What do you think of the proposed soda tax?

[sbell111]

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.

I think that we should all sit down, smoke a fatty, and think about that post a little.

 

[5lilfish]

Purely a politcal means to getting more tax money. This has nothing to do with preventing childhood obesity. To be honest, I think the government is 'banking' on people continuing to buy just as much soda as before. They know the extra pennies will not stop anyone from buying soda and now the more people buy, the more tax money they collect.

Jess

 

[OceanAnnie]

I thought about you guys at lunch. All this talk about Coke put me in the mood for one. I had a Coke and a smile.

Moderation.

 

[pperfectmom]

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.

I never said or implied that gorging and smoking were a healthy lifestyle and never brought up life insurance either.. I just said that it probably costs more in the long run to pay for health care for someone that doesn't die at 45. 45 more years of health care have to cost more than 1-2 years of acute care. I say if people want to kill themselves, go for it. I could care less and really don't think it's any of my business. The only reason I'm for taxes like this at all is as a "luxury" tax, not to keep people from personal choice.

 

[ReneeA]

I never said or implied that gorging and smoking were a healthy lifestyle and never brought up life insurance either.. I just said that it probably costs more in the long run to pay for health care for someone that doesn't die at 45. 45 more years of health care have to cost more than 1-2 years of acute care. I say if people want to kill themselves, go for it. I could care less and really don't think it's any of my business. The only reason I'm for taxes like this at all is as a "luxury" tax, not to keep people from personal choice.

The problem is that they don't die at 45. With the medications and know how we have now, they live to be a super unhealthy 70 years. 40 years of meds, hospitalizations, doctor visits, bouts of cancer, insulins, eye doctor & podiatry visits due to the effects of diabetes, and last but not least, long term rehab and nursing home care. Had they taken this kind of care of themselves 50 years ago, they would be dead at 45 and cost us less. As it is now, they live to old age, and cost zillions of dollars to keep alive.

 

[FireDancer]

I never said or implied that gorging and smoking were a healthy lifestyle and never brought up life insurance either.. I just said that it probably costs more in the long run to pay for health care for someone that doesn't die at 45. 45 more years of health care have to cost more than 1-2 years of acute care. I say if people want to kill themselves, go for it. I could care less and really don't think it's any of my business. The only reason I'm for taxes like this at all is as a "luxury" tax, not to keep people from personal choice.

Just because you live to be older doesn't mean you cost more on the health care side. Someone can die at 55 after 3 or 4 heart attacks, years of prescription drug bills for a multitude of ailments, surgery and rehabilitation for one problem or another and cost way more than someone who lives to 100 and has no more then a doctor's visit for a check up from time to time. This doesn't take into account the people that are only alive at 70 or 80 because they are filling themselves with drugs just to stay alive or walking around with oxygen tanks.

My great grandma died last year at the age of 102. Up until the last couple of months she lived at home with family, had exactly one prescription for the last 15 years of her life (for eye drops), and lived 101+ years having been in the hospital twice (to deliver her two children). If you start taking care of yourself in your 20's or 30's you have a great chance at having a low cost life health care wise in your 50's and 60's. Nothing is absolute but merely living longer doesn't mean you are incurring high health care costs.

If you chart two people's lives with the y axis representing health (in the form of quality of life) while the x axis represents time you could see two people who live to the same age but have vastly different lines. The healthy person could have a relatively flat horizontal line that takes a sudden drop at the end while the obese drinker and smoker has one that drops slowly at a near-45 degree angle. Now, if that line was able to drop naturally and not be held up with drugs, surgery, and therapy it may never have made it as far down the x axis thus it costs more to have less area under the "lifeline". I'd much rather maximize the area under the line then simply elongate it.

Of course this really doesn't matter because this tax isn't really about health care cost or health, it is about raising revenue.

 

[Planogirl]

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

And of course there will be a fee to submit the forms.

