What do you think of the proposed soda tax?

[bicker]

We're taxed enough...the answer isn't more taxes, it's less spending!!

Yes:
Less spending on sugary soda!

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

Here again, just with your spelling, you're not being serious.

You certainly have in interesting take on the way message boards work, I'll grant you that.

I do note that my perspective upsets you, and others.

It's not your *perspective* that upsets me (though I will not speak for the others). For me, it's your utter certaintly that you're right, and everyone else is wrong (and, therefore, stupid), because Dr. Wing's reseach "proves" it.

AND, that we should be instituting TAX POLICY for the entire nation based on your utter certainty....

Visit the Junk Science website some time to see how "certain" research is....

That's a shame but one would expect that the response would be research that rebuts what Dr. Wing's research found, instead of this silliness.

I don't NEED to refute Dr. Wing's research. I have nothing against Dr. Wing's research; especially since her own research findings support my initial argument about the effectiveness of calorie counting....

Leading me to: education would be FAR more effective than a knee-jerk soda tax.

Let's try this real simple:

Making soda expensive through taxes *might* mean people will drink less (instead of just grumble about the higher costs and carry on consuming).

But, it will do NOTHING to deal with the underlying issue ... which boils down to "we're eating way more calories than we need."

Just because more people don't like what I outlined, and are working very hard to try to distract attention away from it with personal attacks, doesn't mean it isn't the absolute truth. It has been proven by the research, which makes this whole bit at the end of this thread pretty darned silly.

There it is again: "absolute truth" and "proven by the research."

Not to mention that any disagreement is "darned silly"....

 

[parrotbay]

We're taxed enough...the answer isn't more taxes, it's less spending!!

No, the anwser is more taxes and more spending.

 

[NeverlandClub23]

What about what's next? When fats are taxed, or salt, or lack-of-enough-fiber or whatever else the "research" indicates that next tax target should be?

I agree. Where does it stop?

 

[parrotbay]

I agree. Where does it stop?

A new 10% tanning tax starts in July.

I think the next step will be tax on fast food places. Want a Big Mac, well pay this Big Mac tax. After that, maybe ice cream or bacon.

You want to drive that big/safe 18 MPG SUV, well pay this extra tax.

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

 

[bicker]

It's not your *perspective* that upsets me (though I will not speak for the others). For me, it's your utter certaintly that you're right, and everyone else is wrong (and, therefore, stupid), because Dr. Wing's reseach "proves" it.

First, no one said anyone was stupid. You added that. Why did you add that?

Second, the reality is that you're clinging to your belief as I am to mine. The likely explanation for the difference in the way you view it, perhaps, is that you agree with yourself and you disagree with me.

Third, as another posted mentioned, if you have a problem with Dr. Wing's research, then indicate which researchers have published research refuting Dr. Wing's. I'd be especially curious about that, since I've been following this issue very closely since 2000, and I'm sure that if anyone's published research actually disagreed with Dr. Wing's, I'd have heard about it. But heck, I'll be happy to read this new research that you seem to be indicating you have access to.

AND, that we should be instituting TAX POLICY for the entire nation based on your utter certainty....

Not my utter certainty. The utter certainty of the best experts our nation has.

One other thing: In this statement, you've confused two different issues together: The variety issue (Dr. Wing's research), and the sugar as a consistent cause of malady issue (which is based on all the research outlined earlier in the thread).

Visit the Junk Science website some time to see how "certain" research is....

However, again, all you're doing is insisting on imposing your own personal opinion instead of the research. That's totally devoid of merit. Science isn't perfect, but it is sure better than relying on any one person's preference without any benefit of science.

But, it will do NOTHING to deal with the underlying issue ... which boils down to "we're eating way more calories than we need."

And yet again you refuse to acknowledge that you're talking about humans instead of machines.

If it was as simple as you say, then we'd all be Adonises.

 

[bicker]

I agree. Where does it stop?

It stops either when everyone in our nation has ready-access to affordable and competent health care, or until our nation decides not only that medical care providers can turn away poor people with critical medical problems, but that they should, so that the costs of providing that critical medical care are never incurred by the general public, either through taxes or any other type of subsidizing (including passing along costs). As long as we operate somewhere in between, we're going to encounter these conflicts, as a reflection of the conflicts between these two forces trying to pull our nation in opposing directions.

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

First, no one said anyone was stupid. You added that. Why did you add that?

Because it drips from just about every sentence you type ... just your own choice of language....

Second, the reality is that you're clinging to your belief as I am to mine. The likely explanation for the difference in the way you view it, perhaps, is that you agree with yourself and you disagree with me.

I agree with myself?

