Do I like the idea of a junk food tax? No. But, I doubt that smokers and drinkers and gamblers like their special taxes either.


If we are going to tax it, then are we going to give junk food eaters special help in getting off the craving (like we do with cigarettes) and special protections while getting treated (like we do alcoholism)?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
smiling1809
October 16, 2009 4:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yes, if it is used to make healthy food more affordable for the CONSUMER. I could see the government subsidizing fruits and veggies, and then the sellers seeing it as a way to make a higher profit by charging the consumers the same.


Fresh food is expensive. I have high bills b/c I don't buy much processed food.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
MooseOfReason
October 17, 2009 6:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@smiling1809: Well, why don't we start by getting rid of agricultural subsidies? That would lower food costs.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Zeratul010
October 16, 2009 5:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm 100% for a fat tax. (And yes, I'd love to have it actually called that.) Even if you restricted it to any fast food chain, sodas, and whatever's currently in the candy aisle, it'd generate huge revenues even if the tax was as little as 5 cents an item.


To those who say it's unfairly targeting fat people or being used as social engineering: Yes. Yes, it is. And I have yet to meet the person who says \"I -want- to be fat.\" Social engineering designed to not make people fat, lazy, and unhealthy already exists. It seems foolish not to take advantage of it, especially when the benefits could be so massive. Doing serious damage to the American obesity epidemic, combined with increasing money available for healthy alternatives (or digging our economy out of the toilet) doesn't have a downside that I can see.


And I'm not some health nut. I eat fast food - sometimes I eat it way too much. This isn't going to stop me from eating fast food entirely - but it might cause me to skip fast food on occasion. Which, really, is only a good thing.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
MooseOfReason
October 17, 2009 6:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Zeratul010: It's not unfairly targeting fat people, but anyone who chooses to eat \"junk\" food.

And it's just a coincidence that this tax wouldn't affect Whole Foods shoppers.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
October 16, 2009 11:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Zeratul010: If you call it a \"fat tax\" you perpetuate the kind of misunderstanding that's getting posted here. It's not about whether you're fat or not, it's about whether you're eating crap or not. The fact that most people here are young and aren't seeing the long-term effects of such eating doesn't mean it's not taking place.

I'd be more inclined to have produce exempt from sales tax in those states that levy it on food, though.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Scoobatz
October 16, 2009 6:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Zeratul010: And I have yet to meet the person who says \"I -want- to be fat.\"


I wouldn't be too sure about that, because I didn't think I'd meet someone who actually wanted more taxes.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Tawnie is Monster Mashing
October 16, 2009 5:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yes, we should tax junk food and soda just as we tax cigarettes and alcohol. Junk food is just as bad and just as much of a luxury as cigarettes and alcohol. You do not need junk food, cigarettes, or alcohol to live so we should pay more for all three.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
squinko
October 16, 2009 6:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Method of Steepest Descent: Exactly. A lot of people buy junk food because it's cheaper than the healthier alternative. Look at the meat department in any grocery store. Ground turkey costs more than beef, and even the different mixes of beef (85/15, etc.) cost more the lower the fat percentage is. Some people find saving money more important than counting calories.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bjdhtgjvbhdgd
October 16, 2009 5:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@tawnie is waving: Cheap food is not a luxury when you're poor.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
subtlefrog
October 16, 2009 6:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Method of Steepest Descent: That doesn't mean you need to eat the unhealthiest options.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kateblack
October 16, 2009 6:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@subtlefrog: It does if you live in a food desert, where the healthiest options are often old, damaged produce that cost 2x or more than unhealthy processed food.

I don't think people who haven't personally lived in a food desert would understand this.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Naame
October 16, 2009 5:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

No, I think it is a bad idea. If the money is used to subsidize the cost of healthy foods then the food companies will just raise the prices on healthy foods as long as it doesn't put them under fire.

For example, let's say a bag of onions costs $2 and after the fat tax is used to subsidize the cost it brings the current price down to $1.75. What is likely to happen gradually over time is that the cost of onions will raise to $1.80...then $1.85...then $1.90..so on and so forth. Meanwhile the actual cost remains at $1.75 meaning the food companies just end up using the subsidized tax dollars as a means to get more profit from the consumers who end up spending almost the exact same amount of money as they did before anyways.

