Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Should junk food be taxed?

13940424445104

Replies

  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    zyxst wrote: »
    marm1962 wrote: »
    Isn't candy already taxable? Could have sworn I payed tax on my candy bar the last time I purchased one....but not all candy is junk food either....what about Dark Chocolate? Sweetened drinks, why sweetened? Would that include sweet tea, lemonade, milk, chocolate milk? ----Can't find any redeeming quality about chips except they are yummy...lol

    That's what I was thinking - "junk food" is already taxed.

    No junk food is taxed like any other food like lettuce, apples, etc in most states. I'd assume the op is talking about something more than the regular sales tax.

    When I go shopping my whole food is not taxed because it is a necessity i.e. Veggies fruits meats canned items. Food like chips, sodas, candies and pre made deli items have a sales tax placed on them.

    That was kind of my point with the whole thing. This is already handled on a state-by-state and locale-by-locale basis. If people in their states, cities and towns want to tax people's eating habits, let them put up pols who will do so. There's no need for this kind of thing at the federal level.

    There are already federal excise taxes that apply to sales of certain items in all states. Alcohol and gasoline/diesel fuel, phone services are some common ones. A Federal excise tax on certain foods would in not be a precedent.

    I am aware. And like most Federal taxes, they are invisible to people, unless they actually go looking for the rates. At least with most state sales/sin taxes, there's some kind of point of purchase reference made. The entire spirit of this idea would be completely destroyed, if no one were actually able to tell what is taxed and what isn't, given the extremely hazy nature of the very phrase "junk food".
    All fuel (except dyed off-road diesel): clear and concise.
    All alcohol: clear.
    All tobacco: clear.
    All telecomm: clear.
    All "junk food": erm...what the hell was junk food again?

    Actually, it is unclear what is considered "alcohol" for purposes of taxes. In fact, it varies by state, which is why it is nearly impossible to find a quadruple ale in my state. What most people here don't know is that there is an ABV limit for what is considered beer vs. liquor and my state's ABV limit is very low. Beer gets sales tax, but not alcohol tax. Liquor gets both taxes. Since there is too much effort and too little demand apparently for certain fine beers that have higher ABV %'s, they are rather difficult to obtain here. That might be how some foods become under the same idea, except that there would be lots of demand. So there is no issue getting common things like Jack Daniels or Double Stuf Oreos; but Amarula or Rips Licorice will be more difficult to find.

    It is super easy to identify at the store what has liquor tax and what doesn't because there is a little sticker (tax stamp) on the bottle (or, in this case, package of Oreos) to show that it has been taxed.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited July 2016
    What most people here don't know is that there is an ABV limit for what is considered beer vs. liquor and my state's ABV limit is very low.

    Why do you think most people don't know that (not about your state, but that "beer" has a max alcohol content in the legal definitions)?
    Beer gets sales tax, but not alcohol tax. Liquor gets both taxes. Since there is too much effort and too little demand apparently for certain fine beers that have higher ABV %'s, they are rather difficult to obtain here. That might be how some foods become under the same idea, except that there would be lots of demand. So there is no issue getting common things like Jack Daniels or Double Stuf Oreos; but Amarula or Rips Licorice will be more difficult to find.

    It is super easy to identify at the store what has liquor tax and what doesn't because there is a little sticker (tax stamp) on the bottle (or, in this case, package of Oreos) to show that it has been taxed.

    I don't think the latter is true here, but I don't buy alcohol that often (don't drink anymore, sometimes buy it for others or a party).

    Our liquor taxes are as follows:

    $0.29 per gallon of beer (we include beer) -- beer is up to 7% alcohol.
    $0.36 per gallon of liquor (including beer) below 14% alcohol.
    $0.89 per gallon of liquor above 14% but below 20% alcohol.
    $2.68 per gallon of liquor of 20% or above alcohol.

    Despite this, it's easy to find a good variety of beers, including higher alcohol beers, here, not to mention numerous craft whiskeys and gins and other liquors with 20%+.
  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    What most people here don't know is that there is an ABV limit for what is considered beer vs. liquor and my state's ABV limit is very low.

