What do you think of the proposed soda tax?

[Arielle22]

I have an issue with the argument that it is bad for you and so it should be taxed.

If it is that bad then why isn't it outlawed? I feel the same about tobacco.

I want to point out that I do not believe either should be banned or taxed as a way to cut consumption.

If the government is making money via tax then how hard is government going to try to stop the consumption of it?

 

[OceanAnnie]

Only single servings of yogurt, the big tub they don't.

No we have obseity here too. Kids do not go out and play anymore, they don't get gym everyday.

Heck you don't even see people out walking in the neighbourhoods anymore, they drive everywhere. Even it it is just around the block to the coffee shop.

And people eat out at McDonalds and such just as much. Everything is convience these days.

Sounds much the same here.

I just don't think you can change a person's health by singling out one aspect like that. As a pp mentioned (and you as well) there are many factors that contribute to one's health.

Education is key to good health (as is moderation in a lot of cases). But I think it's up to the individual to want it. I don't want forced health education. I know soda is not healthy. But if I want one I shouldn't have to pay more for it. There are so many things that aren't healthy. Do I partake all the time? No. But I like them just the same.

ETA- Strange about the single servings vs large tub of yogurt. Wonder why that came about.

 

[N.Bailey]

Looks like I'm in the minority, but I like the idea. Soda has absolutely no nutritional value (yes, I know many other things don't either,) and I wouldn't mind having to pay an extra tax to drink it. I used to live off soda when I was younger, and I have the gums to show it. I don't generally allow my kids to drink it, and I think it'd give ppl. a good incentive to go for something else.

So why don't we make it illegal? It would definitely have the desired effect then, right? How can anyone back government targeting specific companies just because they can?

Not going to the dentist would have effected your mouth more than soda, IMO (though I am not saying soda doesn't effect oral health or other health issues including diabetes). Should we also mandate EVERY family purchase X amount of dental floss per month because it effects the gum more than anything else? Where is the line drawn? Why is 1 ok but the other not? Why would we want to give that right to the government?

 

[legalsea]

It always makes good political sense to impose a tax on the products of which the consumers of said product are not organized or able to to fight back.

Other new taxes that are being considered: on white sticks, seeing eye dogs, wheelchairs, and leg braces.

 

[mjkacmom]

I don't drink soda, so I'm all for it! Seriously, if they're going to tax my wine, they should tax your soda!

 

[N.Bailey]

Well I don't don't think it well stop obesity.

Here in Canada we are taxed on it already. We pay Good and Services tax on it . Any junk food sold at the grocery store is taxed 5%. Chips, even single yogrut but if you buy it in a bigger amount no. Because they are called luxuraries.

We pay a sales tax of 6% in my state of Pennsylvania (states have different sales tax rates and exclusions, etc). While groceries are not taxable in my state, certain food items are, and soda is one of them. I don't think chips and cookies are (could be wrong), but I believe candy bars are.

 

[dpmfloyd]

I don't drink soda, so I'm all for it! Seriously, if they're going to tax my wine, they should tax your soda!

absolutely!! thank you!!

 

[N.Bailey]

Oh Just thought of something else! "Back up on the soapbox"

About 2 years ago (maybe more) PepsiCo and Coca Cola joined forces to make the vending systems in schools healthier. We volunterely took sodas (sugary drinks) out of vendors that kids had access to. If you walk into any school building today, the vendors that are on during the school day only carry juices, water, PowerAde. No SODAS!! Even though alot of school systems use the commission they make off the vendors to suppliment school program funds. Like sports, bands, etc. So less product being sold at a higher price (juices and PowerAde is more expensive than soda) but comission is lower cause the price per bottle is higher to make.

They started this initiative to combat the "Soda vs. Obesity" theory. Ok all done now...I promise!

I'd love to see the nutrition label on some of those juice packages. Power aid drinks are packed full of it too, huh?

If they want to tackle obesity, maybe they could pull hot dogs, burgers, fries, chicken nuggets, etc... from the school lunch menu. These foods lead to heart disease too, but they are cheap when you're feeding in mass quantities.

 

[dpmfloyd]

I'd love to see the nutrition label on some of those juice packages. Power aid drinks are packed full of it too, huh?

If they want to tackle obesity, maybe they could pull hot dogs, burgers, fries, chicken nuggets, etc... from the school lunch menu. These foods lead to heart disease too, but they are cheap when you're feeding in mass quantities.

how often do you see people walking around with hot dogs, burgers, fries or chicken nuggets? very rarely.

people walking around with sodas? - all. the. time.

try a little more of this: or
and alot less of this: or

 

[kaytieeldr]

the simple fact is america's youth is getting larger and larger. they arent excercising. sure, schools should put more money into gym classes and nutrition courses, but its not going to happen. it starts at home.

