Detroit is definitely the type of wasteland where I'd try something like this.. can anyone think of reasons to object? It'll mean fewer jobs and lower wages in fast food, that's the only one I can think of so far.

Dangerous slippery slope here.

There is still fast food places in Detroit?

I worked at a Burger King when I was a teen on Eight Mile Road. While working in the back the place was robbed by two thugs. One with a sawed off shotgun. Of course I quit.

/ex-Detroiter

This is a good time to point out the negative nature of law. If you want less of something - make a law regulating or taxing it.

The worst part is this directly affects middle class and low income earners. Oh its good for the city and the government but what price are the citizens really expected to pay because of their leaders inablility to manage a city?

Picklehead:

on Eight Mile Road. While working in the back the place was robbed by two thugs. One with a sawed off shotgun.

Must have been intense, man. Like all "Snap back to reality! Oh, there goes the gravity!".

/sorry, have the song on the brain now

Seth_J: The worst part is this directly affects middle class and low income earners.

And no one but those people live in Detroit, as far as I know. I'm assuming this only applies to actual Detroit, not the endless suburbs.

How the hell do you decide what is "fast food"?

Seth_J The mayor apparently went to The Coleman Young School of Management. He was a thug and a crook. It was when he was mayor that the city went down the drain.

Zipster: How the hell do you decide what is "fast food"?

Stop watch?

Zipster: How the hell do you decide what is "fast food"?

Thats an interesting question... they probably will refer to health regulations, etc. I'm assuming they have a Fast Food Permit.(?) Any one with one of those would be cosidered fast food.

Picklehead:

The mayor apparently went to The Coleman Young School of Management. He was a thug and a crook. It was when he was mayor that the city went down the drain.

I'm obviously not keeping up with Detroit politics... In fact as far as I know, during the 80s some corporation bought the entire city and lost public favor when robots they manufactured went on a killing rampage.

My statement was a little more general regarding taxes and the use of law.

Where do you draw the line? Starbucks? Dennys? Pizza Hut?

Why wouldn't you just raise the general sales tax .01% instead of expecting a few niche markets to cover your revenue shortfall?

Zipster: Where do you draw the line? Starbucks? Dennys? Pizza Hut?

Like I said they'll probably refer to what kind of Health permit they have. All restaurants have one.

/well most

Seth_J:

as far as I know, during the 80s some corporation bought the entire city and lost public favor when robots they manufactured went on a killing rampage.

That movie made significantly more sense to me after I actually visited detroit. And learned about the riots.

I figure if you're going to do something questionable like tax fast food (or unleash killer police robots on the populace), to see what happens in practice, that city's so far gone anyway that it wouldn't be too easy to make things worse.

Seth_J: The worst part is this directly affects middle class and low income earners.

One could argue that if unhealthy foods become more expensive they will give poorer people an incentive to cook at home from fresh ingredients and thereby reducing health problems and associated costs.

Not saying I'm arguing that, but I see the opening.

I really despise the "fast food = food of the poor" argument that leads into some weird conspiracy theory about fattening up the poor and giving them obesity-related diseases. Fast food is NOT cheap compared to many other delicious (and nutritious!) options.

I understand everyone needs a treat every now and then, but if you are poor and spending $20-$25 a pop to get fast food for your family three times a week then maybe you are just an idiot. I got nothing but respect for poor people trying to make it in this world, but a loaf of bread and a jug of peanut butter goes a long way.

morrisonsl:

Apparently I'm saying it. Feel free to jump on the bandwagon.

Seth_J:

Like I said they'll probably refer to what kind of Health permit they have. All restaurants have one

I can't see that a pizza hut is a different "class" than a Wendy's. Or an AppleBee's for that matter.

And if you were going to tax food anyway, why pick on one subset of restaurants?

morrisonsl:

One could argue that if unhealthy foods become more expensive they will give poorer people an incentive to cook at home from fresh ingredients and thereby reducing health problems and associated costs.

Which is also more expensive... ;)

I think we all know the only answer to all of Detroit's problems....

Wasn't KENNY ROGERS ROASTERS: not fast food, good food fast?
Can that be used as an excuse not to get taxed?

Zipster:

I can't see that a pizza hut is a different "class" than a Wendy's. Or an AppleBee's for that matter.

I think they do... maybe someone in the food business can verify. (I only built the things. :) )

And if you were going to tax food anyway, why pick on one subset of restaurants?

I don't know... why not spread it all around? It would be lower for everyone and the city would have the same income revenue.

/government is stupid

morrisonsl Must have been intense, man. Like all "Snap back to reality! Oh, there goes the gravity!".

Pretty scary. And I'm sure more so for the poor woman whose face it was stuck in. Believe it or not, I've been in more frighting situations.

Sorry, didn't see your post earlier.

Seth_J My statement was a little more general regarding taxes and the use of law.

I know. I was venting some bitterness.

morrisonsl: unhealthy foods

The plate of deep-fried potato skins, onion rings, and chicken wings that you could get in any T.G.I Fridays is probably a helluva lot worse than anything McDonalds has to offer.

neglogon Probably have a Coleman Young Memorial Cell in the city jail (or at least they should).

Agreed. And I remember Young put his name on everything! Parks, buildings, anything he could think of. It was disgusting. What an egomaniac!

Seth_J: Which is also more expensive... ;)

I don't buy it. I check out the grocery store ads that come in the mail. I clip coupons, and I always feel ashamed of using them at the store... and I'm ashamed to admit that here, too. Old ladies sometimes compliment me, not realizing that I'm spending more on booze than I do on food.

