Political Crossfire Forums

[Nathyn]

I went to McDonald's a couple days ago and saw on my receipt, "TAKEOUT TAX." I think it's new or at least, I never looked at the receipt. But my state of Maryland apparently has a fat tax.

Our sales tax is 5%. But the takeout tax was 10%.

What's your opinion on taxing fastfood chains and junk food to decrease obesity while increasing revenue?

[Free Thinkr]

Nathyn wrote: I went to McDonald's a couple days ago and saw on my receipt, "TAKEOUT TAX." I think it's new or at least, I never looked at the receipt. But my state of Maryland apparently has a fat tax.
In college, one of my friends from Ohio mentioned a similar tax. I don't understand taxing takeout.

Quote: Our sales tax is 5%. But the takeout tax was 10%.

What's your opinion on taxing fastfood chains and junk food to decrease obesity while increasing revenue?
Is that the purpose? I think that's incredibly disturbing.

ETA: Maryland, eh? You do live in the Great Satan! ;) :P

[Brooklyn]

Bring this reciept with you to Mickey Deez next time you go. However, get your food to stay. I think you will notice that in place of "take out" tax you will see "eat in" tax. Its the same rate.

[Publius2006]

What you are talking about is called an excise tax. There are also excise taxes on cigarettes and gasoline, and there purpose (in theory) is to try and influence the behavior of the consumer. In other words, reduce their purchases of fatty foods, cancer causing cigarettes, and scarce gasoline (or environmentally detrimental gasoline depending on your beliefs).

Time and research has shown that excise taxes aren't as concerned with changing behavior as they are with raising revenue for the government. These taxes are extremely effective at raising revenue because the products they are placed on are so desired by the consumer that, even with high tax rates, consumption of the product does not decrease, and therefore, the effectiveness of the tax does not decrease (product defies the laffer curve for those familiar with it).

[ubikk]

Nathyn wrote: I went to McDonald's a couple days ago and saw on my receipt, "TAKEOUT TAX." I think it's new or at least, I never looked at the receipt. But my state of Maryland apparently has a fat tax.

Our sales tax is 5%. But the takeout tax was 10%.

What's your opinion on taxing fastfood chains and junk food to decrease obesity while increasing revenue?

I'm all for it. People think it's OK to tax Booze and Cigarettes, and I think Fast Food is another unhealthy luxury that should be taxed. The revenue could be used to help fund medicaid and medicare, since an increasing share of their costs are related to health conditions from poor diets.

They could even use the tax to improve nutrition. For example, they could establish "corporate average nutrition standards", like what they do with CAFE standards on cars. Companies who's product sales include foods that meet certain health standards (like say fat as a percentage of total calories, percentage of saturated fat, etc.) would pay a lower tax rate.

[Free Thinkr]

ubikk wrote: Nathyn wrote: I went to McDonald's a couple days ago and saw on my receipt, "TAKEOUT TAX." I think it's new or at least, I never looked at the receipt. But my state of Maryland apparently has a fat tax.

Our sales tax is 5%. But the takeout tax was 10%.

What's your opinion on taxing fastfood chains and junk food to decrease obesity while increasing revenue?

I'm all for it. People think it's OK to tax Booze and Cigarettes, and I think Fast Food is another unhealthy luxury that should be taxed.
Well, that's nice. I'm glad you consider yourself an authority to the extent that you have no problem passing such taxes.

All those who argue this reasoning isn't a slippery slope: take note!

Quote: They could even use the tax to improve nutrition. For example, they could establish "corporate average nutrition standards", like what they do with CAFE standards on cars. Companies who's product sales include foods that meet certain health standards (like say fat as a percentage of total calories, percentage of saturated fat, etc.) would pay a lower tax rate.
Too bad there is no real agreement on what constitutes a healthy diet, eh? Eff it, we'll just start passing all kinds of taxes anyways. Social engineering, here we come.

[Brooklyn]

Like I said guys, these are not special taxes. It is just the way the reciept looks. Go to Burger King and you will pay the same tax rate you did at McDonalds. Compare the "eat in" vs. "take out" receipts and you will see the same tax rate. The difference in rates the original poster posted may be due to higher sales tax for prepared food. Sales tax rates vary from item to item in some municipalities and states.

