We already have taxes levied on cigarettes, purportedly to pay for education to stop smoking. So, what's so wrong with a tax on fast food to subsidize education about "eating less and moving more," considering that two-thirds of the American population is fat or obese?Lawmakers in New Jersey are considering such a tax, and planning to use the revenue from it to fund struggling hospitals. Obviously, the old hat argument comes out that condemns such a tax as specifically aiming at the poor. When you want to budget money for eating, why not consider eating at home and brown-bagging it for lunch? Everyone knows that this is a cheaper and more nutritious alternative.As one taxpayer pointed out,
"It costs $12.86 for fries and this little chicken wrap...."
This taxpayer was complaining about adding a tax. Yipes. This taxpayer should have been complaining about how much money he's wasting on such a menu. He did also comment that
"if they raise it
[i.e., the price with a tax],
I'll stop buying it."
Brilliant! If it's unhealthy, he'll eat it. If it has a "sin tax," he'll stop. I think that's a good enough reason for the tax.
