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.
Soda Tax
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »We've had a soda tax for years where I live. All soda, regardless of type of sweetener.
How high? I thought this kind of soda tax was somewhat new in the US (they have one in Berkeley, perhaps, I don't remember). But I haven't really been following it until recently with Philadelphia doing it and now Cook County (after talking about it for what seems forever), so I'm not claiming I would know, just interested.
We have had a soda tax for ages in the sense that we have a high sales tax and most food is exempted and gets a far lower sales tax, but soda and candy is not, but this is beyond that.1 -
This is liberal bait and switch at its best. Let's add a tax to increase revenue and hide it behind the pretense of health. What a joke. If a government really wanted its people to be healthy then why is it cheaper to buy a weeks worth of family meals from a box than home cooked meals? I have a organic goat farm and I raise both dairy and meat goats and my state won't allow me to sell any meat or milk without getting it certified which costs thousands of dollars a year. I sell less than $1000.00 a year so it would actually cost me to sell organic meat, cheese, yogurt and milk. It is illegal for me to sell healthier non-pasteurized goat milk to even my neighbors. The government has only one goal and that is to tax and beat everyone into submission.4
-
gearhead426hemi wrote: »If a government really wanted its people to be healthy then why is it cheaper to buy a weeks worth of family meals from a box than home cooked meals?
(1) It's not. People who say this are usually not thinking about the cheapest home cooked meals, but the meals they'd choose to make (that are much tastier and more nutritious than the particular boxed things they are comparing them too).
(2) How do you think the government could fix this "problem"? Seems like it would require way more interference by the gov't than most would except (even people who are somewhat liberal leaning, let alone the people who consider any gov't action to be bad).
(3) Given that food in the US is cheap (when measured by how much of their income the average American spends on food), why is this even a problem. It seems like a complaint that food you don't approve of is too cheap. (Which is of course the excuse for the soda tax too, although of course I agree it's really for revenue-raising most of all.)8 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »We've had a soda tax for years where I live. All soda, regardless of type of sweetener.
How high? I thought this kind of soda tax was somewhat new in the US (they have one in Berkeley, perhaps, I don't remember). But I haven't really been following it until recently with Philadelphia doing it and now Cook County (after talking about it for what seems forever), so I'm not claiming I would know, just interested.
We have had a soda tax for ages in the sense that we have a high sales tax and most food is exempted and gets a far lower sales tax, but soda and candy is not, but this is beyond that.
To supplement my own question, here's a pretty good summary of the different jurisdictions that have done this:
http://www.politifact.com/illinois/statements/2017/aug/07/illinois-policy-institute/chicago-soda-tax-throws-batting-practice-fastball-/
Before the current tax:
"Chicago already charged a 3 percent soft drink sales tax, and that was on top of a 10.25 percent sales tax that includes state and local portions and is the highest of any major city in the United States.
For a 12-pack of 12-ounce cans or bottles of any sweetened soft drink, regular or diet, the sweetened beverage tax adds another $1.44. Thus, a 12-pack priced at $4 costs $5.97 at the register. The new tax adds 67 cents to a two-liter bottle. If marked on the shelf at $2.49, the new tax means you’ll pay 40 percent more at checkout.
That’s how it works in Chicago, where the total price figures to be slightly higher than in the rest of Cook County even though the soda tax applies in the suburbs as well....
As it stands today, Cook County is one of only eight U.S. locations to impose or plan to impose a per-ounce tax on sweetened drinks. The other seven are cities and, with a population of 5.2 million, Cook County is by far the largest jurisdiction to adopt such a tax....
At one cent per ounce, Cook County is on the lower end of the soda tax scale. In Boulder, Colo., that two-liter soda will cost an extra $1.35 and a 12-pack will be $2.88 more. Cook County is also one of the three jurisdictions in which voters did not voluntarily adopt the tax by referendum. (Illinois has no provision for such referenda.)"
The other jurisdictions listed here are: Albany, CA; Berkeley, CA; Boulder, CO; Oakland, CA; Philadelphia; San Francisco; Seattle. However, "Cook County and the city of Philadelphia are the only places where drinks sweetened with non-caloric sweeteners also are subject to the tax."
1 -
(1) It's not. People who say this are usually not thinking about the cheapest home cooked meals, but the meals they'd choose to make (that are much tastier and more nutritious than the particular boxed things they are comparing them too).