[ubikk]

Free Thinkr wrote: Well, that's nice. I'm glad you consider yourself an authority to the extent that you have no problem passing such taxes.

My argument is that there is usually majority support for so-called "sin taxes", and that this would be a tax that would have support (i.e. taxation by representation)

Quote: All those who argue this reasoning isn't a slippery slope: take note!

Quote: They could even use the tax to improve nutrition....(lowering tax for better food)

Yeah, but that's a slippery slope back towards LESS taxes It's a way for the fast food companies to lower their share of the proposed tax.

Quote: Too bad there is no real agreement on what constitutes a healthy diet, eh?

Actually there is a lot of agreement. Read the nutrition labels on everything you buy.

Congress seems in no hurry to cut medicare, in fact they're expanding it by hundreds of billions of dollars. It's destined to go belly-up in just a few years. Here's a way to fund the program if they insist on keeping it.

What's your idea for funding medicare?

.

[Free Thinkr]

ubikk wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Well, that's nice. I'm glad you consider yourself an authority to the extent that you have no problem passing such taxes.

My argument is that there is usually majority support for so-called "sin taxes", and that this would be a tax that would have support (i.e. taxation by representation)
Well, you're certainly right about the former; I disagree that this is a good thing, however. Regardless, the latter part is simply your contention; a contention that I believe is wrong.

Quote: Quote: All those who argue this reasoning isn't a slippery slope: take note!

Quote: They could even use the tax to improve nutrition....(lowering tax for better food)

Yeah, but that's a slippery slope back towards LESS taxes It's a way for the fast food companies to lower their share of the proposed tax.
It's a slippery slope to tyranny. Health nazis have no right to restrict my diet.

Quote: Quote: Too bad there is no real agreement on what constitutes a healthy diet, eh?

Actually there is a lot of agreement. Read the nutrition labels on everything you buy.
Nutrition labels simply state content; they make no evaluation as to the nutrition of the content.

Quote: Congress seems in no hurry to cut medicare, in fact they're expanding it by hundreds of billions of dollars. It's destined to go belly-up in just a few years. Here's a way to fund the program if they insist on keeping it.

What's your idea for funding medicare?
If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. Giving up and passing crazy taxes that inhibit liberty is no solution at all.

[ubikk]

Quote: It's a slippery slope to tyranny. Health nazis have no right to restrict my diet.

Let's put it to a vote. Then it's not tyranny.

Quote: In college, one of my friends from Ohio mentioned a similar tax. I don't understand taxing takeout.

There is no take-out tax in Ohio. There is no food tax in Ohio either.

Quote: These taxes are extremely effective at raising revenue because the products they are placed on are so desired by the consumer that, even with high tax rates, consumption of the product does not decrease

This is an absolute fallacy. Any increase or decreae in prices affects behavior. It's basic market economics.

Quote: Nutrition labels simply state content; they make no evaluation as to the nutrition of the content.

They include recommended daily allowances. They are used by people to evaluate the food with regard to recognized standards, like percentage of calories from fat. There would be no purpose to the labels if there were not standards to correlate them to.

[Free Thinkr]

ubikk wrote: Quote: It's a slippery slope to tyranny. Health nazis have no right to restrict my diet.

Let's put it to a vote. Then it's not tyranny.
Let's put to vote whether we should round up and kill all homosexuals. If the majority says "yes," it's not tyranny, right?

We're not a democracy for a reason.

Quote: Quote: In college, one of my friends from Ohio mentioned a similar tax. I don't understand taxing takeout.

There is no take-out tax in Ohio. There is no food tax in Ohio either.
There apparently was in Cleveland in '98. I seriously doubt my friend made it up for no reason.

Quote: Quote: These taxes are extremely effective at raising revenue because the products they are placed on are so desired by the consumer that, even with high tax rates, consumption of the product does not decrease

This is an absolute fallacy. Any increase or decreae in prices affects behavior. It's basic market economics.
I didn't say that.

Quote: Quote: Nutrition labels simply state content; they make no evaluation as to the nutrition of the content.

