What do you think of the proposed soda tax?

[Planogirl]

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....

I agree. Besides what's to stop people from just buying sugar and spooning it into drinks? Or buying cooking oil and frying everything in sight? Or should we tax the grocery store products too? And where does that end?

 

[bicker]

I'm not asking you to actually provide anything of course, just wondering if you remember anything.

She's sitting next to me.

 

[Planogirl]

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

No, driving up the deficit and debt isn't good either. I can't go for more taxes because our government is irresponsible and won't use them for the right things and will only increase them in fact. History bears that out.

 

[Planogirl]

She's sitting next to me.

Good enough for me.

 

[FireDancer]

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.

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.

Poppycock. See above.

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.

Bicker, I agree in principal to most of what you said. I am just generally opposed to using tax to punish people for anything. I don't like the way income tax punishes success any more then I like soda tax punishing bad health. We do need an overhaul of the health systems and one of the main contribution to the cost of healthcare absolutely is poor health. It costs me nothing to live a healthy lifestyle now. It costs me nothing to eat proper, exorcise, and stay in shape. All of these things I do now have a very good possibility of saving me (or my employer or the taxpayer) a whole lot of money down the line. Something has to be done about a tray full of drugs being the first answer to all disease instead of lifestyle.

I agree on all of that. The issue is how do you go about it. I don't have all of the answers but it isn't keeping the status quo and piling punitive taxes on it. This tax will effect me zero because the last time I drank a sip of pop was 2003, but I don't only oppose bad taxes that effect me.

People have to take responsibility for their health, not have the government do it for them. I would be much more in favor of tax credit for good choices as opposed to tax punishment for bad. The thing is that the right solution is much more complex and generally speaking our government and population want the quick fix as opposed to the right fix so much of the time (hence the pill instead of the lifestyle change).

 

[Carly_Roach]

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

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.

The slippery slope began with cigarette taxes; just about everyone stood up, cheered and clapped for that one. When the smokers said to the people cheering that they should wait, sooner or later the government was going to get around to taxing something they participate in, we were told to shut up and quit smoking if we didn't like it.

When you start regulating people's habits based on a habit that you personally don't approve of, eventually the pendulum is going to swing to a habit that you DO participate in (such as soda pop or taxes on bottled water). Unfortunately, by the time the pendulum swings in your direction, there will be no one left to help YOU put a stop to it.

 

[eliza61]

Bicker, I agree in principal to most of what you said. I am just generally opposed to using tax to punish people for anything. I don't like the way income tax punishes success any more then I like soda tax punishing bad health. We do need an overhaul of the health systems and one of the main contribution to the cost of healthcare absolutely is poor health. It costs me nothing to live a healthy lifestyle now. It costs me nothing to eat proper, exorcise, and stay in shape. All of these things I do now have a very good possibility of saving me (or my employer or the taxpayer) a whole lot of money down the line. Something has to be done about a tray full of drugs being the first answer to all disease instead of lifestyle.

People have to take responsibility for their health, not have the government do it for them. I would be much more in favor of tax credit for good choices as opposed to tax punishment for bad. The thing is that the right solution is much more complex and generally speaking our government and population want the quick fix as opposed to the right fix so much of the time (hence the pill instead of the lifestyle change).

Firedancer I'm going to use your line of "I agree with you in principal"
It would be great if people took responsibility for their health but they don't and their poor choices are costing me money. Definitely a complex problem. Smokers have known for years that it causes cancer, emphysymea (sp?) and a boat load of other problems. Yet they still do it and it's a serious chronic problem among the poor who are more likely to not have health insurance. So who pays for them when they are hacking up a lung and need oxygen. pretty much those with insurance and then we get hit again when we have to cover hospitals reimbursement for the unisured. In my community (African american) we are higher risk for every disease and much of it a direct result of poor health choices. Obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes are chronic and effecting our young kids. All due directly to poor food choices.

So I can no longer say "people need to take responsibility" they don't!! and I'm paying for it.

 

[MushyMushy]

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.

If you'd said high fructose corn syrup, I might have slightly agreed with you.

 

[eliza61]

If you'd said high fructose corn syrup, I might have slightly agreed with you.

Isn't that some nasty stuff. They must be feeling some heat because I've been seeing some commercials on TV touting how it's not that bad for you.

