The government paying for promotion of Domino's pizza

[Zizzle]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/us/07fat.html?_r=1

[Joefnh]

Our tax dollars and special interest groups at work...

--Joe

[tex]

The government regulates a lot of things. For example, they regulate explosive devices, fully automatic weapons, silencers on firearms, many chemicals, the operation of motor vehicles on public highways, production of alcoholic beverages, etc. However, for any average citizen, who has no felony convictions on their records, all it takes is some paperwork, and the payment of a tax, (license fee), in order to be able to legally own and enjoy all of the above. IOW, it's OK, as long as the government gives their approval. So obviously, obesity is OK if it's government approved.

What's surprising in this case, is that no bureaucrats have figured out that they should be taxing the granting of this privilege, (the right to eat fattening foods). Presumably, they are concerned about a huge backlash, if they require a license to eat foods of this type. Of course, the dairy farmers of this country pay for most of this program, but still, the government is obviously leaving a lot of money on the table here, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to see it impose a tax on the purchase and consumption of such products in the future. There have already been rumblings about such a tax by some local officials, but so far, this huge "golden goose" is still roaming free.

Tex

[Rosie]

still, the government is obviously leaving a lot of money on the table here, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to see it impose a tax on the purchase and consumption of such products in the future.

Tex, the camel's nose is already under the tent! Tax of foods deemed "unhealthy" or "non-essential" is already in play in many states. For example, I travel to Washington State fairly often, and they have a hefty 9.8% sales tax, but that doesn't apply to unprepared food items and prescription medications. However, they recently passed a new sales tax:

A sales tax on certain candy and gum products is due to come into effect in Washington State on June 1, 2010, as part of the state’s effort to plug its $2.8bn deficit.
According to a definition posted on the state’s department of revenue website: “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. Candy does not require refrigeration. Candy does not include any preparation containing flour.”

But this last part is expected to cause some controversy. It means that Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups and Three Musketeers, for example, are subject to the tax, while Kit Kat and Milky Way bars are exempt. Other taxes to come into effect in Washington on June 1 include a sales tax on bottled water and beer. A soda tax is due to take effect on July1.

And somewhat alarming for those of us with gluten intolerance, this provides an incentive for candy makers to add small amounts of flour to their previously flour-free products to avoid the tax.

As these sorts of revenue-enhancing taxes get more common, I'm sure we'll see more examples of special interest groups getting their "exceptions" with interesting definitions, as we saw above......

Rosie

[grannyh]

I will prefer my artery choking pizza from Papa Johns... :) Since their profits were off, I guess I am not the only one who didn't go for Domino pizzas.
grannyh

[tex]

And somewhat alarming for those of us with gluten intolerance, this provides an incentive for candy makers to add small amounts of flour to their previously flour-free products to avoid the tax.

That's a sobering thought, and unfortunately, you're probably right.

Tex