(2) How do you think the government could fix this "problem"? Seems like it would require way more interference by the gov't than most would except (even people who are somewhat liberal leaning, let alone the people who consider any gov't action to be bad).
(3) Given that food in the US is cheap (when measured by how much of their income the average American spends on food), why is this even a problem. It seems like a complaint that food you don't approve of is too cheap. (Which is of course the excuse for the soda tax too, although of course I agree it's really for revenue-raising most of all.)[/quote]
1. It is way more expensive to eat healthy and it is a fact. Once people realize nothing healthy comes from a can or a box then they will know the true understanding of eating healthy. If the first ingredient in what you are eating isn't what you are eating it can't be good for you.
* Family of 4 healthy dinner *
- Boneless skinless chicken breast $ 6.00
- Corn on the cob $ 5.00
- Corn Bread $ 4.00 TOTAL $ 25.00 +/- no left overs
- Olive oil (will last for more meals) $ 7.00
- Flour (again will last) $3.00
-Pizza (frozen or Little Caesars) $10.00 for two
- 2 liter of pop $ 2.50 TOTAL $ 14.50 with leftovers
- Garlic Bread $ 2.00
That's just dinner. Throw in healthy snacks, breakfast, lunch and dinner and its well over $20.00 per day on the cheap side to eat healthy. So some dinners will have leftovers so call it $ 80 per week on the low end. So at a minimum that $ 320.00 per month more to eat healthy meals.
2. The government can't and has no intention of fixing anything. The people need the desire and motivation to change their lifestyles. The government doesn't want people to be healthy or self sufficient, If you control the food you control the people. If you tax them out of financial stability you control the wealth as well. The government wants SHEEPLE.
3. A country that has both extreme obesity and starvation, poverty and overwhelming wealth has major problems. The problem stems from people not wanting to provide for themselves and the government making it to lucrative to be on someone else's dollar.
4. My solution is help those that cant help themselves and let mother nature will sort out the rest.
9 -
2 take out pizzas for $10? You can't even get 1 here for that cost.
I can definitely prepare a meal for 4 with less than $25 you just don't know how to shop properly. I spend about $100 a month on groceries.
Why chicken breast? Thighs are much cheaper. How many cobs of corn is that? You can buy it now for dirt cheap, way cheaper than $5. Frozen corn is cheaper too. Lots of vegetables you can get for less than $5 for 4 servings. Why do you need olive oil and flour or even corn bread?5 -
gearhead426hemi wrote: »(1) It's not. People who say this are usually not thinking about the cheapest home cooked meals, but the meals they'd choose to make (that are much tastier and more nutritious than the particular boxed things they are comparing them too).
(2) How do you think the government could fix this "problem"? Seems like it would require way more interference by the gov't than most would except (even people who are somewhat liberal leaning, let alone the people who consider any gov't action to be bad).
(3) Given that food in the US is cheap (when measured by how much of their income the average American spends on food), why is this even a problem. It seems like a complaint that food you don't approve of is too cheap. (Which is of course the excuse for the soda tax too, although of course I agree it's really for revenue-raising most of all.)
1. It is way more expensive to eat healthy and it is a fact. Once people realize nothing healthy comes from a can or a box then they will know the true understanding of eating healthy. If the first ingredient in what you are eating isn't what you are eating it can't be good for you.
* Family of 4 healthy dinner *
- Boneless skinless chicken breast $ 6.00
- Corn on the cob $ 5.00
- Corn Bread $ 4.00 TOTAL $ 25.00 +/- no left overs
- Olive oil (will last for more meals) $ 7.00
- Flour (again will last) $3.00
-Pizza (frozen or Little Caesars) $10.00 for two
- 2 liter of pop $ 2.50 TOTAL $ 14.50 with leftovers
- Garlic Bread $ 2.00
That's just dinner. Throw in healthy snacks, breakfast, lunch and dinner and its well over $20.00 per day on the cheap side to eat healthy. So some dinners will have leftovers so call it $ 80 per week on the low end. So at a minimum that $ 320.00 per month more to eat healthy meals.
2. The government can't and has no intention of fixing anything. The people need the desire and motivation to change their lifestyles. The government doesn't want people to be healthy or self sufficient, If you control the food you control the people. If you tax them out of financial stability you control the wealth as well. The government wants SHEEPLE.
