Do you support a quick food charge (or McTax) to subsidize form exactness insurance for the poor?
Put like a 30% tax on hurried food like there is on smokes and use this money to subsidize vigour care for the poor who will also be incented to make healther food choices.
Answers:
Why punish people who eat quick food to supply the poor with healthcare? Why are they poor? What are the people who can afford swift food doing right? It's a cold world, it's hard sometimes to make it, I've have some pretty rough times myself, but I don't expect anyone else to get me out of my messes. It's time to take responsibility for your vivacity and do all that you can to support you and your family. Health is a thoroughly important thing, you should be ready to spend a good portion of your income on that instead of needless textile items. This of course is not saying adjectives poor do this, but having a plan and working towards it will help. Source(s): Life
sure.
get news for you...it just isn't the poor who do not hold health care. at hand are a lot of hard working race who do not have it because the company they work for does not provide it....
or those who do have it...own high deductibles and premiums with 80/20 fee....then their are the people who own to retire and when they do, they lose their benefits and are not old enough for medicare.....if they do hold medicare but do not have enough money to wages for Part B and Part B medicare.....need I go on? don't lately blame it on the fast food industry. A lot of people do not receive the proper fastidiousness early on because they just cannot afford it....next to or without insurance.
no that sounds like a dumb liberal tax plan subsequent you'll want to tax breathing and drinking water
in recent times raise the 99 cents burgers to $19.99 each, next people will think twice in the region of buying fastfood. it'll deter more people from getting fat and have weight related health problems. later again, why do people, who work hard and already own health insurance & want fastfood still have to reimburse the mctax for other people? I think adjectives employers should offer a subsidized form care program for their employees within which they pay a monthly fee.
Yes. The courts have upheld that the tobacco industry is responsible for the form of its customers. The same should be true for the fast food and alcohol industries when it comes to obesity and alcoholism. Personally, I believe inhabitants should be held accountable for their own decisions, but the courts own spoken.
Actually, at hand *are problems* with this one. Fast food is too narrow and too specific--for most poor inhabitants it's an occasional indulgence at best, and we can't afford much better *already*. So basically, like a great deal of poor taxes it punishes people for being poor as much as anything (telling them, "no, you can't move about out to eat at all, we'll charge the hell out of the places you were able to afford....").
Still, I'd resembling the idea if it were expanded rather to include some of the unhealthy choices people trademark *all over*.
--Put a tax, say of 15%, on adjectives food products made with *high fructose corn syrup*. This way you snag both swiftly food *and* the junk foods (like carbonated soda/pop beverages) at the grocery store that people of *non-poor* financial backgrounds might end up buying.
Not to mention...culture will get rid of the stuff to avoid the tax, which will both a) put together foods healthier, and b) give farmers extra *corn syrup* to work beside....to make *fuel* out of (ethanol) versus food. Sounds like a win-win to me!
--Put another due on *added fats* in general. Taxing trans fat isn't going to be enough--manufacturers will just avoid the taxed solid, rather like they did near cholesterol and saturated fats within the 1970s and 1980s. So tax *all fats* that are added above and beyond the fat content of individual ingredients.
Again, I'd articulate the rate should be about 15%. And yes, this would make *peanut butter* harder to produce, but hey....
--Finally....levy a special tax on *anything* that is a Breaded/Deep-Fried righteous. Say, a tax of 20%. Yes, this one's going to hurt....folks love their fried chicken across *all* economic classes, but....
This is the big one right here. Just ask anyone in the order of "Mississippi obesity risk" and "deep-fried foods" and see the response you get. And yes, those phrases are contained by quotes so you can search by copy and paste, no typing needed (hell, it be in Yahoo! News recently, if you want to know where on earth to look).
But yeah, this way, you end up getting a fairer toll structure. You end up levying taxes on foods that are unwell for *everyone* and that are also *bought by* everyone, not *just* poor folks who can't *afford* too many more taxes.
And by taxing *ingredients* and not *products*, you don't get *quite* so much hell raise by specific businesses...a High Fructose Corn Syrup Tax just sounds easier to swallow than a *Pepsi Tax*, even if the Corn Syrup tax ends up hitting soft drinks the hardest. ^_^
But hey, what do I know? -_- I'm of late one of those "poor people" you politicians want to *punish*.....
Thanks for your time though. Source(s): Edit: Ok, maybe that was too complicated. -_- It happen, people aren't in the infatuation of *thinking* these days.
Here's something *simpler* for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_in…
Just require that *all foods* sold in the United States put their Glycemic Index on the sticky label....using *sucrose* as the reference point to be fairer to white breads...
And make the Glycemic Index the *tax rate* on any given food item. This would own the effect of forcing frugal and/or poor Americans to live on a low-carb/diabetic diet if they wanted to eat contained by an affordable manner. And yes, the taxes would be *totally waived* for both food items donated to non-profit Food Pantries, and for items purchased via WIC voucher (because infants and toddlers need carbohydrates).
That would also work. It would be fairer within terms of not targeting specific companies, or *poor folks* specifically. Not to mention it would angle a LOT of money....
And everybody would raise a HUGE stink over it, since this would have the effect of *doubling* the prices of copious "staple foods" such as white breads, potatoes, and the like.