Third, as another posted mentioned, if you have a problem with Dr. Wing's research, then indicate which researchers have published research refuting Dr. Wing's. I'd be especially curious about that, since I've been following this issue very closely since 2000, and I'm sure that if anyone's published research actually disagreed with Dr. Wing's, I'd have heard about it. But heck, I'll be happy to read this new research that you seem to be indicating you have access to.

I'm not saying I have any access to new research (though there was a boatload of it listing in Time, a couple of months ago ... odd that something this incontrovertible and utterly certain wasn't mentioned in a huge story about weight loss and nutrition...).

Even if Dr. Wing is 100% correct that "variety *causes* obesity", trying to tax certain foods (i.e. variety) out of existence isn't going to solve the problem that people don't know what they're eating and they don't know what they need to eat.

Not my utter certainty. The utter certainty of the best experts our nation has.

OK, then, your utter certainty in Dr. Wing's infallibility....

And yet again you refuse to acknowledge that you're talking about humans instead of machines.

If it was as simple as you say, then we'd all be Adonises.

OK, humans aren't machines. There, I said it. Does that make you feel better?

Are you really trying to deny that eating more calories than needed ISN'T the problem?

Subsequent to that, do you really think that a tax on soda (or anything else) will fix the underlying problem?

 

[NeverlandClub23]

It stops either when everyone in our nation has ready-access to affordable and competent health care, or until our nation decides not only that medical care providers can turn away poor people with critical medical problems, but that they should, so that the costs of providing that critical medical care are never incurred by the general public, either through taxes or any other type of subsidizing (including passing along costs). As long as we operate somewhere in between, we're going to encounter these conflicts, as a reflection of the conflicts between these two forces trying to pull our nation in opposing directions.

So true. That makes sense.

 

[DisneyCowgirl]

A new 10% tanning tax starts in July.

I think the next step will be tax on fast food places. Want a Big Mac, well pay this Big Mac tax. After that, maybe ice cream or bacon.

You want to drive that big/safe 18 MPG SUV, well pay this extra tax.

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

Not the bacon!!!

 

[bicker]

I agree with myself?

I would assume so, and it is one explanation about why you see my words "dripping". Meanwhile, I see your posts as un-serious, flippant -- for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Let's make a deal: You don't think of my comments as "dripping", and I won't think of your comments as un-serious. Deal?

OK, humans aren't machines. There, I said it. Does that make you feel better?

It will when you integrate it into the comments you make, comments that people struggling with obesity might see.

Are you really trying to deny that eating more calories than needed ISN'T the problem?

It isn't "the" problem. It is a problem, one of several, and indeed it is not the one that they have to focus on first. It actually comes into play later, once some of the other problems are being addressed.

Subsequent to that, do you really think that a tax on soda (or anything else) will fix the underlying problem?

And we're back to message #1 in this thread.

 

[bunkkinsmom]

THIS IS AWESOME!!!!!

 

[bicker]

'cept we just finished, bunk, coming full circle. Y'gotta hold onto the Merry-go-round all the way through the ride.

 

[bunkkinsmom]

Oh I'm on!!! Don't doubt it!!! But I don't think the ride is over just yet!!!!

 

[OceanAnnie]

I agree. Where does it stop?

It won't.

I wonder if the people that support this, would feel the same way if there were an extra tax on sugar substitute, because it isn't a necessity for fighting obesity. That might be next!

 

[DisneyFan32WI]

THIS IS AWESOME!!!!!

You better watch out or someone might put a tax on all that SALT and BUTTER for your popcorn~~

 

[OceanAnnie]

You better watch out or someone might put a tax on all that SALT and BUTTER for your popcorn~~

 

[rie'smom]

Haven't read the whole thread but the government better tax a lot more than soda if they hope to curb the obesity epidemic. How about:

chips
dips
candy bars
anything with MSG or other artificial ingredients that leave you wanting more food
pies
cakes
cookies
fruit drinks
white flour
or how about anything that is not a fresh fruit or vegetable?

 

[OceanAnnie]

Haven't read the whole thread but the government better tax a lot more than soda if they hope to curb the obesity epidemic. How about:

chips
dips
candy bars
anything with MSG or other artificial ingredients that leave you wanting more food
pies
cakes
cookies
fruit drinks
white flour
or how about anything that is not a fresh fruit or vegetable?

How about second helpings at a buffet? Sometimes you just want a little more of something, but "ACK!", if there were a penalty maybe we'd stay away.

 

[rie'smom]

How about second helpings at a buffet? Sometimes you just want a little more of something, but "ACK!", if there were a penalty maybe we'd stay away.

Or charge for each return to fill up a plate of food.