3. A country that has both extreme obesity and starvation, poverty and overwhelming wealth has major problems. The problem stems from people not wanting to provide for themselves and the government making it to lucrative to be on someone else's dollar.
4. My solution is help those that cant help themselves and let mother nature will sort out the rest.
Except you can buy frozen veggies which actually retain MORE vitamins than the fresh ones for a fraction of your corn on the cob and have more content and all of that is true for the other things you wrote. I also like how you used the price of a whole bottle of olive oil in your total as if it doesn't last easily a few months.5 -
Maybe the tax is already working because it started the debate...and consciousness about what we put in our bodies. It's clear that the Starbucks frappucino is high calorie and shouldn't be a habit; diet soda is a really addictive habit and the long-term affects are a question mark. We drink it because it's calorie free and don't know the ramifications of high consumption- better to switch to water or sparkling water for every day and save the diet drinks as a treat, no?5
-
When it comes to taxes of any sort, it is always very telling about where the money goes.
Who does this tax most impact? Poor and working class citizens are biggest consumers of such products and are the most impacted.
Is the new tax on sweetened beverage being used to benefit the poor and working class? Does it pay for free public access to healthcare or gym/ fitness center?
Or does it go back to government coffers, or worse, corporate benefits for wealthy and tax breaks to top?1 -
There was an interesting article in our local paper today....
6 months ago, the city of Chicago instituted a tax on disposable paper and plastic bags. If you asked for bags at a retail/grocery store, it would cost you 7 cents per bag. The city said they were doing this to encourage people to bring their own reusable bags, which would benefit the environment.
Now 6 months in, it has become evident that the tax actually worked! Reports from retail shops show that people are using far less disposable bags and bringing their own. So, the city should be thrilled, right? They actually did something that worked!
Well, apparently, the city is less than excited. The revenue that they are getting from the tax is less than half of what they expected. They thought that many more people would just pay the tax without thinking about it. But, you know, it was all about the environment, right?
So, I guess this kind of answers my question. At least with this bag tax, people DID change their habits. We'll have to see how it turns out for the soda tax.2 -
Except you can buy frozen veggies which actually retain MORE vitamins than the fresh ones for a fraction of your corn on the cob and have more content and all of that is true for the other things you wrote. I also like how you used the price of a whole bottle of olive oil in your total as if it doesn't last easily a few months.[/quote]
Frozen food having more vitamins than fresh? That would be up for debate. Guess you didn't see the note on the olive oil that it will last for more meals.
0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »2 take out pizzas for $10? You can't even get 1 here for that cost.
I can definitely prepare a meal for 4 with less than $25 you just don't know how to shop properly. I spend about $100 a month on groceries.
Why chicken breast? Thighs are much cheaper. How many cobs of corn is that? You can buy it now for dirt cheap, way cheaper than $5. Frozen corn is cheaper too. Lots of vegetables you can get for less than $5 for 4 servings. Why do you need olive oil and flour or even corn bread?
There is no way you spend $100 a month for groceries. Especially for a family of 4. I have a farm where I raise goats for meat and dairy. I have an industrial size green house and a fruit orchard and I still spend about $ 250 a month for other things for my family of 4.
Wal-Mart & Little Caesars pizza sell single large pizzas for $5.00 each.2 -
gearhead426hemi wrote: »Except you can buy frozen veggies which actually retain MORE vitamins than the fresh ones for a fraction of your corn on the cob and have more content and all of that is true for the other things you wrote. I also like how you used the price of a whole bottle of olive oil in your total as if it doesn't last easily a few months.
Frozen food having more vitamins than fresh? That would be up for debate. Guess you didn't see the note on the olive oil that it will last for more meals.
[/quote]
I don't know that the frozen would have more vitamins, but they would have equal amounts since the veggies that are frozen are picked at the peak of ripeness and flash frozen - unlike the ones that are shipped for the veggies counters in the store which are often picked early and allowed to ripen in transit.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »We've had a soda tax for years where I live. All soda, regardless of type of sweetener.
How high? I thought this kind of soda tax was somewhat new in the US (they have one in Berkeley, perhaps, I don't remember). But I haven't really been following it until recently with Philadelphia doing it and now Cook County (after talking about it for what seems forever), so I'm not claiming I would know, just interested.
We have had a soda tax for ages in the sense that we have a high sales tax and most food is exempted and gets a far lower sales tax, but soda and candy is not, but this is beyond that.
