What do you think of the proposed soda tax?

[shrubber]

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.

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.

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

Taxes are not the manner in which we pay for the economy!!! The economy drives itself thru Profit, which taxes erode!!!!
First I should be able to choose to conduct a business transaction without money. Shouldn't I?

There is most definatly a penalty imposed for not paying a tax. Try to walk out of a store without paying a sales tax sometime. Or try under reporting. You'll wind up in jail, no?

I don't quite understand these 'everything is free ' comments so I'll let that be.

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

See? You don't remember!

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

How?

Of course it's a good thing. Having cheap sugar opens up an entire world of culinary experiences unavailable when honey or maple syrup is the only sweetener available.

Variety is a GOOD thing!

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

That's a silly reason to target ONE particular type of consumable....

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

"Anyone who knows anything"? That's a pretty broadly sweeping statement belied by the recent research done into various diets that determined that the single most important factor in weight loss was the control of calories; low-fat, low-carbs, none of that mattered anywhere near as much as calories.

Americans don't need more expensive soda to reduce their obesity problems; they need to learn how to eat healthy. They need to know what their bodies need and the need to know where it comes from.

Have you seen any of Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution -- I found it particularly saddening that not a single one of the 1st graders could even IDENTIFY a raw vegetable (ANY raw vegetable). All they knew were fries and nuggets and pizzas!

That's a problem that's not going to be solved by expensive soda. It's only going to be solved by education....

 

[Pea-n-Me]

That's a problem that's not going to be solved by expensive soda. It's only going to be solved by education....

I agree, Stitch.

I seem to recall saying the same thing a few pages back.

 

[jimmalru80]

Don't care either way.

 

[bicker]

Taxes are not the manner in which we pay for the economy!!! The economy drives itself thru Profit, which taxes erode!!!!

Incorrect. Fostering economic vitality, and ensuring a fair and reliable marketplace is not free; it exists only because government, supported by taxes, provides these things as a service.

What you're suggesting requires all business be done by barter, perhaps transferring gold for goods, with people representing their commerce with shot-guns and pistols.

This is civilization, not the Wild West.

 

[shrubber]

Incorrect. Fostering economic vitality, and ensuring a fair and reliable marketplace is not free; it exists only because government, supported by taxes, provides these things as a service.

What you're suggesting requires all business be done by barter, perhaps transferring gold for goods, with people representing their commerce with shot-guns and pistols.

This is civilization, not the Wild West.

Very incorrect.
A vital, fair and reliable economy is free. Government does not provide a fair and reliable market place, it hinders it. The free market ensures economic growth.

 

[bicker]

Of course it's a good thing. Having cheap sugar opens up an entire world of culinary experiences unavailable when honey or maple syrup is the only sweetener available.

Ridiculous. Corn syrup (which is most of what we're talking about, since we're talking about soda) doesn't contribute to any remarkable "culinary experiences".

Variety is a GOOD thing!

Variety causes obesity. Study the research done by Rena R Wing before making dangerous assertions like this, please.

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

That's a silly reason to target ONE particular type of consumable....

That's ridiculous. Logically irrational.

If no one thing will fix something, but rather many things together will, then it is not only reasonable but absolutely required to target a series of "ONE particular". By definition, actually.

"Anyone who knows anything"? That's a pretty broadly sweeping statement belied by the recent research done into various diets that determined that the single most important factor in weight loss was the control of calories; low-fat, low-carbs, none of that mattered anywhere near as much as calories.

You're blowing smoke. The research shows clearly that people who seek to lose weight only by counting calories fail, for reasons that have nothing to do with physiology but rather psychology. You have to change the person, not only the diet.

I suggest you do a lot more reading on this before you use your own personal experience as foundation for more assertions. Your comments are not just erroneous -- taken to heart by a casual reader they could be damaging.

 

[bicker]

Very incorrect.

No I'm not incorrect at all.

A vital, fair and reliable economy is free.

By contrast, that is incorrect.

Government does not provide a fair and reliable market place, it hinders it.

Without government, the person with the biggest guns win. You may like that idea; most people don't.

In the scenario you paint, Bernie Madoff just needed to buy a nuke to get away with what he did. After all, there would be no government attorneys or regulators in place to take action against him

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

IF this goes through (and I have already said I oppose it), I would like to see them exempt products that use Stevia (won't happen, but a girl can dream...) and they should IF obesity really is the issue here!

Though I am opposed to the taxation here, I would not be opposed to this forcing the manufacturers away from sugar and HFCS to healthier alternatives!!!!!!

 

[parrotbay]

It will not stop with soda or tanning.

What else will the government tax because they think they know what good for the citizens?

I think the next step will be tax on fast food places. Want a Big Mac, well pay this 8% Big Mac tax. After that, anything with corn syrup. Maybe ice cream or bacon. You want to drive that big/safe SUV, well pay this extra 10% tax.

You want to travel from New York to Disney for vacation, well pay this carbon emissions tax.

 

[shrubber]

No I'm not incorrect at all.

By contrast, that is incorrect.

