What do you think of the proposed soda tax?

[SAHDad]

I voted yes. not because I like taxes but because I'm on a real food movement.

Soda is just about the worst thing for a person can put in their bodies, it's also probably the cheapest thing to buy. In a fantasy world it would be nice if every one took responsibilty for their own health but in the real world, America is super obese, high rate of diabetes, high blood pressure. Plus we're killing our young kids with process food and sugar.

Unfortunately we generally don't make changes until it hurts us in the pockets. Look at gas, before we hit the 4.00/gallon point we were a fun lovin SUV, truck driving country. When gas prices began to hurt that's when everyone had a V-8 slap in the head moment.

Yes, I definitely know it's hard, I'm the girl who is trying to wean ourself off of coke. LOL

And, unfortunately, we also make knee-jerk reactions without actually trying to determine root causes. A couple of doctors (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/science/23tier.html) are pushing the idea that humans have a "set-point" in their brains that regulates sodium intake. Because so much food is low-sodium, they hypothesize that we actually eat more in order to hit that point. More calories in = heavier people. No one wants to actually test it, of course, because then it might mean that the nutritional guidelines of the last couple decades were really wrong. Again. (They revised them in 2000, because they realize that the low-fat stuff may have been causing people to consume more calories, leading to obesity and diabetes.)

Personally, I rather think that the federal government, by arbitrarily choosing to tax certain foods over others, is an assault (albeit a mild one) on liberties and freedoms. Is it as bad as banning them outright? No. But it is the subtle creep of attempting to make something with which some people disagree illegal by taxing and regulating it out of existence, provided that its demise can help fill the federal coffers in the process.

My guess is that, once this tax fails to bring in the proposed revenues (and it will fail, since taxing a behavior always drives it down, while subsidizing it increases it), then they will turn to another, fairly easy target. Maybe prepared coffee drinks. Starbucks and the like ought to be worth a couple extra billion a year. Who is up for an 18% increase in prepared coffee drinks?

 

[brerrabbit]

An earlier poster claims a correlation between tobacco taxes and tobacco consumption but it would seem hard to get a direct cause effect because of the millions if not billions of dollars spent on anti smoking campaigns. The point is you can't change behavior through taxes alone. And the bigger issue is people need to be responsible for their own actions. I don't want big brother telling me what I should and should not eat or drink.


Remeber the goofy movie with Sylvester Stalone and Sandra Bullock set in the future where salt, smoking and even sex was outlawed as being unhealthy? Is that where all this is leading to?

 

[bicker]

I think they should tax sugar, instead (including soda that has sugar).

Anything that people do that adversely affects other people is something that should be taxed, even if the adverse impact is indirect (such as having to cover the cost of indigent people getting emergency room care). There is no right on the part of anyone to do anything that has any adverse impact on anyone else. You have a right to that which you can keep to yourself... when your doing what you want overlaps onto someone else, then your rights end and society's best interest prevails.

 

[N.Bailey]

The reason that it is a misuse of his quote is because the establishment of a tax on soda does not infringe on any of your rights.

You gotta be kidding me. These taxes wouldn't have stood up in the courts if certain companies weren't paid off not to fight the legislation. How many pockets were lined to get tobacco taxes imposed?

 

[N.Bailey]

An earlier poster claims a correlation between tobacco taxes and tobacco consumption but it would seem hard to get a direct cause effect because of the millions if not billions of dollars spent on anti smoking campaigns. The point is you can't change behavior through taxes alone. And the bigger issue is people need to be responsible for their own actions. I don't want big brother telling me what I should and should not eat or drink.


Remeber the goofy movie with Sylvester Stalone and Sandra Bullock set in the future where salt, smoking and even sex was outlawed as being unhealthy? Is that where all this is leading to?

This is my guess too. I bet they took everyone they could get their hands on who quit and used them all in their study. Then touted what are probably unsubstantiated claims that it was all because of higher taxes.

 

[pperfectmom]

I voted "yes" just because I'm still bitter over a new alcohol tax that was passed last year in Kentucky. If I have to pay more taxes for my drinks, why shouldn't everyone else. Some could even make the argument that mine is far more healthy in moderation.

 

[N.Bailey]

I think they should tax sugar, instead (including soda that has sugar).

I disagree because again, it would only target a small handful of companies, but it surely would make much more sense. I doubt it would generate the kind of money they are looking to raise though (thus probably isn't even on the table).

