Soda Tax Could Shake Up Industry : NPR — When are they going to try and tax air? They’ve already got a fake recycling tax on the cans, why not the soda?
Amid the health care overhaul debate, one big question has been where to come up with about $1 trillion in funding to change the system. One idea that has been suggested is a junk food tax — and, in particular, a tax on soda.Public health advocates say drinking soda is directly linked to obesity, which is partly responsible for skyrocketing health care costs.At the Mace Market in a suburb of Davis, Calif., west of Sacramento, shiny bags of potato chips and candy bars line the shelves. Brightly lit, humming refrigerators are packed with bottles of soda.
Found by John Stec.
#30, Which is BS, as well.
#9 LibertyLover
Getting back to the basics would simply require integrity. Government has none.
#32, Government gets away with it because they give out “free” ice cream.
Seriously, who is going to vote against something if they think they aren’t on the hook for it?
I think getting back to the basics is only going to be possible when everybody has been re-educated on exactly what Liberty is.
#27 LibertyLover
Do you believe the >30% of Americans being clinically obese has an effect on you? If so surely more people becoming clinically obese will affect you more, and that is the trend, and a big part of that is soda.
If not I sort of understand where you’re coming from.
That said it seems to me it benefits everybody if the USA as a whole is successful. To do so requires a healthy work force. Not having a healthy population makes health insurance more expensive, people work less and less effectively, and in some cases are unable to work.
Do you believe the USA as a whole would be more successful if there were less clinically obese people?
If so surely it’s in your interest for people to be healthy?
Is you’re point that the success, or lack there of the USA in general, is not important to you, or unachievable because of the Constitution?
#34, Do you believe the >30% of Americans being clinically obese has an effect on you?
It is irrelevant what I think. It is not my place to tell someone to do something because it will make my life easier.
Is you’re point that the success, or lack there of the USA in general, is not important to you, or unachievable because of the Constitution?
I don’t believe the US is in danger due to obesity. Besides, even if I did, it is up to the States to decide the issue, not the federal government.
Scenario Time:
Do you have the right to personally request that someone you see at a vending machine give you 25 cents so you can send it to the government?
#19
But with billions spent on advertising, people are not told what is good and what is not. They aren’t given the full facts to make a rational decision. Maybe if there were a cigarette style tax on soda, they’d say, “hmm, soda is being taxed like cigarettes, I wonder why.”
And, maybe, just maybe, they’d look into it.
Besides, people have always been told by the government what they can and can’t do. Most the time it’s actually subtle, like safety requirements on automobiles. There is such a thing as too much freedom.
Don’t healthy people live longer and are more of a burden on the health care system?
I rarely agree with Liberty Lover.
However, I agree that dropping subsidies on farm products is probably a good thing, especially on high fructose corn syrup (you all may know it as Karo). Maybe the HFCS should be used to make alcohol or something else that’s useful. Maybe that farm land can be used to grow real food that people can eat without a lot of processing…or we can feed most of the surplus corn currently turned into HFCS, to cattle, poultry, and pigs instead. Mmmmm chicken, steak, burgers and pork chops…
The vegetarians can eat the rest.
I don’t care if she’s got the straw pointing out, I wouldn’t drink from it.
I think it would be more efficacious to use positive reinforcement in the form of subsidized healthy food rather than taxing unhealthy food. A lot of these bad food choices are directly rooted in the fact that it costs 10 times more to eat a healthy portion of calories than to eat the same portion of calories from total junk.
#35 LibertyLover
‘It is irrelevant what I think. It is not my place to tell someone to do something because it will make my life easier.’
Okay I understand.
How does that apply to say the rules of the road? They make my, and everybody elses life easier. And they are imposed, for a common good. So no rules of the road then either?
‘I don’t believe the US is in danger due to obesity. Besides, even if I did, it is up to the States to decide the issue, not the federal government.’
So if you did think the US is in danger due to obesity – you would be okay with states imposing laws to help curb consumption? Is that purely a constitutional argument – or is there some particular reason/s why it shouldn’t be done federally?
‘Do you have the right to personally request that someone you see at a vending machine give you 25 cents so you can send it to the government?’
As in the legal ‘right’? I don’t know it – it could be prohibited by pan handling laws.
Could I do it? Sure, and the person could choose to do it or not. And frankly all would be fine with the world.
In perspective, a trillion is a fraction of the war budget, wouldn’t put an astronaut on the moon, could be printed by the treasury in under a week, and could be levied off foreign car imports and offshore oil imports in under a year.