I value my online privacy so I'm not getting into specifics. We have one (actually some as there is more than one) that apparently Wikipedia doesn't list. Believe it or not.0 -
gearhead426hemi wrote: »1. It is way more expensive to eat healthy and it is a fact. Once people realize nothing healthy comes from a can or a box then they will know the true understanding of eating healthy.
It's not a fact, it's been debunked here lots of times. Like I said, dried beans are dirt cheap. Frozen vegetables are cheap, vegetables in season are extremely cheap many places. Meat is available quite cheap in the US (artificially so, arguably) and same with eggs, just avoid the expensive options.
Also, as I've mentioned before, around me what seems to be hot sellers in produce are the pre cut things which have a huge mark up, so I don't believe the issue with vegetables is cost, at least not where I am. The cost of food overall has consistently decreased as a percentage of budget too.
- Boneless skinless chicken breast $ 6.00 -- why get boneless, skinless -- that's an expensive cut
- Corn on the cob $ 5.00 -- way cheaper for me right now
- Corn Bread $ 4.00 -- are you buying that? weird addition for a "healthy cheap meal"
- Olive oil (will last for more meals) $ 7.00 -- you can't count that, you need to count the fraction, and butter is cheaper
- Flour (again will last) $3.00 -- same issue, and why do you need flour anyway
-Pizza (frozen or Little Caesars) $10.00 for two -- you pick the cheapest and IMO worst pizza; if I got pizza for 2 delivered it would be WAY more
- 2 liter of pop $ 2.50 luxury item, have water either way
- Garlic Bread $ 2.00 how is garlic bread less than corn bread -- they'd be the same, it's all about how you get itits well over $20.00 per day on the cheap side to eat healthy.
Completely absurd.
IME, it's WAY cheaper to cook at home, and not use premade meals. And not close to that cost.
2. The government can't and has no intention of fixing anything.
I agree the "problem" you pointed out can't be fixed by the gov't (it doesn't exist in that healthy food is quite cheap, and it's not a problem that some less healthy foods are also cheap)
But you suggested it was some failing that the gov't was not fixing the problem, so I was pointing out that that was a weird thing for someone who claimed to be gov't hands off to say.The government doesn't want people to be healthy or self sufficient
Silly.The government wants SHEEPLE.
Wow, a non ironic use of sheeple.4 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »We've had a soda tax for years where I live. All soda, regardless of type of sweetener.
How high? I thought this kind of soda tax was somewhat new in the US (they have one in Berkeley, perhaps, I don't remember). But I haven't really been following it until recently with Philadelphia doing it and now Cook County (after talking about it for what seems forever), so I'm not claiming I would know, just interested.
We have had a soda tax for ages in the sense that we have a high sales tax and most food is exempted and gets a far lower sales tax, but soda and candy is not, but this is beyond that.
I value my online privacy so I'm not getting into specifics. We have one (actually some as there is more than one) that apparently Wikipedia doesn't list. Believe it or not.
That wasn't wiki.
What I'm wondering about is if it's a different sort of tax than the one being discussed. I don't care where you are (my memory is a smaller town or rural area in or near the south, I could be wrong, and I understand that would be more identifying than Chicago, where I am). But as noted we had a tax that could be defined as a tax on soda even before, but this is different, since pegged to sweetener per oz, and much higher vs. the other.
Anyway, heck, if this is not such a new thing I'd like for that to be pointed out.0 -
indeed.lemurcat12 wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »1. It is way more expensive to eat healthy and it is a fact. Once people realize nothing healthy comes from a can or a box then they will know the true understanding of eating healthy.
It's not a fact, it's been debunked here lots of times. Like I said, dried beans are dirt cheap. Frozen vegetables are cheap, vegetables in season are extremely cheap many places. Meat is available quite cheap in the US (artificially so, arguably) and same with eggs, just avoid the expensive options.
Also, as I've mentioned before, around me what seems to be hot sellers in produce are the pre cut things which have a huge mark up, so I don't believe the issue with vegetables is cost, at least not where I am. The cost of food overall has consistently decreased as a percentage of budget too.
- Boneless skinless chicken breast $ 6.00 -- why get boneless, skinless -- that's an expensive cut
Can get a freezer bag for half that that will cover 2 meals for 4- Corn on the cob $ 5.00 -- way cheaper for me right now
Box of Jiffy is still under a dollar- Corn Bread $ 4.00 -- are you buying that? weird addition for a "healthy cheap meal"
And I'm not sure 2x Little Caesars will serve 4.
