The deficit

[Harlowe]

There are some non-profits that do it (at least in our state), but from what I've seen grocery stores themself charge quite a bit for that kind of delivery service.

[Partha]

And then you'd have the Embars of the world bitching that the strapping young bucks would have their T-bones delivered on his money.

EDIT - also, you might ask what percentage of grocers deliver.

[Embar Angylwrath]

There are some non-profits that do it (at least in our state), but from what I've seen grocery stores themself charge quite a bit for that kind of delivery service.

Good point. I've never used the service.

[Embar Angylwrath]

You know Partha... the only person in this thread that have used racillay denigrating terms is you. Why is that?

[Partha]

Because you're too chickenshit?

[Embar Angylwrath]

You've clearly lost it Partha. And you keep dodging my question.. what would people do if they no longer had access to fast food joints and convenience stores? Do youy think they'd find a way to get to a grocery store?

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Bus maps Here. List of food locations Here. (Or here, which is more correct.)

Shopping becomes not an impulse, but a multihour planned event

Who goes and does major grocery shopping and isn't in there for at least an hour?

Also, if you work any kind of second shift job, you're screwed, because night routes are few and far between.

Or you could get up early that day and make a special trip to the store since you need groceries. Additionally there are weekends, friends, and not being lazy.

In short, mass transit is not the complete answer to any of these problems.

Or you could take a cab home.

[Lurker]

Partha,
While I think you have some good points about areas that need improving in poorer neighborhoods, I think there are factors that have a much bigger impact on food choices for a larger percentage of the poor than simple distance to the grocery store.

Nothing is cheaper or more healthy than buying staples and cooking for yourself, but upbringing and nutritional ignorance keep a lot of people from making smart choices. Fatigue at the end of a tough work day leads to a lot of people serving expensive and unhealthy processed food - processed food that they bought at the grocery store - instead of cooking from scratch.

I'm not saying your points aren't valid. I just don't think they are the driving factor.

And I also have to say I think you flew off the handle on the race thing when it wasn't warranted. It wasn't fair or justified. I don't expect you'll apologize to Embar, but you should give it some thought.

[Ddrak]

Ddrak: Bullshit. From the next page you pulled that quote from:

For example, the poorest households spent about 35 percent of their income on food in 1990 and 33 percent in 1998. In contrast, the richest households spent only about 8 percent in 1990 and about 7.5 percent in 1998.

Tell us again how a tax that potentially hits a third of a poor person's budget is so much less onerous than one that hits one-twelfth of a rich guy's budget. That's the purest definition of a regressive tax you've found. Oh, yeah - and we weren't specifically talking about just McDonalds type stuff - convenience stores and drugstores with a grocery section also qualify. Thanks for missing half the argument.

Yes, the poor spend a larger percentage of their income on food. That's a fairly obvious statement. Any spending-side tax is going to have a regressive nature whether it's a state sales tax, gas excise, sin tax (like this one), import duties or vehicle registration. Your suggestion therefore boils down to an argument against any non-income based taxation rather than specifically railing against a new sin tax. Do you equivalently support the removal of taxes on cigarettes and alcohol seeing they are proportionally much larger percentages of the lower income earner's paycheck than the rich guy's paycheck?

I would support that sort of sin tax for the exact same reason that it's a good idea to tax cigarettes and alcohol. It encourages people away from unhealthy habits and reduces the negative flowon effects for society.

I also have no clue what your statement about convenience stores or drugstores with a grocery section is about. Your context makes it sound like they were being included in the "bad" side of the blue/red zones, which is downright bizarre given that all the convenience stores and drugstores I saw had healthy choices present (and cheaper) alongside the unhealthy ones. If those were seriously counted on the "bad" side of the equation then the whole thing is entirely worthless as an argument.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

@Partha - Still waiting for you to answer a very simple question... what would all those people do if they couldnt get any caloric support from fast food and convenience stores? While you're formulating your answer (hopefully without all the racial comments and spittle), here's a little light reading for you. Should take you about 60 seconds to read it.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... stuff.html

[Rykilth]

I can grow as much tobacco I want without being taxed. I could also brew enough beer to keep the whole neighborhood drunk 24/7, so why should any other substance be any different?

I should be able to grow my own opium poppies, and hell, if I know what I'm doing then even meth should be no different. But I would see meth as an extreme case. Certainly any plant that can grow in my garden should be legal to grow in my garden. Heh, right next to the Cilantro and Lemon Basil.

I always found it ironic that good ole conservative, God-fearing folk should have a problem possessing something that was invented by God, while they're perfectly OK with a doctor prescribing nacotic pain killers made in a lab.

And I wouldn't see the big pharma companies having a problem with producing street drugs seeing that they already produce drugs very close in chemical composition. And I believe they do produce heroin in limited quantities. Certainly heroin's close cousins morphine and demerol are produced legally in massive quantities.

But someone will step in and fill the void if these things are ever legalized.