    Why do you think most people don't know that (not about your state, but that "beer" has a max alcohol content in the legal definitions)?
    Beer gets sales tax, but not alcohol tax. Liquor gets both taxes. Since there is too much effort and too little demand apparently for certain fine beers that have higher ABV %'s, they are rather difficult to obtain here. That might be how some foods become under the same idea, except that there would be lots of demand. So there is no issue getting common things like Jack Daniels or Double Stuf Oreos; but Amarula or Rips Licorice will be more difficult to find.

    It is super easy to identify at the store what has liquor tax and what doesn't because there is a little sticker (tax stamp) on the bottle (or, in this case, package of Oreos) to show that it has been taxed.

    I don't think the latter is true here, but I don't buy alcohol that often (don't drink anymore, sometimes buy it for others or a party).

    Our liquor taxes are as follows:

    $0.29 per gallon of beer (we include beer) -- beer is up to 7% alcohol.
    $0.36 per gallon of liquor (including beer) below 14% alcohol.
    $0.89 per gallon of liquor above 14% but below 20% alcohol.
    $2.68 per gallon of liquor of 20% or above alcohol.

    Despite this, it's easy to find a good variety of beers, including higher alcohol beers, here, not to mention numerous craft whiskeys and gins and other liquors with 20%+.

    I think most people don't know because I've had the conversation with a lot of people, and the only ones who I've ever met that understand this distinction are either employed in an alcohol-related profession (production, distribution, and sales) or are beer aficionados.

    I wonder how the tax is processed and whether that makes a difference. In my state, everything that is considered liquor must physically pass through a government facility to obtain the tax stamp. It may simplify the process to sell stamps to distributors to place on bottles, but I can also see how it would be easier to circumvent paying the tax if that was the process.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    What most people here don't know is that there is an ABV limit for what is considered beer vs. liquor and my state's ABV limit is very low.

    Why do you think most people don't know that (not about your state, but that "beer" has a max alcohol content in the legal definitions)?
    Beer gets sales tax, but not alcohol tax. Liquor gets both taxes. Since there is too much effort and too little demand apparently for certain fine beers that have higher ABV %'s, they are rather difficult to obtain here. That might be how some foods become under the same idea, except that there would be lots of demand. So there is no issue getting common things like Jack Daniels or Double Stuf Oreos; but Amarula or Rips Licorice will be more difficult to find.

    It is super easy to identify at the store what has liquor tax and what doesn't because there is a little sticker (tax stamp) on the bottle (or, in this case, package of Oreos) to show that it has been taxed.

    I don't think the latter is true here, but I don't buy alcohol that often (don't drink anymore, sometimes buy it for others or a party).

    Our liquor taxes are as follows:

    $0.29 per gallon of beer (we include beer) -- beer is up to 7% alcohol.
    $0.36 per gallon of liquor (including beer) below 14% alcohol.
    $0.89 per gallon of liquor above 14% but below 20% alcohol.
    $2.68 per gallon of liquor of 20% or above alcohol.

    Despite this, it's easy to find a good variety of beers, including higher alcohol beers, here, not to mention numerous craft whiskeys and gins and other liquors with 20%+.

    I think most people don't know because I've had the conversation with a lot of people, and the only ones who I've ever met that understand this distinction are either employed in an alcohol-related profession (production, distribution, and sales) or are beer aficionados.

    Fair enough. I suppose I think people know because I used to hang out with beer aficionados, even though wine was more my drink. I don't think people could tell you what the tax is (what I listed), but I think people here know there's a substantial liquor tax (that's on the receipts, but so are lots of other taxes) and know it's on beer and wine as well as other forms of alcohol.
  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    What most people here don't know is that there is an ABV limit for what is considered beer vs. liquor and my state's ABV limit is very low.

    Why do you think most people don't know that (not about your state, but that "beer" has a max alcohol content in the legal definitions)?
    Beer gets sales tax, but not alcohol tax. Liquor gets both taxes. Since there is too much effort and too little demand apparently for certain fine beers that have higher ABV %'s, they are rather difficult to obtain here. That might be how some foods become under the same idea, except that there would be lots of demand. So there is no issue getting common things like Jack Daniels or Double Stuf Oreos; but Amarula or Rips Licorice will be more difficult to find.

    It is super easy to identify at the store what has liquor tax and what doesn't because there is a little sticker (tax stamp) on the bottle (or, in this case, package of Oreos) to show that it has been taxed.