- Olive oil (will last for more meals) $ 7.00 -- you can't count that, you need to count the fraction, and butter is cheaper
- Flour (again will last) $3.00 -- same issue, and why do you need flour anyway
-Pizza (frozen or Little Caesars) $10.00 for two -- you pick the cheapest and IMO worst pizza; if I got pizza for 2 delivered it would be WAY more- 2 liter of pop $ 2.50 luxury item, have water either way
- Garlic Bread $ 2.00 how is garlic bread less than corn bread -- they'd be the same, it's all about how you get it1 -
KatieHall77 wrote: »Is the new tax on sweetened beverage being used to benefit the poor and working class? Does it pay for free public access to healthcare or gym/ fitness center?
It's paying for the budget of Cook County. A lot of the money goes for services or expenses that benefit the poor, yes. It's a general budget. Is the overall tax collected by the county unfairly on lower vs. upper income people vs. services given? I don't actually think so, but that's a broader political question not limited to that kind of tax.
The reason I don't really mind this tax is (1) I'm good with experimentation, that's why we don't have complete central control, let's see what it does, (2) we need more tax money, and if they want to pass a tax that I can choose to pay or not based on what I buy, cool, and (3) seems like a win-win (as with the plastic bags, which I find personally annoying but did not oppose) -- either it changes behavior or we get more tax money that we need.
I would not support the tax, exactly, I think it's largely unlikely to work for obesity in that people will continue to buy soda or spend money on other high cal things just as much, and I do think it falls disproportionately on poorer people. It does not fit my preferred model of how taxation should work. But it doesn't bother me at all.3 -
gearhead426hemi wrote: »Except you can buy frozen veggies which actually retain MORE vitamins than the fresh ones for a fraction of your corn on the cob and have more content and all of that is true for the other things you wrote. I also like how you used the price of a whole bottle of olive oil in your total as if it doesn't last easily a few months.
Frozen food having more vitamins than fresh? That would be up for debate. Guess you didn't see the note on the olive oil that it will last for more meals.
You can check yourself if that's up to debate. https://scholar.google.de/scholar?q=frozen+vegetables+vitamins&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5 If you want to be saved the trouble, most of those say they're mostly similar or better than the fresh ones.
Why did you put the olive oil on the list to begin with? Not taking the proportionate price for the meal but listing the whole bottle is highly dishonest. Might as well put the price of your plates in that.
The meal you chose to write down is highly questionable to begin with as someone else pointed out. Chicken breast isn't the cheapest of meat and not much different nutritionwise from other lean cuts of meat. Add the ability to get way cheaper vegetables than 5 dollar corn on the cob and a 4 dollar cornbread as your side, methinks you were just looking for an excuse why you're not willing to cook meals.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »1. It is way more expensive to eat healthy and it is a fact. Once people realize nothing healthy comes from a can or a box then they will know the true understanding of eating healthy.
- Boneless skinless chicken breast $ 6.00 -- why get boneless, skinless -- that's an expensive cut
- Corn on the cob $ 5.00 -- way cheaper for me right now
- Corn Bread $ 4.00 -- are you buying that? weird addition for a "healthy cheap meal"
- Olive oil (will last for more meals) $ 7.00 -- you can't count that, you need to count the fraction, and butter is cheaper
- Flour (again will last) $3.00 -- same issue, and why do you need flour anyway
These are just some basic prices off the top of my head from the grocery store. Corn on the cob typically goes for $1.00 an ear here. Boneless chicken breast vs chicken quarters are typically within $ 1-2 dollars of each other. The corn bread should be home made so the $4.00 is for someone to buy the ingredients. The flour is so someone could bake homemade bread. The $ 7.00 olive oil will last over a months worth of meals and is healthier than butter.
The flour and oil are the only things on this list that I purchase. I am fortunate enough that I have a farm so I grow or raise 90% of what my family consumes every month. I just see what the average person has available to them at say Wal-Mart and I am shocked they call it food. The problem is most people don't want to make a homemade meal. Someone who works 8-10 hours a day doesn't want to come home and have to spend an hour in the kitchen making dinner. They want to throw it in the microwave or oven and be done.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »Except you can buy frozen veggies which actually retain MORE vitamins than the fresh ones for a fraction of your corn on the cob and have more content and all of that is true for the other things you wrote. I also like how you used the price of a whole bottle of olive oil in your total as if it doesn't last easily a few months.
