What do you think of the proposed soda tax?

[Planogirl]

Why not just put a "fat tax" out there? Just tax people for being overweight. Don't they do that in Japan now? All for the greater good right?

Yeesh.

How do they do that? Who is measuring people to see if they are certain sizes? I wonder if you pay more tax the heavier you are?

I'm trying to imagine something like that happening here...

 

[joviroxx]

It's not a point of "knowing better" as Bicker said much more eloquently than me, it's a point of how your "Freedom of choice" effects the society around you. When you "personal freedoms" begin to impinge negatively upon the rest of society, "Houston, we have a problem". That's why people raised up against 2nd hand smoke. Yes, you have a right to choose to smoke, you don't have the right to give me lung cancer because you want to enjoy a bad habit. (not you personally). Since you choose not to stop we (society) are going to curb where you can do it. .

To a point, but when do you draw the line. Everything you do has the potential to affect someone negatively. And the way things are going, its not the majority that is ruling.

Perfect example, this ruling in Detroit. http://www.wilx.com/news/headlines/87624147.html One person gets awarded $100,000 because co-workers' perfume? Now they are "urging" city employees not to wear anything/ Come on.
When is enough , enough? When they tell you how to raise your children? What to feed them? Fines for not bathing? I know Im sounding ridiculous but the possibilities are endless once the precedents are established.

I agree that we have to have guidelines and protections for the greater good of people. We all just can't always do what we want when we want and hide under "freedom". But at what point does it end?

Believe me I'm under no illusions that Philly is doing this for any other reason but to raise revenue.

And there we agree!

 

[DizBelle]

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?

How does diet soda contribute to obesity as much as regular soda?

 

[eliza61]

Why not just put a "fat tax" out there? Just tax people for being overweight. Don't they do that in Japan now? All for the greater good right?

Yeesh.

Interestingly some companies are doing some thing similar. My company is offering what some employees call a "skinny" credit.
We get an 8-15% discount off of our health insurance policy every 6 months that we stay within certain guidelines. So if I keep my BMI within ADA guidelines thats a financial reward, if I keep my blood pressure and cholesterol in good ranges that additional money off.

Believe me I've got a bunch of people on my job now trying to loose weight, stop smoking and bringing their bp down simply because they can save 100's of dollars.

Whether you like taxes or not (I don't) nothing motivates our behaviour like money.

 

[bicker]

And where does that end?

Why must improvement end?

If passed, it won't end.

Improvement won't end, regardless. History has shown that while there are inevitable, reactionary ("reactionary" means "return to a previous state", i.e., "status quo ante") pendulum swings, the overall direction of civilization is in the direction of progress.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

How does diet soda contribute to obesity as much as regular soda?

Web MD link...

"What didn't surprise us was that total soft drink use was linked to overweight and obesity," Fowler tells WebMD. "What was surprising was when we looked at people only drinking diet soft drinks, their risk of obesity was even higher."

In fact, when the researchers took a closer look at their data, they found that nearly all the obesity risk from soft drinks came from diet sodas.

"There was a 41% increase in risk of being overweight for every can or bottle of diet soft drink a person consumes each day," Fowler says.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Government is us, whether folks refuse to accept that or not. Remember we live in community with others, not as island-nations each one of us to ourselves. If you don't get your way, from the process of government, then that's normal, because when you live in community with others, no one gets their own way, but rather the way we go together is reflective of the compromise, consideration and respect for all -- that is inherent in being civilized and compassionate, instead of anarchistic and self-centered.

Sometimes people in society are myopically-focused on what they want, and they don't care about how their choices for themselves could eventually adversely affect others/everyone else. In such cases, society has an obligation to take action that either prohibits or at least disincentivizes people being selfish in that way. It's not a perfect system, but it is far better than letting each person determine for themselves, with impunity, how much they're going to incur cost and/or harm onto others/society. No one in a civilized society has unilateral signatory privileges over the budget of the future generations. It is a moral imperative for government to ensure that it does not callously disregard, and allow to process unchecked, such selfishness.