    I don't think the latter is true here, but I don't buy alcohol that often (don't drink anymore, sometimes buy it for others or a party).

    Our liquor taxes are as follows:

    $0.29 per gallon of beer (we include beer) -- beer is up to 7% alcohol.
    $0.36 per gallon of liquor (including beer) below 14% alcohol.
    $0.89 per gallon of liquor above 14% but below 20% alcohol.
    $2.68 per gallon of liquor of 20% or above alcohol.

    Despite this, it's easy to find a good variety of beers, including higher alcohol beers, here, not to mention numerous craft whiskeys and gins and other liquors with 20%+.

    I think most people don't know because I've had the conversation with a lot of people, and the only ones who I've ever met that understand this distinction are either employed in an alcohol-related profession (production, distribution, and sales) or are beer aficionados.

    Fair enough. I suppose I think people know because I used to hang out with beer aficionados, even though wine was more my drink. I don't think people could tell you what the tax is (what I listed), but I think people here know there's a substantial liquor tax (that's on the receipts, but so are lots of other taxes) and know it's on beer and wine as well as other forms of alcohol.

    That's part of it too... I couldn't tell you how much the tax is on liquor and it doesn't show up on receipts. The tax stamp has already been purchased and placed on the bottle and it's included in the costs of the seller. I pay sales tax on top of the retail price, and if the liqor tax causes the price to increase, then it means part of the sales tax is technically a surtax. I'm ok with that on liquor. If I buy a pack of hamburger, I wouldn't be ok with that... the reason is because I see liquor as a luxury that is not necessary while food not ready to eat is a necessity that poor people will struggle more to afford if it is taxed..
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    zyxst wrote: »
    marm1962 wrote: »
    Isn't candy already taxable? Could have sworn I payed tax on my candy bar the last time I purchased one....but not all candy is junk food either....what about Dark Chocolate? Sweetened drinks, why sweetened? Would that include sweet tea, lemonade, milk, chocolate milk? ----Can't find any redeeming quality about chips except they are yummy...lol

    That's what I was thinking - "junk food" is already taxed.

    No junk food is taxed like any other food like lettuce, apples, etc in most states. I'd assume the op is talking about something more than the regular sales tax.

    When I go shopping my whole food is not taxed because it is a necessity i.e. Veggies fruits meats canned items. Food like chips, sodas, candies and pre made deli items have a sales tax placed on them.

    That was kind of my point with the whole thing. This is already handled on a state-by-state and locale-by-locale basis. If people in their states, cities and towns want to tax people's eating habits, let them put up pols who will do so. There's no need for this kind of thing at the federal level.

    There are already federal excise taxes that apply to sales of certain items in all states. Alcohol and gasoline/diesel fuel, phone services are some common ones. A Federal excise tax on certain foods would in not be a precedent.

    I am aware. And like most Federal taxes, they are invisible to people, unless they actually go looking for the rates. At least with most state sales/sin taxes, there's some kind of point of purchase reference made. The entire spirit of this idea would be completely destroyed, if no one were actually able to tell what is taxed and what isn't, given the extremely hazy nature of the very phrase "junk food".
    All fuel (except dyed off-road diesel): clear and concise.
    All alcohol: clear.
    All tobacco: clear.
    All telecomm: clear.
    All "junk food": erm...what the hell was junk food again?

    From one of my earlier posts, I would say you label items on the shelve, similar to what most stores to with WIC eligible items and I would propose something like this for a store receipt

    64 oz Cola $0.99
    Federal "junk food" Tax 0.50
    State/Local Sales Tax .10
    Total $1.59

    I would highlight the "junk food" tax in some manner for educational purposes.

    Right but defining what should be considered "junk food" is the tricky part. You've mentioned Cola, ok, what about Diet Coke? What food products would be subjected to the tax.

    I don't think the dispute is about if the tax should be explicit on the receipt, but that the very act of narrowing down the scope of what should be taxed would be extremely difficult to gain consensus.


    The WHO and CDC have specifically linked foods and drinks with added sugars to obesity and illnesses related to obesity. May be a good place to start.

    In the US, we have been able to specifically identify foods that meet certain requirements for the WIC program eligibility. It's not an impossible task.