 

[sasywtch]

No, not really. It was recommended by leading health professionals as a means to reduce obesity.

No offense, but you believed this? The last time we heard this was when CA did a tax on cigarettes . We were told that they were taxing us smokers so we'd quit. It's a target to raise money. If people drink their soda, an extra 5 cents won't break that habit. Now if they raised it to $5.00 a can, people would but I personally don't enjoy government telling me what I should/shouldn't be eating/drinking. (legal stuff)

 

[sasywtch]

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 is so true. Look outside after school on a sunny day. No kids outside playing. The neighbor kids don't even know each other anymore. Maybe they should start heavily taxing the computer games, Nintendo, Wii, tv as more and more kids are sitting doing those more and more than outside playing like I use to zillions of years ago. When I was a kid, I think I maybe watched an hour of cartoons on Saturday and maybe one sitcom in the evening. We had 4 channels, ABC, NBC, CBS and the new Fox which was all old reruns.
Oh wait, The Wonderful World of Disney was on Sundays!

edited to correct spelling and also to add, who uses the word "fatties"?
I'm not overweight but wow, not nice.
Btw, I smoked and over 45 so I guess I'm too expensive so I should go jump off the cliff now. My exH inherited his mother's diabetes so I guess he should jump now too.
I hike 20 miles a week, hiked to Feather Falls and other mountainous areas. I lived in another state where that state banned some things because "they knew what was good for you". I HATED it. I didn't even do some of the things they banned however, I knew enough that I resented the government telling me as an adult what was good/bad for me. That was a moral issue. What happens when they start taxing or banning something due to their moral beliefs? Same as the taxing on cigarettes when they all said, wait...your day is coming.

 

[OceanAnnie]

No offense, but you believed this? The last time we heard this was when CA did a tax on cigarettes . We were told that they were taxing us smokers so we'd quit. It's a target to raise money. If people drink their soda, an extra 5 cents won't break that habit. Now if they raised it to $5.00 a can, people would but I personally don't enjoy government telling me what I should/shouldn't be eating/drinking. (legal stuff)

No. Not for a minute. Quite the opposite. I was simply restating the news for the purpose of this thread.

 

[golfgal]

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.

Which is why people that engage in these activities pay higher life insurance rates.

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.

I never said or implied that gorging and smoking were a healthy lifestyle and never brought up life insurance either.. I just said that it probably costs more in the long run to pay for health care for someone that doesn't die at 45. 45 more years of health care have to cost more than 1-2 years of acute care. I say if people want to kill themselves, go for it. I could care less and really don't think it's any of my business. The only reason I'm for taxes like this at all is as a "luxury" tax, not to keep people from personal choice.

While I can understand your thinking, it is wrong. The part you are missing is the care needed during their lifetime. They will go to the doctor more often, need more medications, hospitalizations, etc. When they do get sick, they tend to have more severe illnesses or take longer to recover from those illnesses.

If someone is in acute care for 2 years, that can run into the millions of dollars. Health insurance premiums for 45 years are likely to be $450,000 on the HIGH side for someone that is not healthy, which is equal to about 45 days in the ICU-which is not uncommon for someone that has had a serious heart attack, stroke, etc.

This is the problem with the national health plan--not to make this political-just pointing out some information. The plan won't include increased rates for those that have health issues like insurance companies do now so what will happen is EVERYONE will get an increase in premiums to cover this OR the system will collapse in 5 years or so because they haven't collected enough premium to pay claims.

 

[bicker]

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.

History can "bear ... out" anything you want to assert. If you want to cut programs and thereby cut spending, go for it. Once there is a surplus, and the debt is gone, you can start talking to me about your concerns about taxes. Until then, I consider all such talk just akin to being unwilling to pay for what we're buying, and that is what is irresponsible..

