I just read an interesting Letter to the Editor today. The author is basically proposing a "Sin Tax" on gluttony(it is one of the Big Seven). I won't post the ridiculous comments on obesity as they are pretty narrow and stupid. At first glance, I thought it was a plan to tax more for seats on public transportation, airlines, movie theaters and such. The actual proposed tax increase, though, I found interesting.

Proposed: Increase taxes on sugar, soft drinks, foods containing saturated fats and products high in cholesterol.

OK, so I'd leave out sugar since it is a staple ingredient and I personally prefer it, though I use honey, to phony pharmaceutical-type sugar replacements. It simply should be used in moderation. But, I don't have a problem with the others. In fact, I feel it could actually lead our country towards a more healthy eating lifestyle. I would also add tax cuts on fruits, vegetables and whole grains. A fast food tax could also be useful.

So what do y'all think? I think it is far better than the silly punishments on fat folks that I listed above.

Edited to add: This plan would affect everyone's eating habits, as I know I was eating crap food before I became overweight, like many other skinny people do. My reason for calling it "Sin" is the sin of the companies selling garbage food for profit.

I have no problem at all with the concept of a "sin" tax as long as it is applied fairly.

.

I agree, Cut the taxes on whole foods, vegies, meat, fruit! The foods manufactured and in center isles (ok, not all center isle foods are) should increase! Not whole grains like rice, but instant, etc.! What a concept!

However, we all know people that are skinny that eat so unhealthy it's sickening!

I suppose that sort of tax might work if your municipality or state were entirely homogeneous in their ideology. That will never happen. Even if it did---I suppose you're always going to get people who complain - with whatever new law or tax comes forth.
I think it's interesting though if you think about it. Would they be taxing the people or the company? I know some people would agree companies should be able to do whatever they want because the choice is up to the individual. And others would agree that companies don't have the best track record when it comes to taking the public's best interest in mind. i.e. tobacco.

I would think it should be done at the cash register, just as many sales tax remedies are(since alcohol is taxed by stamp, there is often a sales tax exemption and has NT marked on the receipt).

I think the problem might be in determining what items are "sins," so to speak . I foresee it causing major lobbying activity by the companies. Like the commercials we see now for HFCS.

A "sin" tax on unhealthy goods might work. Even if it didn't cause people to change their eating habits, it might help pay off some of our deficit.

As far as a tax cut on the good stuff though... that would be nice! It would mean that I'd buy more fresh veggies to use in my cooking and throw into my salads... but somehow I don't think that'll ever happen.

Edited to add: It just reminded me about my discount card at the grocery store. I hardly ever get anything more than $1 off of my groceries because the stuff they discount is mostly the highly processed shelf stable foods. Sometimes there's a sale on chicken, or the other week it was bagged salad greens... but that's about it.

Sorry...can't agree with this one.
We already have taxes for those who CHOOSE to smoke or drink alcohol.
We have all kinds of safeguards to make it more difficult for people to read or watch what they CHOOSE, if it is not what everybody else can or wants.
The only thing it's cool in this country to have a choice about is the life of an unborn child.

I get a little tired of people saying that as adults that their choices are the fault of the government, a company, hollywood, their parents, etc.

I made some bad choices along the way and it got me where I am today. Live and learn. I have the option of continuing those choices or not regardless of what you choose to do. That is why I CHOOSE to live in America.

Guess I'm a little crabby today.

My problem with a "sin tax" is that it would affect the poor disproportionately. One of the reasons many poor families are overweight is not ignorance of nutrition (though that contributes to it), but the fact that they seem to get "more for their money" buying high carb, high fat foods. They also may be relying on convenience stores because they don't have transportation to grocery stores. Those things are not going to change with the tax (taxing Doritos and bolgna isn't going to bring down the cost of fresh produce and lean meats or provide taxi service to affordable well-stocked grocery stores).

I read a statistic once that very poor families and very rich families were the most likely to buy brand names and be suspicious of generics. For poor families, it seems it was a fear of change, the perception that they couldn't afford to "gamble" with the family's food dollar. Taxing the foods isn't going to change that mentality.


I think neither throwing money at, or sucking money from the problem is going to do any good.

Florida doesn't tax grocery food. They tax restaurant food and ready to eat food you buy at a grocery. So there couldn't be tax relief on lettuce and tomatoes as they're already untaxed. (Would you tax iceberg but not romaine?)

I guess that a tax would work if sugar (oops - wouldn't tax sugar as sugar cane is a major Florida crop), soft drinks (doesn't that have a lot of Florida sugar in it?), food high in saturated fat (hmm, Florida beef), food high in cholesterol were declared frankenfoods, or non-foods. Unfortunately as research into foods changes whether things are considered bad for you or not, it would take awhile for taxes to adjust. For example, dietary cholesterol is no longer considered to be a significant contributor to serum cholesterol. If high cholesterol foods were taxed, then (Florida) shrimp & (Florida) squid would be taxed. However, current thinking is that these are healthy foods to eat as long as they aren't fried.

Unfortunately, no. I would be happier if soft drinks had FL and LA sugars in them. Instead they are made with HFCS. There are veryvery few sodas that are made with cane sugar any more.

I just think entertainment style foods like chips, candy, etc. could be subjected to an additional tax.

I already pay extra to buy liquor ... so why not when I choose to buy junk food?

.