The meal you chose to write down is highly questionable to begin with as someone else pointed out. Chicken breast isn't the cheapest of meat and not much different nutritionwise from other lean cuts of meat. Add the ability to get way cheaper vegetables than 5 dollar corn on the cob and a 4 dollar cornbread as your side, methinks you were just looking for an excuse why you're not willing to cook meals.
I don't purchase any meat, fruit or vegetables from the store. I am fortunate to have a farm so I know what my food eats and where it all comes from. I am just saying from someone walking through a store such as Wal-mart and looking at what is typically on sale or is right in your face when you walk in this would be a dinner for a family of 4. As far as not cooking, I precook a weeks worth of meals for myself at work and my wife who runs the farm while I am at work cooks dinner 7 days a week.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »KatieHall77 wrote: »Is the new tax on sweetened beverage being used to benefit the poor and working class? Does it pay for free public access to healthcare or gym/ fitness center?
It's paying for the budget of Cook County. A lot of the money goes for services or expenses that benefit the poor, yes. It's a general budget. Is the overall tax collected by the county unfairly on lower vs. upper income people vs. services given? I don't actually think so, but that's a broader political question not limited to that kind of tax.
The reason I don't really mind this tax is (1) I'm good with experimentation, that's why we don't have complete central control, let's see what it does, (2) we need more tax money, and if they want to pass a tax that I can choose to pay or not based on what I buy, cool, and (3) seems like a win-win (as with the plastic bags, which I find personally annoying but did not oppose) -- either it changes behavior or we get more tax money that we need.
I would not support the tax, exactly, I think it's largely unlikely to work for obesity in that people will continue to buy soda or spend money on other high cal things just as much, and I do think it falls disproportionately on poorer people. It does not fit my preferred model of how taxation should work. But it doesn't bother me at all.
I think that's a pretty reasonable reaction. Like many other issues, the "outrage" on this one is being carefully stoked by an astroturf group funded by the beverage assn. That doesn't mean it still isn't a bad idea (IMO), but it's not Armageddon either.
3 -
gearhead426hemi wrote: »
I don't purchase any meat, fruit or vegetables from the store. I am fortunate to have a farm so I know what my food eats and where it all comes from. I am just saying from someone walking through a store such as Wal-mart and looking at what is typically on sale or is right in your face when you walk in this would be a dinner for a family of 4. As far as not cooking, I precook a weeks worth of meals for myself at work and my wife who runs the farm while I am at work cooks dinner 7 days a week.
Yeah, if you never actually buy any groceries I believe you that you think that's normal.7 -
gearhead426hemi wrote: »These are just some basic prices off the top of my head from the grocery store. Corn on the cob typically goes for $1.00 an ear here. Boneless chicken breast vs chicken quarters are typically within $ 1-2 dollars of each other. The corn bread should be home made so the $4.00 is for someone to buy the ingredients. The flour is so someone could bake homemade bread. The $ 7.00 olive oil will last over a months worth of meals and is healthier than butter.
The flour and oil are the only things on this list that I purchase. I am fortunate enough that I have a farm so I grow or raise 90% of what my family consumes every month. I just see what the average person has available to them at say Wal-Mart and I am shocked they call it food. The problem is most people don't want to make a homemade meal. Someone who works 8-10 hours a day doesn't want to come home and have to spend an hour in the kitchen making dinner. They want to throw it in the microwave or oven and be done.
Dude. Meat, veggies, maybe a starch. 15-20 minutes on a grill/stovetop, tops. Could be longer, if baking, but still only 10-15 minutes of prep. Go take a shower while it bakes (yes, I sometimes do this, as I lift after work). You don't have to make a complicated meal.
Additionally, anybody that knows how to plan and look for sales/deals and/or knows how to freeze food wouldn't often pay those prices above. My guess, since you have a farm? You haven't had to learn how to price things out, as you grow/raise much of your own.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »
I don't purchase any meat, fruit or vegetables from the store. I am fortunate to have a farm so I know what my food eats and where it all comes from. I am just saying from someone walking through a store such as Wal-mart and looking at what is typically on sale or is right in your face when you walk in this would be a dinner for a family of 4. As far as not cooking, I precook a weeks worth of meals for myself at work and my wife who runs the farm while I am at work cooks dinner 7 days a week.
