What do you think of the proposed soda tax?

[Mom23Disneybelievers]

I'd much rather see the same kind of taxes that apply to tobacco products placed on alcohol as well - but that will never happen because politicians love their booze too much..

As for soda? If their reasoning is "obesity", then they are going to have to apply sin taxes to a whole lot more than just "sugary beverages".. Otherwise it's a farce - just like the tobacco taxes - and will in no way be applied to the programs that they claim will benefit from this new tax..

I agree.

 

[jenrose66]

I'm all for the soda tax...and I love pop! However, it's bad for me, I rarely (once every couple months) will slip and buy some. I hate taxes, paying the bottle deposit annoys me so I would not buy pop if it's taxed.

My mom is a sugar holic. All she drinks is pop. She needs to curb it big time, she's killing herself, especially since diabetes runs in the family.

Just like I support taxes as high as they can go on cigarettes...tax the junk food away. Maybe that can help bring some health back into this country.

 

[bicker]

That says a lot.

Yes, it is critical that people understand that they're dealing with people. You cannot expect to turn their whole world upside down overnight. That sort of thing indicates a blind dogmatism that has no place in the real world. Change must be incremental, to some extent. Only changes that simply cannot be accomplished incrementally should be pursued as a single unit.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Yes, it is critical that people understand that they're dealing with people. You cannot expect to turn their whole world upside down overnight. That sort of thing indicates a blind dogmatism that has no place in the real world. Change must be incremental, to some extent. Only changes that simply cannot be accomplished incrementally should be pursued as a single unit.

We are polar opposites on this issue.

I respect your opinion.

 

[tinkerfan1]

I see nothing wrong with the idea. If we are going to consume products which damage our health, then I see no problem in having to pay a tax. My husband drinks beer and he would have no problem if they wanted to tax alcohol. They've taxed tobacco and other things that cause insurance rates to go up. I agree we are taxed to death but as long as we are consuming products that have been proven to contribute to obesity, diabetes, and other health risks, I have no problem with them doing that.

 

[lacrosse_lady72]

Overall, I don't care.

But it's a BS excuse they're using in regards to the fight against obesity. I find it incredibly hard to believe obesity is the real reason for the tax.

If I want a soda, will an extra $0.10 stop me? No. The deposit hasn't stopped me so I don't know why they think a little extra will... that's right they don't. They just want more money.

 

[ElliePeters]

Never heard of this tax before.

 

[LiLIrishChick63]

i don't drink pop anymore, i haven't in about 2 years, so to me it doesn't really affect me, but i still put "yea" because i do believe we drink a bit too many carbonated beverages in this country. it might help people to cut back.

 

[SAHDad]

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

---C. S. Lewis

SO, we can tax sodas because they are "bad" for you. And people will, apparently, applaud such an effort, so long as it is couched in some sort of "moral imperative", that it is being done for "the public good". Maybe we should levee extra tax on theme parks, maybe 15 or 20%, because theme parks damage the environment/promote conspicuous consumption/make too much money/are owned by evil corporations/etc. And, perhaps an extra tax of 25 or 50% on pet food, since ownership of animal companions is morally wrong/hurts the environment/etc.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Lets do that one also. Better yet, let's really work on ELIMINATING IT in our foods. Wonder why we have epidemic of diabetes, ADHD, etc., etc. My ex-sister-in-law's son was on meds for ADHD, etc. When he slept over at my house, he was fine. I was over their house one morning and he was eating a big bowl of sweet cereal (loaded with HFCS) and drinking a coke, no lie. She is a nurse.

Though I wouldn't advocate giving a kid a coke for breakfast, you should know that medical facts don't support your assertion.

Wolraich, Wilson, and White (1995) conducted an extensive and thorough review of 16 double-blind, placebo-controlled studies evaluating the effects of sugar on child behavior. Participants included normal children, children identified by parents as behaving poorly after sugar ingestion, children with diagnosed hyperactivity or ADHD, and aggressive, delinquent children. Measures focused primarily on the behavior of children with ADHD and used behavior-rating scales completed by parents and teachers (along with neuropsychological measures) to assess vigilance, impulsivity, memory, and motor skills. In spite of considerable variation in subjects, challenge agents, and dependent measures, the results were remarkably consistent. Findings did not support the hypothesis that refined sugar affects hyperactivity, attention span, or cognitive performance of children, although the possibility of an effect on a subset of children could not be ruled out.

It is interesting to note that despite presentation of clinical evidence to the contrary, many participating parents remained convinced of an association between sugar and adverse behavior.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/558797_6

From the Journal of the American Medical Association: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/274/20/1617

 

[golfgal]

Though I wouldn't advocate giving a kid a coke for breakfast, you should know that medical facts don't support your assertion.