 

[SAHDad]

Remeber the goofy movie with Sylvester Stalone and Sandra Bullock set in the future where salt, smoking and even sex was outlawed as being unhealthy? Is that where all this is leading to?

"Demolition Man" (which also had Wesley Snipes, I believe).

The funny thing behind the "no salt" push is that, if you do not have a certain amount of salt in your diet, you die. Plus, low salt intake can also lead to iodine deficiency, and a lot of food just does not cook well without salt.

Hopefully, the "no salt" bill will be defeated, because this is from the bill:

No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food for consumption by customers of such restaurant, including food prepared to be consumed on the premises of such restaurant or off of such premises.

So, no salt in baking. At all. (Yes, the guy has admitted that he knows nothing about food chemistry, but he doesn't care - he just wants all salt banned from the production of restaurant food.)

 

[TDC Nala]

Anything that people do that adversely affects other people is something that should be taxed

Wow, then we're going to be taxed on everything. I got a seat on the Metro this morning. Somebody else didn't get one and they had to stand for an hour in a crowd and get sneezed on. Maybe they'll get sick. I should pay a tax for that seat. Maybe a tax on the sneezer, too, for going out in public with whatever was making them sneeze.

Hey, I watch the food network and I have never seen anybody cook on there without using salt at all. I do believe the restaurants in NY under the salt ban bill would be permitted to supply salt cellars for patrons to use - to give the patrons the option of using less salt than the chef would have used.

Who needs a chef, then?

 

[OceanAnnie]

I think they should tax sugar, instead (including soda that has sugar).

Anything that people do that adversely affects other people is something that should be taxed, even if the adverse impact is indirect (such as having to cover the cost of indigent people getting emergency room care). There is no right on the part of anyone to do anything that has any adverse impact on anyone else. You have a right to that which you can keep to yourself... when your doing what you want overlaps onto someone else, then your rights end and society's best interest prevails.

Respectfully, I disagree. What about fat? That's bad for you. Foods high in fat grams would then come into consideration. When would it end?

 

[N.Bailey]

Wow, then we're going to be taxed on everything. I got a seat on the Metro this morning. Somebody else didn't get one and they had to stand for an hour in a crowd and get sneezed on. Maybe they'll get sick. I should pay a tax for that seat. Maybe a tax on the sneezer, too, for going out in public with whatever was making them sneeze.

Hey, I watch the food network and I have never seen anybody cook on there without using salt at all. I do believe the restaurants in NY under the salt ban bill would be permitted to supply salt cellars for patrons to use - to give the patrons the option of using less salt than the chef would have used.

Who needs a chef, then?

Oh, I missed that in Bicker's post above. Kudos to you for calling him on it. I concur 100%. Looks like I got caught up on the sugar aspect, but clearly, you responded to the more pressing issue of that post.

 

[Carly_Roach]

I haven't read all the replies but what I think is happening is that they're not bringing in enough money from the cigarette tax so they have to tax something else. As a smoker, I knew it was only a matter of time before other consumables became targets for these kinds of taxes.

Since I only drink soda on rare occasions so this tax won't affect me, I voted yes in this poll and will formally vote yes if this tax is ever proposed in our state. I'll vote yes for taxes on beer and wine, fast foods, coffee houses, donuts and other consumables that people don't need to live but contribute to bad health.

 

[bicker]

Respectfully, I disagree. What about fat? That's bad for you.

Yeah, but we're not talking about fat. We're talking about soda, but the reason why we're talking about soda is because of sugar. Sugar is the problem of issue. Sugar.

Don't defend consumption of sugar. Doing that would be a disservice. We all do it, true, but when we do it we indirectly impose cost onto others, and that's (literally) indefensible.

Foods high in fat grams would then come into consideration.

Turning to fat... Unlike with grams of sugar, fat grams is not a reliable metric of how your choices about what you eat adversely affect others, in the manner I alluded to earlier. By contrast, grams of trans-fatty acids is a reliable metric for that, and would therefore be a great index to use.

Don't defend the consumption of trans-fats. Doing that would be a disservice.

When would it end?

When our personal choices no longer adversely affect others. This is basic stuff. If you do bad, you pay. If you don't do bad, you don't pay. The real catastrophe is in essentially giving people Carte Blanche to unilaterally impose cost onto others with impunity.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Yeah, but we're not talking about fat. We're talking about soda, but the reason why we're talking about soda is because of sugar. Sugar is the problem of issue. Sugar.

Sugar today. Fat tomorrow.

