Fueling the debate are revenue-hungry federal, state and local governments officials who are eying a potential $50 billion windfall from taxes on over 10 years.
Take a look at the New York City Department of Health’s ad discouraging people from drinking sugary sodas, and let us know whether you think a junk food tax would be good public policy, or an intrusive step too far by the nanny state.
Reuters.com:
Help and Contact Us |
Advertise With Us |
Mobile |
Newsletters |
RSS
|
Interactive TV |
Labs |
Archive |
Site Index |
Video Index
Thomson Reuters Corporate: Copyright | Disclaimer | Privacy | Professional Products | Professional Products Support | About Thomson Reuters | Careers
International Editions: Africa | Arabic | Argentina | Brazil | Canada | China | France | Germany | India | Italy | Japan | Latin America | Mexico | Russia | Spain | United Kingdom | United States
Thomson Reuters is the world's largest international multimedia news agency, providing investing news, world news, business news, technology news, headline news, small business news, news alerts, personal finance, stock market, and mutual funds information available on Reuters.com, video, mobile, and interactive television platforms. Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.
NYSE and AMEX quotes delayed by at least 20 minutes. Nasdaq delayed by at least 15 minutes. For a complete list of exchanges and delays, please click here.
Trackback
175 comments so far
Previous | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | … 1 | Next
The issue shows just how far govt. will go for revenue.
- Posted by GeNo doubt there are health effects translating to monetary effects, but it is a smokesceen to cover the real purpose, add more revenue. Why?
To cover ever increasing spending. Doubt about the tax base and the ability to tax to cover obligations is a nagging worry to me.
We should definitely have a tax on junk food and drinks. No nutrition, just a fix, also causes myriad problems that plague society. We should help our nation to build healthy habits. Having the junk and real foods grouped together is simply a mistake - it puts out the wrong message. In addition. it is not fair that millions are intentionally making themselves obese, giving themselves heart problems, eating trash until they are seriously ill with diabetes, and so on and so on… I hope we choose to accept the taxes and the priceless benefits that will come with them.
- Posted by lindsay brewingtonSorry people, but you’re wrong when you claim that it’s your own problem when you choose to disrespect your body by eating junk food. We all pay through higher healthcare premiums so that you can be treated for you obesity health issues. And if a small junk food tax really would have a significant economic impact for you, and you choose to eat less junk food - then you should probably be thanking the junk food tax for saving your life.
It’s pathetic to hear the narrow-minded redneck talk of “it’s my own problem - I can do what I want”. No, we live in a society - TOGETHER. And as a last resort you cry “socialism!” to hopefully spread some irrational paranoia. I have a suggestion; why don’t you get a passport and try to visit some countries other than the US. Oh, sorry - I forgot. You don’t do public transportation because anything public is “socialism”.
- Posted by PhilipI eat junk food because I like it. After years of science, health and P.E. I have come to understand it is bad for me and my parents taught me me to take responsibility for my actions. Getting fat does not cause any physical danger to others unlike smoking, drinking or drugs. So why would we have it taxed? A couple of possibilities come to mind. (1)Socialism, (2)government needs more money and they made a good excuse or (3) health food nuts are trying to take over the world. Eating too many hot dogs is bad for me too and I don’t like them so lets tax them next.
- Posted by Heather RasmussenHow far will they go? If this happens, the gov’t will control what you eat, literally. I am a grown woman of 41, and I pay my own insurance and bills. I depend on no one. I paid for my own college and grad school without loans and grants. I can choose what I eat all by myself without a bunch of people (who are getting paid for their opinion) making my decisions for me. I have raised two very healthy (not fat) children who make good choices in their eating and exercise habits. I was the parent there, not a government. To support people who choose not to work, choose not to apply for citizenship, choose not to make choices that would extend their lives, choose to depend on taxes for their very beings, any more of these and I will lose the house I have never defaulted on. Middle class cannot pay for everyone and still have any life that was attained by hard work and sacrifice previous to the nanny government system. “Personal responsibility” should be the new catch phrase.
- Posted by Misled in GeorgiaThe agricultural industry and food processing industry are the latest version of huge corporations exploiting the consumer for huge profits. If its frozen or comes in a box, chances are its not good for you. Fast food is fat laden poison. Why do you think we all have to take acid-blockers and cholesterol drugs? Why are so many of us diabetic? Why are we depressed and our kids have ADHD?
- Posted by MikeWake up!
Seeing junk food as a potential source of addiction, the same as alcohol and tobacco, has nothing to do with the “nanny state” or socialism.
I smoke, but I’m thin as a rail. I pay taxes on smokes because it’s bad for my health, especially if I do it too much.
Now try to find me some significant differences between that, and eating alot of junk food –it’s bad for my health, especially if I do it too much.
Time to pay up like the rest of us getting our “fix”, fatsos.
- Posted by jlhLet’s tax stupidity as well, while we’re at it. If we did, all the so-called law makers would be broke. The government has no business whatsoever dictating what kinds of foods we choose to eat and certainly is not able to tax it. Can anyone out there say “socialism”?
- Posted by FrankIf the tax rev goes directly to Medicaid/Medicare, I say tax it. Maybe when healthy foods becomes cheaper than junk food people will start buying apples over Twinkies.
- Posted by EsquaThe implementation will be a little tricky though. I think it should only be applied to ready to eat food. (candy, soda, fruit-flavored drinks, TV dinners, food with an unnaturally long shelf life etc.)
First put the movie “Simply Raw: Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days” in all the movie theaters, so people know their choice of food really will determine most of their weight and health (www.environ-mentalproductions.com and click “Reversing Diabetes”). Then, if people, now educated, still choose junk food, the tax collector can come in.
- Posted by MichaelIf these things are so bad, why doesn’t the FDA remove them from the American market — not leave them to be taxed?
- Posted by billI think this does not go far enough. We need fat-camps NOW!!! Round up the obese off the street and make them run until they get thin. Or better yet, we could put them on generator-bycicles so that they make electricity in the process. There could even be a get-out-of-fat-camp-for-a-fee program for those who are not amenable to re-education. I think that anyone who is against such a societal change is simply not thinking of the children.
- Posted by AndrewDon’t tax junk food the rest of the world wants to see just how fat the US people can get. Paticularly their little, or not so little, porkers of children.
- Posted by gdIf the goverment was serious about healthy eating, their is allready a program in place. The food stamp program. In Pennsylvania food stamp sales are NOT taxed, so who is going to be paying this? They don’t need to raise a tax, they need to stop letting people buy junk food with food stamps, make all food purchaces be healthy. An opportunity to teach healthy habits, with out raising taxes.
- Posted by JulieMichael Moore should be taxed.
- Posted by Casper Lab