From the Journal of the American Medical Association: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/274/20/1617

That and meds for ADHD are actually stimulants because they have the opposite effect in children.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

That and meds for ADHD are actually stimulants because they have the opposite effect in children.

Maybe the Mom knew more than she gave her credit for.

http://jad.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4/1/27

Studies examining caffeine's effects on cognitive, psychomotor, and affective functioning of children with ADHD were reviewed. For children with ADHD, caffeine was more effective than no treatment in decreasing impulsivity, aggression, and parents' and teachers' perceptions of children's symptom severity, and more effective than placebo in decreasing hyperactivity and teachers' perceptions of children's symptom severity, and in improving executive functioning/planning. Methylphenidate was more effective than caffeine in decreasing hyperactivity, aggression, and parents' and teachers' perceptions of children's symptom severity, and in improving executive functioning/planning and motor coordination. Amphetamines were more effective than caffeine in reducing hyperactivity, impulsivity, aggression, and teachers' perceptions of children's symptom severity. Combining caffeine and stimulants to produce moderate levels of arousal may produce better functioning than caffeine or stimulant drugs alone. Research is needed regarding caffeine's effects on the functioning of adolescents and adults with ADHD.

 

[Ppufi]

Making crappy drinks more expensive might lead some to switch to 100% juices/milk/water/whatever, and if they don't switch, more money for the states. Really, soda is just crap for you, especially diet. It's just a small step, but I support it.

 

[joviroxx]

i don't drink pop anymore, i haven't in about 2 years, so to me it doesn't really affect me, but i still put "yea" because i do believe we drink a bit too many carbonated beverages in this country. it might help people to cut back.

So you think its ok to have the government decide which habits they should "help" control? Why not make a list of what other bad habits there are in this country. I guess the government role in our country is to curb all of them... And here I thought we were in a "free choice" country. We can just continue this way until there is no free choice and someone else can make decisions for you cause they might know better.

 

[bicker]

Government is us, whether folks refuse to accept that or not. Remember we live in community with others, not as island-nations each one of us to ourselves. If you don't get your way, from the process of government, then that's normal, because when you live in community with others, no one gets their own way, but rather the way we go together is reflective of the compromise, consideration and respect for all -- that is inherent in being civilized and compassionate, instead of anarchistic and self-centered.

Sometimes people in society are myopically-focused on what they want, and they don't care about how their choices for themselves could eventually adversely affect others/everyone else. In such cases, society has an obligation to take action that either prohibits or at least disincentivizes people being selfish in that way. It's not a perfect system, but it is far better than letting each person determine for themselves, with impunity, how much they're going to incur cost and/or harm onto others/society. No one in a civilized society has unilateral signatory privileges over the budget of the future generations. It is a moral imperative for government to ensure that it does not callously disregard, and allow to process unchecked, such selfishness.

"Free choice" means the right to determine for yourself how you lead your own life, within your own span of control, not the right to do whatever you want without regard to how it may incur cost and/or harm onto others/society. With "free choice" comes personal accountability to act conscientiously with regard to the impact of what you "freely choose" to do. I know some people hate the idea of being accountable for what they do, but that's a critical aspect of maturity and responsibility. Where people abrogate their responsibilities in this regard, government has an obligation to step in and prevent such irresponsibility from adversely affecting others/society, now or in the future.

 

[eliza61]

So you think its ok to have the government decide which habits they should "help" control? Why not make a list of what other bad habits there are in this country. I guess the government role in our country is to curb all of them... And here I thought we were in a "free choice" country. We can just continue this way until there is no free choice and someone else can make decisions for you cause they might know better.

It's not a point of "knowing better" as Bicker said much more eloquently than me, it's a point of how your "Freedom of choice" effects the society around you. When you "personal freedoms" begin to impinge negatively upon the rest of society, "Houston, we have a problem". That's why people raised up against 2nd hand smoke. Yes, you have a right to choose to smoke, you don't have the right to give me lung cancer because you want to enjoy a bad habit. (not you personally). Since you choose not to stop we (society) are going to curb where you can do it.

Believe me I'm under no illusions that Philly is doing this for any other reason but to raise revenue.

 

[OceanAnnie]

The poll numbers are interesting. Almost 70% are against it.

 

[Planogirl]

Yes, it is critical that people understand that they're dealing with people. You cannot expect to turn their whole world upside down overnight. That sort of thing indicates a blind dogmatism that has no place in the real world. Change must be incremental, to some extent. Only changes that simply cannot be accomplished incrementally should be pursued as a single unit.

And where does that end? Or does it? We all do things that someone might label harmful in some manner.

 

[OceanAnnie]

And where does that end? Or does it? We all do things that someone might label harmful in some manner.

If passed, it won't end.

 

[Jennasis]

Why not just put a "fat tax" out there? Just tax people for being overweight. Don't they do that in Japan now? All for the greater good right?

Yeesh.