Turning to fat... Unlike with grams of sugar, fat grams is not a reliable metric of how your choices about what you eat adversely affect others, in the manner I alluded to earlier. By contrast, grams of trans-fatty acids is a reliable metric for that, and would therefore be a great index to use.

Don't defend the consumption of trans-fats. Doing that would be a disservice.

It's in our food supply, just like sugar. Not defending it, stating facts. Fats are listed just like sugar. It could be a target. One day.

When our personal choices no longer adversely affect others. This is basic stuff. If you do bad, you pay. If you don't do bad, you don't pay. The real catastrophe is in essentially giving people Carte Blanche to unilaterally impose cost onto others with impunity.

As basic as it seems, it is still complex in how to impose regulations on one's food choices in regards to health. There is an abundance of unhealthy food and beverage choices. Sugar is but one of the root causes of obesity.

 

[bicker]

Sugar today. Fat tomorrow.

Again, sugar is bad. Fat, categorically, is not. So sugar today, trans-fat tomorrow -- yes. And without any concern or equivocation. Heck, the only problem with "trans-fat tomorrow" is the "tomorrow" part of it. It should be "sugar today; trans-fat today".

It's in our food supply, just like sugar. Not defending it, stating facts.

Including the fact that consumption of it is unnecessary, and our consumption proportionately imposes cost onto others. As you said, stating facts.

Fats are listed just like sugar. It could be a target. One day.

Again, trans-fat, which is also listed, should be a target. And better today that "one day". Again, because our consumption proportionately imposes cost onto others.

As basic as it seems, it is still complex in how to impose regulations on one's food choices in regards to health.

There are complexities, but the reality is that simplifying it doesn't necessarily turn the positive impact into a negative. It may not be a directly proportional positive impact in all dimensions, but there is an advantage to simplicity. A big one.

There is an abundance of unhealthy food and beverage choices. Sugar is but one of the root causes of obesity.

And consumption of each food for which consumption proportionately imposes cost onto others legitimately should be disincentivized.

There is no benefit to society to protect consumption of food for which consumption proportionately imposes cost onto others.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

I think it's a good idea. It's bad for you, why not. It's a start. I would love to push for some healthy fast food places also. In NY we have something called Pret Sandwich cafe's where you buy healthy sandwiches made from organics when possible. The sandwiches are DELICIOUS. They are boxed like the fast food burgers, and the ones that don't sell that day are donated so they are fresh. Let's also push physical fitness and make our kids go OUTSIDE. And let's educate people. So many don't even know why we have an epidemic of diabetes, weight issues, etc., too much sugar, HFCS, white flour, and bad fats. We need to promote healthy foods and have them easily at hand in the supermarkets, fast food places, etc.

 

[DarthKTrava]

If we truly want to do something about the obesity epidemic, we will bring physical education back into our schools along with a basic nutrition course. The soda tax does nothing for the underlying problem -- the fact that we live in a sedentary society.

THIS.

There's more things that cause obesity than just soda.... Do something to get lazy America off their collective butts and encourage them to exercise would go further. Because if they tax soda, then what's to stop them from taxing EVERYTHING ELSE WE EAT????

 

[OceanAnnie]

Again, sugar is bad. Fat, categorically, is not. So sugar today, trans-fat tomorrow -- yes. And without any concern or equivocation. Heck, the only problem with "trans-fat tomorrow" is the "tomorrow" part of it. It should be "sugar today; trans-fat today".

Including the fact that consumption of it is unnecessary, and our consumption proportionately imposes cost onto others. As you said, stating facts.

Again, trans-fat, which is also listed, should be a target. And better today that "one day". Again, because our consumption proportionately imposes cost onto others.

There are complexities, but the reality is that simplifying it doesn't necessarily turn the positive impact into a negative. It may not be a directly proportional positive impact in all dimensions, but there is an advantage to simplicity. A big one.

And consumption of each food for which consumption proportionately imposes cost onto others legitimately should be disincentivized.

There is no benefit to society to protect consumption of food for which consumption proportionately imposes cost onto others.

My point is, in for a penny, in for a pound.

 

[bicker]

Sure, I'm game. Anything for which we can so clearly establish the linkage, as with sugar, we should apply this tax to.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

Again education is key. There is a very distinct difference between Good fat and Bad fats. Good fats - olive oil, avocados, sunflower, omega 3s and 6s, etc, etc. Bad fats are trans fats, partially hydrogenated oils, etc. Most of what we buy in the stores contain the bad fats, cookies, cakes, etc., etc.