 

[bicker]

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 give much credence to anyone else's myopically-narrow personal preferences as justification for opposing something that is for society's good. That's good enough for the decisions we make for ourselves, like who we love, how we conduct things within our own home, etc. However, step out into society, and personal preferences don't hold much weight as far as I'm concerned. Our obligations, in that context, shift from being maniacally focused on what we want, to include factoring-in the fact that we live in community
with others.

Bad conduct should be disincentivized. Taxes is the most compassionate means of doing what's right: Better that than putting people in jail for getting sick because they didn't take care of themselves conscientiously.

People have to take responsibility for their health, not have the government do it for them.

Absolutely, and taxes like this does exactly that: It is your choice whether to do the right thing, or pay the tax. Your option to select.

I would be much more in favor of tax credit for good choices as opposed to tax punishment for bad.

There is no difference between the two, in effect, except there is an inexpensive way of accomplish one and the other is practically infeasible. So what you're suggesting is wasteful, since using sin taxes costs society far less, and achieves the same end.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Absolutely, and taxes like this does exactly that: It is your choice whether to do the right thing, or pay the tax. Your option to select...

Actually, the only reason that taxes are even being considered for this is because the government pays the piper for our bad choices, not us. What FD was suggesting is that the individual pay the consequences, not the government. This pittance of a tax doesn't begin to reverse that problem.

This tax will do nothing to change behavior, as soda it too cheap for a tax to make a difference. For it to change behavior, it will have to greatly increase the price of soda - all soda, including diet, as diet soda is just as much a problem as regular soda in leading to obesity.

If the government really wants to "protect" the people, it should make soda illegal to sell. Would anyone support that?

 

[bicker]

... the government pays the piper for our bad choices, not us.

Which is essentially the same thing.

What FD was suggesting is that the individual pay the consequences, not the government.

The tax efficiently does that. There is no way to make an indigent person pay for their own emergency care once it gets to that point, so you need to get the money up-front, when the conduct that eventually leads to the emergency care takes place.

This pittance of a tax doesn't begin to reverse that problem.

Sure it does begin to reverse the problem.

This tax will do nothing to change behavior

Sure it will, just like cigarette taxes contributed to my wife not smoking anymore.

If the government really wants to "protect" the people, it should make soda illegal to sell.

That's wrong because people can't choose whether the price is worth it to them or not.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

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

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.
PS Also a little off topic bc not sure we can tax this, but we really need to look at the dyes and additives we put into foods. They are so bad for us and kids also. If your kids are having issues, try eliminating those also. Try to avoid whenever possible.

 

[C.Ann]

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..

 

[bicker]

I'd much rather see the same kind of taxes that apply to tobacco products placed on alcohol as well

They already are, actually. For example, here in Mass., see GL c. 138, §§ 21.

If their reasoning is "obesity", then they are going to have to apply sin taxes to a whole lot more than just "sugary beverages"..

One thing at a time. You can't change everything all at once.

 

[eliza61]

I never said or implied that gorging and smoking were a healthy lifestyle and never brought up life insurance either.. I just said that it probably costs more in the long run to pay for health care for someone that doesn't die at 45. 45 more years of health care have to cost more than 1-2 years of acute care. I say if people want to kill themselves, go for it. I could care less and really don't think it's any of my business. The only reason I'm for taxes like this at all is as a "luxury" tax, not to keep people from personal choice.

But the assumption you gave or at least what I got ( I apologize if that I'm mistaken) is that smoking and obesity are a scape goat and they don't cost us any thing. That is patently untrue. Obesity and smokers have a direct cost to society in medical cost, in lost work time cost.
Your absolutely right, if people wish to kill them selves go for it BUT if people want to kill themselves and I have to help pay for it... now we've got problems.
In Philly the soda tax (2 cent an ounce) will amount to an extra 1.25 on a 2 Liter bottle of soda and an extra 40 cents on a 20 oz bottle.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/86311217.html

 

[OceanAnnie]

One thing at a time. You can't change everything all at once.

That says a lot.