Without government, the person with the biggest guns win. You may like that idea; most people don't.

In the scenario you paint, Bernie Madoff just needed to buy a nuke to get away with what he did. After all, there would be no government attorneys or regulators in place to take action against him

The government is not supposed to be here to prevent winners you know.

You might like the idea: most people don't.

 

[bicker]

IF this goes through (and I have already said I oppose it), I would like to see them exempt products that use Stevia (won't happen, but a girl can dream...) ...

How is the law actually worded? They would have to define what is and isn't covered, of course, and I doubt that, for example, bottled water would be subject to the tax. As such, the definition would have to qualify which additives would and would not trigger applicability of the tax. One way to craft the definition is by "grams of sugar carbohydrate per ounce". This is a metric that the law already requires be valid and readily determinable from the Nutrition Facts. My guess is that if they go that way, they'll set a threshold, such as "<1". (They never say absolutely zero for things like this, because of measurement error and the impact of inescapable trace contributors.) If that were the case, then drinks with Stevia might not be subject to the tax.

 

[bicker]

In the scenario you paint, Bernie Madoff just needed to buy a nuke to get away with what he did. After all, there would be no government attorneys or regulators in place to take action against him

The government is not supposed to be here to prevent winners you know.

And Bernie Madoff was a winner in your book. Okay. I guess we understand each other.

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

How is the law actually worded? They would have to define what is and isn't covered, of course, and I doubt that, for example, bottled water would be subject to the tax. As such, the definition would have to qualify which additives would and would not trigger applicability of the tax. One way to craft the definition is by "grams of sugar carbohydrate per ounce". This is a metric that the law already requires be valid and readily determinable from the Nutrition Facts. My guess is that if they go that way, they'll set a threshold, such as "<1". (They never say absolutely zero for things like this, because of measurement error and the impact of inescapable trace contributors.) If that were the case, then drinks with Stevia might not be subject to the tax.

good point - hope you are correct and that they go that way!

 

[shrubber]

And Bernie Madoff was a winner in your book. Okay. I guess we understand each other.

I think I have a better understanding of you after that comment.

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

Variety causes obesity. Study the research done by Rena R Wing before making dangerous assertions like this, please..

Yay! You can find a doctor/researcher on the internet that supports your position. Well done.

If no one thing will fix something, but rather many things together will, then it is not only reasonable but absolutely required to target a series of "ONE particular". By definition, actually.

So, then, you're admitting that this is just the first step....

So, what's next? The 'fat grams' tax? 'Not enough fiber' tax?

What's it going to be? How are higher food costs going to help, next?

You're blowing smoke. The research shows clearly that people who seek to lose weight only by counting calories fail, for reasons that have nothing to do with physiology but rather psychology. You have to change the person, not only the diet.

I suggest you do a lot more reading on this before you use your own personal experience as foundation for more assertions. Your comments are not just erroneous -- taken to heart by a casual reader they could be damaging.

Nonsense! There's nothing "damaging" about learning your nutritional needs and the nutritional values of the foods you eat.

That *is* changing the person!

 

[onelilspark]

My biggest issue is this: my Grandmother is diabetic. If her blood sugar gets too low, she'll drink a Coke. Not a Diet Coke. Should she really be taxed for that?

It's just another way to get more money from the American people. I'm not okay with that.

...and I'm not a soda drinker. When I do, I drink diet, so it's not like this is really going to affect me.

 

[OceanAnnie]

My biggest issue is this: my Grandmother is diabetic. If her blood sugar gets too low, she'll drink a Coke. Not a Diet Coke. Should she really be taxed for that?

It's just another way to get more money from the American people. I'm not okay with that.

...and I'm not a soda drinker. When I do, I drink diet, so it's not like this is really going to affect me.

It won't effect you (or me) now. Not this wave. But I see it as just the beginning. If the reasoning holds, it will open the floodgate for all sorts of foods/beverages with "bad" reputations.

I don't really drink cokes either. I'll have one once in a very blue moon.

 

[shortbun]

Hey, soda is NOT necessary and it has NO nutritional value so I'm fine if they tax it. It's a way revenue can be raised and people can totally avoid paying if they choose. I think it's perfect. A tax that I can avoid or choose to pay without any legal ramifications. Bring it on!!

 

[shortbun]

My biggest issue is this: my Grandmother is diabetic. If her blood sugar gets too low, she'll drink a Coke. Not a Diet Coke. Should she really be taxed for that?

It's just another way to get more money from the American people. I'm not okay with that.

...and I'm not a soda drinker. When I do, I drink diet, so it's not like this is really going to affect me.

As a diabetic, I can assure you that there are many other beverages your grandmother could use. Other stuff too. Don't worry, it will be ok.

Also-I just read through this thread and you guys who consider this a gateway tax and your statements yelling the sky is falling are pretty funny and must drink A LOT of soda!!! lol!! Send out the alarms...the soda tax is coming..one if by land and two if by sea. Is this bad enough to change the color of the alert? Would this be an orange soda alert or a red pop alert?