I don’t drink corn syrup and have no sympathy for those who do.
I say tax the shit out of the ignorant fatso’s.
Let the healthy sit back and enjoy the fruits of fatso’s labor!!!
#41, How does that apply to say the rules of the road? They make my, and everybody elses life easier. And they are imposed, for a common good. So no rules of the road then either?
Strawman. Traffic laws are consistent and apply to everybody, equally, without affecting their personal property (unless you CHOOSE to break the law, in which case you pay a fine). They are more designed to organize, not control for the sake of control, or to bring in revenue to fund pet projects.
A tax on soda is not consistent. It is a sin tax. Sin taxes are never justified.
Besides, maybe there are fat people who are happy. It’s not your place to tell them to be unhappy.
Is that purely a constitutional argument
Yes. If you want a tax on your soda, talk to your state reps.
Would I support a State tax on soda? I don’t know. I’d have to see the reasoning behind it and how the money was actually going to be used (for instance, is it going to be used to fund a war or keep our troops in 130 different countries or pay for a healthcare system that is already bankrupt or . . .).
Telling people it is for their own good is a lie. The real purpose is to fund a bankrupt system. You know it. Everybody knows it.
Some people just want to believe to strongly, though, that the government can provide “free” health care, they are willing to ignore the obvious.
Do you really believe this tax will stop obesity? If you say yes you are either lying to yourself, lying to me, or have drank too much koolaid.
Prohibition did not work. Taxing soda is a mini-prohibition.
Could I do it? Sure, and the person could choose to do it or not. And frankly all would be fine with the world.
Now what if you had a gun and demanded the 25 cents?
Now you’ve violated his property Rights. This is exactly what you are doing along with a majority of people. You are overpowering him, forcing him to part with his money to fund something YOU want.
Just because YOU or even a majority believe that it is in this person’s best interest, does not give you the Right to take his property.
The founding fathers knew this. They fought long and hard amongst themselves on how to fund a government without taxing people like this.
In the end they settled on apportionment.
Woodrow Wilson fucked everybody with the 16 and 17 amendments and the Fed.
We’re taxed enough. It’s time for it to end.
First, LibertyLover is absolutely right in saying that the Federal government should have (as opposed to will do what they want anyway) no authority to tax “soda”. This is not an issue of interstate commerce. This is not a treaty. It is purely to generate revenue. If you don’t like “soda”, then have it taxed in your State.
Second, “soda” is just a carbonated drink. To say that it causes obesity is nonsense. You can choose zero calorie soda or carbonated water. Switching off of HFCS won’t matter either since last I checked your body only cares about calories-in vs calories-out and sugar has calories.
Third, people in this country have seriously lost their way in terms of understanding how power is granted to the Federal government. Read that again: GRANTED to the Federal government. The Federal government has no power other than that which is specifically given to it by the States. The States afford power to the Federal government power; not the other way around.
Put a tax on corn syrup. The stuff is bad for you and it doesn’t taste good in drinks anyway.
This idea makes nothing but sense. When I was a kid, we had soft drinks on special occasions, not every day, not even every week, and the number of obese people was much less. There were one or two “fat kids” in my elementary school classes. Now I see kids carrying around 16 ounce, 20 ounce, 1 liter bottles and most of the kids in my neighborhood are overweight. I see adults carrying those 54 ounce tubs of soft drinks who can barely fit through the convenience store doors to refill them. Airlines and buses are having trouble seating more and more of their passengers. People are injured breaking chairs that used to be big enough for 99.99% of the population. People buy cars based on how many drink holders they have!
Taxing alcoholic beverages to discourage overconsumption is largely non-controversial. Without taxes, a 12 ounce bottle of beer (if you can find one) would cost about eight cents. Taxing highly-sugared (or corn syruped) beverages to discourage overconsumption should be a no-brainer.
– – – – –
Things I have learned from reading Dvorak Uncensored:
* People who care about the overall health of the population are “Lying Government worshiping scumbags.”
Caffeine leads to higher cases of hypertension.
Should we not also tax coffee and tea then?
If we are going to tax booze, smokes and now soft drinks; then caffeine products should also be taxed as they pose health risks.
Of course soft drinks are much easier to manufacture at home than tobacco, caffeine or alcohol. Cola syrup and carbonated water. Or phosphate water if you want an old-fashioned phosphate.
Cursor_
#16 for the win!
I have an even better idea.
I think everybody who truly cares about the health of the country wrt sodas should form their own non-profit, collect donations, and start airing TV ads to discourage the consumption.