The only way to truly prevent such a thing from happening would be to further regulate the price on the foods whose prices we end up subsidizing but I don't think it should come to that quite yet.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Techguy1138
October 16, 2009 5:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Good thought bad idea.

It's to hard to define junk food and one you do a lawyer will figure out how to weasel around it.

Instead change the way farm subsidies work! Make healthy food cheaper in the same way we make junk food cheaper now.

HFCS is in everything because the government subsidizes it. Change subsidies and you change the way we,and the world, eat.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Cruc
October 16, 2009 5:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

No, No, No, no more bloody taxes-the government cannot repsonsibly use what we give them already and I sure as hell don't want more taken out to appease whatever issue-du-jour is of the day. And not just because tomorrow, there will be another issue-du-jour to which some grand push will be made to \"solve\" it by throwing mroe money at it at the expense of taxpayers.


(Save for an occasional Scittles and diet Coke, I'm no junk food junkie either.)


For all those in favor of it, you just stand by-they'll be coming for stuff you care about tomorrow. You just wait.


No more extension of the nanny-state.
No more bloody taxes.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
bjdhtgjvbhdgd
October 17, 2009 3:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cruc: I'm glad you brought up this issue of whether or not we should be taxed at all. There is a very good case study for the system for which you advocate; the state of Texas. (All the quotes and data below are from The Economist, July 11, 2009)

\"Texas now hosts more Fortune 500 companies than any other American state. \"...the state budget is still in surplus\" \"Texas levies no personal income tax.\"

But all of this comes at great cost.

\"Texas has the highest proportion of people lacking health insurance of all 50 states; the third highest poverty rate; the second highest imprisonment rate; the highest teenage birth rate; the lowest voter turnout; and the lowest proportion of high school graduates.\" \"Texas spends less on each of its citizens than does any other state.\" Texas has one of the most unequal income distributions of any state\".

I don't want my country to turn into this.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Southern
October 16, 2009 5:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So much for the \"land of the free\", right?


As a smoker, I was unhappy that they wanted to (SIGNIFICANTLY!) raise the tax on cigarettes, and all the \"non-smokers\" were like \"Hell ya, tax those nasty cigarettes. I won't smoke, so make 'em pay!\"..


So since I don't drink, and don't eat junk food, I might as well say the same thing - \"Hell ya, tax that nasty alcohol and junk food!\" :P


I'm only halfway joking, too. It just seems like the gooberment (purposefully spelled) is well on their way of taxing EVERYTHING they consider \"bad\" or outright BANNING everything they consider \"Bad\" (like TransFats or E-Cigs or whatever else).. We're rapidly turning into a nation of sheep instead of people that are permitted to make our OWN decisions.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
tbax929
October 16, 2009 6:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Southern:
I couldn't agree with you more. Everytime my state needs to raise more money from us, they increase taxes on liquor and smokes. Sure, I smoke (occasionally), but I don't eat a lot of junk food. Surely, obesity is just as expensive as diseases from smoking. I'm all for taxing junk food.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
julianazor
October 16, 2009 5:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I thought it was a good idea, but then I saw a news article about it. This was actually an idea in SF for non-diet sodas. They said that the tax would have to be something like 1900% to make someone NOT buy said food.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
tbax929
October 16, 2009 6:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@julianazor:
I have a problem with taxing something that much just so people won't do it. I'd better RTFA myself.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
huadpe
October 16, 2009 5:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

No. Why on earth is it the job of the government to tell people what to eat? Nobody opens a bag of Doritos thinking it's healthy. If junk food manufacturers were deceiving consumers (such as with the \"healthy choices\" crap, then there's a regulatory role. But \"we don't like the informed choices you're making\" is not grounds for regulation.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
VagrantRadio
October 16, 2009 8:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@huadpe: Why does the government have to get involved in everything we as Americans do? Get your damn hands off my cigarettes, alcohol and other guilty pleasures.

I already pay Uncle Sam enough each week. If I hear one more proposed hike or tax on anything, I'm throwing a tea party if you know what I mean.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
October 16, 2009 11:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@VagrantRadio: The government was involved already at the subsidy level.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
foodfeed
October 16, 2009 5:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

i think it should be focused on specific ingredients or combinations. corn syrup /vs sugar. calorie/fat ratios. this way healthier junk foods will be exempt. perhaps the food maker will need to use a higher quality ingredient at a greater cost to avoid this tax.
i'm a fan of the idea that if you make and produce something you should be responsible for the item for the full life cycle. food goes into the body and what it does there is as important as how good it tastes or looks. there is responsibility for how safe the food is in the short term germ sense, why not long term use?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
shibblegritz
October 16, 2009 6:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@foodfeed: If I drink enormous quantities of water, I will die from what is known as water intoxication.