Yeah, if you never actually buy any groceries I believe you that you think that's normal.
Ok, just checked local prices $1.78-3 per pound at 2 servings per family member that's closer to $4 for the chicken than 6... And that's before sales or coupons. If the other prices are also off at 1/3 high, Your $25 dollar meal is now closer to $17... after taking off portions for the bulk items(olive oil and flour) now we're down to $7... Half of Little Caesars.3 -
[/quote]
Dude. Meat, veggies, maybe a starch. 15-20 minutes on a grill/stovetop, tops. Could be longer, if baking, but still only 10-15 minutes of prep. Go take a shower while it bakes (yes, I sometimes do this, as I lift after work). You don't have to make a complicated meal.
Cooking a dinner for a family of 4 will take more than 15-20 minutes. Meals don't have to be complicated I agree with that. You can cook healthy filling meals quite easily.
Additionally, anybody that knows how to plan and look for sales/deals and/or knows how to freeze food wouldn't often pay those prices above. My guess, since you have a farm? You haven't had to learn how to price things out, as you grow/raise much of your own.[/quote]
You are right I don't price these things out I am just going off what I see walking through the store. Shopping for me consists of opening my freezer and walking through my garden or greenhouse.
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »We've had a soda tax for years where I live. All soda, regardless of type of sweetener.
How high? I thought this kind of soda tax was somewhat new in the US (they have one in Berkeley, perhaps, I don't remember). But I haven't really been following it until recently with Philadelphia doing it and now Cook County (after talking about it for what seems forever), so I'm not claiming I would know, just interested.
We have had a soda tax for ages in the sense that we have a high sales tax and most food is exempted and gets a far lower sales tax, but soda and candy is not, but this is beyond that.
I value my online privacy so I'm not getting into specifics. We have one (actually some as there is more than one) that apparently Wikipedia doesn't list. Believe it or not.
That wasn't wiki.
What I'm wondering about is if it's a different sort of tax than the one being discussed. I don't care where you are (my memory is a smaller town or rural area in or near the south, I could be wrong, and I understand that would be more identifying than Chicago, where I am). But as noted we had a tax that could be defined as a tax on soda even before, but this is different, since pegged to sweetener per oz, and much higher vs. the other.
Anyway, heck, if this is not such a new thing I'd like for that to be pointed out.
As I stated in another post, we've had this tax for a while but I don't think it has anything to do with obesity. I think, but honestly we've had it so long I don't remember, that it's a luxury tax.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »We've had a soda tax for years where I live. All soda, regardless of type of sweetener.
How high? I thought this kind of soda tax was somewhat new in the US (they have one in Berkeley, perhaps, I don't remember). But I haven't really been following it until recently with Philadelphia doing it and now Cook County (after talking about it for what seems forever), so I'm not claiming I would know, just interested.
We have had a soda tax for ages in the sense that we have a high sales tax and most food is exempted and gets a far lower sales tax, but soda and candy is not, but this is beyond that.
To supplement my own question, here's a pretty good summary of the different jurisdictions that have done this:
http://www.politifact.com/illinois/statements/2017/aug/07/illinois-policy-institute/chicago-soda-tax-throws-batting-practice-fastball-/
Before the current tax:
"Chicago already charged a 3 percent soft drink sales tax, and that was on top of a 10.25 percent sales tax that includes state and local portions and is the highest of any major city in the United States.
For a 12-pack of 12-ounce cans or bottles of any sweetened soft drink, regular or diet, the sweetened beverage tax adds another $1.44. Thus, a 12-pack priced at $4 costs $5.97 at the register. The new tax adds 67 cents to a two-liter bottle. If marked on the shelf at $2.49, the new tax means you’ll pay 40 percent more at checkout.
That’s how it works in Chicago, where the total price figures to be slightly higher than in the rest of Cook County even though the soda tax applies in the suburbs as well....
As it stands today, Cook County is one of only eight U.S. locations to impose or plan to impose a per-ounce tax on sweetened drinks. The other seven are cities and, with a population of 5.2 million, Cook County is by far the largest jurisdiction to adopt such a tax....
