Taxing the 'vices' of humanity will always be a great way to make money for the government. Question: Will taxation be the way to direct people to living healthier [or basically as the government wants you to live]? Will we move to a point where everything is legal . BUT taxed . . having a society where you can do whatever the hell you want. . but only if you can afford it? Creating a truly privileged class of wealthy folx. "We can smoke Marijuane because we can afford it at 50$ a pack but you .. you wretches catching those illegal 5$ bags on the corner. . you will be punished to the highest extent of the law" Would we be ok with that? Rocket River Hyperbole, surely http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127218749&ft=1&f=1001 Candy is candy, right? Not if you're trying to tax it. That's when the definition gets a bit sticky. Suddenly a Snickers bar is candy but a Twix isn't. This is an issue as states like Colorado and Washington move to tax sweets to help balance their budgets. According to Washington state, which just approved a candy tax, candy is a preparation of sugar, honey or other natural or artificial sweeteners combined with chocolate, fruits, nuts or other ingredients or flavorings, and formed into bars, drops or pieces. So put into practice, that means Reese's Peanut Butter Cups are taxable. Mike and Ike candies are taxable. Kit Kat is exempt. That's because Kit Kats have flour in them, explains Patrick Gillespie of Washington state's Department of Revenue. And flour is the not-so-secret ingredient that determines whether something is candy or not — at least if you're the taxman. If it has flour, it's not candy. A group of states working together to simplify and sync up their tax codes came up with the flour test. It took them two years. They insist that the flour lobby had no influence in the matter. But the states' definition of candy leaves a sour taste in the mouth of Susan Smith of the National Confectioners Association, also known as Candy USA. "We find that looking at flour as the definition of whether something is a food or not is really quite arbitrary," Smith says. Does she have a better definition? "Boy, that's a tough one. It might be the emotional definition that might determine what candy is rather than a specific ingredient or two," Smith says. Smith says her industry would be happy to work with policymakers on this. But cash-strapped states aren't waiting. Last year, Illinois adopted the flour definition when it stopped giving a sales break to candy. This year Colorado and Washington state followed suit. Gillespie is building a database of every candy sold in Washington and whether it's taxable. He's at more than 6,000 and counting. (That taxable status of more than 3,000 kinds of candy is available on the state's Department of Revenue website.) You can just imagine what kids have to say about this. In Washington state, lawmakers have gone home for the year, but most days you can find a school group touring the state Capitol. Jeremy Healey, who's visiting with other fifth-graders from Maple Lawn Elementary near Tacoma, Wash., sees the candy tax as a personal affront. "I like candy, and if they tax it I can't have it as much at all," Healey says. His favorite candy? Marshmallow Snickers. "Those are good," Healey says. For the record, Marshmallow Snickers are taxable. But there's hope for Jeremy. An effort is under way to ask Washington voters to repeal the candy tax this November.
This isn't a sin tax. For starters, sugar is food, something our body needs. Alcohol, tobacco and rec. drugs are not needed. Taking anything in excess is bad for you, including sugar. If 100% of this tax went towards health care prevention, then I would be more supportive of it. This is just another way to make money, and it ends up hurting the poor people more than anyone.
I tend to agree with you on this. What is disturbing is the arbitrary definition of "candy." Case in point... http://www.king5.com/news/local/Energy-Bar-maker-wants-Candy-Tax-refined-95138684.html by JAKE WHITTENBERG / KING 5 News KING5.com Posted on May 28, 2010 at 2:57 PM Updated Friday, May 28 at 5:47 PM BELLINGHAM, Wash - Imagine Mary Goit's surprise. After seven years of manufacturing granola and natural energy bars, the State of Washington tells her she is actually making candy. "How do all natural ingredients in an energy bar make candy?" says Goit. "I don't get it." Goit owns "Belly Timber," a manufacturing kitchen at her home in Bellingham. Her company advertises 'all natural gourmet survival bars' and sells them to area grocery stores. "Our motto is 'Ingredients with Integrity,'" she says. But she just found out from the Department of Revenue that her product will be included in the new state 'Candy Tax' that will go into effect Tuesday. State and local sales tax, which is not applied to food in Washington, is being levied on candy and gum starting June 1 as one of the taxes to help close an estimated $2.8 billion gap in the state's biennial budget. The department was ordered to come up with a list of taxable candy before the tax takes effect. But it's harder than you may think to determine what is considered candy and what is not. For example, a 3 Musketeers bar is considered candy and will be subject to the tax. A Kit Kat bar will go tax free. The determining factor? Those that use grain-based flour aren't candy under the new tax law. Goit uses oats in her bars as opposed to grain. "This law is way off base," Goit says. "Our product is for athletes and health advocates. We don't make candy."
How exactly are poor people being hurt by having to pay a tax on candy? It's not like it's a necessity.
This comes up about once a year when they find something new that is deemed "bad for you" that they can carve revenues from touting "the greater good". Not that it's the end of the world, but my question is that if we start to depend on the taxation of things that we would like to see consumption reduced on, what happens when we reduce that consumption, and thus income, of that item? What's the next item on the list to regain those precious revenues? How flimsy do the explanations and justifications get to justify taxation of the next "sin"? Something about Politicians picking and choosing where to install superfluous taxes to certain products and industries (and the picking and choosing within those) that just doesn't seem like a good practice to me. That said, never been much for candy, myself.
I absolutely agree on tobacco. However, in a lot of communities, cars (and obviously that gas that fuels them) are a necessity.
Do you think it will stop at a candy tax? How about a fast food tax. Or a sugar tax. Or a salt tax. It might nickles and dimes for each one, but they all add up. Who do you think is going to miss that .50 a day more? Wealthy or the poor?
i asked myself this question when rick perry pushed/passed the increased tax on cigarettes to help fund schools (i believe).
I really do not think it will go there, even in Washington state. A hamburger is, by any realistic definition, food. It is lunch or dinner. Candy is not. I do not believe that the political juice is there to tax something that is commonly recognized as lunch.
Why not a fast food tax? Sugar and salt are ingredients and honestly taxing them is silly. Because the amount you pay for sugar and salt is so little that a tax of 100% wouldn't make you care. I mean, a big tub of salt is less than a dollar and how much salt do you really need??? And sugar runs a buck a lb. But you're right, i am oppose to taxing sugar and salt, because unlike fast food, candy, and things like alcohol and tobacco - they are useless items that are probably a net drain of civilization. That is, the amount of GDP brought in by them is probably completely canceled out in the negative impact that tax payers have to pay in (health costs). You pay higher insurance premiums because some people abuse their bodies. Is that fair? If you speed in a car, you pay higher premiums. I think having a tax on candy and other foods like fast food is completely fair. And frankly, people shouldn't be eating that much candy or fast food that it impacts them financially. If a 5% tax on sugary sodas, candy bars, and fast food is going to bankrupt someone, then they probably are a walking heart attack anyway.
There should be taxes on people who think taxes aren't another word for slavery, and continue to demand more taxes and more slavery on their own lives and other people's.