We would, I think, all agree that water is as safe and benign a substance we encounter in our daily lives. And it's incumbent on the water utility to ensure that the water we drink is safe when it leaves the plant and travels through water mains on the way to our homes.

But once we put it in a glass, it's on us how it's used.

The same is true of food. Any food, eaten to excess, can have negative consequences. For instance, excessive consumption of cashews can cause kidney issues. Ingesting too much Vitamin A can cause nausea, irritability and blurred vision!

It's not the manufacturer's job to divine how we're going to consume the food and engineer it such that it will pose the least threat of harm over the long-term (and I'm not talking about the threat of long-term exposure to low-levels of toxic compounds ... that's a safey issue that the manufacturer has a responsibilty to address when they become aware of it).

It is, instead, our responsibility to take control of our own bodies and health and make good eating choices.

Public health education to this end is a fine thing, and I fully support my tax dollars being used to teach people how to make good food choices.

But I don't want Frito Lay, or the federal Department of Blabbity Blah, deciding what's right for my body. That's for me, and maybe my doctor, to decide.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nybiker
October 17, 2009 3:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shibblegritz: Please define 'excessive' when it comes to cashews. I like cashews and to quote the famous potato chip commercial, I can't just eat one. Thanks.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Outrun1986
October 16, 2009 5:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The problem is you won't find out about that tax until you go to the register and try to decipher that receipt. The shelf tag does not list the price before tax and the price after tax so people could see the impact it is having on their grocery bill. It will fly right by a lot of people. Most people don't check the receipt. People who buy junk food also will buy it no matter what, a tax is just going to make them pay more for it.

If the tax was factored into the shelf price, and then people saw the prices go up significantly then it might have some impact, but I am going to bet people would just buy the same amount they normally do anyways. I assume its going to just be factored into the final bill though like all sales taxes are.

There is already a huge issue of what foods to charge tax on and what constitutes as tax free food. In NY state we already pay at least 8% sales tax on all prepared food including carry outs and restaurants. Some foods directly from the grocery store are also taxed, so I am seeing this as just an opportunity for them to add yet more taxes to our grocery bill and to perhaps mis-tax items that really aren't supposed to have taxes.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
CaptZ
October 16, 2009 5:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I say no because our taxes are already wasted. If our taxes were used properly and for what they were intended we could easily afford free healthcare for everyone. But pork barrel projects, ridiculous studies and an over bloated goverment, they will do nothing more than waste any new tax.


This has nothing to do with socialized behavior or getting America healthy. This is all about more money for the givernment to waste. They can't live within their means now. Do you really think that will change?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Hongfiately
October 16, 2009 5:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You can't have a tax that is both sumptuary and revenue-generating. If you need the tax revenue from a junk food tax to subsidize healthy food choices, then you need people to buy junk food.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
morlo
October 16, 2009 5:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Hongfiately: 20% tax on your Big Mac pays for a free Government Banana for dessert!

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
slopirate
October 16, 2009 5:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

THAT'S NOT YOUR MONEY!

What sick set of principles allow you to steal from junk food producers to give to health food producers? Don't you see the problem with that? You have no right to force me to eat healthy. None.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
October 16, 2009 11:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@slopirate: The fact that their ingredients are so affordable because of government subsidy?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
nerble
October 16, 2009 5:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Unless you're sitting next to me on an airplane why do you care if I'm fat? And don't even start in on health costs, because we were told forever how much extra we paid on health care because all those people smoked. So through the years a huge percentage of the population stopped smoking. I have yet to see the huge cuts in health care costs materialize.


If I want to eat a diet that consists of marshmallow fluff and full sugar (gasp!) coke then leave me the eff alone to do so. We haven't actually been turned into communists yet.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
WordTipping
October 16, 2009 5:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think one of the greatest myths is the idea that junk food costs less than real food. I can feed myself for an entire week off of what one day of value meals cost at McDonalds.

