Should be no tax on food as well.
Even Texas exempts unprepared food and medicine from sales tax.
Minnesota did the same long ago, along with clothes I think. But, that should be standard.
Texas has a tax holiday for clothes and school supplies in August, but that’s all.
As does Florida.
Point is, you shouldn’t have to pay any taxes on things you need to survive, ever.
Entirely agreed.
There is no federal tax on food. States can, but not all do. I’ve never lived in a state that does, other than some that tax “prepared food” (restaurants) vs. just “food” (grocery stores).
There’s no federal sales tax, but there are a host of tariffs on imports and regulations on what foreign merchandise can be sold domestically.
We can’t, for instance, buy sugar from Cuba or beef from Mexico. Some of these rules are precautionary (prevention of the spread of foot & mouth) while others are purely political (sanctioning a country’s economy to force a policy reform).
But they all result in higher food costs at home, to the benefit of the domestic agricultural industry.
That’s a state issue. And ALL states should agree to this, but many (mine included) don’t.
Where I live (not the US) most food isn’t taxed unless it’s something that’s considered more of a luxury item or has punitive taxes like soft drinks with a sugar tax.
The article is light on specifics.
Though it hardly matters. It will be blocked in the senate regardless of which party holds a majority, and centrists will treat the problem as permanently solved because there’s a proposal.
of course. the “block literally anything from getting accomplished” has been the GOP M.O. for decades. unless it’s something to do with appointing a SCOTUS under an R POTUS, then they’ll do backflips to make it happen
I think the person you replied to intentionally chose “Centrists,” not “GOP.” The problem here is corporate capture of Congress. Republicans are the default gatekeepers, but when populist ideas such as this on the left start to take root, that’s when the democrats come out to squash the effort. Think Manchin, Sinema for the usual suspect scapegoats. But if shit gets real, look at how Pelosi laughs off the STOCK act whenever it’s mentioned. Because of course, policy makers should get to partake in unlimited insider trading, right? Because how else would they be incentivized to continue repealing regulations to allow for wider corporate profit margins.
If we’re capable of putting nutritional information on every food item, then we’re capable of putting the cost of the item at every step of it’s journey down the supply chain.
Let’s see exactly what the profit margin on everything is.
That’s a legacy rule from a bygone era.
Modern Politicians are only ever allowed to implement policies that generate more revenue for businesses.
I’m all for recognizing the near-impossibility of getting any kind of progress done in our corporate-owned government, but the law requiring added sugars be listed separately from total sugars is a recent addition, one I was astonished to see.
We already have laws on the books for this but feds and state AGs refuse to enforce them.
Harris must know this… The only people who don’t is the target audience. It appears
If we have a law and we’re not enforcing it… isn’t it precisely the role of the executive branch to start enforcing it harder?
You’d like to think so. But we’ve got ample evidence to suggest the role of the executive branch is to subsidize business regulation of itself.
and they precisely won’t do it lol
regime whores are not here to help wage slaves jfc
Is it possible she could out stronger laws in the books? Sincerely asking.
Obviously it’s a Congressional responsibility. She could, however, prioritize the enforcement of existing laws without any new laws needed.
The trick is: are the laws that are currently on the books good enough to enforce?
A lot of them are old or for a different time or slightly different scenarios. For example, a lot of the anti-trust laws can get skirted because modern business practices might not “technically” meet the definition of the law even if the spirit of the law is absolutely being violated.
And the supreme Court just eliminated the executive branches authority to ‘clarify’/‘interpret’ how they should be enforced in modern society. (At least that’s my understanding of the Chevron deference stuff).
We don’t a legal issue, we have a political will issue.
What’s the point of stronger laws if the existing ones aren’t enforced? The stronger ones wouldn’t be enforced either.
If she is a president, she can try to push for it sure…
But my point is that if laws are not enforced as is, what would the benefit be anyway?
