Hey, there! Log in / Register
Candy is dandy and liquor is quicker but both could cost more in a few months
By adamg on Wed, 01/28/2009 - 2:18pm
If Gov. Patrick has his way: As part of his budget proposal for the fiscal year that starts July 1, he wants to repeal the current sales-tax exemption on candy, liquor and sugary drinks. He would also extend the current bottle-deposit law to bottles of water, Gatorade and their ilk.
Via David at Blue Mass. Group, who also notes a proposal to expand the number of charter schools in the states' 50 lowest-performing school districts, which includes Boston.
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
With the bottle bill it only
With the bottle bill it only makes sense that it should extend to all water and juice bottles out there.
As for taxing stuff, I think the state should lift the exemption on all forms of junk food not just candy, liquor and sugar drinks. The point of not taxing food is because food is essential. Junk food is not essential so I dont think it would be that big of a deal if we taxed it...
Why go halfway?
It might be more sensible for the state to set up a committee of nutritionists to draw up an essential diet, so anything not on the list could be taxed.
Fuzzy Line
Probably only lifted the exemption on candy and sugar drinks because those are the easiest to point to as junk food without ambiguity.
For example, I think white bread, jelly, and crackers are all junk food, but probably other people would disagree. And is heavy cream just a dairy product or is it junk food? The line gets hazy pretty fast.
Fizzy Line
I'd like to see how the proposed law will distinguish sugar drinks from non-sugar drinks (often manufactured and sold by the same companies). Does it need to have zero sugar to be tax-exempt? Are orange juice, apple juice, and cranberry juice considered sugar drinks? (Some of these have more calories than an equal amount of Coke.)
Also,
Many, if not most of the non-sugar drinks have a tremendous amount of sodium (salt) in them, so they're basically no better for people than the sugared drinks.
Sugar-free soda is just as
Sugar-free soda is just as much junk food as regular soda. It's all crap food. I haven't looked at the proposal, but if sugar content is the criteria, I think it's just stupid. IMHO most of the so-called diet and healthy items pushed heavily by the food and diet industries are highly processed nutritional crap.
That said, a tax on these items would not change my personal eating habits. I won't touch sugar free soda with a 10 foot pole (unless I am way desperate and that is the only beverage available to me). I have absolutely no delusions that loading up on aspartame is any better for my body than loading up on high fructose corn syrup.
If there is going to be a bottle bill, it makes sense to expand it to water and other drinks now, since bottled water and sports drinks are popular in a way they were not back when the bill was first introduced, and all of that plastic is more likely to reach recycling if people can bring it to a redemption center along with the soda and beer cans.
Exactly, SpottedLop!
This:
says it all, in a nutshell, SpottedLop.
And these help the budget how?
Okay, but why are these part of the budget proposal and how do they help raise revenue / reduce costs???
I haven't read anything about the new budget but I can't see how they do.
More charter schools would have no affect on the budget, no? Oh, and does this mean that the closing of that charter school in Boston is off, now, the school that did so poorly that it's being shut down by the DOE?
The bottle bill law expansion would raise more money, but doesn't that money just get put aside until people ask for it back when they return their bottles? I believe there is a huge surplus of funds (far fewer people ask for refunds than buy the bottles) but it's not available to the Commonwealth. Unless they changed the law during the past couple of years.
I'm all for higher taxes.
New Registry fees, however, seem to be drawing water from the same well, over and over, again, and it gets tiring. I don't even own a car, but it seems too easy to just bill drivers anytime there's a budget problem.
I'm all for higher taxes. So
So we can assume that you are one of the handful of people who check off the higher tax rate box on your state return?
Be like Russia!
And lower the tax burden on Alcohol to ease the pain of the economy:
http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=565&fArticleId=4805700
:)
(No subject)
Deval Patrick to increase liquor taxes
It is so obvious that Governor Patrick is a SALT man!
Budget
I have MSNBC on -- they just reported that prisoners in MA will be able to watch the Superbowl on brand new HD TVs. I don't have an HD tv -- I guess crime does pay!
Calm down
If you actually read the Herald story that MSNBC is blurbing, you'll read that the TVs were paid for out of "canteen money" that the prisoners themselves paid. So no tax dollars went to buy them wide-screen TVs.
Fluff
Will there be a tax on fluff? Or are jelly and fluff and stuff condiments?
Ketchup, however, is a vegetable. Ronnie Reagan said so!
As for heavy cream, well, that's an ingredient. Nobody drinks that stuff straight, do they?
The enemy of the fluff is no
The enemy of the fluff is no longer in the state house so dont be afraid.
I think the nutrionist idea someone mentioned would make sense, have them sit down and figure it out. I would just remind them that while white bread and PBJ are not the healtiest option out there, they are something poor people can afford AND they are much better then if the kid picked up a bag of chips and a candy bar for lunch. Ideally the new taxed items would follow some sort of logic in the average grocery store aisle system where condiments and standard ingredients are not taxed while chips/candy/soda are. For instance sugar, semi sweet chocolate chips (for baking) and graham cracker crumbs would not be taxed BUT a ready made peanut butter cup pie or peanut butter cups both would be. You cant figure out peoples intentions when they buy ingredients, but its pretty easy to figure out someone is looking for peanut butter cups when they buy peanut butter cups.
WIC program foods
If you get WIC (women-infants-children) vouchers, they are limited to a list of "healthy" foods.
So I would guess that the "nutritionist idea" thing has been done already.
There is one problem with it, though: if you have allergies, you would end up being taxed for a lot of stuff that wasn't on the "essential" list, even though it would be "essential" for you. If you can't eat wheat or dairy, for instance. This has been an issue with WIC in the past.
There is also an issue with what defines a candy bar. Clif bars are all slow-burn food and I know a couple of diabetics that swear by them, but they are small and bar-like. Ditto for many diabetics carrying around a supply of small hard candies to ward off hypoglycemic attacks. Would these be taxed?
WIC is a national program so
WIC is a national program so the chances of Massachusetts taking its cue from them is small...
I think the WIC program is very restrictive for a reason, Im not sure what the reason is, but Ive never been on it (that I know of) so I cant claim to be an expert. The state tax list would preferably not list anything that is considered normal food so fish, shrimp, hamburger, pork, pasta, cheese, most dairy products, many cereals, rice, fruits, veggies and all those types of foods would be left alone. As for the need for sugar, for people like diabetics hard candy is pretty cheap anyway and comes in big bags, I dont think its that big of a deal. I would also envision that people over a certain age would be exempt as well.