Should there be a tax on fast food?

[LoZoccolo]

[unpossibles]

1. no, but there already is - we all pay subsidies which go to make

things cheap for the discount menu, giving an artificially cheap dollar value to crappy food.

[noamnety]

5. Exactly right.

We should stop being taxed to subsidize the ingredients that make unhealthy food cheaper than the healthy options.

[DJ13]

2. I really dont think its wise to go down the path of taxing whatever others dont like

You never know when something you like is the next target of the nannies.

[frustrated_lefty]

36. like cigarettes?

[ThomWV]

3. We tax the sales of handguns, why not poison?

[Oregone]

4. OTHER: Remove big ag subsidies for corn and and meat

And shift them to health foods like fruits and non-corn veggies

[Luminous Animal]

6. Exactly! +1

[NYC_SKP]

8. I agree with that, Oregone.

Fruits, grains, nuts, legumes, and I don't even mind corn if they'd treat it even-handedly and drop this corn-based ethanol nonsense.

:thumbsup:

[Overseas]

10. +1. //nt

[Johonny]

12. yes everyone must eat like you

[Oregone]

29. Huh? Eat whatever you want

With my idea, they don't even tax the items. They just don't subsidize the shit out of it to make it economically unfeasible to eat any other way.

The current system all but forces people on budgets to eat unhealthy corn based foods or corn fed meat products. Shouldn't subsidies instead help those people eat healthier foods (which returns dividends in terms of per capita health costs too)?

Im not sure how removing big-Ag subsidies forces you to eat the way I want you to. Doesn't their existence force me to eat the way you want me to?

[Ignis]

38. Left field says hello.

[SmileyRose]

18. We should just remove the subsidies period.

If it's expensive to produce (like meat and sugar) then it will be expensive to buy and the consumer will adjust on their own over time.

[Oregone]

31. But its undeniable that subsidies lower costs and allow more food options to struggling citizens

(just, imo, unhealthy food choices)

If they were to remove these on the production end, the government should mitigate rising prices with more need-based subsidization on the consumer end. It would be great to have such need-based subsidies actually incentivize healthy foods somehow.

[Ignis]

39. Yes.

:thumbsup:

[FirstLight]

7. Why should that stuff be cheaper?

Why shouldn't easy access to fresh food and healthy stuff be the exception and not the rule?

Honestly, how many times does someone choose the cheap option because it is *there*...
I get it, I am a single mom with limited funds...I have been known to buy a bag of tacos or cheeseburgers for $7 and just have a night "off" from cooking or figuring something out. It happens. but if the stuff were priced properly, including the cost of environmental practices, international exploitation, etc... then that same bag of cheeseburgers SHOULD cost more than $20!!!

So yes, taxing these unhealthy crap vendors may just be more of a deterrent.
And as much as I would be inclined to buy into the thought that some people need cheap food bcause they are on a really limited income, it is really not that hard to find alternatives. (well, at least if you have a kitchen of your own...)

and if you are REALLY hard up for something bad for you and nasty, 7-11 has some greasy crap for real cheap, lol

I also wonder what the stats are for cigarettes. The price on those things keeps going up...is it stopping people from smoking?

[Dreamer Tatum]

9. I would prefer a tax on General Electric's billions of earnings. nt

Fuckers.

[Catshrink]

11. And Exxon Mobil

Mofos.

[Dreamer Tatum]

13. XOM paid no taxes either?

[Catshrink]

16. Nope.

Outrageous: Exxon Mobil Paid No Income Tax in 2009

"Last week, Forbes magazine published what the top U.S. corporations paid in taxes last year. “Most egregious,” Forbes notes, is General Electric, which “generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.” Big Oil giant Exxon Mobil, which last year reported a record $45.2 billion profit, paid the most taxes of any corporation, but none of it went to the IRS:

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.

Posted by benarmbruster at 7:29 am
April 6, 2010 75 COMMENTS Outrageous: Exxon Mobil Paid No Income Tax in 2009
Last week, Forbes magazine published what the top U.S. corporations paid in taxes last year. “Most egregious,” Forbes notes, is General Electric, which “generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.” Big Oil giant Exxon Mobil, which last year reported a record $45.2 billion profit, paid the most taxes of any corporation, but none of it went to the IRS:

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.

Mother Jones’ Adam Weinstein notes that, despite benefiting from corporate welfare in the U.S., Exxon complains about paying high taxes, claiming that it threatens energy innovation research. Pat Garofalo at the Wonk Room notes that big corporations’ tax shelter practices similar to Exxon’s shift a $100 billion annual tax burden onto U.S. taxpayers. In fact, in 2008, the Government Accountability Office found that “two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005.”

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/04/06/outrageous-exxon-mobil-paid-no-income-tax-in-2009/

[Dreamer Tatum]

19. MOTHERF***UCKERS.

I think I might be the most pro-corporate DUer there is, but DAMN.