    Any added sugar? A percent of total calories as @lemurcat12 suggested earlier? So in that scenario, Diet Coke wouldn't be taxed but energy drinks would?

    I suggested this in an earlier post:

    The WHO recommends no more than 10% of calories come from what they call "free sugars". The article linked gives a pretty specific definition.

    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/

    Also from the article:

    “We have solid evidence that keeping intake of free sugars to less than 10% of total energy intake reduces the risk of overweight, obesity and tooth decay,” says Dr Francesco Branca, Director of WHO’s Department of Nutrition for Health and Development. “Making policy changes to support this will be key if countries are to live up to their commitments to reduce the burden of noncommunicable diseases.”

    Since free sugars would be a subset of total energy intake, items with maybe more than 20% of their calories from free sugars could be taxed. Would have to work through a %. Probably easier to have a tax based on calories per container from free sugar over a certain point.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    edited July 2016
    sorry duplicate
  • chocolate_owl
    chocolate_owl Posts: 1,695 Member
    This page has a list of how countries around the world are taxing "junk food." http://www.wcrf.org/int/policy/nourishing-framework/use-economic-tools

    Sugary drinks are common, as is candy and ice cream. Hungary has criteria for salt content that vary depending on the food type. The UK has a voluntary tax, where vendors can choose to apply the tax and put all tax proceeds to the Children's Health Fund.

    So I guess if other places around the world have figured out how to define junk food, we could too. The tax Chile is in the process of rolling out (not listed on that site, referenced in the Mexico study I posted on page 24) is an interesting one: it has a calorie density requirement, but it also has qualifiers for sodium, saturated fat, and sugar. I still think a tax a terrible idea, but I'm not sure quibbling over the definition is the best objection to the tax.

    IMO:
    -Restructuring subsidies would have a more positive impact
    -People will most likely make substitutions and continue to overeat on "healthy" items
    -As shown by the results in Mexico, the tax will only be felt by the poor
    -Knowing the US government, most of the tax wouldn't be put into paying obesity-related health care costs or funding nutrition education, so it's just more money that goes swirling away into the abyss instead of fixing a problem
  • natboosh69
    natboosh69 Posts: 276 Member
    edited July 2016
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    natboosh69 wrote: »
    No, because why should people who like to treat themselves every now and again suffer, for the sake of other greedy people.

    Why should people who like to have a beer, a glass of wine or a cocktail every now and then have to pay taxes over and above the sales tax?

    Exactly the same principle.
  • sunnybeaches105
    sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,831 Member
    Have you all saved the world from the evils of cookies and cake yet?
  • ElJefeChief
    ElJefeChief Posts: 651 Member
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    And even under the ACA, we don't have healthcare - at best we have a safety net in the case of catastrophic illness or accident - for the most part, the ACA provides 2-3 Dr visits a year (physicals, mammograms, vaccinations, etc). The insurance policies that are being sold for the most part are all high-deductible policies (read 6,000 to 10,000 out-of-pocket expenses before the insurance kicks in - at 60% to 70%, with the remainder still coming out of your own pocket). Go look up the statistics - the ACA has NOT increased the number of people who regularly visit their primary care physician and ER visits for routine care have actually increased since the passage of the ACA.

    More evidence that government involvement only makes matters worse.

    Oh no. Obviously this is evidence that capitalism and the free market are bad and we need universal healthcare.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,455 Member
    Have you all saved the world from the evils of cookies and cake yet?

    Don't forget Cheetohs.
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    And even under the ACA, we don't have healthcare - at best we have a safety net in the case of catastrophic illness or accident - for the most part, the ACA provides 2-3 Dr visits a year (physicals, mammograms, vaccinations, etc). The insurance policies that are being sold for the most part are all high-deductible policies (read 6,000 to 10,000 out-of-pocket expenses before the insurance kicks in - at 60% to 70%, with the remainder still coming out of your own pocket). Go look up the statistics - the ACA has NOT increased the number of people who regularly visit their primary care physician and ER visits for routine care have actually increased since the passage of the ACA.

    More evidence that government involvement only makes matters worse.

    Oh no. Obviously this is evidence that capitalism and the free market are bad and we need universal healthcare.