Certainly the war on drugs is a dismal failure. The amount of money wasted on it is completely staggering. And it's not even about anything to do with public welfare. That went out the window long ago. No, it's about local communities getting federal funding. I read somewhere where a politician said something like "the war on drugs isn't winnable, but it's infinitely fundable."

And the fact that you can grow stuff would make it fairly difficult to tax. Why pay money to purchase something that's being taxed heavily, when you can grow it in your backyard for mere upkeep costs and no retribution?

I don't think legalizing marijuana is going to help the deficit at all, other than to relieve funding for the "War against Drugs". And that can be done by just reducing overall funding anyway.

[Embar Angylwrath]

And the fact that you can grow stuff would make it fairly difficult to tax. Why pay money to purchase something that's being taxed heavily, when you can grow it in your backyard for mere upkeep costs and no retribution?

What?

No way man. Beer and smokes are good examples as Free illustrated. Anyone can make beer and grow tabacky and roll their own, but they don't, even if its cheaper to do so. We can also grow our own vegetables (maybe not all, but more than just a tomoato plant in the garden), but we don't. We can easily make our own soap, cheaply, but we don't. We pay for it, and pay the taxes on it.

The thing is... we pay more because we like the convenience of not having to do it ourselves.

Grow weed, man. Tax the shit out of it. And hemp will open up a whole other businesses in manufacturing. Hemp is seriously superior to wood for paper pulp, and less water intensive than cotton for textiles, and produces oil that can be used for cooking, or the low grade stuff for biofuels. It makes good fodder for animals, lessening the need for corn acreage. There are soooo many good arguments for industrilaizing hemp in the US.. too bad we're too stupid to see it.

[Rykilth]

You're right. Everbody can grow tabacco and make their own beer. The difference is, marijuana is a weed. Hence the nickname. It is a hearty plant and very easy to grow which is why some growers plant their weed in the forest and come to collect it at a later time. Making your own beer is a bit more difficult and time consuming.
As far as tabacco goes, I don't know enough about it to say how hard it is to grown your own, and if it is just as easy and just as good as what's out there, then sure legalize weed and tax the hell out of it. Of course, I'm sure the Mileage Death Rate would increase, but hey whatever the people vote for!

[Partha]

Yes, the poor spend a larger percentage of their income on food. That's a fairly obvious statement. Any spending-side tax is going to have a regressive nature whether it's a state sales tax, gas excise, sin tax (like this one), import duties or vehicle registration. Your suggestion therefore boils down to an argument against any non-income based taxation rather than specifically railing against a new sin tax. Do you equivalently support the removal of taxes on cigarettes and alcohol seeing they are proportionally much larger percentages of the lower income earner's paycheck than the rich guy's paycheck?

This is nonsense, Dd. YOUR argument was that this tax would not hurt the poor more than it would hurt the rich. Now you're admitting that it will. Thanks for correcting the record.

I also have no clue what your statement about convenience stores or drugstores with a grocery section is about. Your context makes it sound like they were being included in the "bad" side of the blue/red zones, which is downright bizarre given that all the convenience stores and drugstores I saw had healthy choices present (and cheaper) alongside the unhealthy ones. If those were seriously counted on the "bad" side of the equation then the whole thing is entirely worthless as an argument.

Not at all, because of one thing you forgot to mention: Price. Compare prices between the grocery stores and convenience stores/drugstores. The latter charge more, in some cases MUCH more per item - which means a relative loss of buying power for the poorest people. You might not care, but people with lower incomes certainly can tell you it can mount up quickly when you're paying $2.99 for even such things as boxes of Hamburger Helper versus paying $1.61 at the Kroger. Your variety is also limited by both floor space and profit margin - the average CS/DS does not want or usually carry items that give a low profit margin, which include vegetables, fruits, and 'healthy' retail.

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/sp ... t-20100511

In interviews with several small grocers, FOX found that some don't carry any vegetables or fruit, because, said one, "the coolers are broken." And another said he didn't carry meat because it wasn't the "regular" kind.

No Jewel, no Dominick's, but plenty of "mom and pop" places that sell plenty of chips and candy. Here, stores are busy stocking their shelves with juice and soda--some of their most popular items, they said.

That, and the booze. Lots of alcohol, but little else. A virtual "food desert."

[Partha]

Partha,
While I think you have some good points about areas that need improving in poorer neighborhoods, I think there are factors that have a much bigger impact on food choices for a larger percentage of the poor than simple distance to the grocery store.

Nothing is cheaper or more healthy than buying staples and cooking for yourself, but upbringing and nutritional ignorance keep a lot of people from making smart choices. Fatigue at the end of a tough work day leads to a lot of people serving expensive and unhealthy processed food - processed food that they bought at the grocery store - instead of cooking from scratch.

I'm not saying your points aren't valid. I just don't think they are the driving factor.

And I also have to say I think you flew off the handle on the race thing when it wasn't warranted. It wasn't fair or justified. I don't expect you'll apologize to Embar, but you should give it some thought.

Lurker, this was my point that's been drowned out by Embar's ceaseless droning.

