Number one son got an invitation to a party yesterday. One of the boys in his class is eight tomorrow, and is celebrating with a party at… McDonald’s. Son of Bucharest Life will be there, first and foremost because he likes a good party, especially if it’s one of his best mates, and secondly because he is partial to a cheeseburger every now and then.
Good luck to him.
The invite came a day after Romania’s government announced it planned to introduce a new tax on fast food from March 1st, 2010 onwards.
The tax has been spun as purely a health initiative, designed to make Romania a healthier country by penalising financially those who eat poorly.
In fact, it is of course a rather naked – and increasingly desperate – attempt by an almost bankrupt government to raise money, which will if introduced – the government appeared to take a step back today – probably end up harming the very people it was intended to help.
Why?
Because defining what is or is not ‘fast food’ is impossible. Instead, the law will have to be applied to all foods which contains certain additives. Often, the cheapest foods have the most additives – usually to increase shelf life. What that means is that the cost of many basic foodstuffs will increase, and the amount of cheap food the poorest Romanians have access to will decrease.
Another great idea from the government that brought you a compulsory profit tax for companies that make a loss…
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head as to why this tax is problematic (the fast food one not the profit for loss tax, which is just bloody stupid from the bottom up). But I think it would be possible for someone to come up with a definition of fast food which taxes fast-food “restaurants” rather than, I dunno, cheaper food.
The logic of the tax, which is the same as the logic of the tax on cigarettes is, I think, reasonable. The clarification of the definition of fast food is where it gets difficult. (Obviously it’s about getting more money, but then any tax is about that in the end, so that’s not really the point)
I still don’t quite understand how a government could get away with such a ludicrous tax. I have been away too long.
Why would anyone pay the profit tax if they weren’t making a profit? Surely simple refusal to cooperate would have made the law unenforcable. At least Romanians under Ceausescu had state terror organisations to blame for their meek cooperation.
Companies that refused to pay it were closed. In fact, many people did refuse to pay it by closing their one-horse companies and setting themselves up as self-employed (thereby swerving the tax).
{ 1 trackback }