Fast food should be taxed!

Options
12357

Replies

  • allyjoy83
    allyjoy83 Posts: 176 Member
    Options
    Where in the Constitution does the government get the power to tax that? Or 95% of the other stuff they tax for that matter!?!:explode:

    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

    On topic: I didn't quit smoking because they increased the tax on cigarettes. The belief that increased taxing is incentive to get people to stop doing something is silly. Also, I spend way less money eating healthy than I did when I was buying fast food, so, no, fast food is not cheaper.
  • JuneBPrice
    JuneBPrice Posts: 294
    Options
    On the flip side, I do work in an office where the vending machines items that are supposedly healthier have their costs slightly subsidized by the company, and the candy-like items are more expensive to make up for it.

    I kind of like it. It's a small enough scale that it works for me. However, there are a few problems.

    Sometimes the choices for what's healthier are ridiculous and stupid. You can't just see a "no trans fats" label and claim it must be healthy.

    and

    The selection is somewhat limited.

    But this isnt a government regulation. This is just your company's vending machines. Someone who doesnt want to pay the extra money can bring their own food in.

    And? It's not like you can't double fry chicken strips at your house.
    That's the point. In your workplace, you could just bring in candy bars if you wanted.

    Unless you work in food service, I don't think you can equate an office to a restaurant. I kind of have to go to work (to still stay employed). I don't *have* to go to a restaurant to eat. In the same way that the vending machine is a luxury, so is a restaurant.
    That's still not the point. What your employer does in your workplace only affects the people who work there, when they work there. If the government did the same thing, it would affect everyone all the time.
  • Kristan_Forsey
    Kristan_Forsey Posts: 103 Member
    Options
    Yes, more nanny state is what we need. As for saying something to the effect of, anything you think is unhealthy, that is dangerous. leaving things open to interpretation leads to abuse. People need to learn self control, nothing more, nothing less.
  • foxfirekenzie
    foxfirekenzie Posts: 244 Member
    Options
    Oh, you mean, make it cost more, like when cigarettes went up? Yah, that will stop everyone from eating it-HA! I highly doubt it.

    Seriously, this is not a problem that will be going away anytime soon, so all we can do is be as healthy as we can to cancel out all the other crap going on.

    Sorry, I don't this this would ever work.
  • sherrybaby81
    sherrybaby81 Posts: 257 Member
    Options
    I don't think the government has a right to tell people what they should and shouldn't spend their money on food wise, let alone add extra taxes on...
  • EvanKeel
    EvanKeel Posts: 1,904 Member
    Options
    On the flip side, I do work in an office where the vending machines items that are supposedly healthier have their costs slightly subsidized by the company, and the candy-like items are more expensive to make up for it.

    I kind of like it. It's a small enough scale that it works for me. However, there are a few problems.

    Sometimes the choices for what's healthier are ridiculous and stupid. You can't just see a "no trans fats" label and claim it must be healthy.

    and

    The selection is somewhat limited.

    But this isnt a government regulation. This is just your company's vending machines. Someone who doesnt want to pay the extra money can bring their own food in.

    And? It's not like you can't double fry chicken strips at your house.
    That's the point. In your workplace, you could just bring in candy bars if you wanted.

    Unless you work in food service, I don't think you can equate an office to a restaurant. I kind of have to go to work (to still stay employed). I don't *have* to go to a restaurant to eat. In the same way that the vending machine is a luxury, so is a restaurant.
    That's still not the point. What your employer does in your workplace only affects the people who work there, when they work there. If the government did the same thing, it would affect everyone all the time.

    No, my point was relevant, and yours isn't. I showed the point of comparison is false. While you pointed out a difference between the two that is meaningless. You could still acquire unhealthy food through other means than fast food restaurants regardless of scope of impact.
  • JuneBPrice
    JuneBPrice Posts: 294
    Options
    On the flip side, I do work in an office where the vending machines items that are supposedly healthier have their costs slightly subsidized by the company, and the candy-like items are more expensive to make up for it.

    I kind of like it. It's a small enough scale that it works for me. However, there are a few problems.

    Sometimes the choices for what's healthier are ridiculous and stupid. You can't just see a "no trans fats" label and claim it must be healthy.

    and

    The selection is somewhat limited.

    But this isnt a government regulation. This is just your company's vending machines. Someone who doesnt want to pay the extra money can bring their own food in.