People eat fast food not because its cheaper, its more expensive, because its fast and most people can't cook.

Taxing junk food won't in the end accomplish much unless you can somehow convince people to take the time to cook and take the time to learn to cook.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Burzmali
October 16, 2009 5:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I eat a lot of junk food, and a tax probably wouldn't deter me unless it was at least 50%. I have a problem with all sin-taxes, on principle, but in reality I don't care much about them. It wouldn't really bother me if there was such a tax.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
FrugalFreak
October 16, 2009 6:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It wouldn't work, manufacturers would just lower price to adjust being cheaper than healthy food. shrink boxes, and grocery stores would sell it for same price.

if we continue to tax your oppositions to others lives, then what we do and buy will go underground.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
balthisar
October 16, 2009 6:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

No new taxes. And no new subsidies for that matter. Let the market work for itself, and let people kill themselves if they want to by eating badly. And let's not subsidize their health case if they choose to do so.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
shibblegritz
October 16, 2009 6:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

A free people should not have the government telling them what they can, should, are going to eat. And taxes are, well, they should be, for collecting revenue to run necessary government operations, not trying to steer people into government-sanctioned behavior.

I've said it before. If you follow this line of reasoning to its conclusion, it ends with government determining how many calories it is healthy for you to consume, issuing you nutritionally balanced food kits for you to eat and making it illegal for you to consume anyone else's or eat any additional food beyond that which the government has deemed appropriate for your needs.

It's the ultimate form of social justice ... everyone gets the same amount of high-quality, nutritious food, everyone is healthier, health-care costs are lower and we can get rid of all those messy, waste- and traffic-producing restaurants, not to mention those annoying food-industry commercials that clutter up our evening soma ... er television experience!

Bonus? We won't have to spend any more time deciding what's for dinner! We can just consult the Schedule 4 of Subpart B of the Department of Agriculture's Division of Nutrition's Bureau of Dietary Regulation's Weekly Consumption Matrix (Version Control Number 5548922x, natch) to determine which meals are compatible with our family's pre-rationed, pre-packaged meal modules! Yay!

While it's of course unlikely we would ever get to such a dystopian stop in our devolution, I'd argue there are plenty of exits along that highway to hell that aren't so far-fetched ... such as government imposing minimum and maximum nutritional standards for all commercially prepared food items, making it a criminal offense for restaurants to exceed fat and sodium limits, etc.

There comes a point at which we are going to have to ask ourselves how much we want to allow government to control and prod us. There comes a point at which we have to look at our own fat slobby selves and ask if it's not OUR problem, not Big Food's, that we're disgustingly overweight, sickeningly out of breath, and diabetic to the brink of extinction. And that it's on us to solve the problem for ourselves and not expect government to trot in with a \"solution\" that solves nothing except its need to take more money from us.

Are you SO weak-minded that you have to have government force your hand because you're so incapable of resisting the lure of advertising, marketing and promotion?

If so, go find a cult or a commune to join and let me live my life.

Now, you'll have to excuse me. I'm going to go eat a bag of chips while I can still afford it.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
sgtcody
October 16, 2009 6:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shibblegritz: Thank you sir, you have restored my hope for continued liberty

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
tdogg241
October 16, 2009 6:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

A \"Junk Food Tax\" is a great idea in theory, but who gets to decide what is and isn't unhealthy? Would only fresh ingredients be exempt from this tax since the majority of packaged foods are bad for you in some manner? Also, you missed one of the big flaws of this tax: It will disproportionately affect the poor, and unfortunately I can't really think of a logical way around that.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
henrygates
October 16, 2009 7:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm torn on the issue. However, I do find the anti-tax commercials with the mom complaining about a few cents extra tax on her SODA for her family is going to be devastating to \"trying to feed her family\" super amusing and sad.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Aresef
October 16, 2009 7:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I was listening to The Diane Rehm Show and this shill from the astroturf-as-anything Center for Consumer Freedom was on against a former FDA administrator and the director of an institute on food policy at Yale. Diane grilled the shill... his defenses were quite ridiculous.

[wamu.org]

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon.
October 16, 2009 7:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Aresef: I heard that episode this morning. I didn't find his arguments convincing in the least.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
parad0x360
October 16, 2009 7:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@amorris525: I dont see how this would help people lose weight in anything but their wallets.

