• plz1
      link
      fedilink
      English
      133 months ago

      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).

      • @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        23 months ago

        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.

    • @Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      13 months ago

      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.

  • @Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    373 months ago

    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.

    • @solsangraal@lemmy.zipOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      203 months ago

      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

      • @crusa187@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        133 months ago

        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.

    • queermunist she/her
      link
      fedilink
      63 months ago

      Even if it passed Congress it wouldn’t matter, the Supreme Court would strike this down.

      Does it make sense? Fuck no! But if money is speech, price controls are a violation of free speech! 🤮

  • sunzu2
    link
    fedilink
    323 months ago

    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

    • @xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      173 months ago

      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?

      • sunzu2
        link
        fedilink
        43 months ago

        and they precisely won’t do it lol

        regime whores are not here to help wage slaves jfc

      • @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        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.

      • @Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        33 months ago

        What’s the point of stronger laws if the existing ones aren’t enforced? The stronger ones wouldn’t be enforced either.

      • sunzu2
        link
        fedilink
        23 months ago

        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.

  • @kandoh@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    263 months ago

    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.

    • @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      73 months ago

      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.

  • @SuperCub@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    173 months ago

    I swear to god if her housing policy doesn’t include banning private equity from purchasing homes, I’m going to be angry.

    • @zbyte64
      link
      33 months ago

      I would be fine with that solution or many others. I don’t like to be a single issue or single solution voter.

  • @paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    113 months ago

    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.

    • @mipadaitu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      183 months ago

      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.

    • @lagomorphlecture@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      73 months ago

      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…

      • @abrake@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        63 months ago

        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.

        • @lagomorphlecture@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          23 months ago

          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.

    • @gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      13 months ago

      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.

  • @Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    13 months ago

    Good luck proving it. The game has been rigged for a very long time and the government isnt going to change it