    And? It's not like you can't double fry chicken strips at your house.
    That's the point. In your workplace, you could just bring in candy bars if you wanted.

    Unless you work in food service, I don't think you can equate an office to a restaurant. I kind of have to go to work (to still stay employed). I don't *have* to go to a restaurant to eat. In the same way that the vending machine is a luxury, so is a restaurant.
    That's still not the point. What your employer does in your workplace only affects the people who work there, when they work there. If the government did the same thing, it would affect everyone all the time.

    No, my point was relevant, and yours isn't. I showed the point of comparison is false. While you pointed out a difference between the two that is meaningless. You could still acquire unhealthy food through other means than fast food restaurants regardless of scope of impact.
    That's obvious. Even with the OP's regulations in place, you could still get unhealthy food you'd just have to pay more. I don't see how you could possibly believe that what your boss does would be the same thing if the government did it.
  • bm99
    bm99 Posts: 597 Member
    Options
    People who think the government should step in with nanny laws and taxes should be taxed... we can call it a stupid tax.
  • Pimpmonkey
    Pimpmonkey Posts: 566
    Options
    Let's not let people vote, either. Yea, they might make a bad decision with their freedom. We better just take that freedom away, JUST IN CASE.

    Thank you!
  • Genem30
    Genem30 Posts: 431 Member
    Options
    Great idea.

    Then we could bulk up on military spending.

    6jve.jpg
  • eilmeister
    eilmeister Posts: 37
    Options
    By fast food I mean:
    -anything fried
    -with added sodium
    -with added sugar

    That qualifies any restaurant-served food as fast food. Every cook uses salt and sugar and will occasionally fry stuff, even in fancy-schmancy healthy places. And they do for a reason. It's called cooking. It's an art.

    By that definition, pretty much anything except raw produce would be fast food. A little too easy, don't you think?
  • jly33403
    jly33403 Posts: 49
    Options
    In Pennsylvania it's taxed.
  • chocl8girl
    chocl8girl Posts: 1,968 Member
    Options
    *sigh* Pretty much all food is already taxed. I just don't understand the need to control everything that OTHER people do. If you don't want to eat it, don't. If they want to eat it and slowly kill themselves, even armed with the knowledge that it will do so, who are you to stop them? That is their choice. They are not hurting anyone but themselves.
  • NewChristina
    NewChristina Posts: 250 Member
    Options
    I agree, it won't stop many, but it certainly would help offset the cost of the caring for them when they're sick.
    It's pretty hard-core, but it's not right that the health-conscience pay ridiculous amounts in healthcare to cover the cost of those who don't give a damn! Just like cigarettes. I was a smoker and I am ridiculously overweight. I wouldn't be opposed to the so-called "sin taxes."
  • kmm7309
    kmm7309 Posts: 802 Member
    Options
    I agree, it won't stop many, but it certainly would help offset the cost of the caring for them when they're sick.
    It's pretty hard-core, but it's not right that the health-conscience pay ridiculous amounts in healthcare to cover the cost of those who don't give a damn! Just like cigarettes. I was a smoker and I am ridiculously overweight. I wouldn't be opposed to the so-called "sin taxes."

    I respectfully disagree. Studies show that, while obesity is happening in all economic levels, there is a higher rate of obesity among poor people. Like that ObamaCare bill (please, don't get started on this) is difficult because you are imposing a fee for NOT having insurance, and common sense dictates that it's not rich people who don't have health insurance! It's going to be the people who can't afford the health insurance that are going to pay a fee for essentially being poor.

    I don't have health care. I cannot afford it. It's $400 a month just to cover me, and the insurance doesn't cover pre-existing conditions, so there would be little point in paying that much. I go to a sliding scale clinic to receive care, and it costs about $100 a month. It's not that poor people "don't give a damn", it's that they CAN'T!
  • Phaedra2014
    Phaedra2014 Posts: 1,254 Member
    Options
    Add a tax to all fast food and subsidize healthy eating propaganda in public places.
    They could even add a warning the doors of fast food places like on alcohol bottles and cigarettes packs.

    By fast food I mean:
    -anything fried
    -with added sodium
    -with added sugar
    -anything that sounds unhealthy or you suspect is.

    This type of reasoning is a little too simplistic. There is a lot more to consider such as families who live on minimum wage, the quality of food offered in schools (which is akin to fast food), the lack of education in many communities as far as nutrition is concerned, neighborhoods that still don't have supermarkets and fresh fruits and vegetables but have fast food eating places.