If people are going to eat unhealthy and get fat than its what they will do whether there is a tax or not. If they passed such a tax then they should use that money to lower the prices of healthier foods.

Also what about those of us who arent overweight? I dont have a eating or weight problem so I hardly think it would be fair to pay higher prices because some people have no self control or refuse to exercise.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
October 16, 2009 11:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@parad0x360: Detach \"weight\" from \"health.\" They're not the same thing.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon.
October 16, 2009 7:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't see how taxing junk food is going to make any significant difference in terms of general health. Sure, the revenue-generating side of it would work and the tax would make the government lots of money.

So how would that translate to a healthier society? How would you actually use and disribute the revenue to subsidize healthy foods, and how would you determine who would get those subsidies? Who decides what's \"healthy\" food and what isn't? Trying to figure that all out would burn up all the revenue from the tax.

A lot of fast food issues boil down to availability and convenience, so unless you double the price of that cheeseburger, bag of chips, or soda, it's hardly going to have any effect on buying habits.

It sounds like a good idea if you put it in a sound-bite, but I don't see how you could possibly implement this reasonably and efficiently and have it make any actual difference.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
teqjack
October 16, 2009 7:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Should There Be a \"Fat Tax\" on Junk Food?

Food is already taxed, at least excepting [some places] final consumer. Add a tax on \"fast,\" \"junk,\" or \"unhealthy\" food, and you have to define it.

Is a cheese sandwich (sort of \"ploughman's lunch\") fast food? Yes. Except you might have carried it to work rather than ordering it in a shop, which makes it even faster but it is not then \"fast\" food. Is it \"junk\" food? A lot of people will certainly argue you should have some protein, vegetable, and/or fruit with it and it is junk otherwise (OK, add pickle/relish as veggie?). Is it \"unhealthy\" food? You'll get a lot of people saying it is, since it is animal-derived. Not to mention \"manufactured\" rather than \"natural\" - cows and goats (or yaks, horses, whatever) do not give cheese, humans have to make it. And then there are the PETA and ALF extremists...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
October 16, 2009 7:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Terrible idea. Just another tax on the poor/middle class. It will have 0 impact on health. Instead of punishing people for eating badly, how about reward them for eating well? Tax breaks for people that can maintain a healthy bmi, or get good checkups at the doctor, etc. Our government does not need to get into the business of regulating what we eat.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
vladthepaler
October 16, 2009 9:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's an excellent idea. Unhealthy food causes health problems which ultimately everyone ends up paying for, especially if we go socialist with health care. Taxes seem to be ineffective as a deterrent (see cigarettes, fuel, etc.) but taxes can be levied to help cover the costs of peoples' poor health.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
jparadise
October 16, 2009 10:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

NO, junk food doesn't make people fat, poor eating habits makes people fat.

I go to the gym 3 times a week and and also enjoy eating handfuls of Flavor Blasted Goldfish.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Dienacarfire
October 16, 2009 11:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but where would a tax such as this end? Sure, you can classify the majority of items at McDonalds/Burger King/etc as junk food, but what about Denny's, Red Robin, or all of the other restaurant chains? The food that those restaurants produce is not of the healthiest quality (see sodium in food from Denny's) but it's not really fast or cheap either. What exactly is going to classify as junk food? A cheeseburger is a cheeseburger, no?

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
H3ion
October 16, 2009 11:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Let's stop pussyfooting around. Shut down Frito-Lay. They have no right to be in business. Shut down Hershey. Chocolate candy is bad for you. Coca-cola? Gone. Pepsi-cola? Gone.

Those who want to tax, tax, tax...the power to tax is the power to destroy. If your goal is destruction, cut the nonsense and just do it. If your goal is revenue generation, then tax everyone if the money is going to be used for a public purpose.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
dilbert69
October 17, 2009 12:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think it's a great idea. Eating junk food creates externalities which the eater doesn't pay for. With a sufficient level of tax, those would be neutralized, and perhaps people would also make smarter choices. It's only bad for the junk food makers, and who cares about them?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Al Swearengen
October 17, 2009 1:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm tired of governments trying to balance their budgets through \"sin taxes\", nickel and dime usage fees, or tickets for various infractions, instead of trying to have sound governance and proper tax policies. There is a reason governments don't just raise everyone's taxes anymore, because there will be political fallout from that. If there is political fallout, then politicians need to act responsibly. However, raise fees on various things that no one will notice, the government gets its money that it can dole out to its connected friends, and no one is the wiser.


