What do you think of the proposed soda tax?

[onelilspark]

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?

I already said I'm not a soda drinker, sure occasionally, but this tax won't affect me. Trust me, if you lived in NY State with our grocery list of new taxes just waiting to be added, you'd understand why I do agree that this is just one of many.

As for my grandmother: I know it's not the only thing that will help, but if her and my aunt are driving around, it's probably going to be quickest to swing through a drive through to grab a coke. I'm not exactly worried about her, for as often as this happens, the tax isn't going to bankrupt her. I used the example because to me, it's more like a knee-jerk reaction to have this tax. At least in NY State: we need more money, soda has lots of sugar, sugar makes people fat, TAX IT! When you stop to think about it, it's not just soda that makes people fat, in some cases, soda can be a good thing. I'm just against the knee-jerk feel to it.

 

[OceanAnnie]

I already said I'm not a soda drinker, sure occasionally, but this tax won't affect me. Trust me, if you lived in NY State with our grocery list of new taxes just waiting to be added, you'd understand why I do agree that this is just one of many.

As for my grandmother: I know it's not the only thing that will help, but if her and my aunt are driving around, it's probably going to be quickest to swing through a drive through to grab a coke. I'm not exactly worried about her, for as often as this happens, the tax isn't going to bankrupt her. I used the example because to me, it's more like a knee-jerk reaction to have this tax. At least in NY State: we need more money, soda has lots of sugar, sugar makes people fat, TAX IT! When you stop to think about it, it's not just soda that makes people fat, in some cases, soda can be a good thing. I'm just against the knee-jerk feel to it.

Me too with the soda. It's only logical that there will be more to come. Nothing alarmist about it.

 

[Nette]

So, if they tax soda by the ounce, how will they tax soda in restaurants where refills are free? (Either self-serve or otherwise?)

 

[FireDancer]

So, if they tax soda by the ounce, how will they tax soda in restaurants where refills are free? (Either self-serve or otherwise?)

I suspect the restaurant will be taxed on the syrup when it is purchased and the cost will be rolled into the cost of the drink. Like all taxes levied on the restaurant the cost will be passed to the guest via the cost of the food or drink. The sales tax added to a bill is an additional tax levied on the patron through the business.

 

[kmwek]

Variety causes obesity.

WOW, that is an unbelievable statement. I cannot believe that anyone would actually believe that. Just because one "expert" did a study, does not make it true. I would think that quite the opposite is true. We have quite a bit of variety in our diet, and all five of us are a healthy weight and the kids are the thin side. Our variety includes tons of veggies, fruits, meats, grains, and oh my sodas, desserts and the likes. Its all about moderation and personally accountability.

 

[bicker]

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

I've met Dr. Wing. As a matter of fact, I appeared on Good Morning America with her, and during that appearance the point was made that there is a correlation between variety of food choices and obesity. Again, please research what you're posting about.

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

It cannot really qualify as "admitting" something, if it is something that I've said repeatedly already. The word "admit" is only appropriate in situations where something was denied, and the denial recanted. That's simply not relevant in this case, and therefore your comment is non-sequitur.

So, what's next?

Whatever the next appropriate step is. The point is that what is appropriate is based on the science and based on reason, not based on anyone's (i.e., your) personal preference or enmity for, say, taxes.

How are higher food costs going to help, next?

You're totally missing the whole point: Food costs don't go up if you switch to healthy food choices. I would have thought that that would be obvious.

the single most important factor in weight loss was the control of calories

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 isn't all you said -- you didn't even say that, but rather you claim, now that that is what you implied. That's of course untrue. I've reproduced one of your comments that are damaging. Categorical assertions, like that, that you're repeating -- assertions that (as I mentioned last week) are totally devoid of any acknowledgment or consideration of the fact that we're talking about human beings, not machines -- are very damaging.

 

[mikess]

I don't agree with this. I feel like it's getting to the point where government is tell us what to eat/drink and what we should/should not buy.

This is a tax on the low & middle class.

 

[bicker]

WOW, that is an unbelievable statement.

We were blown away too, when the science showed it to be the case.

I cannot believe that anyone would actually believe that. Just because one "expert" did a study, does not make it true.

It is a reflection of the science. It's true. You don't have to like it. I encourage you to put aside your knee-jerk reaction and actually read the research.

For folks sincerely interested, I recommend you read Obesity Research. It's not cheap, but it is the scientific research journal that is the authority on this subject.

 

[bicker]

I don't agree with this. I feel like it's getting to the point where government is tell us what to eat/drink and what we should/should not buy.

It is actually a two-way street. If people don't make the healthy choices themselves, then those people are incurring cost onto the government, and onto other citizens, in the form of the costs of providing critical health care.

Mike; please let me know how you feel about this: If you could recreate society such that if someone needed an ER because of a heart attack but cannot afford it then they get turned away and die, would you make society be like that? That's really what this is all about, or at least the legitimacy of this tax would be wholly undercut if our society essentially was callous enough to cast away people just because they were indigent.

I personally would abhor living in a society like that, but I respect your right to desire our society to be like that.

 

[Joe in VA]

Freedom is not the freedom to only make the "right" decisions. It is NOT the job of the government to tax people into "proper" behavior.

 

[bicker]

Freedom is not the freedom to only make the "right" decisions. It is NOT the job of the government to tax people into "proper" behavior.

That's not really an issue, because you can still make either decision, in this case. The difference is that this way the costs of making that decision are applied to the person who incurs those costs (at least more so than without the tax).

Surely, anyone who believes in freedom can readily see that someone who makes good decisions should be free from having to pay the costs associated with other people making bad decisions.

