Bryan wrote:
>
> On Oct 2, 7:12 pm, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
> > On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 17:41:16 -0600, Arri London >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >An advert is running locally complaining about proposed taxes on junk
> > >food. All well and good; it's probably sponsored by the companies who
> > >make soft drinks/sports drinks/flavoured waters.
> >
> > >Unfortunately it starts with a woman whining that it's hard enough to
> > >feed a family these days. Of course it is. However, buying
> > >sugary-artificially-flavoured-coloured drinks must cost her hard-driven
> > >family quite a lot of money. If her food budget is that tight, wouldn't
> > >it make more sense *not* to buy those things, taxed or otherwise?
> >
> > In NY those drinks are already taxed and have been for a very long
> > time... at first blush it appears a great concept to help curb
> > consumption of trashy drinks... taxing doesn't stem purchasing one
> > iota, not of anything.
>
> Research says otherwise. High taxes do reduce sales. If they didn't,
> why would companies spend good money fighting those taxes?
>
> --Bryan

True enough. Anyway, if the tax on a nonessential/nutrionally-useless
food item is too high, don't buy the product. It's hardly difficult to
make those choices.

On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 18:07:51 -0600, Arri London wrote:

> Bryan wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 2, 7:12 pm, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 17:41:16 -0600, Arri London >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >An advert is running locally complaining about proposed taxes on junk
>>> >food. All well and good; it's probably sponsored by the companies who
>>> >make soft drinks/sports drinks/flavoured waters.
>>>
>>> >Unfortunately it starts with a woman whining that it's hard enough to
>>> >feed a family these days. Of course it is. However, buying
>>> >sugary-artificially-flavoured-coloured drinks must cost her hard-driven
>>> >family quite a lot of money. If her food budget is that tight, wouldn't
>>> >it make more sense *not* to buy those things, taxed or otherwise?
>>>
>>> In NY those drinks are already taxed and have been for a very long
>>> time... at first blush it appears a great concept to help curb
>>> consumption of trashy drinks... taxing doesn't stem purchasing one
>>> iota, not of anything.
>>
>> Research says otherwise. High taxes do reduce sales. If they didn't,
>> why would companies spend good money fighting those taxes?
>>
>> --Bryan
>
> True enough. Anyway, if the tax on a nonessential/nutrionally-useless
> food item is too high, don't buy the product. It's hardly difficult to
> make those choices.

the question is, who gets to decide which products are
'nonessential/nutrionally-useless'?

your pal,
blake

On 05/10/2010 12:35 PM, blake murphy wrote:

>>> --Bryan
>>
>> True enough. Anyway, if the tax on a nonessential/nutrionally-useless
>> food item is too high, don't buy the product. It's hardly difficult to
>> make those choices.
>
> the question is, who gets to decide which products are
> 'nonessential/nutrionally-useless'?
>

Me ;-)


On a related note..... schools in Ontario won't be allowing the sales of
junk foods starting next year. Soft drinks will be out. However,
chocolate milk will still be allowed. Apparently it was a contentious
issue. While some argue that there is too much sugar in the stuff it's
supporters felt that it had enough nutritional value to justify keeping
it. As a person who never liked milk, Ihaev to say that if it had not
been for chocolate milk I would not have had any milk at all.

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 18:07:51 -0600, Arri London wrote:
>
> > Bryan wrote:
> >>
> >> On Oct 2, 7:12 pm, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 17:41:16 -0600, Arri London >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >An advert is running locally complaining about proposed taxes on junk
> >>> >food. All well and good; it's probably sponsored by the companies who
> >>> >make soft drinks/sports drinks/flavoured waters.
> >>>
> >>> >Unfortunately it starts with a woman whining that it's hard enough to
> >>> >feed a family these days. Of course it is. However, buying
> >>> >sugary-artificially-flavoured-coloured drinks must cost her hard-driven
> >>> >family quite a lot of money. If her food budget is that tight, wouldn't
> >>> >it make more sense *not* to buy those things, taxed or otherwise?
> >>>
> >>> In NY those drinks are already taxed and have been for a very long
> >>> time... at first blush it appears a great concept to help curb
> >>> consumption of trashy drinks... taxing doesn't stem purchasing one
> >>> iota, not of anything.
> >>
> >> Research says otherwise. High taxes do reduce sales. If they didn't,
> >> why would companies spend good money fighting those taxes?
> >>
> >> --Bryan
> >
> > True enough. Anyway, if the tax on a nonessential/nutrionally-useless
> > food item is too high, don't buy the product. It's hardly difficult to
> > make those choices.
>
> the question is, who gets to decide which products are
> 'nonessential/nutrionally-useless'?
>
> your pal,
> blake

It's fairly self-evident. Artificially-coloured, artificially-flavoured,
high-sugar, high-salt foods with a list of industrial chemicals in them.

Why is that even an issue? As mentioned, if the price of those things is
too high, it's simple enough not to buy them. No one's diet is going to
be poorer or less healthy because they can't eat/drink those products.

On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 17:43:22 -0600, Arri London >
wrote:

>
>
>blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 18:07:51 -0600, Arri London wrote:
>>
>> > Bryan wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Oct 2, 7:12 pm, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
>> >>> On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 17:41:16 -0600, Arri London >
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >An advert is running locally complaining about proposed taxes on junk
>> >>> >food. All well and good; it's probably sponsored by the companies who
>> >>> >make soft drinks/sports drinks/flavoured waters.
>> >>>
>> >>> >Unfortunately it starts with a woman whining that it's hard enough to
>> >>> >feed a family these days. Of course it is. However, buying
>> >>> >sugary-artificially-flavoured-coloured drinks must cost her hard-driven
>> >>> >family quite a lot of money. If her food budget is that tight, wouldn't
>> >>> >it make more sense *not* to buy those things, taxed or otherwise?
>> >>>
>> >>> In NY those drinks are already taxed and have been for a very long
>> >>> time... at first blush it appears a great concept to help curb
>> >>> consumption of trashy drinks... taxing doesn't stem purchasing one
>> >>> iota, not of anything.
>> >>
>> >> Research says otherwise. High taxes do reduce sales. If they didn't,
>> >> why would companies spend good money fighting those taxes?
>> >>
>> >> --Bryan
>> >
>> > True enough. Anyway, if the tax on a nonessential/nutrionally-useless
>> > food item is too high, don't buy the product. It's hardly difficult to
>> > make those choices.
>>
>> the question is, who gets to decide which products are
>> 'nonessential/nutrionally-useless'?
>
>It's fairly self-evident. Artificially-coloured, artificially-flavoured,
>high-sugar, high-salt foods with a list of industrial chemicals in them.

Those parameters, all or most, pertain to just about all prepared
foods.