What do you think of the proposed soda tax?

[eliza61]

You've got to start somewhere. Imagine the reaction if we start with a large tax.

Every little bit helps.
Not just "encouraged", I suspect. Of course, if they did a similar study to the one above on the matter of "encouragement" they'd probably conclude that "encouragement" wouldn't make a big difference, but "significant motivation" would.

Philly is starting with a large tax. Philly's proposed tax would be 2 cents per ounce. So every 2 liter bottle of coke will now cost ~$1.30 cents more, the tax will probably be more just as much as the soda. Now you can get a 2 liter for 1.00 plus 7 cent state tax. after philly's hike the price will be almost $2.50. That's enough for me to quit.

 

[ladycollector]

If you didn't consume the 720 calories in those three cokes, you certainly wouldn't have been as fat as you were. You would have been less fat and more healthy. Depending on how active you were, you might not have been fat at all, even though you ate a piece of cheesecake.

There aren't 720 calories in 3 cans of coke, first off. And my point was that I had no idea what was in the food I was eating or was encouraged to workout so taking away the soda wouldn't have addressed the real problem. Which is what needs to be done.

But thanks for being so sweet. =)

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Well it seems to me there are two trains of thought here.

One group is ok with our government raising taxes on "sin" items because they believe it will have the intended effect of decreasing usage of said items and believe that tax monies collected from said items will be put to good use.

Another thinks it's wrong to raise taxes on select legal items thereby effectively taking away personaly liberties of using said items and further questions whether raising taxes is the right way to go about solving problems both related to and not related to said items.

I seriouslyl doubt that anyone is going to change anyone's mind here.

 

[bicker]

Well it seems to me there are two trains of thought here.

One group is ok with our government raising taxes on "sin" items because they believe it will have the intended effect of decreasing usage of said items and believe that tax monies collected from said items will be put to good use.

Another thinks it's wrong to raise taxes on select legal items thereby effectively taking away personaly liberties of using said items and further questions whether raising taxes is the right way to go about solving problems both related to and not related to said items.

I seriouslyl doubt that anyone is going to change anyone's mind here.

While that is probably true, what we can hope is to correct some misconceptions that some folks have, such as the misconception that taxing something takes away personal liberties. Banning something -- making it illegal (such as what bunkkinsmom seemed to be indicating) -- takes away personal liberties. See the difference?

 

[bicker]

Sugary soda does contribute to obesity more than, say celery.

I still disagree. I think anything in moderation is fine.

I just don't understand how you could disagree with my assertion that your earlier categorical statement was off-target. I believe my counter-example should have been clean enough to make it clear why, but I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I will bow out now, obviously you don't get what I'm trying to say.

That's not the case. I know exactly what you're trying to say. I'm disagreeing with it. Big difference. And I'm disagreeing with it for very specific, and I believe important, reasons.

Perhaps you don't "get" what I'm trying to say?

 

[LuvOrlando]

I don't like it. Personally I have resigned myself to thinking every single thing we can think of will end up being taxed before we can say, "Remember when?".

Taxes haven't historically bothered me because, in theory, the are for the greater good. Now I think I'm just paying off some guys yacht payments and there is nothing I can do about it at the moment. Color me disgusted but not surprised. Tick tock, tick tock, every dog has their day.

 

[bicker]

I don't like it. Personally I have resigned myself to thinking every single thing we can think of will end up being taxed before we can say, "Remember when?".

The problem is that we cannot, "Remember when?" most of these things were not even any part of life. Sugar used to be some wonderful treat -- we'd be lucky to consume a few tablespoons per year! And do you "Remember when?" most people would walk everywhere, because cars hadn't been invented yet, and horses were expensive?

So we've skyrocketed our consumption, rather than just swapping same-for-same, which would be reasonable and responsible, and we've plummeted our exercise, again, rather than just swapping same-for-same, which would be reasonable and responsible.

And since those things got "lost" first, it is reasonable and responsible to worry about fixing them first, before worrying about the comparatively late-coming and comparatively insignificant loss of unencumbered consumption of sugar.

Now I think I'm just paying off some guys yacht payments

Which is, of course, ridiculous. Even if corruption was a hundred times worse than it is, it would still be ridiculous to project that one's own personal taxes were wholly going towards that specific bit of corruption. Essentially, it's just noise.

 

[LuvOrlando]

You say tomAto, I say tomato.
AKA, you say \tə-ˈmā-(ˌ)tō I say \tə-ˈmä-(ˌ)tō

Nothing 'of course' ridiculous about it.... but I'll let it slide anyway.

 

[shrubber]

While that is probably true, what we can hope is to correct some misconceptions that some folks have, such as the misconception that taxing something takes away personal liberties. Banning something -- making it illegal (such as what bunkkinsmom seemed to be indicating) -- takes away personal liberties. See the difference?

