| pookiebear
|
|
|
http://health.msn.com/dietnutrition/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100121462>1=7538
Read this article and vote! :) |
|
Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:41 am |
|
| babice
|
|
|
Well, I voted no but I don't feel as strongly about it as your answer suggests. It would work in some capacity -- just like taxing cigarettes. Unfortunately, it could also hurt poor people -- in my opinion, the sad thing is that this stuff is cheap and this tends to be what poor people eat. They need to incentivize -- so that healthy foods cost less...provide healthy foods to poor people.
But, it depends on what they are going to define as "success".
If, by success, they want Americans to eat healthier and lose weight, I think they should increase incentives -- i.e., you can already write off some of the costs of a program to lose weight (take it from your friendly CPA that you need to learn more about this before you go willy nilly writing things off) but it's really not widely known (even by doctors, in my experience) and you can't write a lot of it off. |
|
Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:01 pm |
|
| phBalanced
|
|
|
This is a facinating idea! I voted yes, but with full understanding of the problems that come with it.
First, I agree with Babice, and with the coments in the article that indicate this tax will punish the poor. I lived in a very low income part of the city for a number of years, and was shocked at the differences in the grocery stores in the areas. The options were very limited, the produce was poor quality, the meat was often not very fresh, and there very almost no "healthy alternatives". The truth is that those things were more expensive, and the stores didn't have the demand for it.
Second, a big thing that makes me nervous is who determins what is healthy and what is junk? Obviously the government hasn't been able to agree for more than a few years at a time on what consitutes healthy. Doctors have a hard time agreeing. So besides taxing the convenience foods, will things like potted meats be taxed? What about hot dogs? The line can get kind of blury.
Lastly, if the tax means only a 1 cent increase in a products cost, will consumers even recongnize that they've been taxed. I know that 7-10% will be more than that on some items, but the example they used for soda made me think that it's possible that consumers will see it simply as inflation. I remember when soda was a quarter...now it's what, 75 cents? Will the tax be effective if consumers don't even feel the pinch?
Just some thoughts, but I think it would be interesting to see what the country could do with all that revenue! |
|
Thu Jan 19, 2006 7:25 pm |
|
| yellobeuty
|
|
|
where do you get soda for 75 cents. we pay $1.25 for a regular 16oz soda. you can get a 2 litter cheaper on sale then what you pay for one soda.
and 1% today will be 10-20% tomorrow. |
|
Thu Jan 19, 2006 8:55 pm |
|
| MathChick
|
|
|
I think social engineering is something the government should stay away from. It is my constitutional right to make stupid decisions. It's part of that "liberty and persuit of happiness" thing. And since when has the government done much of anything effectively? Why should they have even MORE power and MORE money (assuming it would generate revenue to pay for the burocracy that would follow such a move)? And when the government doesn't work why would another layer of government control fix it? :?
Leave it to people to make their own intelligent (or stupid) decisions. The only thing we can do is make sure people are educated enough to make the best decisions possible but who are we to try to force them to make the best ones? And demand works in two ways. It can increase prices due to scarcity or it can lower prices as production is scaled up. Scientists would work on more efficiently raising good foods and producing healthier alternatives.
My idea is to stop subsidizing, and overtaxing, various industries and allow prices to reflect the actual costs. Inform consumers, and then let each person decide if they want to eat bad and be lazy and fat, or eat well and exercise. |
|
Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:04 pm |
|
| colliegirl
|
|
|
| I agree with MathChick - social engineering is something the government should stay away from. We have way too much of that in Canada. |
|
Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:20 pm |
|