And if the government was so concerned with the health of its people it would tax polluters and make sure everyone has health care.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
coren
October 17, 2009 1:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Absolutely not, but then again I'm against jacking up cigarette and booze taxes, and I think the government should at the very least legalize weed, so I might be biased. I don't smoke (anything) or drink, I just don't think the government should be telling us what it's ok to do to our own bodies.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
LadyTL
October 17, 2009 2:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Here's my few cents:


This tax is if passed will end on being put on nearly everything you can but that is in nearly any kind of package including meats and cheeses. So everyone including those who shop at upscale places that claim to be healthy will end up paying this too. It is because except for fruits and vegetables, you cannot get any kind of consensus on what actually is healthy. Not even from doctors.


Also it won't stop people from buying processed food at some point because most local farmers markets shut down in october and start up again in may or june. People funnily enough still have to eat during those months a farmer's market is not running. Also people may not have access to a farmers market or a store with reasonable for their budget costs of produce.


Both of these mean food costs will jump across the board.


This tax though would have a nil effect on the supposed levels of obesity in this country. The levels of obesity are determined through the use of the BMI index. That system is deeply and inherently flawed. It does not take into account: fat to muscle ratio, bone density, bone mass, the fact that average heights has gone up since it was created, or any kind of actual thought on someone's health. Here's a perfect example to put it into perspective; according to the BMI index, Wolverine from the X-Men is morbidly and exceedingly dangerously obese and with the assumptions made using the BMI index he would be in danger of dropping dead immediately.


So in fact this supposed \"epidemic of obesity\" is nothing of the sort since anyone with any decent muscle mass is labeled overweight and anyone who didn't starve themselves during puberty and actually developed a strong skeletal system then put on muscle is labeled obese. Every wrestler, bodybuilder, football player, even some baseball players are all considered according to the BMI index to be obese.


Also adding another thing that takes money is not going to help the millions of people who are unhealthy because they cannot afford to go to the doctor or cannot be covered to get to go to the doctor which is a bigger cause of unhealthy people in the united states.


So yeah this tax would be nothing but an epic fail.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
RogueWarrior
October 17, 2009 2:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I tell you what, you seal the border and deport every single illegal alien and THEN MAYBE we'll talk about a junk food tax. Wanna know who's filling up the E.R.'s costing the healthcare system billions? First clue: it's not fat people.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon.
October 17, 2009 2:50 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

If junk-food is outlawed, only outlaws will have junk-food!

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
RandomHookup
October 17, 2009 1:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@☠Grяrяrяrяrя, portrait of a chickenwolfmoosepig.: I'll going to stock a warehouse with Twinkies and Doritos and wait until the market makes me rich.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon.
October 18, 2009 7:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RandomHookup: There should be a very lucrative market for illicit Twinkies and black-market Doritos.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
crazydavythe1st
October 17, 2009 3:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Taxing junk food to subsidize healthy food?

How about we stop providing federal funds to subsidize unhealthy food? Corn subsidies have allowed food manufacturers to produce junk food at incredibly low costs by providing for HFCS, massive amounts of unhealthy-but-really-cheap animal feed, etc. A $1 cheeseburger shouldn't be possible, except that it IS possible to stuff a cow with huge amounts of corn derived animal feed at virtually no cost - even if it does slowly kill the animal and make it disease-prone. after all, that's what the antibiotics are for.

Then you have to worry that the corn being used to produce HFCS and this animal feed isn't even corn that you would ever want to eat straight up. It's genetically modified garbage that tastes like sh**. It's also grown in such a way that massive amounts of chemical fertilizers are needed - most of which end up as run-off in the Gulf of Mexico, leaving parts of it unsuitable in sustaining aquatic life.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ShariC
October 17, 2009 3:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The question to ask is what do people want to achieve? Do they want people to eat more healthily and lose weight? Is a tax on junk food going to achieve that goal? My opinion is that it will not because the basic issues are not related to the cost of junk food so much as lifestyle, physiological, and psychological problems.