 

[joviroxx]

Surely, anyone who believes in freedom can readily see that someone who makes good decisions should be free from having to pay the costs associated with other people making bad decisions.

If thats the case, there are a lot of bad decisions made by people that we shouldnt be taxed to help. Im all for it! Where do I sign up.. from having kids you can't afford, to choosing not to further education, to buying homes you can't afford, the list goes on and on.. If its a new movement, great, but lets make it really work!

 

[Joe in VA]

Not at all. There is a cost to freedom. We have to pay higher health care prices. I'm fine with that. I don't think the government should be in the business of trying to get people to lead certain lifestyles. It's my business.

What is next will be things like what is being bantered about in NYC, banning restaurants from using salt when cooking, etc. It is an extremely difficult slope.

Taxes never stop with their original intent. Afterall the federal income tax was only supposed to be temporary to fund World War I.

 

[bicker]

If thats the case, there are a lot of bad decisions made by people that we shouldnt be taxed to help. Im all for it! Where do I sign up.. from having kids you can't afford, to choosing not to further education, to buying homes you can't afford, the list goes on and on..

I think there are a number of places where things essentially work this way, typically places where there is no effective safety, except that which you secure for yourself through your own industry, power, ruthlessness, etc.

If its a new movement, great, but lets make it really work!

As I mentioned, I personally prefer a more compassionate society, so I won't be joining with you on your efforts in this regard.

 

[joviroxx]

As I mentioned, I personally prefer a more compassionate society, so I won't be joining with you on your efforts in this regard.

So do I, but I prefer a government based on personal responsibility and society, itself , to be compassionate. Thats how I like the roles to play out. Im not one to believe that the government taxes us in order to make us compassionate. Nor do I feel it is their role or responsiblity to do so. But I do realize we all see things differently.

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

I've met Dr. Wing. As a matter of fact, I appeared on Good Morning America with her, and during that appearance the point was made that there is a correlation between variety of food choices and obesity. Again, please research what you're posting about.

One study? I can find you a study supporting just about anything. Nice try!

Correlation is one of the weakest connections that can be made in a "study."

Did you know that there's a correlation between eating bread and committing crime? In fact, most crimes are committed within 4 hours of consuming bread....

Whatever the next appropriate step is. The point is that what is appropriate is based on the science and based on reason, not based on anyone's (i.e., your) personal preference or enmity for, say, taxes.

That would be *your* science, I assume?

You're totally missing the whole point: Food costs don't go up if you switch to healthy food choices. I would have thought that that would be obvious.

No, it's not obvious at all.

Most people don't have the luxury of making "healthy choices" all the time. It would be nice to eat only fresh food from the local organic grocery/farmers' market for every meal ... but that's not really feasible for everyone.

So, instead, we're going to be penalized with higher costs (through taxes) every time we choose convenience (whether it's the "easy" choice or the "necessary" choice).

Busy, working, lower-and-middle-class families will undoubtedly be paying the brunt of this stupid new tax. Big surprise there....

That isn't all you said -- you didn't even say that, but rather you claim, now that that is what you implied. That's of course untrue. I've reproduced one of your comments that are damaging. Categorical assertions, like that, that you're repeating -- assertions that (as I mentioned last week) are totally devoid of any acknowledgment or consideration of the fact that we're talking about human beings, not machines -- are very damaging.

Nice selective quoting, there ... in my first post on this thread I stated:
"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.... "

 

[FergieTCat]

I've met Dr. Wing. As a matter of fact, I appeared on Good Morning America with her, and during that appearance the point was made that there is a correlation between variety of food choices and obesity. Again, please research what you're posting about.

I'm calling you on that. You have never stated your real name and there's no way for anyone to verify that statement.

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

I'm calling you on that. You have never stated your real name and there's no way for anyone to verify that statement.

I don't really care who "bicker" really is ... so long as they're never in charge of the "food taxing policy" for the US government....

However, do you know what's really weird? A quick Google search of "Good Morning America" and "Rena R Wing" turned up this:

Most successful dieters regain the weight they lost. But new research shows that stepping on a scale every day, then cutting calories and boosting exercise if the numbers run too high, can significantly help dieters maintain weight loss. The study, conducted by researchers at The Miriam Hospital and Brown Medical School, reports results of the first program designed specifically for weight loss maintenance. The study appears in the New England Journal of Medicine. Unlike other obesity studies, which focus on how to lose weight, the clinical trial called STOP Regain tested a method that taught participants how to keep those pounds from coming back - regardless of what method they used to lose the weight in the first place. Led by Rena R.Wing, PhD, Director of the Weight Control and Diabetes Research Center at The Miriam Hospital and Professor of Psychiatry and Human Behavior at Brown Medical School. [lien] [EN]

Strangely, this sounds pretty close to what I first posted...

 

[bicker]

So do I, but I prefer a government based on personal responsibility and society, itself , to be compassionate.

Effectively, what you're apparently saying, is that you want a government which limits its compassion to the people who don't need it.

If you mean something different, then you're going to have to use a lot more words to explain your position.

Thats how I like the roles to play out. Im not one to believe that the government taxes us in order to make us compassionate.

I think you've totally misunderstood the discussion. This is about society being compassionate, not individuals.

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

I'm calling you on that. You have never stated your real name and there's no way for anyone to verify that statement.

why do you need to verify that Bicker met/appeared with the DR? I've no big stake in this argument, but this seems unnecessary.

what you can do - as I did - is Google the Dr. You will find numerous studies by this woman. She seems to have a great body of research in this realm and seems to be quite knowledgeable, etc. I am not saying I am taking any side in this, but if you want some validation, it would seem more reasonable to look into the Dr and the research rather than Bickers relationship with the DR or identity.