This is a much more difficult problem than can be solved by 'tax the chips!' Like so many other problems, it affects the poorest, minorities, and the elderly the hardest.

Somehow, in Embar's world, because he's able to drive three miles whenever he wants to the nearby...I'm guessing Whole Foods, or he can afford to have someone shop for him at $35/hour and deliver it to his door, there is no problem with anyone getting any of the food that they want or need ever. And if they're buying processed junk, it's because they're not as smart/rich/pretty as he is, obviously. And, no, I won't apologize. That reference is a double shot at minorities and the poor - both of which I've shown are hurt the worst by a 'sin tax' on food. Embar makes his living on these boards opposing social services and insisting that the poor and minorities are just lazy and unwilling to work as HARD as he did. So he gets what he gets.

[Ddrak]

This is nonsense, Dd. YOUR argument was that this tax would not hurt the poor more than it would hurt the rich. Now you're admitting that it will. Thanks for correcting the record.

I didn't admit it would at all. I said it has a regressive nature, not that it would actually be regressive. Obviously the exact details of such a tax would have to be carefully crafted, but in essence the concept of changing the behavior of a population by taxing bad choices is sound and proven effective by cigarette use patterns as taxes rise. What it does is affect the purchasing habits of the poor more than it affects the purchasing habits of the rich. Now, will you answer if you believe every spending-side tax is unfair?

Not at all, because of one thing you forgot to mention: Price. Compare prices between the grocery stores and convenience stores/drugstores. The latter charge more, in some cases MUCH more per item - which means a relative loss of buying power for the poorest people. You might not care, but people with lower incomes certainly can tell you it can mount up quickly when you're paying $2.99 for even such things as boxes of Hamburger Helper versus paying $1.61 at the Kroger. Your variety is also limited by both floor space and profit margin - the average CS/DS does not want or usually carry items that give a low profit margin, which include vegetables, fruits, and 'healthy' retail.

So what you're saying is that CS/DS will carry more healthy foods if the government causes the unhealthy ones to rise in supply price and therefore become less profitable? I don't get it - I thought you were against the tax and yet you make a beautiful point here for it.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

@Partha - What would the people do if all the convenince stores and fast food places disappeared? Would they die? Or would they find a way to the grocery store?

[Partha]

I didn't admit it would at all. I said it has a regressive nature, not that it would actually be regressive. Obviously the exact details of such a tax would have to be carefully crafted, but in essence the concept of changing the behavior of a population by taxing bad choices is sound and proven effective by cigarette use patterns as taxes rise. What it does is affect the purchasing habits of the poor more than it affects the purchasing habits of the rich. Now, will you answer if you believe every spending-side tax is unfair?

Every spending-side tax is unfair in that it is regressive. Regressive taxes on consumption also have the problem that they knock hell out of consumption in an economy that is geared for maximum consumption. That's why I prefer to see more things like higher capital gains taxes which are more progressive.

So what you're saying is that CS/DS will carry more healthy foods if the government causes the unhealthy ones to rise in supply price and therefore become less profitable? I don't get it - I thought you were against the tax and yet you make a beautiful point here for it.

No, they will NOT carry more healthy foods both because healthy foods cost more even with your tax, which means that their average customer will buy less of these things - because of the lowered purchasing power (since there are no real wage increases among the poor) and because (as the article I linked states) the increased shrink from spoilage and slow sales will offset any increase in profits for the CS/DS. In upscale areas where price is less of a concern, then you're going to see 'healthy' food. In downscale areas where price is the number one concern, you ALREADY see a lack of 'healthy' food choices, and increasing the taxes on the unhealthy ones will have to be so large to have the effect you want that most of these businesses will simply fold, as the profit margins are already unhealthy in many categories for them.

[Embar Angylwrath]

@Partha - What would the people do if all the convenince stores and fast food places disappeared? Would they die? Or would they find a way to the grocery store?

[Ddrak]

No, they will NOT carry more healthy foods both because healthy foods cost more even with your tax, which means that their average customer will buy less of these things - because of the lowered purchasing power (since there are no real wage increases among the poor) and because (as the article I linked states) the increased shrink from spoilage and slow sales will offset any increase in profits for the CS/DS. In upscale areas where price is less of a concern, then you're going to see 'healthy' food. In downscale areas where price is the number one concern, you ALREADY see a lack of 'healthy' food choices, and increasing the taxes on the unhealthy ones will have to be so large to have the effect you want that most of these businesses will simply fold, as the profit margins are already unhealthy in many categories for them.

I think your analysis is flawed. The tax makes it more profitable to carry healthy foods, therefore they will carry more. Sure, it won't be up to the same level as in wealthy areas (which will also carry more healthy foods) but there will be *more*.

I have no idea where you got "healthy foods cost more even with your tax" from though. That's just nutty given you're increasing the cost of non-healthy foods and leaving healthy ones the same.

The rest of your statement about there already being a lack of healthy choices and taxing the unhealthy ones will make foodstores fold? Nope. Won't happen. People still need to buy food - it's sort of essential for life you know? You're really just making stuff up I think.

Dd