They include recommended daily allowances. They are used by people to evaluate the food with regard to recognized standards, like percentage of calories from fat. There would be no purpose to the labels if there were not standards to correlate them to.
Yes there would; namely, to know the content of the food. You don't necessarily need standards, nor are standards very useful for many people. People are and should be left to themselves to determine the nutritional makeup of their diet. Someone my size who is athletic would find such standards incredibly worthless. Someone on Atkins would find them worthless; is the Atkins or the "recommended allowances" a better guide as to what percentage of daily caloric intake we should follow? Who decides, and based on what?

Is it my right to not eat healthy? How about not living healthy? How far should we take this?

[Publius2006]

ubikk wrote: Quote: It's a slippery slope to tyranny. Health nazis have no right to restrict my diet.

Let's put it to a vote. Then it's not tyranny.

Quote: In college, one of my friends from Ohio mentioned a similar tax. I don't understand taxing takeout.

There is no take-out tax in Ohio. There is no food tax in Ohio either.

Quote: These taxes are extremely effective at raising revenue because the products they are placed on are so desired by the consumer that, even with high tax rates, consumption of the product does not decrease

This is an absolute fallacy. Any increase or decreae in prices affects behavior. It's basic market economics.

Quote: Nutrition labels simply state content; they make no evaluation as to the nutrition of the content.

They include recommended daily allowances. They are used by people to evaluate the food with regard to recognized standards, like percentage of calories from fat. There would be no purpose to the labels if there were not standards to correlate them to.

Not a fallacy. If you place a tax on a good whose price is inelastic, then a tax increase on the product causes a negligible small change in consumption, another basic concept in economics and economic policy.

[thintheherd]

Publius2006 wrote: ubikk wrote: Quote: It's a slippery slope to tyranny. Health nazis have no right to restrict my diet.

Let's put it to a vote. Then it's not tyranny.

Quote: In college, one of my friends from Ohio mentioned a similar tax. I don't understand taxing takeout.

There is no take-out tax in Ohio. There is no food tax in Ohio either.

Quote: These taxes are extremely effective at raising revenue because the products they are placed on are so desired by the consumer that, even with high tax rates, consumption of the product does not decrease

This is an absolute fallacy. Any increase or decreae in prices affects behavior. It's basic market economics.

Quote: Nutrition labels simply state content; they make no evaluation as to the nutrition of the content.

They include recommended daily allowances. They are used by people to evaluate the food with regard to recognized standards, like percentage of calories from fat. There would be no purpose to the labels if there were not standards to correlate them to.

Not a fallacy. If you place a tax on a good whose price is inelastic, then a tax increase on the product causes a negligible small change in consumption, another basic concept in economics and economic policy.
"Negligible small change" is the key phrase here, and the politicians know it. How they convince the general public to 'buy' into this crap is beyond me.

[Publius2006]

thintheherd wrote: Publius2006 wrote: ubikk wrote: Quote: It's a slippery slope to tyranny. Health nazis have no right to restrict my diet.

Let's put it to a vote. Then it's not tyranny.

Quote: In college, one of my friends from Ohio mentioned a similar tax. I don't understand taxing takeout.

There is no take-out tax in Ohio. There is no food tax in Ohio either.

Quote: These taxes are extremely effective at raising revenue because the products they are placed on are so desired by the consumer that, even with high tax rates, consumption of the product does not decrease

This is an absolute fallacy. Any increase or decreae in prices affects behavior. It's basic market economics.

Quote: Nutrition labels simply state content; they make no evaluation as to the nutrition of the content.

They include recommended daily allowances. They are used by people to evaluate the food with regard to recognized standards, like percentage of calories from fat. There would be no purpose to the labels if there were not standards to correlate them to.

Not a fallacy. If you place a tax on a good whose price is inelastic, then a tax increase on the product causes a negligible small change in consumption, another basic concept in economics and economic policy.
"Negligible small change" is the key phrase here, and the politicians know it. How they convince the general public to 'buy' into this crap is beyond me.

I take it you mean that the politicians know that their excise taxes are ineffective at changing behavior since the tax causes little if any change in consumption. Of course they know this, however they continue to pass these sort of taxes.