    Sarc?
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    Have you all saved the world from the evils of cookies and cake yet?

    All I know is they better keep their bureaucratic mitts off my chicken wings.
  • sunnybeaches105
    sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,831 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Have you all saved the world from the evils of cookies and cake yet?

    Don't forget Cheetohs.

    The Cheetos are fine because I already ate them all
  • cgvet37
    cgvet37 Posts: 1,189 Member
    edited July 2016
    Absolutely not.
  • ftsolk
    ftsolk Posts: 202 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    100df wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Part of the problem is that it's not really clear what the tax would be on.

    How about taxing based on added sugars? Would get the main items that any third grader would classify as junk food like pop, candy, cookies, etc. Might also get manufacturers to reduce the amount of "hidden" sugars in things like ketchup, sauces, etc.

    The US already has some definition of "healthy foods" from the WIC programs, might be a start.

    Lol @ any third grader would... but not on this forum! So weird!

    Taxing based on added sugar seems reasonable and doable.

    Asking what the definition would be is by no means a laughable question when we are trying to talk about a specific law, sorry. You can't just tax "junk food." You need a definition. This has already been an issue when people try to tax "soda" (which often means sugary drinks) -- is diet included? (often it is), is juice?, are energy drinks and sports drinks?

    If you get into a broader range of products, the question becomes harder. For example, the US definition of "empty calories" on things like MyPlate is added sugar AND added sat fat, but there are an awful lot of people on MFP who would take issue with the latter portion of that. And is bread or ketchup with some added sugar necessarily junk food? All flavored yogurts?

    Still others seem to be saying things like fast food (restaurant meals are already taxed, so I don't think it should mean this). But you can get a salad at a fast food place (or such is my understanding -- haven't been to one in years). And then of course we get into what's fast food (since despite what I just said, I've been to a Chipotle and a Pret -- fast food?).

    Anyway, if we are to seriously talk about this, I am interested in what the tax would say. Silly thing to mock. Defining things in a workable way is one of the difficulties of lawmaking.

    In the state of New Jersey, juice is NOT taxed, but soda is. The difference is the sweeteners. Sweetened beverages are taxed, where unsweetened beverages (100% juice, water, seltzer) are not.

    Candy is also taxed, but licorice, which has flour, is NOT considered candy.

    Prepared food is taxed. So, if you go to the store and buy deli meat and cheese, there's no tax, but if you get a sandwich platter made with the same meat and cheese, there is tax. Buying a live lobster isn't taxed, but if you have the guys at the seafood counter steam it for you, you have to pay taxes.

    Rather than try to figure out which foods should be taxed or not, maybe the helpful approach would be to figure out which foods we should try to LOWER prices on. I think we can all agree that we need to eat more fruits and vegetables. Rather than making soda more expensive, maybe we should try to figure out how to make fruit LESS expensive.
  • vegmebuff
    vegmebuff Posts: 31,389 Member
    :"Candy is also taxed, but licorice, which has flour, is NOT considered candy."
    ^that is really interesting...crazy but interesting...
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    ftsolk wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    100df wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Part of the problem is that it's not really clear what the tax would be on.

    How about taxing based on added sugars? Would get the main items that any third grader would classify as junk food like pop, candy, cookies, etc. Might also get manufacturers to reduce the amount of "hidden" sugars in things like ketchup, sauces, etc.

    The US already has some definition of "healthy foods" from the WIC programs, might be a start.

    Lol @ any third grader would... but not on this forum! So weird!

    Taxing based on added sugar seems reasonable and doable.

    Asking what the definition would be is by no means a laughable question when we are trying to talk about a specific law, sorry. You can't just tax "junk food." You need a definition. This has already been an issue when people try to tax "soda" (which often means sugary drinks) -- is diet included? (often it is), is juice?, are energy drinks and sports drinks?

    If you get into a broader range of products, the question becomes harder. For example, the US definition of "empty calories" on things like MyPlate is added sugar AND added sat fat, but there are an awful lot of people on MFP who would take issue with the latter portion of that. And is bread or ketchup with some added sugar necessarily junk food? All flavored yogurts?

