Tax Unhealthy food in restaurants and grocery stores to help pay for healthcare

[francolettieri]

Why don't they start adding surcharges to unhealthy foods and softdrinks (they have already discussed softdrinks), both at restaurants (fast food), convenient stores and in grocery stores to help pay for healthcare reform?? That way people with very unhealthy diets would be contributing more to the system than people who eat healthy. I try to eat healthy but I admit I treat myself to ice cream,hamburgers, fries and tacos sometimes. It wouldn't bother me the least bit to have to pay an extra tax whenever I comsume something that makes me more likely to have a heart attack or develop diabetes. The amount of tax added should be based on how much damage a product does to your health (cigarettes would probably be the worst) I think its the perfect idea to improve the country's health, reduce incidents of obesity and resulting diabetes and heart disease which results in strain financial strain on our medical system. Adding this tax would also force fastfood restaurants and beverage manufacturers to become innovative and invent healthier products so they won't be subject to tax. Items subject to extra taxes at grocery stores should be...mayo, red meat, chips, candy, cigarettes, white bread..etc...

This country needs a nutrition revolution to sweep through. We need teen idols like Miley Cyrus, Demi Lovato, the Jonas Brothers and Britney spears to make it look cool for kids to eat apples, oranges, whole wheat bread, red and black beans, spinach, green tea, etc...

We also need to start cracking down on behaviors that contribute to injuries which lead to high medical costs. Not wearing your seatbelt, helmet when biking, talking on the phone or texting when drivings all contribute to large amounts of people being hospitalized (many without insurance who can't pay back hospitals for treatment) All these things should be punishable by fines.

[anonymous171]

1. How about we tax the rich to pay for healthcare? nt

[francolettieri]

4. Tax both

Tax unhealthy consumables and the rich to pay for healthcare. I agree the rich should pay a higher percentage, but we shouldn't get carried away in taxing them!! I think the tax percentages should be right where President Clinton had them.

[Obamanaut]

34. Any new tax levies will be used to finance the war machine currently

rumbling around the world.

Stop the wars and bring the troops home prior to enacting more tax laws, then it's quite likely new taxes won't be needed because of all the money we no longer spending on killing people and destroying villages.

[bluestateguy]

2. Hell no!

[donco6]

3. If you're diabetic, eating all those carbs is problematic.

It's just not that simple.

[Greyhound]

5. WTF is wrong with you people?

There is no need to tax anything, charge anything, or cut anything to "pay for insurance reform".

WE ALREADY PAY MORE, ANY WAY YOU MEASURE IT, THAN ANY OTHER NATION ON EARTH!

You are all so ready to swallow the bullshit, one might think you like it.

ETA; They are only trying to steal more money from us to give to their campaign contributors.

[DJ13]

7. To some its not the tax they really want

Its the control to tell people how they should live they really want.

[Fumesucker]

9. +1 Googolplex

[JVS]

37. Yup. A lot of fucked up ideas floating around.

[DJ13]

6. Tax products that dont impact the poor

Havent we imposed enough taxes on the middle/lower classes already?

[anonymous171]

10. Luxury taxes? nt

[DJ13]

17. I havent a clue

But Im tired of cig taxes that are always taking more money from the poor, proposed soft drink taxes that target the poor, and now this unhealthy food BS.

Every time someone comes up with some new tax its never targeted at those who make the real money, enough money that it wont impact their daily lives.

Its ridiculous.

[MadHound]

8. Oh geez, not this shit again

OK, how are you going to determine what is "unhealthy" food? Frankly most of what you find in your normal grocery store is unhealthy due to all the added chemicals and preservatives. In fact you could make the valid argument that most non-organic food is unhealthy, along with some of the organics.

Secondly, what do you consider behaviors that contribute to injuries? Sure, wearing seatbelts is a no brainer, but are you also going to crack down on people who participate in extreme sports, or even non-extreme sports? Running contributes heavily to long term foot, knee and back problems, what about those? Not to mention that this is simply more nanny state bullshit.

Finally, all of this is going to impact the poor and middle class more than it will the rich and well off. Once again, you will be taking from the poor and giving to the rich. Sorry, but I would rather see the rich have a tax hike, start paying their fair share back to this country. Oh, and if we would withdraw from those wars, I think we would have enough between the two to pay for true single payer health care.

[SoCalNative]

12. For starters, tax anything containing

High Fructose Corn Syrup or Partially Hydrogenated oils of any kind.

[MadHound]

14. In other words you're going to tax virtually everything in the store,

Thus forcing poor and struggling middle class to spend even more of their dwindling money on food. Sorry, but I'm not down with regressive taxes like this.

End these immoral, illegal wars, tax the rich at the rate they were being taxed fifty years ago, and we will have plenty of cash.

