Should there be a "junk food" tax?

dan's picture

Should foods high in "empty calories" - sugary, fatty - be taxed like liquor or cigarettes?

jim.shreds's picture

yes, and that tax revenue

yes, and that tax revenue should be split between health concerns and beautification teams that pick up litter.

dan's picture

I say "yes" to discourage

I say "yes" to discourage bad health habits and to help pay for the health care necessary because of the bad eating habits.

That said, I would also want this offset by reductions in income tax.

AM's picture

I say no - it's

I say no - it's discriminatory against chubby people!

dan's picture

Lots of non-chubby people

Lots of non-chubby people eat junk food.

roma258's picture

I say yes, and use that

I say yes, and use that money to subsidize locally grown fresh food.

jmminarik's picture

No. Sin taxes are evil.

No. Sin taxes are evil.

roma258's picture

jmminarik wrote:No. Sin

jmminarik wrote:

No. Sin taxes are evil.

That's before you realize how much stuff like high fructose corn syrup is subsidized by the government.

lauraska's picture

I give a tentative yes vote,

I give a tentative yes vote, and would want to see those tax dollars going towards programs that would educate parents on the benefits of feeding their children healthy foods. I cringe when I'm at the grocery store and see parents pushing their kids around in carts that are filled with nothing but frozen pizzas, big bags of junky chips, and ice cream. Eating healthy should be something that is taught by parents from day one...in an ideal world, that is.

tudor's picture

No. It would probably be

No. It would probably be pretty regressive, hitting people who couldn't afford it worst. Also, it's kind of like an ignorance tax--maybe people don't know it's bad for them.

lauraska's picture

tudor wrote:No. It would

tudor wrote:

No. It would probably be pretty regressive, hitting people who couldn't afford it worst. Also, it's kind of like an ignorance tax--maybe people don't know it's bad for them.

See...I find it difficult to believe that folks don't know that a big bag of Doritos is a) bad for them, and b) more than 1 serving. I mean, most of us have TVs, right? I feel like there's plenty of info out there about the dangers of eating junk. So I guess I see it more as a laziness tax than an ignorance tax. But I see what you mean. My hesitation comes from the idea that it could be a punishment on people who can't afford to eat differently, even though that excuse is often bunk.

Ftown66's picture

Nope! but i'm all for an

Nope! but i'm all for an asshole tax.

tudor's picture

lauraska wrote:tudor

lauraska wrote:
tudor wrote:

No. It would probably be pretty regressive, hitting people who couldn't afford it worst. Also, it's kind of like an ignorance tax--maybe people don't know it's bad for them.

See...I find it difficult to believe that folks don't know that a big bag of Doritos is a) bad for them, and b) more than 1 serving. I mean, most of us have TVs, right? I feel like there's plenty of info out there about the dangers of eating junk. So I guess I see it more as a laziness tax than an ignorance tax. But I see what you mean. My hesitation comes from the idea that it could be a punishment on people who can't afford to eat differently, even though that excuse is often bunk.

I know, the bad-nutrition info is everywhere. You're right. But taxing a bag of Doritos has a bigger effect on people without much income than it would on you and me.

Ftown66's picture

How about this...A higher

How about this...A higher tax on coffee. Ten cups a day is not really healthy or necessary..A high cell phone usage tax. Since most conversations people have are frivolous and people talking while walking or driving is very dangerous. A bike tax. Since bike riders do not carry accident insurance there should be a high tax to cover these cost if they are in one with another vehicle or with person while riding on the pavements.

2014 susquehanna's picture

Are we not taxed on enough

Are we not taxed on enough things?

kdubs215's picture

We pay enough taxes and the

We pay enough taxes and the government is interfering ail too much in our lives as it is . If someone wants to eat 4000 calories of junk its their right too

dan's picture

kdubs215 wrote:We pay enough

kdubs215 wrote:

We pay enough taxes and the government is interfering ail too much in our lives as it is . If someone wants to eat 4000 calories of junk its their right too

Is it also their right to expect that Medicare will pay for it?

kdubs215's picture

dan wrote:kdubs215 wrote:We

dan wrote:
kdubs215 wrote:

We pay enough taxes and the government is interfering ail too much in our lives as it is . If someone wants to eat 4000 calories of junk its their right too

Is it also their right to expect that Medicare will pay for it?

so are we gonna tax EVERYTHING ??? They take 30 to 35 % of regular working peoples money already .... we pay for drug addicts already and people try to call it a sickness so if we gotta pay for some smuck who ate too much OH WELL

KW ------@

2014 susquehanna's picture

Maybe there should just be a

Maybe there should just be a overweight tax. Wouldn't that help solve the healthy eating issue and encourage people to excercise more. Of course you could let those with glandular issues slide and add pregnancy clause. Don't get mad at me...I'm just poking fun at this thread.

Read my ice cream coated lips...NO NEW TAXES.

Ftown66's picture

2014 susquehanna wrote:Are

2014 susquehanna wrote:

Are we not taxed on enough things?

Apparently the goverment and some people don't think so.

dan's picture

I'm not a strong advocate of

I'm not a strong advocate of this, but as I said I would only support it if it offset reductions in income tax.