We have rules against monopolies, we have rules against price gouging, we have some basic employment laws… Feds nor states will enforce them for benefit of the public.
I think as president it would be way easier to step up enforcement but no president is willing tot use their political power to piss off our dear owners.
Check out cybersandwich’s reply to the same comment.
God i hope she follows through on even just some of these things 🥺🍀
She will, but remember, everything has to make it through Congress as well. VOTE DOWN THE LINE!
I swear to god if her housing policy doesn’t include banning private equity from purchasing homes, I’m going to be angry.
That’ll show 'em
I would be fine with that solution or many others. I don’t like to be a single issue or single solution voter.
I support the idea, but I wonder how they even ban something like that? Are they going to try to set limits on gross margin for companies or control prices somehow? Do they try to artificially control inflation by mandating that prices can only rise X% within a certain amount of time on certain products? Or are they going to monitor the prices on foods and take action whenever a certain threshold is crossed? I think corporate price-gouging needs brought under control, but I don’t know where you would start.
I don’t have a solution, but saying that prices can only go up 3% a year (or whatever number they pick) will guarantee that prices go up exactly 3% every year.
It probably isn’t the only fix, but they need to look into anti-trust issues with grocery stores and food suppliers buying up their competition.
No need to enforce, create a non profit State run grocery chain and watch as prices crash in the private ones.
…isn’t that just a co-op grocery store with extra steps?
I agree though, we should incentivize having food co-ops in every state.
Not really, a co-op will redistribute the profit to the members but you still need to become a member in order to get money back (requiring that you put money down upfront which isn’t a possibility for everyone) and the goal is still to make profit.
State run means if there’s profit it goes in the government coffers and is used to pay for social programs, but if it’s a non profit it would mean adjusting prices the next year based on sales predictions to compensate or reinvesting all profits to open more branches with the surplus necessary coming from the government.
In the end the goal would be to run it as close to cost as possible.
Ah, you’re right in that co-op’s are more direct contributions.
My equvilancy was coming from the fact that I was thinking of the taxpaying base as the “members” of the co-op, and the redistribution of profits of it’s members as the social services. I mean you vote for the board of a co-op too so…technically…the co-op model could work here.
I guess, but if the goal is just to put pressure on the private equivalent then only a non profit would truly bring them to their knees as a co-op can still have greedy members putting people on the board that will do everything they can to maximize the redistribution going to the members so they might get a nice check at the end of the year, but day to day their grocery is no cheaper and it isn’t cheaper for non-members (if they’re also allowed to shop there).
We’ve seen a co-op being ruined by greed and then privatized in Canada (an outdoors equipment store but still)…
Food is an essential need, I don’t even understand how come we let the private sector take care of it in the first place and the State corporation option has been tried elsewhere (in an European country if I’m not mistaken) and prices plummeted when they entered the market and private ones just had to adapt and lower their prices as well.
How about things like not putting up cameras in the aisles then charging you extra if you don’t make a horrified face when you look at the price tag… looking at you, Kroger…
In my Kroger store there’s just one aisle with a big tv to remind you that you’re on camera… The aisle with diapers and baby food.
I’m actually talking about something different. That’s letting you know that Kroger frowns upon feeding babies. I’m talking about the new story the last few days about how they’re planning to use some sort of dynamix pricing scheme to squeeze as much money as possible out of customers by looking at you face when you read price tags. So if you look like you’re having a negative reaction they’ll send you an coupon or something but if you don’t make a horrified face you’ll pay more.
I support it too… though I will say it smacks of “something the proles will like, but vague enough that the corpos don’t lose their shit”. Hopefully, that will refine into actual policies that meaningfully help citizens, instead of corporations, but we will have to see how that pans out AFTER the election.
If only she currently worked with someone who could start enacting this now. More promises… Sigh.
Good luck proving it. The game has been rigged for a very long time and the government isnt going to change it
CNBC - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for CNBC:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/15/harris-corporate-price-gouging-ban-food-election.html