Don't forget, some of the "it starts at home" problem is that kids don't just go out and play any more. We used to. You couldn't get us IN the house until dark or later. We'd be playing ball in the side yard, hopscotch in the driveway, basketball in the park, using the jungle gym... now, kids have play dates and they seem to be inside, quiet games, more social events than physical activities. So, simply because the schools are forced to cut physical education in favor of actual educational requirements doesn't mean the parents can skip it as well.

LOL - just another excuse to take more of your money while protecting you from yourself.

If I haven't learned how to protect myself from myself by now, an additional tax isn't going to do a heck of a lot to change that.

 

[Golf4food]

Tax soda and use the money to subsidise healthy options like organics that currently cost so much more that most people don't want to spend the money on them even if they wanted to eat healthier. There is zero positive nutritional value to soda and a lot of negative. Is that any different than cigarettes or other drugs? People get addicted to the sugar and caffeine in sodas just like they do other drugs, so on that most basic level there is no difference. It is a harmful substance in the long run. Diet included (and possibly worse).

But sodas are just the tip of the iceburg. You'd then need to tax fast food joints, everything that is fried, anything cooked with hydrogenated oils, etc. The list goes on. Education must be the biggest effort, not taxation. People need a better understanding of why things are bad, what they do to your body, and how to change for the better and then want to change for the better. Yes, healthy food can still taste good - and you get to enjoy it, and life, longer, too!

 

[N.Bailey]

the reality of it is more sad. think, for a moment - WHY - they want to tax it? because its a problem. americans drink far more soda and eat far more crap than they do healthy food. on top of that, they get little, to no, excercise.

two prime disney examples - 1)watch wall-e. the ship full of fat americans, its not too far off.. 2) just go to WDW - notice the foreign tourists and compare their body mass to american tourists... its disgusting. how many of you have been on the dining plan and pick up a piece of fruit for a snack, over a rice krispie treat. i know i'm guilty!

the simple fact is america's youth is getting larger and larger. they arent excercising. sure, schools should put more money into gym classes and nutrition courses, but its not going to happen. it starts at home. if you're ordering pizza and getting mcdonalds more than 5x a month - thats a problem. if you're buying 2 liters of soda by the bagfull - thats a problem. larger americans have more health problems which puts a larger strain on the already failing health care system.

soda is a treat, not life fuel. when i was 26, i ate and drank like my friends - soda, pizza, beer - i weighed 300lbs. I'm now 30. i work out, after work - i drink water all day, i treat myself to a paid lunch once a week (but even then i'm careful). i'm now down to 200lbs. the last time i drank soda was a sprite in disney. i still might have a beer once or twice a week - but its a treat! not a way of life.

so, that aside - regardless of taxing soda or any other needless food - people are going to buy it because they like it and it 'tastes good' - i'm all for it. take that money from that tax and put it back into the education system - pay for those gym/health classes that were taken away. use it to fund field days teaching physical fitness. but if you're putting away gallons of soda a week and you are crying over adding a few cents to each soda purchase - what do you care? buy water instead! IMO.

This argument doesn't come down to who should or should not drink it, or if anyone should for that matter. That's a personal choice and one the government has no business deciding.

Yes, we have an obesity problem, but why should Pespi and Coke have to foot the bill for that?

Agree about the exercise, but how is this law going to combat that?

As for why they want to tax it, well that's the easiest question in the world to answer. They want to create more revenue for the government and because some fail to recognize that, it doesn't make it any less true. They aren't willing to put more money into extra school programs, so it's okay to let Pepsi/Coke cover the tab?

I understand your concern for the overall problem and won't argue that it's a huge one, I just find it sad that you find this to be an acceptable answer. I bet if the government targeted your livelihood (regardless in what capacity that might be), you'd not be too happy to sit back and advocate it, but it's okay at someone else's expense?

Famous Franklin quote that I think so fits here:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

[kpm76]

But why should legislatures have the right to target only certain companies because they want prices to increase which would cut the bottom line for those companies (while increasing their own I might add)? Is that what American now stands for? Can't you see the slippery slope we're standing on?

If you don't like it, by all means, don't buy it. I will never argue with that logic and/or right.

I do realize you weren't necessarily lobbying for such a law, I want to make that crystal clear so you don't think I'm attacking your view.

Yes, I can definitely see your point and did not think you were attacking at all. To be honest, I didn't know they were not taxing diet soda. Though I love it, it is NOT healthy at all and honestly, might even be worse than the regular stuff because of the artificial sweetener. Though my DD does not drink soda, if I were to offer her some it would likely be Sprite or something similar, not diet Coke.