"Free choice" means the right to determine for yourself how you lead your own life, within your own span of control, not the right to do whatever you want without regard to how it may incur cost and/or harm onto others/society. With "free choice" comes personal accountability to act conscientiously with regard to the impact of what you "freely choose" to do. I know some people hate the idea of being accountable for what they do, but that's a critical aspect of maturity and responsibility. Where people abrogate their responsibilities in this regard, government has an obligation to step in and prevent such irresponsibility from adversely affecting others/society, now or in the future.

Even if we accept this argument, one would still have to question whether a tax is the best way to accomplish this.

 

[bicker]

Just tax people for being overweight.

Conceptually that could have the same impact, but it doesn't, because you cannot get blood from a stone. The problem that our society has its that too many citizens exploit society's compassion, finding ways to incur said cost/impacts without paying them, thereby leaving everyone else having to subsidize. So effectively we have a choice:

• Eliminate compassion, or
• Find a way to place the costs/impact on those who incur them at a time before they can engage in exploitation to avoid paying them.

Even if we accept this argument, one would still have to question whether a tax is the best way to accomplish this.

As opposed to what?

I think some folks in politics and in the media are just cry-babies about taxes, as if they have some moral entitlement to whatever use they wish to make of our nations' economic system, without their incurring any obligations to the nation in return.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Web MD link...

"Supersize it with a Diet Coke"

 

[Pea-n-Me]

As opposed to what?

Education
Support "It takes a village"
Availability of better choices

to name a few.

 

[bicker]

Education
Support "It takes a village"
Availability of better choices

to name a few.

We already do some education. Education costs money, and for all we know we've reached the point (or really perhaps have gone beyond the point) where there is such a diminishing rate of return on the cost of education that your idea, there, is just throwing good money after bad.

"It takes a village" is just another way of saying education, since the implication is changing the way people view their obligations to society.

If I understand what you mean by "Availability of better choices", that's vague -- it sheds absolutely no light as an answer to the question that you were trying to answer, i.e., "As opposed to what?"

 

[chisnpeke]

Does taxing cigarettes deter people from smoking?

Taxing every food that could be deemed unhealthy or as a cause of being obese would be ridiculous. If you have things in MODERATION, you are unlikely to have a weight problem.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Does taxing cigarettes deter people from smoking? ...

Yes - but it only did so where the taxes were raised to astronomical levels overnight. Places like NYC saw huge decreases in smoking when the taxes tripled the price of a pack of cigarettes overnight. However, where the tax hikes were smaller (like in the South), smoking is still very common.

 

[bicker]

Does taxing cigarettes deter people from smoking?

Yes.

<looks lovingly at the picture of my wife on my desk>

Taxing every food that could be deemed unhealthy or as a cause of being obese would be ridiculous. If you have things in MODERATION, you are unlikely to have a weight problem.

True but if you have things in moderation then the tax isn't going to affect you very much. It's actually why the tax works really well, as a disincentive to excess.

 

[eliza61]

Yes - but it only did so where the taxes were raised to astronomical levels overnight. Places like NYC saw huge decreases in smoking when the taxes tripled the price of a pack of cigarettes overnight. However, where the tax hikes were smaller (like in the South), smoking is still very common.

It's going to be interesting in Philly, the proposed tax is going to raise a bottle of 2L soda from $1.50 to 2.80 a bottle. The tax will be 2c an ounce. so a 64 oz soda is an extra 1.34. a 20 oz soda goes from a buck to a $1.40.

That's enough for me to kick the habit.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

It's going to be interesting in Philly, the proposed tax is going to raise a bottle of 2L soda from $1.50 to 2.80 a bottle. The tax will be 2c an ounce. so a 64 oz soda is an extra 1.34. a 20 oz soda goes from a buck to a $1.40.

That's enough for me to kick the habit.