Many observers, myself included, have come to the conclusion that excise taxes are no longer being placed to try and change behavior, they are being placed because they are an effective means of gathering revenue for the government, while not having to anger many voters since the tax is being imposed in the name of morals.

[thintheherd]

Publius2006 wrote: thintheherd wrote: Publius2006 wrote: ubikk wrote: Quote: It's a slippery slope to tyranny. Health nazis have no right to restrict my diet.

Let's put it to a vote. Then it's not tyranny.

Quote: In college, one of my friends from Ohio mentioned a similar tax. I don't understand taxing takeout.

There is no take-out tax in Ohio. There is no food tax in Ohio either.

Quote: These taxes are extremely effective at raising revenue because the products they are placed on are so desired by the consumer that, even with high tax rates, consumption of the product does not decrease

This is an absolute fallacy. Any increase or decreae in prices affects behavior. It's basic market economics.

Quote: Nutrition labels simply state content; they make no evaluation as to the nutrition of the content.

They include recommended daily allowances. They are used by people to evaluate the food with regard to recognized standards, like percentage of calories from fat. There would be no purpose to the labels if there were not standards to correlate them to.

Not a fallacy. If you place a tax on a good whose price is inelastic, then a tax increase on the product causes a negligible small change in consumption, another basic concept in economics and economic policy.
"Negligible small change" is the key phrase here, and the politicians know it. How they convince the general public to 'buy' into this crap is beyond me.

I take it you mean that the politicians know that their excise taxes are ineffective at changing behavior since the tax causes little if any change in consumption. Of course they know this, however they continue to pass these sort of taxes.

Many observers, myself included, have come to the conclusion that excise taxes are no longer being placed to try and change behavior, they are being placed because they are an effective means of gathering revenue for the government, while not having to anger many voters since the tax is being imposed in the name of morals.
Precisely.

[Nathyn]

Free Thinkr wrote: ubikk wrote: Nathyn wrote: I went to McDonald's a couple days ago and saw on my receipt, "TAKEOUT TAX." I think it's new or at least, I never looked at the receipt. But my state of Maryland apparently has a fat tax.

Our sales tax is 5%. But the takeout tax was 10%.

What's your opinion on taxing fastfood chains and junk food to decrease obesity while increasing revenue?

I'm all for it. People think it's OK to tax Booze and Cigarettes, and I think Fast Food is another unhealthy luxury that should be taxed.
Well, that's nice. I'm glad you consider yourself an authority to the extent that you have no problem passing such taxes.

All those who argue this reasoning isn't a slippery slope: take note!

Quote: They could even use the tax to improve nutrition. For example, they could establish "corporate average nutrition standards", like what they do with CAFE standards on cars. Companies who's product sales include foods that meet certain health standards (like say fat as a percentage of total calories, percentage of saturated fat, etc.) would pay a lower tax rate.
Too bad there is no real agreement on what constitutes a healthy diet, eh? Eff it, we'll just start passing all kinds of taxes anyways. Social engineering, here we come.
I'm sorta undecided on this. Excise taxes seem arbitrary and I think the idea that the government is obligated to make me less fat is ludicrous, or that I should have to pay the government to stop other people from getting fat. "Corporate Average Nutritious Standards," sounds Socialist.

But on the other hand, I'm rather pragmatic about taxation, finding the statement "Taxation is theft!" to be laughable and downright Anarchist. I can see how it's beneficial and if it's necessary for revenue, what the hell, who cares? As he said, if it's used for something important, like some form of social welfare program or for something that we actually need, it might be better to pay the extra 20 cents for my burger if it goes to, say, building homeless shelters. It's a fair trade if it's actually used beneficially.

[LeopardPM]

Nathyn wrote: I'm sorta undecided on this. Excise taxes seem arbitrary and I think the idea that the government is obligated to make me less fat is ludicrous, or that I should have to pay the government to stop other people from getting fat. "Corporate Average Nutritious Standards," sounds Socialist.
how is it socialist? why is that a bad thing?