See what I mean? ^_^ The problem next to all this is that you're wanting a *simple* answer to a complicated, multi-part *essay* question. It doesn't *work* that channel, sorry....
no
Related Questions:
Answers:
Why punish people who eat quick food to supply the poor with healthcare? Why are they poor? What are the people who can afford swift food doing right? It's a cold world, it's hard sometimes to make it, I've have some pretty rough times myself, but I don't expect anyone else to get me out of my messes. It's time to take responsibility for your vivacity and do all that you can to support you and your family. Health is a thoroughly important thing, you should be ready to spend a good portion of your income on that instead of needless textile items. This of course is not saying adjectives poor do this, but having a plan and working towards it will help. Source(s): Life
sure.
get news for you...it just isn't the poor who do not hold health care. at hand are a lot of hard working race who do not have it because the company they work for does not provide it....
or those who do have it...own high deductibles and premiums with 80/20 fee....then their are the people who own to retire and when they do, they lose their benefits and are not old enough for medicare.....if they do hold medicare but do not have enough money to wages for Part B and Part B medicare.....need I go on? don't lately blame it on the fast food industry. A lot of people do not receive the proper fastidiousness early on because they just cannot afford it....next to or without insurance.
no that sounds like a dumb liberal tax plan subsequent you'll want to tax breathing and drinking water
in recent times raise the 99 cents burgers to $19.99 each, next people will think twice in the region of buying fastfood. it'll deter more people from getting fat and have weight related health problems. later again, why do people, who work hard and already own health insurance & want fastfood still have to reimburse the mctax for other people? I think adjectives employers should offer a subsidized form care program for their employees within which they pay a monthly fee.
Yes. The courts have upheld that the tobacco industry is responsible for the form of its customers. The same should be true for the fast food and alcohol industries when it comes to obesity and alcoholism. Personally, I believe inhabitants should be held accountable for their own decisions, but the courts own spoken.
Actually, at hand *are problems* with this one. Fast food is too narrow and too specific--for most poor inhabitants it's an occasional indulgence at best, and we can't afford much better *already*. So basically, like a great deal of poor taxes it punishes people for being poor as much as anything (telling them, "no, you can't move about out to eat at all, we'll charge the hell out of the places you were able to afford....").
Still, I'd resembling the idea if it were expanded rather to include some of the unhealthy choices people trademark *all over*.
--Put a tax, say of 15%, on adjectives food products made with *high fructose corn syrup*. This way you snag both swiftly food *and* the junk foods (like carbonated soda/pop beverages) at the grocery store that people of *non-poor* financial backgrounds might end up buying.
Not to mention...culture will get rid of the stuff to avoid the tax, which will both a) put together foods healthier, and b) give farmers extra *corn syrup* to work beside....to make *fuel* out of (ethanol) versus food. Sounds like a win-win to me!
--Put another due on *added fats* in general. Taxing trans fat isn't going to be enough--manufacturers will just avoid the taxed solid, rather like they did near cholesterol and saturated fats within the 1970s and 1980s. So tax *all fats* that are added above and beyond the fat content of individual ingredients.
Again, I'd articulate the rate should be about 15%. And yes, this would make *peanut butter* harder to produce, but hey....
--Finally....levy a special tax on *anything* that is a Breaded/Deep-Fried righteous. Say, a tax of 20%. Yes, this one's going to hurt....folks love their fried chicken across *all* economic classes, but....
This is the big one right here. Just ask anyone in the order of "Mississippi obesity risk" and "deep-fried foods" and see the response you get. And yes, those phrases are contained by quotes so you can search by copy and paste, no typing needed (hell, it be in Yahoo! News recently, if you want to know where on earth to look).
But yeah, this way, you end up getting a fairer toll structure. You end up levying taxes on foods that are unwell for *everyone* and that are also *bought by* everyone, not *just* poor folks who can't *afford* too many more taxes.
And by taxing *ingredients* and not *products*, you don't get *quite* so much hell raise by specific businesses...a High Fructose Corn Syrup Tax just sounds easier to swallow than a *Pepsi Tax*, even if the Corn Syrup tax ends up hitting soft drinks the hardest. ^_^
But hey, what do I know? -_- I'm of late one of those "poor people" you politicians want to *punish*.....
Thanks for your time though. Source(s): Edit: Ok, maybe that was too complicated. -_- It happen, people aren't in the infatuation of *thinking* these days.
Here's something *simpler* for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_in…
Just require that *all foods* sold in the United States put their Glycemic Index on the sticky label....using *sucrose* as the reference point to be fairer to white breads...
And make the Glycemic Index the *tax rate* on any given food item. This would own the effect of forcing frugal and/or poor Americans to live on a low-carb/diabetic diet if they wanted to eat contained by an affordable manner. And yes, the taxes would be *totally waived* for both food items donated to non-profit Food Pantries, and for items purchased via WIC voucher (because infants and toddlers need carbohydrates).
That would also work. It would be fairer within terms of not targeting specific companies, or *poor folks* specifically. Not to mention it would angle a LOT of money....
And everybody would raise a HUGE stink over it, since this would have the effect of *doubling* the prices of copious "staple foods" such as white breads, potatoes, and the like.
See what I mean? ^_^ The problem next to all this is that you're wanting a *simple* answer to a complicated, multi-part *essay* question. It doesn't *work* that channel, sorry....
no
Related Questions:
- WHY DOES OUR GOVERNMENT spend billions for BIG INSURANCE but cant bestow vigour insurance at an AFFORDABLE PRICE?
- Do you enjoy vigour insurance or are you waiting for your neighbor to clear for it?
- Why do democrats not support tariff credits for strength insurance?
- I want to work surrounded by a seasonal charge surrounded by Alaska. I want it to grant vigour insurance. Where can I find this?
- How much do you clear for robustness insurance?