    Still others seem to be saying things like fast food (restaurant meals are already taxed, so I don't think it should mean this). But you can get a salad at a fast food place (or such is my understanding -- haven't been to one in years). And then of course we get into what's fast food (since despite what I just said, I've been to a Chipotle and a Pret -- fast food?).

    Anyway, if we are to seriously talk about this, I am interested in what the tax would say. Silly thing to mock. Defining things in a workable way is one of the difficulties of lawmaking.

    In the state of New Jersey, juice is NOT taxed, but soda is. The difference is the sweeteners. Sweetened beverages are taxed, where unsweetened beverages (100% juice, water, seltzer) are not.

    Candy is also taxed, but licorice, which has flour, is NOT considered candy.

    Prepared food is taxed. So, if you go to the store and buy deli meat and cheese, there's no tax, but if you get a sandwich platter made with the same meat and cheese, there is tax. Buying a live lobster isn't taxed, but if you have the guys at the seafood counter steam it for you, you have to pay taxes.

    Rather than try to figure out which foods should be taxed or not, maybe the helpful approach would be to figure out which foods we should try to LOWER prices on. I think we can all agree that we need to eat more fruits and vegetables. Rather than making soda more expensive, maybe we should try to figure out how to make fruit LESS expensive.

    Interesting thought but one of the cost drivers of fresh fruit and vegetables is the short shelf life, much has to be thrown out. And it often requires special shipping snd refrigeration etc.

    Many things considered junk food on the other hand have a shell live just a bit shorter than the half life of uranium and little special handling.
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    ftsolk wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    100df wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Part of the problem is that it's not really clear what the tax would be on.

    How about taxing based on added sugars? Would get the main items that any third grader would classify as junk food like pop, candy, cookies, etc. Might also get manufacturers to reduce the amount of "hidden" sugars in things like ketchup, sauces, etc.

    The US already has some definition of "healthy foods" from the WIC programs, might be a start.

    Lol @ any third grader would... but not on this forum! So weird!

    Taxing based on added sugar seems reasonable and doable.

    Asking what the definition would be is by no means a laughable question when we are trying to talk about a specific law, sorry. You can't just tax "junk food." You need a definition. This has already been an issue when people try to tax "soda" (which often means sugary drinks) -- is diet included? (often it is), is juice?, are energy drinks and sports drinks?

    If you get into a broader range of products, the question becomes harder. For example, the US definition of "empty calories" on things like MyPlate is added sugar AND added sat fat, but there are an awful lot of people on MFP who would take issue with the latter portion of that. And is bread or ketchup with some added sugar necessarily junk food? All flavored yogurts?

    Still others seem to be saying things like fast food (restaurant meals are already taxed, so I don't think it should mean this). But you can get a salad at a fast food place (or such is my understanding -- haven't been to one in years). And then of course we get into what's fast food (since despite what I just said, I've been to a Chipotle and a Pret -- fast food?).

    Anyway, if we are to seriously talk about this, I am interested in what the tax would say. Silly thing to mock. Defining things in a workable way is one of the difficulties of lawmaking.

    In the state of New Jersey, juice is NOT taxed, but soda is. The difference is the sweeteners. Sweetened beverages are taxed, where unsweetened beverages (100% juice, water, seltzer) are not.

    Candy is also taxed, but licorice, which has flour, is NOT considered candy.

    Prepared food is taxed. So, if you go to the store and buy deli meat and cheese, there's no tax, but if you get a sandwich platter made with the same meat and cheese, there is tax. Buying a live lobster isn't taxed, but if you have the guys at the seafood counter steam it for you, you have to pay taxes.

    Rather than try to figure out which foods should be taxed or not, maybe the helpful approach would be to figure out which foods we should try to LOWER prices on. I think we can all agree that we need to eat more fruits and vegetables. Rather than making soda more expensive, maybe we should try to figure out how to make fruit LESS expensive.

    Interesting thought but one of the cost drivers of fresh fruit and vegetables is the short shelf life, much has to be thrown out. And it often requires special shipping snd refrigeration etc.

    Many things considered junk food on the other hand have a shell live just a bit shorter than the half life of uranium and little special handling.

    Amusingly enough, it's usually the ingredients that cause the extended shelf-life (and people's heads to explode with stupid when they try to pronounce them) that cause people to label said things as junk. Ignorance is a problem from pretty much every direction.