[SoCalNative]

19. The idea is that

people will stop buying the products with these harmful ingredients in them, forcing companies to abandon the ingredients for healthier, non-laboratory created alternatives.

[MadHound]

22. And at what cost? Driving the poor further into the ground,

Wondering if their budget will cover food? Sorry, but I can't buy onto that one. Tell you what, you want to do something about what is in our food, then you go out and elect Democrats who aren't corporate whores and have them put some teeth and spine back into the USDA and the FDA.

Performing social and corporate engineering on the backs of the poor is simply wrong.

[SoCalNative]

25. The poor can buy fruit and vegetables and meat like anyone else

there are many stores that sell very low priced versions of those, as well as staples like rice, beans, etc. so please do not equate poor choices like sweetened breakfast cereals and bags of chips and fast food diets with not being able to afford healthy food.

[MadHound]

29. The poor can buy this stuff, but it comes at an increased cost

Fresh fruit and veggies are much more expensive than canned stuff. And while rice and beans are great in the menu rotation, you really can't build your complete diet around them unless you are truly dedicated, and most people aren't. Thus if you want to get healthy cereals and snacks, you pay even more.

Go to your grocery store and compare, item for item, the price for a normal, chemical filled HFCS laden product with its organic, healthy counterpart. You will find that the prices for the healthier alternatives is much higher. Way to have compassion for the poor:eyes:

Oh, and if all the sudden you're going to dump millions of people on a diet consisting of fresh fruit and vegetables, well guess what, you're going to be contributing even more to climate change, since all that fresh fruit and veggies will have to trucked in, in ever greater quantities from even further away, all year around. Tell you what, why don't we start taxing your food based on the number of miles it travels(me, I won't have to pay a thing since virtually all my food is local). Oh, wait, that's money out of your pocket, we can't have that now, can we.

Again, if you want true, effective change in our food supply, put some real leaders, who aren't beholden to corporate interests, in charge of the USDA and FDA. Of course that rules out the current administration, given that Obama's cabinet is made up of nothing but corporate whore, with one or two exceptions.

[laughingliberal]

32. Thank you. The lack of caring for the poor (of which I am now a member)...is heartbreaking

I suppose we are hearing this from people who buy fresh produce and meat regularly which means they have a lot more money than my husband and I are trying to get by on these days. They seem to be just fine with having the poor live on rice and beans. And what of the ones who can't pay the electric or gas bills and can't cook, at times? Some people have no idea what others are doing to survive these days.

[virgogal]

11. The diet you suggest in your second paragraph would make me want

to stop eating.

Good lord!!!

[blues90]

13. One problem I have with this .

Here are all the ad's selling this stuff and people then try it and suddenly they are hooked on it then suddenly because of this they should be taxed based on what someone says is un-healthy.

Then why not put the tax on all chemicals most people use in their homes and then it finds it's way into the water and everything else and it causes health issues.

It seems to me evertime something is targeted for a tax the cost is passed onto the consumer. Fine do it but make it across the board .

[uppityperson]

15. You live in Tucson and consider tacos unhealthy? To answer OP, no.

If you want to change diets, education is the way to go.

Seems most foods are ok, just in moderation, so what about portion taxing? What size portion would be taxed? 2 oz of ice cream is ok, but put a higher tax on 4 oz? Tax red meat but not hormonally ridden unethically raised poultry? How about non-organic foods? Should they be taxed higher?

No, putting a tax on something that (whom?) has deemed unhealthy won't work and is rather silly.

[elocs]

16. Let's allow vegetarians to establish just what is healthy and is not

because that will be oh so much more interesting. Yes, we need more cracking down and punishing people. Can never have too much of that and policing every aspect of people's behavior.

[optimator]

18. sounds like politician ideas

i.e. HORRIBLE IDEAS

[eShirl]

20. Let's tax churches instead.

Render unto Washington that which is Washington's.

[Lerkfish]

21. but I have two chickens!

(movie reference to "missing")

people always want to tax someone other than theirselves. Going by this theorem, I am assuming the OP never eats unhealthy foods.

[TheCowsCameHome]

23. Define unhealthy food and be specific, please.

This is a very slippery slope.

This smells of Nanny State.

[noamnety]

24. I'm with you in spirit, but not on the details.

Before we talk about taxing HFCS, we should be ending the subsidies for it. That's the underlying problem - we've been using tax dollars to subsidize junk food for years, because the corporations have too much lobbying power.

I have no problem with taxing chemicals that leech into the ground water, because the TRUE cost of consumption should include the impact on the environment. I'd tax it at the production level, though, not the consumer level. Make sure it cuts into the profits of corporations that are getting rich from making us sick and destroying the environment.

