You can tax anything. Whether there's anything specifically disease producing about them is irrelevant.
you can tax cigarettes specifically because they are known disease producers, except that, eg, the tobacco industry spent $50M SUCCESSFULLY blocking the $1 tax per packet propostion in CA. The vote isn't final yet, but the $50M blitz dropped the supporters from about 70% to less than 50%.
you can't tax "fattening" foods directly because there's nothing specifically disease producing about them, quan y is too vague, and they are too diverse.
You can tax anything. Whether there's anything specifically disease producing about them is irrelevant.
Right because people that eat at mcdonalds never go grocery shopping.
I haven't been to Souper Salad in a while so I forget...are their patrons all fat?
Sure you can tax anything as long as you can justify it.
I have yet to see proper justification for a ”fast food” tax without further taxing most items found in the grocery store.......including the produce section.
take away church tax-free status for all money not spent on charity. If you only spend 30% feeding the poor, then you pay taxes on the other 70%. Just like a person.
no! Eating at that place is like taking a ing colonic. It'll clean you out.
Tax policy has been used since time immemorial to advance certain behaviors and restrict others. Hence, tax deductions for home buying, charity giving, etc.
If you think that religious organizations are mad at governments now, just imagine what would happen if the tax deduction for 'charitable donations' to religious ins utions were to disappear.
No politician has the stomach for that.
I have no problem with removing the tax free status of charitable contributions, or placing a smaller limit of how much is tax exempt. But then, I am one who wants to see a radical change in our tax system, and make it as simple as possible.
The idea of it being a tax credit instead of a deduction off income is an interesting notion. That way anyone who makes the same donation would get the same benefit instead of it benefiting those in a higher tax bracket more. The credit could be a set percentage of the donation.
Then again I do not understand why people get to pay less taxes because they choose to have more kids.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)