Anyway, back to the issue......I don't know what the solution is when it comes to healthy living (or lack thereof) especially when it comes to kids. Taxing is probably not the answer, but it is so sad to think that some families exist on McDonald's cheeseburgers, fries and Coke. That said, I have always maintained that everything in moderation is ok. I don't deprive DD of sweet treats but she cannot have them all the time. Deprivation is a slippery slope too because we all know it becomes the forbidden fruit. It's too bad families aren't able/willing to see the long-term ill effects of poor eating habits. Hot dogs once in a while, fine...not everyday.

 

[sbell111]

Taxing soda is not going to curb obesity any more that taxing cigarettes is going to cause smokers to quit smoking.

Ummm, you do realize that studies have shown that increasing the price of cigarettes does cause people to quit smoking, right? A quick google returned this tidbit:

Every 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes reduces youth smoking by about seven percent and overall cigarette consumption by about four percent.

Anyone who thinks that taxing soda will have any impact on the average weight of Americans is either unrealistic or delusional.

I seriously doubt that those who proposed/support this tax think that it will have any impact on obesity. It just makes for a good sound-bite. And they are hoping that Americans are stupid enough to believe it.

Given that cig taxes work, I have no reason to believe that soda taxes wouldn't, also. Therefore, I'll follow your logic to it's expected conclusion and find that soda tax would probably help reduce obesity. Of course it won't make everyone magically fit and trim, but any little bit helps.

 

[sbell111]

If I haven't learned how to protect myself from myself by now, an additional tax isn't going to do a heck of a lot to change that.

Studies show otherwise.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Ummm, you do realize that studies have shown that increasing the price of cigarettes does cause people to quit smoking, right? A quick google returned this tidbit:

Every 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes reduces youth smoking by about seven percent and overall cigarette consumption by about four percent.
Given that cig taxes work, I have no reason to believe that soda taxes wouldn't, also. Therefore, I'll follow your logic to it's expected conclusion and find that soda tax would probably help reduce obesity. Of course it won't make everyone magically fit and trim, but any little bit helps.

Yes, but there is no alternative to smoking. Either you smoke or you don't. There are many, many sugar laden, unhealthy drinks and foods on the market. People will flock to something else they like, healthy or not.

 

[dpmfloyd]

I understand your concern for the overall problem and won't argue that it's a huge one, I just find it sad that you find this to be an acceptable answer. I bet if the government targeted your livelihood (regardless in what capacity that might be), you'd not be too happy to sit back and advocate it, but it's okay at someone else's expense?

Famous Franklin quote that I think so fits here:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Firstly, anyone calling soda a livelihood needs to rethink alot more than taxes.

Second, that is a gross misuse of a Ben Franklin quote IMO. We're talking soda here.

Yes, the government is looking to generate revenue, simply because its warranted - the deficit we're in isn't going to get fixed over night. so certain things that people do/consume are easily taxable. its a part of life - and maybe - had all those big business tax credits provided by the previous administration not happened, things like soda wouldnt be considered taxable.

plus the kids are getting fat, so... hello misdirection

 

[sbell111]

Yes, but there is no alternative to smoking. Either you smoke or you don't. There are many, many sugar laden, unhealthy drinks and foods on the market. People will flock to something else they like, healthy or not.

They may or they may not.

Without seeing the legislation, we don't know whether those other sugar-laden drinks would be similarly taxed. Further, the decision is not generally between a soda and some sugar laden food. It is generally between a soda and some other drink. Higher prices for sodas compared to non-sugar-laden drinks will no doubt cause many people to chose the latter. Perhaps they will also eat a brownie, but that beats drinking a soda and eating the brownie.

 

[Charitycase20]

 

[marcyinPA]

We pay a sales tax of 6% in my state of Pennsylvania (states have different sales tax rates and exclusions, etc). While groceries are not taxable in my state, certain food items are, and soda is one of them. I don't think chips and cookies are (could be wrong), but I believe candy bars are.

From what I understand, Gov. Rendell wants to tax all sugary drinks, not just soda. So, juice that isn't 100% fruit juice, chocolate milk, sugary soda. The tax will be MORE than 6%. Diet drinks will not be taxed more than the standard 6%.

I still feel that the health of Americans (or Pennsylvanians in our Governor's case) is not the top priority here. I feel that the goal is to find the best way to make a buck, by digging deeper into our pockets. People will still buy these things, tax or no tax. They've (meaning the Government) pretty much "got us", and they know it!