 

[JoeyP]

anything but more gas tax.

 

[aprilgail2]

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. .

We just had this conversation the other night at a PTA meeting- but it was the opposite- we said we are going to have the fittest healthiest STUPIDEST kids in the state---we now have gym 3 times a week-at recess they do a fitness trail or ride bikes, they have intramurals before school 2 weeks a month, the other 2 weeks they have a before school exercise program-after school twice a week they have yoga, every week one night they have an exercise program where they work out in the gym and then have a nutrition program.....yet they cut tutorials for math and social studies due to funding.....

 

[luvmy3]

When they can prove that drinking soda is the sole reason for obesity, then maybe I'd support somthing like this. Or maybe I should wait for those pigs with wings, whichever comes first.

 

[SunnyP4Disney]

If you'd said high fructose corn syrup, I might have slightly agreed with you.

Yes, that stuff is nasty and disgusting and is probably the root cause of obesity in America along with a sedentary lifestyle. It's in SO MANY foods and drinks. We are trying to eat a more natural diet and we are weeding anything with HFCS out of our pantry. I don't see the government doing anything about it though, HFCS is liquid gold right now for the farming industry.

 

[TinklednPants]

There are sin taxes on alcohol, tobacco and other items.
I say sure...go for it. It's not as if soda were being banned. It would likely only be a nickel or a dime premium. Anything that encourages people to eat or drink healthier is OK with me. There are way too many "pooh sized" people out there.

 

[pperfectmom]

Just random babbling here, but I really don't think that people who smoke, are obese, etc. do cost us any more in the long run. Seems like health care costs would be far less for a 45 year old dying of lung cancer or diabetes than providing long term care for the same person that lives to be 95.

 

[MushyMushy]

Just random babbling here, but I really don't think that people who smoke, are obese, etc. do cost us any more in the long run. Seems like health care costs would be far less for a 45 year old dying of lung cancer or diabetes than providing long term care for the same person that lives to be 95.

Exactly. It's just easier for people to point a finger at the fatties and the smokers. There are plenty of dangerous activities that so-called "fit" people participate in that would cost us overall in the insurance industry -- riding motorcycles (especially without helmets), skydiving, mountain climbing, biking, etc.

 

[Planogirl]

What about the sedentary lifestyle problem? Isn't that likely a major contributor? There's no way to get people to exercise so why dump the whole issue on Coke and Pepsi?

It just seems silly to me.

 

[bettymae1121]

I don't think a tax will help reduce the number of people buying soda. The tax may be a good way to raise revenue, especially if it's put towards health care for the poor. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking it's going to cut into consumption in any meaningful way.

 

[eliza61]

Just random babbling here, but I really don't think that people who smoke, are obese, etc. do cost us any more in the long run. Seems like health care costs would be far less for a 45 year old dying of lung cancer or diabetes than providing long term care for the same person that lives to be 95.

Not following you. a 45 year old uninsured smoker with lung cancer does cost more than a healthy person. Why do you think life insurance cost more for a person who smokes? Diabetes cost our health care systems loads of money. Obesity is a leading cause of diabetes. I'm sorry I may be misunderstanding your question.

Fatties and smokers have been proven to directly cost money.

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-statistics/


This is from the CDC

Estimated diabetes costs in the United States in 2007
Total (direct and indirect): $174 billion
Direct medical costs: $116 billion
• After adjusting for population age and sex differences, average medical expenditures among
people with diagnosed diabetes were 2.3 times higher than what expenditures would be in the
absence of diabetes.
Indirect costs: $58 billion (disability, work loss, premature mortality)

full report here
http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/pdf/ndfs_2007.pdf

Please at least not pretend that stuffing oneself with bad food and nicotine is a healthy lifestyle.
No one is "picking" on obese or diabetics. 2nd hand smoke illnesses is not some thing people made up to support their ideas or point the finger at, it cause cancer. Period.

 

[joviroxx]

What about the sedentary lifestyle problem? Isn't that likely a major contributor? There's no way to get people to exercise so why dump the whole issue on Coke and Pepsi?

It just seems silly to me.

Be prepared to submit, in triplicate, proof of exercise signed and notarized or face monetary penalty.... (yes, I know,exaggeration.. maybe? )