5 comments

  1. ACCmoderate says:

    In light of the recent figures showing that the revenue from fee and fine increases has fallen far short of expectations, I have no sympathy for the people in this commercial.

    We need to find more reliable sources of revenue generation. Sadly that is going to have to come from tax increases.

  2. slyram says:

    In a related matter, some feel that the First Lady’s efforts regarding Americans’ food choices feels Orwellian but I think about the people who receive public food assistance, make horrible diet decisions, and then cost taxpayers millions in healthcare. I am just saying…

  3. GAPolitico says:

    Perhaps if she wasn’t throwing money down the drain buying unhealthy soda, feeding a family of 4 would not be so difficult.

    I agree with the “sin” tax on groceries the same way I think we should not let food-stamp recipients buy unhealthy foods like sodas.

    Also, given that we are about to slap a tax back on food, I would rather slap it on unhealthy food than healthy food. Say we increase tax on unhealthy food like sodas and omit the food tax to fresh produce.

  4. Jeremy Jones says:

    We either tax all groceries, or no groceries.

    I am sick and tired of this fragmented tax code. Just like anything else, aim for the least objectionable, or the part that affects the fewest or most hated segment of the population, and then let it creep into the rest of us.

    Today Soda, tomorrow, whole milk, later bacon and eggs, of course, salt won’t be far behind, sugar as well.

    TAX IT ALL, OR TAX NONE OF IT!

  5. saltycracker says:

    She’s right – the government doesn’t need to sort out our food groups –

    TAX ALL OF IT OR TAX NONE OF IT. (JJ)

    Well it’s ok to tax rutabaga’s

Comments are closed.