"...but it HURTS THE POOR..."

A recent news opinion almost made me spew my coffee across the room. Here was a state senator pushing for a sales tax on fast food, and the mandatory liberal rebuttal "but it hurts the poor" was spouted by his opponents.

Hmmm. Let's think about this, shall we? Are our constitutional rights to be construed as including a daily meal at McDonald's? The USDA doesn't seem to think so, as such purchases are not allowable with food stamps. But here we have the liberals, who demand more and more services, complaining that a sales tax applied to fast food, a luxury item if ever there was one, would unfairly jeopardize the poor.

The simple fact is, as one who has lived in those shoes, I can tell you that I can feed my ENTIRE FAMILY for less than what ONE fast food value meal costs, and some meals amount to a FRACTION of that. That's right. So if I choose the number 6 value meal, I am essentially depriving my family of one meal for my own greedy satisfaction.

Fast food actually hurts the poor by providing poor nutrition at an inflated cost. This drives up the cost of state funded health insurance programs, resulting in an increased need for tax revenue.

So, in essence, a fast food tax is ONE tax that's not inappropriate.

7,151 views 25 replies
Reply #1 Top
But maybe the poor don't have the means to cook. Maybe they don't have stoves, refrigerators, etc. Or maybe they didn't learn how to cook. Rich people can afford cooks and maids. Maybe they have stoves, but some of the stoves are gas and they can't afford the gas. Do you think rich people eat fast food?
Reply #2 Top
Peanut butter is nutricious and cheap,

And fattening, just like fast food.

Reply #3 Top
Since taxing cigarettes is "good" because it helps offset the increased medical expenses, so should taxing fast food for the same reasons.

For the "cooking challenged" our government should look into issuing a "P-38" ( manual canopener ) with each new national ID card. Maybe throw in a spork as well.

Now, I think I'll go to Mickey D's,KFC, or BK's( obviously poor people can't say McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken. or Burger King ) and stock up on some supersized value meals before the tax kicks in......hmm, black market curly fries....
Reply #4 Top
Some states, like Massachusetts already have a tax on meals from fast food joints and other restaurants. It is called a "prepared meal tax". Basically, if someone else cooks it, or prepares it for you, then it can be taxed. Normal groceries are not taxed.
Reply #5 Top
I agree with Gideon and LW (never thought I'd be saying that). Simply tax the fast food and don't tax bread, potatoes, milk, bananas, eggs, etc.
Reply #6 Top
You know what, I couldn't agree more to you. Fast food tax hurts the lazy, but not the poor. Let the slackers starve since the world is better without them.
Reply #7 Top
Lets see...

You got the sin tax.

You got the luxury tax.

Soon to be fast food tax.

Some people want a SUV tax.

Ummm...

What else can we tax?

Hey! lets tax the internet! can't leave that group out!
Reply #8 Top
The internet is taxing enough....
Reply #9 Top
I agree with you Gid. Whoever said that taxing fast food hurts the poor is a total prat, as well as an idiot. You'd think that if he really wanted to help in a paternalistic way he'd say tax it a few hundred percent so they can't afford to eat unhealthily. I know back home in Australia I could feed myself all day for the 6 bucks it costs for a single meal, and I'm a pretty lazy (read: almost never) cook, too.

He may as well simply admit he's getting a kickback from the lobby groups and be done with it, rather than going on with such a ridiculous line.
Reply #10 Top
The whole "because it's unhealthy" tax thing kind of makes me laugh (especially when they play the "poor" card). Because of my condition, I was on a very healthy diet for about a year. I baked my own bread, almost lived on veggie and rice dishes, and all was right with the world... except the expense. It cost me much more to eat healthy than it ever did to eat crappy.

I'm not talking fast food, I'm talking fresh fruits, veggies, and non grain fed meats and poultry. It cost so much, there was no way I could maintain the diet once we were on Social Security. I mean, my family has to eat too!!

So, now I am back to $2 frozen pizza, and making my own burritoes and salsa; Ramen Noodles and Toasted Cheese Sandwiches. So hey, I can feed my family for a day on around what one "value meal" costs... as long as we eat the same crap, packaged differently, at home! ;~D
Reply #11 Top
Peanut butter is nutricious and cheap, requires no refrigeration. Neither do tunafish, beans, or eggs.


Holy Salmonella Batman... Eggs don't need refrigeration? ;~D

I agree with Gideon and LW (never thought I'd be saying that). Simply tax the fast food and don't tax bread, potatoes, milk, bananas, eggs, etc.


Oh the memories of working in a Convenient Store in Floria. I don't know how the laws there are now, but back in 85, they had to have the some of the most labor intensive Sales Taxes around.

~Prepared foods were taxed, but "groceries" weren't. So, if you microwaved that burrito before you paid for it, I had to charge sales tax, if you bought it cold, then microwaved it, there was no tax.

~Magazines were taxed, but newspapers weren't. The difference? Staples.

~Soda Pop was not taxed, but that Mt. Dew Slushee was.

The list went on and on!! ;~D
Reply #12 Top
Oh don't get me wrong LW, both me and my wife do a lot of cooking. However, my wifeis a full time student, and if I was up to cooking good meals every day, I would probably be up to working. In fact, homeade pizza is one of our favorites.

I realize those are excuses, but they are also facts. There was a time in our marriage that we didn't even own a microwave and rarely used frozen, processed foods (except burritoes before I came up with my own recipe for them, but that is my weakness ;~D ), hopefully we can return to that kind of cooking again, but for now, unfortunatly, it just isn't as feasible all the time.

Thanks for the suggestion though, I know you are trying to help, and I do appreciate you sharing your experience with me.

