What do you think of the proposed soda tax?

[OceanAnnie]

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.

I know, I was just throwing fat out there as a generalization. Fats are separated into categories in listings.

 

[OceanAnnie]

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

I just don't know what that would accomplish other than a revenue stream. The bad choices wouldn't be eliminated. An additional tax might make a person angry, but it wouldn't necessarily change a person's habits. Obesity carries a host of problems that could be considered deterrents in and of themselves (appearance, health, financial). Change won't occur until the person that is obese wants to change. That is true of most any problem, the person has to want the change.

I appreciate your input. I know you (and your wife IIRC) have lost quite a bit of weight a few years back. I was glad to see your accomplishment.

 

[FireDancer]

I don't buy into the whole what you do effects others part of eating. When you smoke, there is second hand smoke that gets into the air and effects others. Someone can sit next to me and eat a tub of pure lard and sugar and it isn't effecting me one bit.

Now, if we are talking about the increased cost of health care because of all the unhealthy sugar eaters the problem is not just bad food. If we are going to tax everything that could lead to higher health care cost there would have to be a toll taker at the elevator since taking the stairs is better for you, a meter on your couch that tracks how long you just sit there instead of getting some exercise. Heck, the drugs that our health care system pump into us many times are as unhealthy as the crappy food we eat.

A tax will do nothing other then raise revenue. If that is what they are doing fine, be honest about it. It isn't about taxing pop to make people more healthy any more then taxing sugar would do the same.

If people were interested in becoming healthier they would do it on their own, not at the end of the tax stick. I don't drink pop, smoke, don't even have a single grain of sugar or artificial sweetener in the house, but these taxes are a bad idea. They are just taking money out of our pocket that could be better used, like actually being spent on products to get the economy turned around.

 

[OK!]

Taxing my beloved soda is BAD FOR THE TAX MAN'S HEALTH.

I won't have it!! BTW, I drink Diet COke.

This!, except that I drink Diet Pepsi, and a damn boatload of it. Also Diet A&W Cream Soda for when I want something sweet.

This proposal is one of the most asinine things I have ever heard of.

 

[N.Bailey]

Well, if we're going to be building the argument that everything that has an adverse effect on someone else (and that's beyond ludicrous in and of itself, the term "adverse" is not definitive by any standard), why would we be debating if they should be taxed? If they are causing "adverse" effects on others, why not head straight to making them illegal?

Bicker, your argument doesn't hold up because our legislatures aren't interested in our health, they are interested in our money. Sugar alone will NEVER give them the funds they're looking forward to. NOR is sugar alone the culprit.

That aside, let's tax, companies that manufacture our oils (Crisco for example), those that manufacture, hot dogs, process meats, those that process cheese like Kraft, etc... How about, Bryers, Campbell's, Lipton, Hershey, Nestle, Hillshire Farms, Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, and Sara Lee?

Whey do they all get a free pass? What about Mickey Dees, and BK Steakhouse? How about DQ and Denny's, IHOP, Olive Garden, Applebees (yeah I know some have parent companies)?

Why not attack those who manufacture salt products, including McCormick, or those who manufacture white flour because it's so darned healthy you know. Go after Duncan Hines, and Betty Crocker. Hell, what healthy product does Heinz put out? Del Monte? Sure they do canned fruits/veggies, but did you check out those labels?

Might wanna take on candle manufactures too. Houses have burned at it's adversely affected many people. That's not to mention how healthy breathing in Yankee candles all day is for someone. Fabreeze too? Clorox? Tide?

What about pharmaceutical companies? What a riot!

Heck, we should ALL be buying stock in those companies that manufacture our pet supplies because that's probably the most healthy food on the market and all without "adverse" effects on anyone (for the most part).

Ever check out that popcorn at a movie theater (which btw encourages us to sit on our butts for a few hours - the shame of their business practices).

Wow, do we even want to start with the chemicals that are harmful to us everyday of the week. Let's tax the heck out of all of it. Better safe than sorry, right?

It's not the soda manufacturers. It's ALSO NOT the sugar in an of itself. This takes some common sense and I see we've all not been dealt the same healthy dose of it, but what about, ummmm, and this is really hard to grasp, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and accountability?

Bicker, what out there DOES NOT cause "adverse" effect on someone else (somewhere out there)? That would be just about EVERYTHING on the market. Why don't you just turn over your income to the government and leave mine alone? It would be easier to make a list of products that have NO adverse effects (by whose standard are we judging anyway, that's not even been defined yet). You want it all taxed?

This debate has turned silly.

 

[N.Bailey]

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.

I bet if the government decided to charge ONLY YOU to pay for ______(fill in the blank), you would have a HUGE problem with that. Why is it okay to only put this on the shoulders of Coke/Pepsi? They are not solely responsible for the obesity problem in this country, nor are they solely responsible for the health problems everyone in this country faces. Why should they pick up the tab?

