Taxing red meat

Johnd2000

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

Well to be fair the WHO doesn't group red meat or processed meats in the same category as nicotine...nicotine is a known carcinogen and meat is not.

Nicotine is not carcinogenic.

ritzvin

lemurcat2 wrote: »

smolmaus wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

Lolinloggen wrote: »

We already are paying tax on food It is called VAT in the UK

The VAT isn't accessed differently based on the potential harmfulness of a food/product, is it? This is a different type of taxation being debated here.

VAT rates are different for alcohol, cigarettes, fresh food, cold prepared food, cooked food, food sold in shops, canteens, schools, vending machines, even biscuits and cakes have different tax rates. "Essentials" are already taxed at a lower rate than "luxuries". So while "harm" might not be a VAT thing how we apply taxes to products is certainly fairly subjective already. Assessing a tax on how harmful a product is makes more sense than how a cake is a necessity but a chocolate biscuit isn't.

My sister works in VAT. Pity me for the amount I now know about it.

Where I am sales tax is high on most things, but only 1% (I think) on food, except that candy isn't food (nor is prepared food, soda). Candy, however, does not contain flour by definition, so a Twix gets the low rate.

Ours is 8.75%, but none on food (as defined by a complicated slate of rules).

Generally, food sold at food stores is taxable when sold under any of the following conditions:
• it is sold heated;
• it is sold for consumption on the premises; or
• it has been prepared by the seller and is ready to be eaten, whether for on premises or off premises consumption.

Also, the following categories of food are taxable:
•sandwiches (whether heated or unheated),
• carbonated beverages,
• candy and confectionery, and
• pet foods.

with pages of descriptions for each of these... including this little tidbit:

In determining whether a product is taxable as candy or confectionery, or exempt as food, a number of factors are considered, including how the product is labeled, packaged, advertised, displayed, and sold. For example, pure maple sugar products are exempt as food unless displayed, labeled, or advertised as candy or confectionery. They are not candy merely because they are molded in the shape of a maple leaf or sold in individual quantities.

(ETA: in case anyone is curious...https://www.tax.ny.gov/pubs_and_bulls/tg_bulletins/st/food_sold_by_food_stores.htm note: lots of links to other additional documents)

lemurcat2

Yes, ours is super complicated too. State sales tax is 6.25% (but 1% on food, with exceptions), but in the city (so where I am), it's 10.25% (but still 1% on food, I think, I actually never look).

janejellyroll

smolmaus wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

Lolinloggen wrote: »

We already are paying tax on food It is called VAT in the UK

The VAT isn't accessed differently based on the potential harmfulness of a food/product, is it? This is a different type of taxation being debated here.

VAT rates are different for alcohol, cigarettes, fresh food, cold prepared food, cooked food, food sold in shops, canteens, schools, vending machines, even biscuits and cakes have different tax rates. "Essentials" are already taxed at a lower rate than "luxuries". So while "harm" might not be a VAT thing how we apply taxes to products is certainly fairly subjective already. Assessing a tax on how harmful a product is makes more sense than how a cake is a necessity but a chocolate biscuit isn't.

My sister works in VAT. Pity me for the amount I now know about it.

I had no idea, thanks for the info!

mbaker566

i scanned the discussion.
i'm against the tax but i'm against sin taxes. i don't want the government policing me-which is what it feels like. i understand why it might be a thing where there is public healthcare but still, no. stay out of my fridge

Packerjohn

lorenagabriela338 wrote: »

I think they should focus in bringing more fresh foods and a greater variety of healthy foods in supermarkets not on raising taxes on sugar or red meag. I am pissed that my monster energy drink is more expensive but
I still buy it. Healthy foods are expensive as *kitten* and hard to find and the supermarkets are full with sugary foods and prea made fast fatty foods wich they want to tax as well. As the british say “ i am disgusted” of this society.

Just swallow some caffeine pills with a swig of tap water. Think of the savings.

Also how the heck does someone mention the desire for healthier foods and Monster energy drink in the same paragraph? SMH.

ritzvin

Packerjohn wrote: »

lorenagabriela338 wrote: »

I think they should focus in bringing more fresh foods and a greater variety of healthy foods in supermarkets not on raising taxes on sugar or red meag. I am pissed that my monster energy drink is more expensive but
I still buy it. Healthy foods are expensive as *kitten* and hard to find and the supermarkets are full with sugary foods and prea made fast fatty foods wich they want to tax as well. As the british say “ i am disgusted” of this society.

Just swallow some caffeine pills with a swig of tap water. Think of the savings.

Also how the heck does someone mention the desire for healthier foods and Monster energy drink in the same paragraph? SMH.

I was laughing at this too.

Yes.. alas, the government decided that your particular choice in carbonated & caffeinated sugar water is not (like other sodas) a necessity..so taxes. And Monster realized that they could get people to pay ridiculous amounts of money for caffeinated, carbonated sugar water if they upped the caffeine, added a few vitamins, and marketed it as a performance drink.

Aaron_K123

Johnd2000 wrote: »

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

Well to be fair the WHO doesn't group red meat or processed meats in the same category as nicotine...nicotine is a known carcinogen and meat is not.

Nicotine is not carcinogenic.

You are correct, I made a mistake there. Nicotine itself is not a carcinogen.