Any and all taxation limits personal liberty.

 

[OceanAnnie]

I still disagree. I think anything in moderation is fine. You can get fat on almost any food. But yes, celery and water have almost zero or little calories, so in that context you are correct. I am talking about food that people eat often.

People ask me all the time how I keep the weight off. I am thin and have kept it off for 4 years and am getting ready to become a spin instructor. I enjoy food now and allow myself pizza, ice cream, fries, etc. But I just keep track of my calories.

If you're gonna tax soda you might as well tax every other high calorie food, even if it is 'good' for you (nuts, etc), because it will still make you fat.

I will bow out now, obviously you don't get what I'm trying to say. I hope they do inact the soda tax, because it's gonna fail miserably.

I understand you. It was a discussion about this very thing up thread. This tax may be one of many to come for other products like you described. It's logical that if a tax will be levied on one high sugar product, there will be more to come.

I too think moderation is the key.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Any and all taxation limits personal liberty.

As it is intended.

 

[bicker]

Any and all taxation limits personal liberty.

First: The word "limits" is more precise (and therefore closer to accurate) than "takes away".

Second: Taxation doesn't actually affect personal liberty any more than having to pay the seller the price for something. So effectively, unlimited personal liberty means a society where everything is free.

Good luck making that work.

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

The problem is that we cannot, "Remember when?" most of these things were not even any part of life. Sugar used to be some wonderful treat -- we'd be lucky to consume a few tablespoons per year! And do you "Remember when?" most people would walk everywhere, because cars hadn't been invented yet, and horses were expensive?

Huh? How far back are you talking, there?

Sugar's been pretty much a cheap, household staple for a LOT longer than the current surge in obesity.

As a kid, growing up in the 70's, most of the kids I knew practically *lived* on Kool-aid (everybody's mom always had some on hand); which was essentially sugar-water and ... umm ... red. And, there weren't anywhere *near* as many overweight kids back just 35 years!

Taxing sugary drinks *might* result in a slight decrease in consumption, just like taxing cigarettes *might* be responsible for the recent few percent decrease in smoking, but it's certainly NOT going to turn around the obesity problem in the US.

The real issue is as simple as ladycollector put it; calories-in-and-calories-out. Until people know what they need and what calories are in the food they eat, no taxes are going to make the slightest difference....

 

[shrubber]

First: The word "limits" is more precise (and therefore closer to accurate) than "takes away".

Second: Taxation doesn't actually affect personal liberty any more than having to pay the seller the price for something. So effectively, unlimited personal liberty means a society where everything is free.

Good luck making that work.

Taxes represent government claims on private property.

Having to pay a tax on something under the penalty of law, threatened with jail ect is most certainly a limit on my personal liberty.
True liberty exists in the arena of free choice. Someone chooses to offer a product at a price and I choose wether or not to make an exchange.
Nothing in life is free as they say.

 

[bicker]

Huh? How far back are you talking, there?

See? You don't remember!

Sugar's been pretty much a cheap, household staple for a LOT longer than the current surge in obesity.

You say that as if it has been a good thing.

How?

Taxing sugary drinks *might* result in a slight decrease in consumption, just like taxing cigarettes *might* be responsible for the recent few percent decrease in smoking, but it's certainly NOT going to turn around the obesity problem in the US.

No one thing will. Rather, lots of things will. Every little bit helps.

The real issue is as simple as ladycollector put it; calories-in-and-calories-out.

Anyone who knows anything about human nature and obesity as a disease knows that that's not the case. It's a pithy rejoinder that totally ignores the fact that you're talking about people, not robots.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Originally Posted by shrubber
Any and all taxation limits personal liberty.

As it is intended.

I am actually very surprised to hear you say this, Ocean Annie.

Unless I am mistaken and it's not that you actually agree with limiting personal liberties.

 

[bicker]

Taxes represent government claims on private property.

Taxes represent the manner in which we pay for the economy within which we conduct commercial and related transactions. Indeed, money, itself, is a service provided by government.

Having to pay a tax on something under the penalty of law, threatened with jail ect is most certainly a limit on my personal liberty.

There is no penalty of law associated with your personal liberty. You're just blowing smoke there. The expectation is placed on the business, just like many other responsibilities we place on business in our society. See above.

True liberty exists in the arena of free choice.

Like I said: Good luck running a civilization where everything is free. Just don't do it here. There are families here.

 

[OceanAnnie]

I am actually very surprised to hear you say this, Ocean Annie.

Unless I am mistaken and it's not that you actually agree with limiting personal liberties.

No. I don't agree with it. At all.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

No. I don't agree with it. At all.

Glad to hear it.

You had me worried for a minute there.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Glad to hear it.

You had me worried for a minute there.

Don't worry. Same old me.