Of course, it would mean you would have to work a little harder to get your message out but if you really cared that shouldn’t matter.
I think everybody who truly cares about the health of the country wrt sodas should form their own non-profit, collect donations, and start airing TV ads to discourage the consumption.
We did, LL. We formed a big club and we’re paying our club dues to make it happen. Only the club is called “government” and the dues are called “taxes”. If you don’t want to be a member of the club, fine. No one’s keeping you here, you can leave any time. And don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out to find your libertarian paradise.
BTW, you aren’t allowed to address me until you man up and say what you really think, without the cutesy “have you stopped beating your wife” questions. 😉
24, No the problem is not with education. People already know that drinking lots of soda is bad for them. I never implied they didn’t know. What’s your point?
51, It’s called sarcasm. Regardless, this tax is just the tip of the iceberg for universal health care. Hopefully more discussion will come of this so people can wake up and smell the coffee and see that they are giving up personal liberties in favor of government control and penalties.
Heck, I just wished the liberals would be more aggressive about it. I would love to see public reaction for any future tax on beef because many liberals whine that eating too much of it is unhealthy and it contributes to “man-made” global warming.
#52 It’s called sarcasm.
I don’t think so. Libertarians really believe that. If 100 people band together and raise money for a cause, they’re OK with it. If 300 million people band together for a cause, they hate it. Libertarianism doesn’t scale well.
#53
Nonsense. When 300 or 300 million band together for a cause, it is citizens consciously choosing to donate their time and/or money to something in which they believe which does not affect anyone not involved. When a minority decides to have the government impose a “sin” tax because of their own notions of “sin”, it imposes their will on everyone. Do you not see the difference between donating and imposing?
#54, You might as well give up trying to reason with these guys.
There is a reason why these couch liberals refuse to answer whether they would let 10 people die to save their wives.
Forcing someone else to do something is ok as long as it doesn’t hit close to home. But let the problem show up at their doorstep and they start crying like little girls and scream “NOT FAIR!”
Oooops. Libertarianism is incompatible with redistribution of wealth.
In a nation of 300+ million people, we will never have 100% agreement with what the nation should do. That’s why we delegate decision making to elected representatives. But Libertarians complain that somewhere in the government someone is spending money that they personally don’t agree with.
Tough shit. That’s life in a big country. You don’t like it, leave, and create your own little libertarian society where no one has to do anything they don’t want to do. Stone knives and bearskins is what you’ll have, because one of the hallmarks of civilization is compromise. But I don’t expect a libertarian to understand that.
That’s why libertarianism doesn’t scale well.
Forcing someone else to do something is ok as long as it doesn’t hit close to home. But let the problem show up at their doorstep and they start crying like little girls and scream “NOT FAIR!”
There ya go, now, was that so hard? Why don’t you elaborate on that. Tell me what you think libertarians are doing vs non-libertarians. I’ll check back later, gotta run for now.
#59
You still don’t get it. This isn’t about your tax dollars being spent on something with which you disagree. This is the government taxing something of which a minority considers a “sin”. What the government then spends that money is entirely orthogonal to the discussion.
This discussion is about on which areas the government should be permitted to impose upon the citizenry via tax and which they should not. Are you suggesting that there ought to be no limits on which the government can impose a tax? How about we tax liberal websites as they cause an atrophy of the mind? How about we triple the tax on the Prius as they aren’t paying enough in gas tax? How about we tax vegetarian restaurants and Yoga centers? How about we tax Cal Berkeley cause they’re wacky?
Fundamentally, the Federal government is only given power by the States. The Federal government has never been given the power to tax items they deem “unhealthy”.
#59, Forcing someone else to do something is ok as long as it doesn’t hit close to home. But let the problem show up at their doorstep and they start crying like little girls and scream “NOT FAIR!”
There ya go, now, was that so hard? Why don’t you elaborate on that. Tell me what you think libertarians are doing vs non-libertarians. I’ll check back later, gotta run for now.
That made no sense.
#60, Personally, I would rather the liberals stop doing the dog and pony show and just vote in universal health care. This has never been about needing the votes. This has always been about minimizing voter retaliation in 2010.
Although I agree with the rest of your post, I hope they DON’T vote it in. Once it’s there, it will never go away — just continue to morph is another failed government program.
#61, Agreed.
62, I’m hoping it gets so bad that when the sh1t hits the fan, people will realize that this isn’t really what they wanted.
The liberals are trying to do things nice and slow so most government-educated Americans don’t realize what is happening to them.
Posted by Dvorak on a newer forum: http://tinyurl.com/yz5klqd