Yeah, it would do it for me, too - but I don't drink much soda. My kids might miss their root beer floats. No way my wife will pay that much for soda (she manages the shopping budget).

 

[Pea-n-Me]

We already do some education. Education costs money, and for all we know we've reached the point (or really perhaps have gone beyond the point) where there is such a diminishing rate of return on the cost of education that your idea, there, is just throwing good money after bad.

"It takes a village" is just another way of saying education, since the implication is changing the way people view their obligations to society.

If I understand what you mean by "Availability of better choices", that's vague -- it sheds absolutely no light as an answer to the question that you were trying to answer, i.e., "As opposed to what?"

Education helps people help themselves.

"Give me a fish I eat for a day. Teach me to fish I eat for a lifetime."

It takes a village is not just another way of saying education. It's about community involvement, for, as you say, the better good.

People may be more likely to make better choices if given options. Of course, they'd need to understand why one choice is better than the other and that involves education and role modeling, etc.

Surely a society that values all you've said would be willing to put forth the expense of educating its people so as the betterment of that society will justify the cost of said education.

Taxes are not the only or best solution to everything, IMO.

I'm not a huge soda drinker so it's not going to effect me much one way or the other. But it seems short sighted to keep raising taxes as a bandaid solution to some of the problems we face in our society.

I can't help but wonder what our forefathers would think of this.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

"Several of the nation's leading health experts are calling for a tax on soda as a means of curbing America's obesity-epidemic.".

There are articles out there about it. Laden with politics. Lets leave the politics out. Please answer only from an obesity-epidemic standpoint.

I really don't know how it's possible to leave politics out of it.

It's not like it's a one dimensional subject. There are just too many layers to it, IMHO.

As a health care professional, naturally I'd love to see all of the health problems we see go away.

Controversy begins, however, once we begin talking about solutions and those pesky things like individual freedoms, taxes, life, liberty and the persuit of happiness, and capitalism come into play.

 

[DizBelle]

Web MD link...

Regarding "all soda, including diet, as diet soda is just as much a problem as regular soda in leading to obesity."

This statement implies that all other things being equal, if you drank diet soda instead of regular soda, you would be just as likely to be obese which cannot possibly be true. You would be consuming fewer calories, period.

The problem is that PEOPLE are subsituting the calories saved from drinking diet soda with other calories. That is not the fault of diet soda. That is the fault of the PERSON.

You may argue that the study suggests that diet soda sets off certain triggers. That doesn't matter. When it comes down to it, you CHOOSE to put the candy bar in your mouth or not. It doesn't fly in there of its own accord.

Diet soda is not just as much of a problem as regular soda. Soda isn't the problem at all. PEOPLE are.

 

[FireDancer]

Education helps people help themselves.

"Give me a fish I eat for a day. Teach me to fish I eat for a lifetime."

It takes a village is not just another way of saying education. It's about community involvement, for, as you say, the better good.

People may be more likely to make better choices if given options. Of course, they'd need to understand why one choice is better than the other and that involves education and role modeling, etc.

Surely a society that values all you've said would be willing to put forth the expense of educating its people so as the betterment of that society will justify the cost of said education.

Taxes are not the only or best solution to everything, IMO.

I'm not a huge soda drinker so it's not going to effect me much one way or the other. But it seems short sighted to keep raising taxes as a bandaid solution to some of the problems we face in our society.

I can't help but wonder what our forefathers would think of this.

They'd probably think how do you drink that crap!

As for the education, anything you want to know can now be found online. There is good information out there and bad information out there. It requires some critical thinking and taking hidden agendas and conflicts of interest in to mind but lack of information can't be used as an excuse for anything in the 21st century.

Diet soda is not just as much of a problem as regular soda. Soda isn't the problem at all. PEOPLE are.

I think diet soda is worse. It might not be as high in calories but those science experiments they call artificial sweeteners are worse then sugar. There is more to health then just weight. That is where the problem with the tax comes in. Weight is only one part of the overall picture.