 

[smphbear]

Another thing I just thought of...if the soda manufacturers really thought this new tax would have a significant impact on the sale of their product, they would lobby hard against it. And considering the size of the big soda manufacturers, they would likely have enough money to be successful. However, I don't think Coca Cola or Pepsi are really too worried about people decreasing their soda intake - tax or no tax.

Haven't had a chance to read the whole thread yet. Let me just say that DH is a route driver for one of the big two. They are concerned. They have asked them to send letters to our Congressmen. They also asked them to register with a group that is lobbying against the beverage tax.

I find this to be a very slippery slope we are treading on.

It also worries me. DH's salary is what provides a good life for our family of four. Anything that causes a large drop in sales could have a negative impact on his employment.

I am very tired of everything being legislated. We need to find a way to go back to being personally responsible for ourselves instead of relying on the government to run our lives.

 

[a1tinkfans]

Too many TAXES........ too many excuses to tax us MORE UGH!

 

[N.Bailey]

If you want to tax me more, put it on the national debt!!! It seems no one wants to tackle the real issues.

 

[marcyinPA]

Well, if we're going to be building the argument that everything that has an adverse effect on someone else (and that's beyond ludicrous in and of itself, the term "adverse" is not definitive by any standard), why would we be debating if they should be taxed? If they are causing "adverse" effects on others, why not head straight to making them illegal?

Bicker, your argument doesn't hold up because our legislatures aren't interested in our health, they are interested in our money. Sugar alone will NEVER give them the funds they're looking forward to. NOR is sugar alone the culprit.

That aside, let's tax, companies that manufacture our oils (Crisco for example), those that manufacture, hot dogs, process meats, those that process cheese like Kraft, etc... How about, Bryers, Campbell's, Lipton, Hershey, Nestle, Hillshire Farms, Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, and Sara Lee?

Whey do they all get a free pass? What about Mickey Dees, and BK Steakhouse? How about DQ and Denny's, IHOP, Olive Garden, Applebees (yeah I know some have parent companies)?

Why not attack those who manufacture salt products, including McCormick, or those who manufacture white flour because it's so darned healthy you know. Go after Duncan Hines, and Betty Crocker. Hell, what healthy product does Heinz put out? Del Monte? Sure they do canned fruits/veggies, but did you check out those labels?

Might wanna take on candle manufactures too. Houses have burned at it's adversely affected many people. That's not to mention how healthy breathing in Yankee candles all day is for someone. Fabreeze too? Clorox? Tide?

What about pharmaceutical companies? What a riot!

Heck, we should ALL be buying stock in those companies that manufacture our pet supplies because that's probably the most healthy food on the market and all without "adverse" effects on anyone (for the most part).

Ever check out that popcorn at a movie theater (which btw encourages us to sit on our butts for a few hours - the shame of their business practices).

Wow, do we even want to start with the chemicals that are harmful to us everyday of the week. Let's tax the heck out of all of it. Better safe than sorry, right?

It's not the soda manufacturers. It's ALSO NOT the sugar in an of itself. This takes some common sense and I see we've all not been dealt the same healthy dose of it, but what about, ummmm, and this is really hard to grasp, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and accountability?

Bicker, what out there DOES NOT cause "adverse" effect on someone else (somewhere out there)? That would be just about EVERYTHING on the market. Why don't you just turn over your income to the government and leave mine alone? It would be easier to make a list of products that have NO adverse effects (by whose standard are we judging anyway, that's not even been defined yet). You want it all taxed?

This debate has turned silly.

This....I totally completely 100% agree with!! I, for one, am sick and tired of people blaming the other guy: "It's not MY fault I'm fat, it's Coke's fault." "It's not MY fault I'm addicted to cigarettes. It's the tobacco industry's fault." Bologna!! If you drink the soda, eat the crappy food, smoke the cigarettes, you've made a choice! If the choice turns bad for you, it's nobody's fault but your own!

 

[Planogirl]

I think that this is just an excuse to increase taxes and nothing else. Pretty clever but I hope that it doesn't work.

As for healthier fast food, just about every fast food chain has tried healthier offerings and they just don't sell! I can't exactly blame fast food places for selling what people want to buy.

 

[whogirl'smom]

Haven't had a chance to read the whole thread yet. Let me just say that DH is a route driver for one of the big two. They are concerned. They have asked them to send letters to our Congressmen. They also asked them to register with a group that is lobbying against the beverage tax.

I find this to be a very slippery slope we are treading on.

It also worries me. DH's salary is what provides a good life for our family of four. Anything that causes a large drop in sales could have a negative impact on his employment.

I am very tired of everything being legislated. We need to find a way to go back to being personally responsible for ourselves instead of relying on the government to run our lives.

This.
We own a small vending company and the tax would have a BIG impact on our income, believe me.

 

[bicker]

I just don't know what that would accomplish other than a revenue stream.

Nah, that's secondary. Disincentivizing consumption that imposes cost onto others is the accomplishment that matters.