I cook almost every meal myself and make almost everything from scratch (including bread and soup). The time involved in making healthy meals is not to be underestimated, especially if you're trying to work with low cost ingredients like beans. Unless you eat the same simple meals day-in and day-out, you're going to need to invest a lot of time in shopping, meal planning, preparing, cooking, and cleaning up. People generally are too tired to do the right thing, especially when it's a family with two parents working full-time or a single full-time worker. They will always gravitate toward what is fast and easy over what is complex and difficult.

People need to be educated in ways to handle such things themselves. The problem is their parents never taught them and the cycle of doing less for themselves has only built to the point where people now rely a lot on convenience foods (either from fast food or prepackaged meals). The answer isn't taxing junk food, but teaching people how to manage their lives *and* incorporate making their own meals which are healthier into the mix.

While I don't care if junk food or fast food is taxed (because I don't eat it anyway), I don't see any point in doing so because it won't solve anything.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
nybiker
October 17, 2009 3:37 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

In theory a 'junk-food tax' sounds good. In reality, I don't trust any politician to do anything they promise to do with the money that's collected.

And besides, as I think others have mentioned, some of the 'food' is already taxed. Here in NY, soda (i.e., carbonated beverages) are taxed the regular sales tax. But people still buy soda (me included, but I get the generic seltzer - I like me bubbles).

And again, the devil will be in the details of any such program.

So, let's not have any special junk food tax. We're taxed enough as it is. Thank you.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
BytheSea
October 17, 2009 4:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

At least in PA, junk food already has a sales tax. Things like milk, veggies, realingredients, etc don't.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
nygenxer
October 17, 2009 5:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

We COULD also stop using taxpayer money to subsidize the growing of corn and sugar...

/It's just so damn OBVIOUS.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
sirellyn
October 17, 2009 8:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Here's an idea. How about the government stops spending money like it's going out of fashion.

It's the government spending that has to stop, not more taxes.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
parabola101
October 17, 2009 11:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's not up to the Government to decide what it's citizens should or should not eat...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
misti713
October 17, 2009 11:40 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think all groceries should be taxed the same as prepared foods. I know my state could use the revenue. There's budget trouble in Michigan.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
EightIsEnough
October 17, 2009 12:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Even stuff that's healthy can be un-healthy taken to excess.


Anyone allowing another new tax hasn't a leg to stand on in complaining about a tax that affects only them.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Alarm Bell
October 17, 2009 3:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Are you kidding me? You could make a bag of Fritos $15, and people will still buy it, because they think it's real food. The same folks wouldn't eat healthy vegetables and fruits if they were free.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
zzxx
October 17, 2009 10:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I am 5' 11\" and in the last 10 years went from a solid 230 to a flabby 280 because of junk food. I eat junk food because it is cheaper and I am short on money. Also, near my job, there are few if any places where you can get something good to eat for a reasonable price. I work in downtown Brooklyn, NY. This has to be the capital of fat people. I was teased for being overweight when I was young in the 60's and 70's. Now I am much fatter than then and most people do not consider me obese!!! Everyone around me is getting bigger. I am right now trying to turn this around. This country needs a tax on this sort of food. Almost all taxes are there to motivate behavior. This should be another one.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
LadyTL
October 18, 2009 3:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@zzxx: so wait...you want to make the food you have to buy because of money issues even more expensive? i guess you want to be on food stamps then huh

Reply
\"user-pic\"
zzxx
October 21, 2009 3:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LadyTL: Not really...Let the bad food subsidize the good food. Make the good food the cheapest and thus will MAKE me eat right.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
morganlh85
October 18, 2009 1:50 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

We have to remember that not all people have ACCESS to healthy alternatives. Here in Detroit we have what is called a \"food desert\" where the majority of people live closer to a fast food joint or a party store than to a grocery store. Add transportation issues and you have people who buy all their food every week at CVS.

They would have to fix that before penalizing those who have few alternatives.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Katxyz
October 18, 2009 5:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@amorris525:

Uh...actually taxing everyone the same amount for the same item (junk) and same reason (it's bad for you) IS fair.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
brbubba
October 18, 2009 5:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

How about just repealing the tax on prepared foods! I find it completely outrageous that taxes have to be paid on something as simple as cooked vegetables.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
jc364
October 20, 2009 5:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I am against any special taxes on any sort of food, beverage, or tobacco product. Why? Because the only reason the government chooses to tax those products is because people with strong convictions will vote for them. It has nothing to do with making people healthy, and everything to do with getting more money.

Reply
","");