The craziest thing about chocolate is that Donald J. Trump is in the Epstein files.
That’s some dark chocolate.
Oh no! Shite I don’t buy anyways because it’s shite is going to go up in price!
They already put so little cocoa in their candy bars it’s not considered chocolate and it has more harmful metals than other chocolate manufacturers.
Hershey makes American garbage “chocolate”, their words not mine. Didn’t buy it before. Won’t buy it now.
“Double digits” what units?
Edit: Can’t read the article
Frustratingly the article does not say, but based on the other numbers in the article, I think they are talking in terms of percentage, likely 15-20%
Considering a 2-cup pack of Reece’s has literally 6x’d in price since I was a kid, FUCK THEM.
like how much cocoa is in Hershey’s “chocolate” to begin with?
We can’t catch a break every little thing is going up in price.
Hershey’s is garbage chocolate that literally tastes like bile
Is it like that cilantro-soap thing in people’s genes?
Because you’re absolutely right and it’s absolutely baffling that the company still makes chocolate after WWII when it was presumably used to booby trap MREs against Nazi looters.
No, like they literally add a chemical to make it taste like it’s gone bad because soldiers coming home from WW2 had gotten so used to the taste of the chocolate from their rations (that had gone sour)
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hersheys-chocolate-tastes-like-vomit_l_60479e5fc5b6af8f98bec0cd
This is so sad!
Hershey’s has had many reasons to be boycotted over the decades. I’m not aware of any of those reasons being corrected by the company.
I am completely against what Israel is doing to Palestine and against the colonization and genocide being done.
This instance of Hershey’s doing business in Israel is a very weak reason to boycott. There are many other obvious reasons to boycott Hershey’s.
The rising price of most sweets and the continued decrease in quality is the greatest disincentive to buying them.
I’m not a regular consumer of candy bars, but I saw that the price of a regular Snickers bar at a grocery store checkout is now about $2 each. Meanwhile in that same store you can get a box of brownie mix for about $2, 2 eggs will cost you about 60 cents and a quarter cup of vegetable oil will cost you about 10 cents for a total of about $2.70 yielding an entire tray of 15 brownies (or 18 cents per brownie). I get that part of that the candy bar is paying for convenience, but the differential is just too high now unless you just down have a kitchen available to you.
This is true.
This is the basis for taxing high sugar convenience food. It was done for cigarettes, and today, consumers overwhelmingly see it as a good program. (Of course tobacco companies lobbied hard against it)
Should there be a line on which products governments deincentivise? High sugar convenience foods have their purpose, but does it outweigh increasing obesity? Should we instead subsidize healthy foods? Or both together?
This is the basis for taxing high sugar convenience food. It was done for cigarettes, and today, consumers overwhelmingly see it as a good program. (Of course tobacco companies lobbied hard against it)
You’re referring to so called “sin taxes”. I’m aware those exist for cigarettes of course, and I know some places have them for sugary drinks, but I’m not aware of any sin taxes on sweet food. I know many places that do not have sales tax food have exclusions that put candy back under regular sales tax, but those aren’t sin taxes, and the sales tax percentage (usually at or under 10%) wouldn’t come close to the sugar drink sin taxes I’ve seen (which are closer to 50%). In my state there’s no sin tax on sugary anything, only the rules that mean that candy bars would have regular sales tax applied (about 7% in my area).
Can you cite a particular sin tax or situation where there is excessive taxation specifically on candy?
Gov’t should subsidize healthy food. Gov’t shouldn’t, however, make non-healthy food astronomically pricey. People should have affordable options for both. Like it or not, government making things artificially expensive in order to disincentivise people from buying the thing is a form of authoritarianism.
Like it or not, government making things artificially expensive in order to disincentivize people from buying the thing is a form of authoritarianism.
I’m struggling to think of any scenario I would agree with your statement and I’m not coming up with anything. Further, I think your statement is dangerous because it dilutes the actual dangers and restrictions an authoritarian government would put in place.
Gov’t should subsidize healthy food.
Wouldn’t that meet your definition of authoritarianism because it is causing non-healthy food to be proportionally more expensive?