[Catshrink]

26. They pay their dues

dues = contributions to Congress

[Fixed_Based_Operator]

33. Wow how did GE swing that?

Don't they pay taxes?

[whistler162]

14. YES... let us put a tax on stuff the poor and

middle classes eat more of!

Besides is Panera Bread fast food?

[-..__...]

15. I think there should be a tax...

on baby formula, baby food, children's clothing, toys etc.

Let those with kids bear their fair share of the costs associated with children's health care, day care centers and schools.

[Dreamer Tatum]

21. Um, what?

Bullshit on THAT.

A tax on my kids' TOYS to help pay for their HEALTHCARE? Fuck THAT noise. I'd quadruple the tax on cigarettes and booze to pay for healthcare for ADULTS who neglect themselves.

Baby formula? There's a sales tax. Ditto clothing.

Day care centers? Huh? Do you realize how much people pay for daycare already? Schools? REALLY? Have you heard of REAL ESTATE TAXES?

[bain_sidhe]

28. The larger point is valid, though

Every identifible group has "costs" to society that those not in the group help pay for. Childless people's property taxes help pay for schools, jogger's taxes help pay for health care for unfit, sedentary people, etc, etc, etc.

Those who were avid to make smokers pay more and more in taxes to fund, not only their health care, but other things entirely unrelated to them started this trend. Those who were against that, either because they were smokers, or because they simply thought it was unfair to make 25% of the population pay for services that benefited 100% of the population, warned that it wouldn't end there.

This "fast food tax" and "pop tax" and our punctuational friend's new suggestion of a "kidstuff" tax are simply points along the line started by the anti-smoking zealots who saw a pot of "free" money in taxing other people's choices.

[TreasonousBastard]

17. What defines "fast food"? Is Chinese takeout included? Buffets? Or...

is it just anything the food snobs decide is not fit for consumption and don't want me to eat? And preferably served up by a large chain they would never admit being caught in.

Around here, it's all taxed anyway with a sales tax.

[uppityperson]

20. There is a tax on prepared food in WA. Whether fast food, slow food, store deli, etc

probably not what you meant though

[Ernesto]

22. Guess who invested in "Fast Food"

Health care corporations of course!


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/15/health/main6400285.shtml?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.9

[brooklynite]

23. How would you define "Fast Food" for taxing purposes?

Calorie Count? Salt levels? Menu Items (even McDonalds will sell you a salad). I don't think it's possible.

[MindPilot]

24. Already is...it's called sales tax.

No tax on food, no tax on labor, but there's tax on prepared food. How does that work?

[47of74]

25. Puritanism: the fear that someone, somewhere, is happy.

That's what came to mind when I saw this question.

[Catshrink]

27. Tax food with HFCS

It is so evil.

[BlooInBloo]

30. Tax people who whine about what other people eat.

edit: Except for Vietnamese duck eggs. That shit's just disgusting. :P

[Hansel]

32. What and destroy perfectly good revenue for building stadiums for the wealthy?

We already pay about an 8% tax on fast food to pay for stadiums that the wealthy owners can make bookoo bucks and so the wealthy who live in the suburbs and do not pay the tax can have their big playpens. If sin taxes worked, there would be no obese people in Minneapolis.

Sales taxes of any kind are regressive. If you want to make fast food healthy, put huge excise taxes the corporations that make them. That would make the price prohibitive, no one would buy it and they would be forced to find less expensive and healthier alternatives to the highly taxed garbage they would be producing at that point.

[Blue-Jay]

34. edit:

I just realized to whom I was replying. Flame-warriors deserve no attention.

[zorahopkins]

35. You Mean "Should We Tax The Poor Or Not?"

If you are poor or if you lack money enough to enjoy a night out at a place like "Chez Snob", then when oyu go out to eat you go to places that serve "fast food".

The rich will ALWAYS be able to afford their dinners out at "Chez Snob" and similar places that offer "fine dining". In fact, the MORE expensive a place is, the more it appeals to the rich.

So all a tax on "fast food" does is tax the poor.

It's sort of like lotteries -- how many rich people do you think stand in line at the local 7-11 to plunk down their money on a "scratcher" or on the chance to win at "Powerball"?

It's the (relatively) poor who purchase scratchers and Powerball tickets -- THEY pay, not the rich.

[pitohui]

37. there's a hefty tax on it here, close to 10 percent

how many places are left where there's no tax on fast food? it may be "food" but it is not exempt from sales taxes in any place i'm aware of, it's HEAVILY taxed

personally i don't believe food should be taxed, but apparently that's too radical for america

[Odin2005]

40. NO! It would be a REGRESSIVE TAX ON THE POOR.

Anyone who supports such a tax is no liberal.