Every few weeks you can get eggs for about 7 cents a piece. There's always some cut of meat that is ridiculously cheap (I bought 5.5 pounds of tri tip for 12 bucks last week). I could go on. All this silly planning takes about a half hour a week. Of course I'm doing it to support my habits and lifestyle rather than "just get by".

Where did this myth that grocery stores are too expensive come from?

What this ultimately amounts to is taxing our food choices.

TAXING OUR GOD DAMNED FOOD CHOICES!

Sorry for yelling, but I find the concept to be worthy of open rebellion. I don't like that a lot of people are fat, but this is definitely not a solution to that problem. You pay taxes on your income. You pay sales tax, and now possibly fat tax. That's like god damned TRIPLE TAXATION. I hope the Bush administration speaks out against this injustice.

Zipster: How the hell do you decide what is "fast food"?

Any restaurant where you can purchase their product without leaving your car.

antoverlord: Where did this myth that grocery stores are too expensive come from?

I'm not sure... It does seem more expensive to go to the store and blow, say, $80 on a week or twos worth of groceries.. but if I think about it $5 * 3 * 14 is $210...much more expensive going to the store.. I stand corrected. :)

Again, why aren't they just taxing all foods at a lower tax rate?

+20 points to Weaver95 for use of the word "fiat".

Weaver95
Hey, I like this idea! Let's apply it to...hmmm....Homosexuality! Yeah! See, there are these health costs involved with homosexuality....so if we discourage people from engaging in homosexuality this will encourage them to live a more healthy lifestyle and reduce health problems (AIDS, hepatitius, ect ect) and associated costs.

Or even take it to the next level and just tax all sexual activity, since it all carries risk. Do you have sex? Yes? That will be $300 annually, you know who to make the check out to.

Weaver95: Homosexuality!

Actually the medical costs associated with "Breeders" is much higher than those tiny medical costs with the homosexual crowd. Even moreso when an offspring is produced.

I say tax breeders. Everyone is now gay.

/just wanted to add to that can of worms :)

Action Replay Nick:

What this ultimately amounts to is taxing our food choices. TAXING OUR GOD DAMNED FOOD CHOICES!

You pay taxes on your income. You pay sales tax, and now possibly fat tax. That's like god damned TRIPLE TAXATION.


I see your point, but I'm ambivalent on how bad or new it is. There's been a liquor tax for ages, I missed the big debate on that one.

fatlilbug

I know what you mean, but it's not hopeless. In order for the taxation of everything to roll back, it has to at least stop sometime.

flucto: taxes are not such a terrible way

Yeah, they are, when you could just as well go to a bar and get 4 dozen deep-fried chicken wings and potato skins and they're somehow exempt from the same tax.

Why don't we just use the Fair Tax? You know I was reading about that thing the other day, and it explained to me that if you tax every single person in the US less the government will end up with the same amount of money. Plus, it's fair.

antoverlord:

Why don't we just use the Fair Tax? You know I was reading about that thing the other day, and it explained to me that if you tax every single person in the US less the government will end up with the same amount of money. Plus, it's fair.

The fair tax is a national thing.. this would just add taxes on top of that... at a local level.

antoverlord
Why don't we just use the Fair Tax?

ZOINKS! Unstoppable threadjack eminent!

flucto: if that translates to "do nothing because we can't do everything" I disagree.

But there is no "cutoff" test you can apply to determine what restaurants are subject to the tax. Do you tax Subway? Arbys? Everybody in the mall food court, or just some? Just some entrees? Ice cream shops? Just places with a big corporate name, or the greasy spoons in the neighborhood also?

There's no way.

Zipster:

But there is no "cutoff" test you can apply to determine what restaurants are subject to the tax. Do you tax Subway? Arbys? Everybody in the mall food court, or just some? Just some entrees? Ice cream shops? Just places with a big corporate name, or the greasy spoons in the neighborhood also?

There's no way.

The "it's too tricky to define" argument doesn't sync with the reality of any legal system, let alone tax law. Complexity is an inherent part of it; if it were simple, law libraries wouldn't be half the size they are. There are lawyers who specialize JUST in tax law.

And people wonder why I hate Michigan.

If the tax was going to support fast-food alternatives for programs that help the fat (like cigarette tax is supposedly supposed to do,) they it wouldn't be so bad, but they're just grasping for more money.

A lot of people would say "Great, maybe people will lose weight." Perhaps some people, but I eat at McDonald's and other place regularly, and I've held the same weight for the past year and a half.

Plus, I'm a college student, with a budget as such. When I feel like treating myself out, I can't exactly go to fukking Olive Garden. Plus, when I'm working, forgot to bring my lunch, and need to grab something to eat, I really only have choices of fast food, because I don't have time to go out, alone, to some sit down joint. I want to grab the food and get back, and quickly.

Horrible idea.

fatlilbug:

The "it's too tricky to define" argument doesn't sync with the reality of any legal system, let alone tax law. Complexity is an inherent part of it; if it were simple, law libraries wouldn't be half the size they are. There are lawyers who specialize JUST in tax law.

That's fine, but I can't see any legal system whereby you'd be allowed to tax based on the name of the corporation that might have granted the franchise.

You could decide to tax "hamburgers", even "greasy hamburgers", but not "only McDonalds hamburgers".