At one cent per ounce, Cook County is on the lower end of the soda tax scale. In Boulder, Colo., that two-liter soda will cost an extra $1.35 and a 12-pack will be $2.88 more. Cook County is also one of the three jurisdictions in which voters did not voluntarily adopt the tax by referendum. (Illinois has no provision for such referenda.)"
The other jurisdictions listed here are: Albany, CA; Berkeley, CA; Boulder, CO; Oakland, CA; Philadelphia; San Francisco; Seattle. However, "Cook County and the city of Philadelphia are the only places where drinks sweetened with non-caloric sweeteners also are subject to the tax."
We pay tax on non-calorically sweetened drinks. I just bought a Vitamin Water Zero and paid tax. Then I bought a store brand of the same thing (sweetened with stevia) and it was also taxed. It was 5%, or $.30 on 60 ounces (10% of the sales price)...but I have no idea how that is figured. First soft drinks I've bought in a long time.
So I guess the article is referring to this new tax..(?)
0 -
gearhead426hemi wrote: »The flour and oil are the only things on this list that I purchase. I am fortunate enough that I have a farm so I grow or raise 90% of what my family consumes every month. I just see what the average person has available to them at say Wal-Mart and I am shocked they call it food. The problem is most people don't want to make a homemade meal. Someone who works 8-10 hours a day doesn't want to come home and have to spend an hour in the kitchen making dinner. They want to throw it in the microwave or oven and be done.
Speak for yourself. I have a full time job. I also live on a farm and grow/raise/fish/hunt for about 60%-85% of the food we consume, depending on the season. I still not only take care of the farm and garden, including canning and pickling, I cook dinner from scratch almost every night. Though I rarely take an hour to do it. I was making 30 min meals when Rachael Ray was still in diapers.4 -
cmriverside wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »We've had a soda tax for years where I live. All soda, regardless of type of sweetener.
How high? I thought this kind of soda tax was somewhat new in the US (they have one in Berkeley, perhaps, I don't remember). But I haven't really been following it until recently with Philadelphia doing it and now Cook County (after talking about it for what seems forever), so I'm not claiming I would know, just interested.
We have had a soda tax for ages in the sense that we have a high sales tax and most food is exempted and gets a far lower sales tax, but soda and candy is not, but this is beyond that.
To supplement my own question, here's a pretty good summary of the different jurisdictions that have done this:
http://www.politifact.com/illinois/statements/2017/aug/07/illinois-policy-institute/chicago-soda-tax-throws-batting-practice-fastball-/
Before the current tax:
"Chicago already charged a 3 percent soft drink sales tax, and that was on top of a 10.25 percent sales tax that includes state and local portions and is the highest of any major city in the United States.
For a 12-pack of 12-ounce cans or bottles of any sweetened soft drink, regular or diet, the sweetened beverage tax adds another $1.44. Thus, a 12-pack priced at $4 costs $5.97 at the register. The new tax adds 67 cents to a two-liter bottle. If marked on the shelf at $2.49, the new tax means you’ll pay 40 percent more at checkout.
That’s how it works in Chicago, where the total price figures to be slightly higher than in the rest of Cook County even though the soda tax applies in the suburbs as well....
As it stands today, Cook County is one of only eight U.S. locations to impose or plan to impose a per-ounce tax on sweetened drinks. The other seven are cities and, with a population of 5.2 million, Cook County is by far the largest jurisdiction to adopt such a tax....
At one cent per ounce, Cook County is on the lower end of the soda tax scale. In Boulder, Colo., that two-liter soda will cost an extra $1.35 and a 12-pack will be $2.88 more. Cook County is also one of the three jurisdictions in which voters did not voluntarily adopt the tax by referendum. (Illinois has no provision for such referenda.)"
The other jurisdictions listed here are: Albany, CA; Berkeley, CA; Boulder, CO; Oakland, CA; Philadelphia; San Francisco; Seattle. However, "Cook County and the city of Philadelphia are the only places where drinks sweetened with non-caloric sweeteners also are subject to the tax."
We pay tax on non-calorically sweetened drinks. I just bought a Vitamin Water Zero and paid tax. Then I bought a store brand of the same thing (sweetened with stevia) and it was also taxed. It was 5%, or $.30 on 60 ounces (10% of the sales price)...but I have no idea how that is figured. First soft drinks I've bought in a long time.
So I guess the article is referring to this new tax..(?)
Yeah, it's a new per ounce tax that is additional on top of the regular sales tax.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions