Is there an alternative term for "Food for Home Consumption"?

“Food for Home Consumption” is another way of saying take out. In California it applies to hot food or prepared ready to eat food. It puts take out food on a par, for tax reasons, with food eaten in a restaurant.

@zenvelo But reading the link, I would say that they are talking about groceries when they are saying “food for home consumption” and that is the alternative term I would use.

I would say either ‘edible groceries’ or ‘domestic comestibles’. Not everything you buy at the grocery is edible.

Domestic edibles.

The laws get interpreted for take out and groceries depending on the state and how the law is written. It should be two very different things. In some states people order their McDonald’s take out and then sit themselves right down and eat in. It’s a loophole in my opinion.

When I think of tax free food I think grocery store, not restaurants, but many grocery stores have buffets and prepared meals and even tables and chairs to eat right there, so one could argue that food should or could be taxed differently than other grocery food items.

Most people feel grocery taxes are regressive taxes, hurting the poor most of all.

I don’t think taxation on particular food items affects purchasing much. I don’t think people opt for fresh produce over packaged goods, because of tax.

Back to the main Q I don’t think it’s about home consumption, it’s just whether something is eaten in a restaurant or not and the definition of restaurant. You can take it all one step further and tax on goods you think are bad, like a sin tax. Tax things like coca cola, desserts, but would you tax all packaged goods? Frozen veggies are healthy. I think we could argue Boca Burgers aren’t that bad for you?

When I talk about racing foods I think if what is found in a grocery store/supermarket and I don’t think any if it should be taxed. Especially not staple goods like milk, cheese, bread, produce, etc.

It has nothing to do with healthy food. As far as I know in IL/MO the food tax reduction follows the same basic guidelines as the Snap program: food purchased at the grocery to be eaten at home, or from another outlet uncooked, to be prepared at home.
For instance a hot pizza from the grocery, or a raw pizza from Papa Murphy’s.
Illinois then, in turn, raised the food tax on sugary things, like like pop – even if it’s sugar free.

I think it’s probably to regional to get a definitive answer here. But again, it has nothing to do with health, at least where I am. A Snicker’s bar and a head of lettuce have the same tax rate, albeit lower than general merchandize.

All I know is that if it is healthy no matter where it is bought it shouldn’t be taxed.

Just as an example of the nightmare defining foods as ‘Healthy” would be, consider this:

The state of Illinois puts an additional tax on ‘unhealthy’ soda and candy.
Soda and candy are eligible items under the Snap (food stamp) program.

I think a no-tax on single ingredient foods would be interesting. Fresh fruits, vegetables, meat, and grains free of preservatives.
Let’s ask?

@ibstubro I agree.