The bad choices wouldn't be eliminated.

Why do you need to jump to an absolute? If something isn't perfect it doesn't exist for you? Even a little bit of benefit is better than no benefit.

An additional tax might make a person angry, but it wouldn't necessarily change a person's habits.

No one is going to be driven to bad habits by disincentive and some people will be driven away from them. Net positive. Result: win.

 

[Planogirl]

No one is going to be driven to bad habits by disincentive and some people will be driven away from them. Net positive. Result: win.

I have my doubts as to whether anyone will be driven away. Look at cigarettes. How expensive did those have to become? I'm not even sure if cost is actually driving people to quit.

Of course, soda isn't as addictive as cigarettes. However people do what they want and I just don't see people changing their habits. I do see taxes going up though and that is NEVER good.

 

[bicker]

I don't buy into the whole what you do effects others part of eating. When you smoke, there is second hand smoke that gets into the air and effects others. Someone can sit next to me and eat a tub of pure lard and sugar and it isn't effecting me one bit.

Check into how much of your health insurance and/or tax dollars goes into providing health care for folks who can't afford to pay the bill. Even here in MA, where everyone is required to have health insurance, some folks still subsidize others, and so the costs of bad choices made are imposed on others -- they are not borne solely by the person making those bad choices.

Now, if we are talking about the increased cost of health care because of all the unhealthy sugar eaters the problem is not just bad food. If we are going to tax everything that could lead to higher health care cost there would have to be a toll taker at the elevator since taking the stairs is better for you, a meter on your couch that tracks how long you just sit there instead of getting some exercise.

Let's do it. However, more importantly, don't disparage one move in the right direction because you feel that there are many other good moves in the right direction that can be made. That's just silly.

A tax will do nothing other then raise revenue.

Poppycock. See above.

If people were interested in becoming healthier they would do it on their own, not at the end of the tax stick.

Don't speak for everyone. The reality is that some people are affected by cost. Taxes on cigarettes have saved at least one life. And saving just one life is worth whatever negative aspects you could possibly be ascribing to the imposition of the taxes. Unless you value life so little, of course.

 

[Planogirl]

Don't speak for everyone. The reality is that some people are affected by cost. Taxes on cigarettes have saved at least one life. And saving just one life is worth whatever negative aspects you could possibly be ascribing to the imposition of the taxes. Unless you value life so little, of course.

Have you ever seen any statistics on this? I am genuinely curious as to whether price seems to have made any difference. I'm not asking you to actually provide anything of course, just wondering if you remember anything.

 

[donaldduck352]

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.

I could'nt agree more!!

 

[bicker]

Well, if we're going to be building the argument that everything that has an adverse effect on someone else (and that's beyond ludicrous in and of itself, the term "adverse" is not definitive by any standard), why would we be debating if they should be taxed? If they are causing "adverse" effects on others, why not head straight to making them illegal?

If you prefer. That's more extreme. Let's try taxing them first, and then as we get more support then we can try your idea.

Bicker, your argument doesn't hold up because our legislatures aren't interested in our health, they are interested in our money.

Ridiculous. Let me try that: "Your argument does hold water because legislatures are interested in our health."

Sugar alone will NEVER give them the funds they're looking forward to.

It isn't about the money.

NOR is sugar alone the culprit.

Again, even a little benefit is better than no improvement.

That aside, let's tax, companies that manufacture our oils (Crisco for example),

Crisco is trans-fat free. Try again.

I omitted all your "why not... ?" stuff, because again that's silly: Just because there is more benefit to be had doesn't mean we shouldn't derive some of the benefit. It is impractical to decide to change the world overnight. You make incremental changes, one little thing at a time. That's what's best for humans. Not radical change to everything all at once.

Bicker, what out there DOES NOT cause "adverse" effect on someone else (somewhere out there)?

Most everything. Not sugar consumption though.

This debate has turned silly.

Yeah, it has. See the bits I highlighted above.

 

[Minnie]

I would vote NO!!!!!!!!

There is not possible way to put pop on the same level as alcohol or tobacco products....

When as anyone ever received 2nd hand "sugar" from the guy next to them drinking a Coke.... or been plowed by a driver that had been at the bar drinking Coke...

Those are the reasons to tax cigarettes and alcohol. As the use of them has a significant impact on the welfare of others.

I'm on the side of where does this stop??? I don't see pop as any worse than the Big Mac, doughnuts, or twinkies....

 

[bicker]

I have my doubts as to whether anyone will be driven away. Look at cigarettes.

Great example. Lots of people were driven away from cigarettes because of the taxes. But even if just one life was saved, that would be more than enough. Life is valuable. And there is no reason not to save that one life. No downside.

I'm not even sure if cost is actually driving people to quit.

That's silly. Of course it does. Not everyone, of course, but even as little as one life is valuable.

I do see taxes going up though and that is NEVER good.

Uh, because paying the bills for society is a bad thing, and driving up the deficit and debt is good?