Meanwhile, subsidize the things you listed instead of the sugar industry - healthy whole nonprocessed/minimally processed foods so that the poor aren't just getting cheap shit to eat - they'd be more able to afford real food.

The middle step needs to be stopping the subsidies-for-crap because it's ruining the food industry (and our health) in our country.

[Hepburn]

26. How about single payer? Like Medicare for all. n/t

[The Straight Story]

27. No wonder people see dems as the party that wants to raise taxes

Because dems always manage to do, usually to the detriment to the poor.

And you think the RW wants to control others and their lives??

[blogslut]

28. Most of those items are already taxed

At least they are in Texas. If I buy an apple I pay no tax at all. If I buy a bag of chips I pay 8 cents on the dollar in tax.

As for sin items like cigarettes and booze, they come with the highest taxes of all.

[jobycom]

30. Bad science there, I'm afraid.

A few reasons that's a bad idea. The most obvious is because we are a democracy, and most people would be against it.

Second, if everyone ate healthier they'd still die of something. Illness, diseases, accidents, etc. Moving the death date back isn't going to save money for health care--they'd just get sick at 90 instead of 50. Then they'd still need health care, hospice care, assisted living care, etc. They might cost a health program a little less by being sick less or for shorter, and they might be productive tax payers for longer, but the difference isn't going to be that much less.

Third, it isn't those foods, usually, that hurt, but the quantities and proportions in which we eat them. If you eat a healthy diet but indulge in fries now and then, you aren't going to shorten your life or increase your risk of dying. So taxing unhealthy foods isn't necessarily going to hit those in the highest risk group.

Fourth, there is always debate on what foods are healthiest and which worse. Much evidence shows, for instance, that diabetics who quit eating meat and animal products lose all symptoms of diabetes. Do we tax all meat then? White bread? If yes on white bread, what quantity of whole wheat in a loaf of bread qualifies for no tax? pasta? Coffee? There are a lot of items whose effects are still debated. Sooner rather than later the voters will rebel.

Fifth, what about other activities likely to result in health issues? Driving? Bike riding, which is a mixed bag? Vigorous exercise leads to injuries--do we tax health clubs or give them a break, since the go both ways on the health care costs issue?

It's just wrong thinking. I can go along with cigarettes, since it's not a food and since smokers harm people other than themselves. But you'd get instant rebellion if yo taxed food or created a two or three tier system of taxation to support health care. You'd get no health care. Even if it would pass, it wouldn't be a good idea. Taxing food is regressive, not progressive.

I'm all for using health dollars to promote healthy eating, or better, to educate people, since those PSAs encouraging healthy diets are about as influential as the old "This is your brain on drugs" silliness--they have the opposite effect more often than not. But I can't go for a regressive tax based on spotty science to finance health care.

And for full disclosure, I'm a vegetarian and frequently a health nut, although I've been bad the last few years. I'm all for shifting people to a whole grains/vegetable/meat-free diet. Taxes aren't going to do it, though.

[laughingliberal]

31. I am not in favor of taxing food

It is a regressive tax which falls heavily on the poor. I agree HCFS and partially hydrogenated oils are bad products. However, the way our food supply stands, products made with all natural, healthy ingredients are more expensive. If you want to improve health by diet the first battle is to pressure manufacturers to find ways to produce better food without the additional costs.

As for cigarettes, that cash cow has been milked for all it's going to give. Some states have seen revenue fall so much as the result of people quitting due to the price increases, they are considering further tax hikes on them to make up for lost revenue. In other words, they are bringing in less revenue than they were before the hike. Continuing to raise cigarette taxes is going to decrease revenue. It's a good thing people are quitting but states are now at the point of diminishing returns instead of raising the amounts they were counting on from these taxes.

[morningglory]

33. No!! Mr. Congressperson! No taxes on our sugary drinks!! (sarcasm) nt

[Kaleva]

35. Keep your stinking paws away from my Big Mac!!

[Odin2005]

36. The only taxes should be progressive income taxes, corporate taxes. and capital gains taxes.

Sales and "sin" taxes are regressive.

[Lorien]

38. How about taxing the richest 1% at a higher rate, getting out of Iraq and

Afghanistan,and slashing the military budget to the point that it's only double that of the next four superpowers COMBINED. That ought to fund health care for all, quality education for all, and green energy that would take us off fossil fuels completely....but we can't upset the balance of power now, can we?

[flvegan]

39. I'm a vegan, and I should agree with this. Yet...I don't.

You can't tax "unhealthy" without teaching what is healthy. It's not proper. It's not fair. Until you've got a fleet of dieticians, sports nutritionists and trainers working together to retrain America, you've gone only half way. It's like saying, "here's a speeding ticket for going 65 in a zone that's not a 65 zone, but I won't tell you how fast you were going."

So...good luck with that.