    If you tax items, that in many cases, is the bulk of the meal many people can afford, then you have to make sure you offer something of comparable value in its place that is healthier.
  • KaidaKantri
    KaidaKantri Posts: 401
    Options
    Add a tax to all fast food and subsidize healthy eating propaganda in public places.
    They could even add a warning the doors of fast food places like on alcohol bottles and cigarettes packs.

    By fast food I mean:
    -anything fried
    -with added sodium
    -with added sugar
    -anything that sounds unhealthy or you suspect is.

    Why? Do you think it will stop people from eating there? Because it wont. Do you think it will help make more money? Because really, it wont. Tax will not help anything in the slightest other than make people angry, so why do it on something that doesn't need to be done? In most cases restaurant's have nutrition labels, and that should be good enough. If people still eat it, then that's their problem. Not yours. If they don't have nutrition labels, you should already know it's unhealthy. If you don't then you are ignorant and maybe you should teach yourself, it shouldn't be everyone else's responsibility to do that but yours. And parents of children of course to teach their children.
  • MooMooooo
    MooMooooo Posts: 306 Member
    Options
    I think everyone is missing the mark.

    No need to tax junk food - just get it off TV, off billboards - out of our faces.

    Ever notice the presence of McDonalds in your life - even when you're nowhere near a restaurant?

    Just ban advertising - especially during kids shows and late at night.

    It's advertising that should be the first thing to go. imo.
  • NewChristina
    NewChristina Posts: 250 Member
    Options
    I agree, it won't stop many, but it certainly would help offset the cost of the caring for them when they're sick.
    It's pretty hard-core, but it's not right that the health-conscience pay ridiculous amounts in healthcare to cover the cost of those who don't give a damn! Just like cigarettes. I was a smoker and I am ridiculously overweight. I wouldn't be opposed to the so-called "sin taxes."

    I respectfully disagree. Studies show that, while obesity is happening in all economic levels, there is a higher rate of obesity among poor people. Like that ObamaCare bill (please, don't get started on this) is difficult because you are imposing a fee for NOT having insurance, and common sense dictates that it's not rich people who don't have health insurance! It's going to be the people who can't afford the health insurance that are going to pay a fee for essentially being poor.

    I don't have health care. I cannot afford it. It's $400 a month just to cover me, and the insurance doesn't cover pre-existing conditions, so there would be little point in paying that much. I go to a sliding scale clinic to receive care, and it costs about $100 a month. It's not that poor people "don't give a damn", it's that they CAN'T!

    You may have misunderstood my "don't give a damn". I meant with regards to being "health-conscience". I don't have insurance either. I HAVE pre-existing conditions and no one will cover me unless I pay a fortune. This is why I believe the sin-taxes may help cover the costs of the uninsured emergencies/urgencies that end up in the hospital with heart attacks, strokes, etc.
    We already pay taxes. Would you rather your taxes went to better schools or the hospital write-offs?
  • KaidaKantri
    KaidaKantri Posts: 401
    Options
    I agree, it won't stop many, but it certainly would help offset the cost of the caring for them when they're sick.
    It's pretty hard-core, but it's not right that the health-conscience pay ridiculous amounts in healthcare to cover the cost of those who don't give a damn! Just like cigarettes. I was a smoker and I am ridiculously overweight. I wouldn't be opposed to the so-called "sin taxes."

    I respectfully disagree. Studies show that, while obesity is happening in all economic levels, there is a higher rate of obesity among poor people. Like that ObamaCare bill (please, don't get started on this) is difficult because you are imposing a fee for NOT having insurance, and common sense dictates that it's not rich people who don't have health insurance! It's going to be the people who can't afford the health insurance that are going to pay a fee for essentially being poor.

    I don't have health care. I cannot afford it. It's $400 a month just to cover me, and the insurance doesn't cover pre-existing conditions, so there would be little point in paying that much. I go to a sliding scale clinic to receive care, and it costs about $100 a month. It's not that poor people "don't give a damn", it's that they CAN'T!

    ^ I also agree. I don't have healthcare, and I too can't afford it. I have a doctor that I go to when needed and it usually costs about $40 each visit. It's cheap, may not be the best medical, but I mainly go there to get my migraine prescript refilled. I don't need it for anything else, and even then I only go when I absolutely have to. Us poor people can't afford anymore than what we can. Making more taxes is not going to help that in any case.

Categories