Either way though, it is still cheaper to eat junk than fresh, especially when you get into free range poultry and meats. Hoever they are all much better for people.
Reply #13 Top
Yes, you can actually store eggs at room temperature as long as the shells aren't cracked. It blew my mind too when I was overseas and saw eggs sitting on a normal shelf in a grocery store next to the bread. Crazy I tell ya... crazy.

The problem I have with eating healthy all the time isn't the cost, since I'm only buying food for myself, it's the fact that 99% of all recepies are for 4-6 people. I may absolutely love that caserole when I make it on Sunday. But by the time Thursday rolls around, I'm going to be pretty darn sick of it.
Reply #14 Top
Hmm, so I guess they should tax something that actually gets involved in politics... hmmm ... how about Churches?
Reply #15 Top

Peanut butter is nutritious and cheap,

And fattening, just like fast food.

Not if you don't eat it for every meal.  How can you compare it to fast food?  Peanuts are amazingly nutritious....can you say that about fast food?  You could make at least 10 PB sandwiches for the cost of 1 big mac.  Would feed you longer and would be nutritious.

I know that there are other people old enough to remember the beginning of welfare.  Remember the government foods?  What were they?  Food staples.  They were nutritious foods that would feed your family.  They consisted of dry milk, cheese, peanut butter, bread, etc.  They weren't coupons to some trans-fat laden cheap burger joint.

America needs a real reality check when it comes to food.  Just look around..........

Reply #16 Top
Peanuts are amazingly nutritious....


Peanuts are but, unless you buy "all natural" peanut butter, you are eating a whole lot of peanut flavored "hydrogenated oil"... in other words "Crisco". Check the label sometime.. 190 calories, 130 from fat. 2 Tbspns give you 25% of your RDA for fat.

I admit, I love Jiff, but (as a result of the year long diet) I often make my own peanut butter.
Reply #17 Top
not worth a double post
Reply #18 Top

Peanuts are but, unless you buy "all natural" peanut butter, you are eating a whole lot of peanut flavored "hydrogenated oil"... in other words "Crisco" (which is a brand name of "Trans-fat"). Check the label sometime.. 190 calories, 130 from fat. 2 Tbs give you 25% of your RDA for fat.

I don't know- I don't buy anything but all natural peanut butter.  Even though it is more expensive than "standard", it's still amazingly cheap per serving.

Reply #19 Top

Maybe they don't have stoves, refrigerators, etc.

When we moved to Texas, we brought with us an ice chest and a two burner hot plate. We were ready to ride things out until we could afford to get appliances.

What next, taxpayer funded cooking lessons?

Kind of, LW. Why not just add Home Ec BACK to the list of required subjects in schools (it's a hell of a lot more practical than some requirements).

Reply #20 Top
Even things like donuts...small cans of biscuits (3 for $1.00) can be fried in vegetable oil ( 1/4 of a bottle= about $.50) and dusted with powdered sugar, or even iced with powdered sugar creamed with a few spoonfuls of milk (a few cents worth).....netting you 30 small donuts for about $2.00, and guess what? They're yummy too.


Sounds good. Mmmmmmmmm...donuts

Hmm, so I guess they should tax something that actually gets involved in politics... hmmm ... how about Churches?


That actually doesn't sound like a bad idea.
Reply #21 Top
Oh the memories of working in a Convenient Store in Floria. I don't know how the laws there are now, but back in 85, they had to have the some of the most labor intensive Sales Taxes around.~Prepared foods were taxed, but "groceries" weren't. So, if you microwaved that burrito before you paid for it, I had to charge sales tax, if you bought it cold, then microwaved it, there was no tax.~Magazines were taxed, but newspapers weren't. The difference? Staples.~Soda Pop was not taxed, but that Mt. Dew Slushee was.The list went on and on!! ;~D


Same goes for Nebraska. Fast Food (prepared foods) have been taxed as long as I can remember. I think Iowa is the same way.
Reply #22 Top
Honestly, I don't think a tax on fast food would have any sort of impact on my family's consumption of gorditas and Big Macs. I mean, if you can't afford a dollar or two extra on your meal, you can't really afford to be eating out, anyways.

We have something interesting here in Hawaii. All cans and bottles are subject to a 5 cent fee. It's technically not a tax because you CAN turn your stuff in for a refund of that money, but in reality, most people don't bother. At first it was VERY difficult to turn the cans and bottles in (only a sparse few redemption centers with odd hours in out of the way places), but enough people complained that they began placing mini redemption centers in more accessible places.

For the majority of (lazy) people (which includes us), the 5 cent fee is really a tax. When we buy a 12 pack of soda, we pay 60 cents on top of the listed price.
Reply #23 Top
Of more concern is what they spend the tax take on. $1 fast food tax does not equal $1 in health spending and im not talking about the cost of administration either. Wouldn't it be a crazy legacy for Americas ancestors if a FAT tax funded STAR WARS.

Americas desire to eat fatty, salt and sacrin laced foods might well put laser guided missiles and other associated weaponry into space. Americans waistlines might well play a large part in delivering the funding capable of producing the kinds of next generation WMD that triggers the next global arms race.

Imagine our ancestors sitting in some mutated form, in some desolate radio active cave, knowing that the nuclear/biological wasteland that constitutes their backyard was made possible by an early 21 century Western obesity epidemic.

A bit of a stretch...no pun intended...or is it?
America might well eat us all into World War 3.
Reply #24 Top

Brick,

Excellent point. Personally, I'm in favor of "appropriate taxation" (DMV fees and traffic fines used for roads, park fees used for park services, "sin taxes" used for health care). It doesn't work that way, true, but the best argument against this tax is that it is another tax, not that it hurts the poor.