Minnesotans thoughts and feelings on taxing junk food (insurance, buying)

[Slig]

On my recent trip to Chicago I heard people's reactions to the steep cigarette taxes, causing a pack of cigarettes there to cost over $10. Now to combat rising state healthcare costs IL legislators are proposing a tax to soda pop and other junk food. How do Minnesotans feel about this tax proposal that is most likely being considered in our state as well?

The reason I mentioned cigarettes is my buddy quit smoking only because cigarettes in Chicago are too expensive for him to justify maintaining the habit. If coke gets jacked up to $15 for a 24 pack would parents stop buying it for their fat kids, causing childhood obesity to drop? I think it would, and for that reason I am in favor of a junk food tax (also, it'd eliminate the $5 bil budget deficit).

[marmac]

When state revenue is tight, everyone looks for ways to raise taxes.

(usually the taxes that doesn't affect them )

[TimtheGuy]

Originally Posted by Slig

On my recent trip to Chicago I heard people's reactions to the steep cigarette taxes, causing a pack of cigarettes there to cost over $10. Now to combat rising state healthcare costs IL legislators are proposing a tax to soda pop and other junk food. How do Minnesotans feel about this tax proposal that is most likely being considered in our state as well?

The reason I mentioned cigarettes is my buddy quit smoking only because cigarettes in Chicago are too expensive for him to justify maintaining the habit. If coke gets jacked up to $15 for a 24 pack would parents stop buying it for their fat kids, causing childhood obesity to drop? I think it would, and for that reason I am in favor of a junk food tax (also, it'd eliminate the $5 bil budget deficit).

Just what we need....more taxes.
My thoughts are, it would be idiotic, stupid, ludicrious and retarded.
Here's a thought...how about we control spending.

[Slig]

Similarly, how about we somehow create incentives to improve the health of our children and population as a whole. I have yet to hear a better solution than to start taxing unhealthy foods and bringing PE back into public schools. I think we can all agree that the obesity epidemic is a major concern.

[TimtheGuy]

Originally Posted by Slig

Similarly, how about we somehow create incentives to improve the health of our children and population as a whole. I have yet to hear a better solution than to start taxing unhealthy foods and bringing PE back into public schools. I think we can all agree that the obesity epidemic is a major concern.

Here's a novel idea (at least for the Nanny state), how about we let parents and individuals decide what they want to do with themselves.

PE in schools is great. They don't have it anymore?? But more government control and/or taxes for anything, I am totally against.

This is America. We don't want/need the government to control our lives. If MN continues on this trend there is a good chance I will leave someday for somewhere with more freedom and less taxes.

[marmac]

Originally Posted by Slig

On my recent trip to Chicago I heard people's reactions to the steep cigarette taxes, causing a pack of cigarettes there to cost over $10. Now to combat rising state healthcare costs IL legislators are proposing a tax to soda pop and other junk food. How do Minnesotans feel about this tax proposal that is most likely being considered in our state as well?

The reason I mentioned cigarettes is my buddy quit smoking only because cigarettes in Chicago are too expensive for him to justify maintaining the habit. If coke gets jacked up to $15 for a 24 pack would parents stop buying it for their fat kids, causing childhood obesity to drop? I think it would, and for that reason I am in favor of a junk food tax (also, it'd eliminate the $5 bil budget deficit).

---( also, it's eliminate the $5bil budget deficit)--

"eliminate-"------?

[Slig]

Originally Posted by TimtheGuy

Here's a novel idea (at least for the Nanny state), how about we let parents and individuals decide what they want to do with themselves.

PE in schools is great. They don't have it anymore?? But more government control and/or taxes for anything, I am totally against.

This is America. We don't want/need the government to control our lives. If MN continues on this trend there is a good chance I will leave someday for somewhere with more freedom and less taxes.

Here's my problem with that. In child-care institutions, private and public schools administrators are constantly forced to find ways to keep costs down and find sources of revenue. The result is unhealthy food (alot of times it's cheaper than healthy options), large contracts with Coke, Pepsi, Frito-Lay, etc. to put soda machines and junk food vending machines in their facilities. Many schools' budgets depend on this contract money.

Education budget cuts in public schools nationwide is also forcing the gutting of Phy-ed programs offered to students. This is also attributing to the increase in childhood obesity.

Parents can decide what their kids do at their house, but they may be more inclined to drink milk, fruit juice and tap water if the price of pop is increased by a junk food tax. Pop is cheaper than milk and fruit juice right now so lower income parents may be more inclined to buy pop for that reason. The same can be said about products like pop tarts, frozen pizza, etc. The worst food for you is alot of times the cheapest.

Negative perceptions of government aside. I am interested in tackling our problems, not debating on government's role in our lives. If you can find a way to correct these problems without government than I'd like to hear it.

[Camden Northsider]

In theory and/or a perfect world, sure- good way to increase tax revenues while combatting a social problem. However, I'd be against it as in my opinion this is just another tax on the poor, much like the cigarette tax, alcohol tax, and the lottery (not saying everyone that smokes, eats junk food, drinks heavily, and/or plays the lottery is poor; however, poor people are much more well-represented consumers of all of the above categories), and taxing junk food isn't going to get the prices of organic foods to go down anytime soon.

I'm not saying that more shouldn't be done to get people to live/ eat healthier as the obesity epidemic is having a huge impact on public health and medical/insurance costs; however, I despise it when state governments look to the poor and/or persons with addiction issues (smokers, alcoholics, gamblers) to help solve budget issues and/or upper-income persons bear way less of the tax burden than the poor and middle class. It's one thing to tax people for making poor choices, but then states like SD derive much of their income from taxing groceries and clothes, two basic necessities required to live, which to me is just inherently wrong. And not to go down a slippery slope here, but if junk food is all that a poor family can afford to buy at the grocery store, what would be more preferable- childhood malnourishment or childhood obesity?

[Slig]

I agree that taxing groceries and clothes is bad, but junk food isn't required to live and causes many similar detrimental health effects that cigarettes and alcohol cause. So what's the difference? How would discouraging people to buy junk food lead to malnourishment? It would encourage the purchase of healthier food and beverages, hence being a preventative measure to obesity and other adverse health effects caused by consuming excessive junk food. I have a good substitute for soda pop and it's free....it's call tap water.

[knke0204]

Do it up. Sin Tax baby. If it's bad for you and the general public tax it.

We will spend much more in the long run on weight-related heath issues directly corrilated to Fast Food Consumption. Cholesteral, Heart Disease, and just plain old unhealthyness wastes millions of health care money.

So, make the difference up by taxing. simple. see, politicians dont think this much.