Do you think making single ingredient foods non-taxible would encourage healthier eating? [Details]?

I don’t want to be told how to eat. No I believe it won’t work . There will be a backlash.

I can understand why you may want to regulate the food you eat but why do you feel it is your job to regulate the food I eat. It won’t work but it may cripple some of the poorest amongst us.

Since the costs of unhealthy eating are a burden on society as a whole, as well as on the individual and since people are hopeless on making short term decision with long term impacts, I feel the government not only has the right to manipulate markets in order to promote healthier lifestyles, it actually has the obligation to do so.

In my mind that is the prime rationale for having a government: to take actions that promote choices and behavior of single individuals that benefit the group of citizens as a whole as well as each citizen. Governments are our answer to sub optimization that game theory dictates would occur in our complex, multiplayer society.

And… would it work? Of course it would!

Some of the things governments need to promote, for instance, are fair market practices and personal freedom.

I don’t get the objection here. Nor do I see how the OP is “telling” or “regulating” how anyone eats. He’s talking about taxes, specifically cutting out taxes on certain classes of items. I would think that certain posters here would be all for less tax.

Eh, even the most basic bread has 4 ingredients, plus the water.

I doubt if it would matter. In places more noted for reasoning, food is excluded from taxation. In such places the issue then becomes defining what is or isn’t food

@whitenoise A reasoned and well stated argument, but it is of course resistance to such ideas which are at the very core of conservatism. The counter to your position is that the government has no business regulating ANYTHING. In fact, the conservative champions now posit that government is INCAPABLE of regulating anything. While the folly involved with this line of reasoning should be evident on its face, the fact that it persists and even expands serves to demonstrate the declining capacity for reasoning in we who supposedly possess the ability to choose our destiny.

Where I live, fruits, vegetables, meat, dairy are not taxed. Things considered luxuries like candy are taxed.

I think it would have very little effect. The tax would have to be extremely high to make a significant change. Not taxing staple and fresh foods is more of a moral issue to me.

As I said recently in another Q, some states in America tax groceries, some don’t, some tax certain grocery items. I doubt it affects how healthy people eat. The states with some of the worst obesity rates and highest poverty rates tax groceries. It’s horrible.

Like @jca said, most foodstuffs here are not taxed when purchased in a grocery store so I cannot see how you would un-tax them at that point of distribution. I can see some benefit in the fast food market but that would only help if the ff store sold the single ingredient foods.

I say this because from personal experience with menus that list the caloric content I know I will take the number of calories into account when ordering and I can infer that, in my case at least, I would go with the less expensive option if I am after food in general and not something specific.

@jca it’s the same in the UK – we pay VAT (Value Added Tax) of 17.5% on some foodstuffs including alcoholic drinks, confectionery, crisps (chips) and savoury snacks, hot food, sports drinks, hot takeaways, ice cream, soft drinks and mineral water.

I don’t think it makes much of a difference – still a nation of fatties and heavy drinkers

No. The amount saved (2 cents on the dollar, maybe, in some states) is not enough to change eating habits.

I don’t get the objection here. Nor do I see how the OP is “telling” or “regulating” how anyone eats. He’s talking about taxes, specifically cutting out taxes on certain classes of items. I would think that certain posters here would be all for less tax.

Oops. @Darth_Algar already said that.

If there is no tax on food (California for instance), you would be implementing a new tax. And basically taxing everything that doesn’t spoil within a couple of days. Is there ever enough tax to satisfy you guys?

No. I think this is the wrong answer, the wrong action to the problem. It’ll just make the rich pay even less tax. A good deal of people who eat unhealthily don’t always do it out of apathy.
-Some don’t know how to cook and/or have not seen the value of it. What would they do with the ingredients?
-Some don’t have time. I know people who work multiple jobs.
-Some don’t have the convenience. What if they don’t have a full kitchen?
According to this website, only 14 states tax groceries. So initially, in most states you’d be adding a tax not taking one away. I agree with @Jaxk‘s statement: “It may cripple some of the poorest among us.” The focus should be on how our society is run.

Just to quibble a bit, @dxs. My state, Georgia, does not charge state tax on groceries. However, state law allows lesser subdivisions (i.e. county and city) to charge sales taxes.

Georgia’s state sales tax is 4%. MY county’s tax is 3% and and additional tax of .5% for SPLOST (capital expenditures).

So on my $10.00 grocery bill, I don’t pay the state their 40 cents. But I pay the county 35 cents.

I cannot speak for other states, but my guess is that many of them have similar laws. So to say that “most states don’t tax groceries” is semi-accurate in a technical sense, but not really accurate in a practical sense. I am still paying sales taxes on food.

@elbanditoroso I’d have to look into it more. I was surprised to hear it was actually a thing to tax groceries. It may be just coincidental or, perhaps, luck that I’ve spent a good deal of time in 4 states that don’t tax groceries.

Here is the state sales tax map on groceries. I could have sworn I was paying more than 5.5% in TN. Either I was wrong or it changed since I lived there.

And I don’t really get the notion that suggesting a lower tax = raising taxes where there are none. That’s quite a knee-jerk leap in logic there.

I think it would have a net positive impact. I would vote for it.

In states like California (where groceries are not taxed), it would have no effect. At least not at the state level—maybe at the local level.

In states like Alabama and Mississippi (where groceries are subject to full taxes), it would lower the cost of single ingredient foods. These states also happen to have the highest rates of obesity.

I do not accept the argument that it would only lower taxes on the wealthy. Many single-ingredient foods do not require preparation: apples, bananas, carrots, broccoli, nuts, etc.

One thing, you would need to exclude items like sugar and salt.

All food is comprised solely of….chemicals.

I was surprised, @dxs, to hear it was a thing to not tax food in most of the country. I’ve never not paid tax on groceries. And Like @Lawn, it seems to me like it might promote healthy eating of fruits, vegetables and nuts in the states that do tax food.

And, @Lawn. don’t think we need to exclude sugar and salt because they are not sold as a stand-alone edible. A staple, like baking soda and vinegar, which would also be exempt.

@Jaxk stating that eliminating a tax first requires implementing that tax is silly.
@Dutchess_III, try applying that level of scrutiny to your own questions!

@ibstubro – OK let’s look at what you want to do. The question implies that we would want to differentiate single ingredient foods and make them more attractive to buy (in other words cheaper). you want to do it by eliminating tax on those foods. There is no federal tax, so passing a federal law would have no effect. Even on a state level it would only affect a handful of states and even then low tax states. Unless other foods (multiple ingredient foods) were taxed, there is little or no point in doing this.

To make matters worse, California grows most of the country’s fruits and vegetables. The current drought made worse by politicians is destroying much of California’s crop. So you are pushing legislation that at best would do nothing and could cause the prices of the food want to make cheaper, skyrocket in cost. It’s a bad idea no matter how you slice it.

Not sure what you meant by that, @ibstubro, but it feels like one of those useless, pointless insults that Fluther is so good at dispensing for no reason.

It is about encouraging/rewarding good eating habits, that it’s all.

Re. some people can’t cook Broccoli cauliflower, just for example can be and are eaten raw. I know some people who love them raw.

I’m sorry for going off-topic, but I’m new in this community, and I was actually looking for a totally different website but I’ll stay here as well just because of topics like this one :)

I have to agree that commercialization of healthy products as a trend is really upsetting, because pricing something higher because it’s healthy seems monstrous to me, I don’t know why… On the other hand, I don’t believe that people should feel encouraged to eat healthy because of the low prices, but it would definitely show results.

@CynthiaFulcanelli Welcome to Fluther.