Quote: But on the other hand, I'm rather pragmatic about taxation, finding the statement "Taxation is theft!" to be laughable and downright Anarchist.
The statement 'taxation is theft' is just the application of normal societal and cultural rules of conduct to the affairs of government - if it is considered theft for the 10 people in my neighborhood to get together and vote to decide to 'tax' me - then this must also apply to larger groups. Theft is defined as the taking of property without consent... doesn't taxation fit that definition? If you were not threatened with jail and fines from the government, how much would you pay if 'taxes' were voluntary - the difference between this amount, and the amount that the government actually demands from you, is theft.

Quote: I can see how it's beneficial and if it's necessary for revenue, what the hell, who cares?
who cares? so the ends justify the means? its ok to steal from your neighbor as long as you spend the money in some approved way?

Quote: As he said, if it's used for something important, like some form of social welfare program or for something that we actually need, it might be better to pay the extra 20 cents for my burger if it goes to, say, building homeless shelters. It's a fair trade if it's actually used beneficially.
and who determines what is 'important' enough to justify taxation? Is fighting a 'war' in Iraq important enough? Do you agree with the spending of every dollar that you are taxed - corporate subsidy, oil subsidy, environmental destruction subsidy (the leasing of forests for logging purposes, the leasing of government land for cattle grazing, etc)?

[Harbinger]

Free Thinkr wrote:
ubikk wrote:
Quote:
It's a slippery slope to tyranny. Health Nazis have no right to restrict my diet.

Let's put it to a vote. Then it's not tyranny.

Let's put to vote whether we should round up and kill all homosexuals. If the majority says "yes," it's not tyranny, right?

We're not a democracy for a reason.

That's right. The US government is a 'democratic' republic. It may be democratic on the inside but, it is a dictatorship on the outside. The founders structured it this way because they believed that the law would be more fair and just if it was created and maintained by a congress of elected aristocrats than if it was created and maintained by the people themselves. (Plus is was logistically impractical to collect a vote from every citizen in the country on every piece of legislation.) Since then, however, the republic has well proved this notion to be utterly and completely false.

People make all kinds of ridiculous suggestions off the cuff all the time. But, when we consider actual law (such as propositions on a state ballot), we tend to put stupidity away and we think long and hard about all of the potential consequences the law may have on us. I seriously doubt that the American people would pass a law to round up and kill people because of their sexual orientation. Not just because it would contradict every moral, ethical and constitutional principle we live by, but because it would be too easily abused. Imagine then being falsely accused of being gay by someone who wants you dead.

I'm not saying the Federal and state congresses should be abolish, but that all the legislation that our elected representatives propose should at least require a minimum percentage of voter approval- something like 60%- before it passes. Yes, a lot of legislation is complicated and most people don't have time to read it, let alone understand it. But, IMO, anything that can't be fully explained in lay terms on just a few pieces of paper is completely useless and therefore unnecessary.

[ubikk]

Publius2006 wrote:
Not a fallacy. If you place a tax on a good whose price is inelastic, then a tax increase on the product causes a negligible small change in consumption, another basic concept in economics and economic policy.

There is no such thing as an absolutely inelastic product. All products have some elasticity, some more than others. Even gasoline is much more elastic than people seem to think it is. Like when you're poor and you simply don't have enough money at the end of the month to put any gas in the tank. Or when someone decides to go out and by a car with better milage.

This thread was intended to discuss a fast food tax. What makes you think the price of fast food is so inlelastic?

[ubikk]

Nathyn wrote: ....or that I should have to pay the government to stop other people from getting fat.

So then just have the "fat tax" and don't offer companies a way to reduce their tax burden

Quote: "Corporate Average Nutritious Standards," sounds Socialist.

Why? There's nothing socliast about it. Like the CAFE standards on cars, the companies can choose whether or not or how they want to meet them if they want to exempt themselves from the tax. It's voluntary. A socialist system would just pass a law that mandated the standard and give companies no choice and no tax credit for meeting it.

Quote: it might be better to pay the extra 20 cents for my burger if it goes to, say, building homeless shelters. It's a fair trade if it's actually used beneficially.

It's just a way to raise revenue that people might support. Revenue is needed for medicaid and medicare. No politician is going to cut those programs enough to make them solvent and most Americans won't vote for one who does. So, the only other option is to fund them properly. It's simple "fiscal responsibility".