Not a good analogy. The better analogy is that should we eliminate all taxes on healthy food. I do not believe that any such taxes currently exist, but would be more than willing to remove any such taxes.The government is not making junk food illegal, rather it is taxing it, purportedly to offset the increased health care cost associated with consuming the junk food. Makes perfect sense to me.Parrothead said:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Obama open to sin tax on soda (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter StrikeS2k
- Start date
Chadstroma
Footballguy
Sure. But you will always have some politician looking to be the friend of the corn farmer and most of them too scared to do the right thing. It is much easier to ignore it and then propose a tax on the cheap stuff that is made cheap from government subsidies.
Where exactly in the constitution do we get the Freedom From Taxes?
But that is, in fact, Big Brother dictating to people what they can and cannot eat. What stops them from targeting ice cream or maple syrup next? What about candy, butter, or donuts? A chocolate cake tax? How about a red meat tax? What stops Uncle Sam from putting a tax on anything and everything that is not an organic vegetable? I can come up with an excuse to tax anything and everything. Orange juice should be taxed because clearing those groves results in mass deforestation. Coffee should be taxed due to its high caffeine levels that make it a practical stimulant.http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2...or_thought.htmlI could be wrong but this MIGHT just affect those making under 250k a year.
Where does it end?
NCCommish
Footballguy
The primary tax on foods, as far as the consumer is concerned, are the artificially high prices that subsidies cause when they distort the market.
Hov34
Eephus's Great Great Great Love Child
Really? This is what it reminds you of?
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I've got news for you- Big Brother already does decide what you eat. The litany of requirements and restrictions in the FDA and USDA regulations would make your head swim, and the government already taxes some things and subsidizes others as a matter of policy.Where does it end? Thankfully, it ends where we decide it should end and convey that sentiment to our elected officials through direct contact, polling, the media and the ballot box. And from what I can tell, that's where this will end, because most of us on both sides of the aisle- myself included- don't like this tax. If the public is even 60/40 on something I can promise you it will go nowhere.But that is, in fact, Big Brother dictating to people what they can and cannot eat. What stops them from targeting ice cream or maple syrup next? What about candy, butter, or donuts? A chocolate cake tax? How about a red meat tax? What stops Uncle Sam from putting a tax on anything and everything that is not an organic vegetable? I can come up with an excuse to tax anything and everything. Orange juice should be taxed because clearing those groves results in mass deforestation. Coffee should be taxed due to its high caffeine levels that make it a practical stimulant.http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2...or_thought.htmlI could be wrong but this MIGHT just affect those making under 250k a year.
Where does it end?
I've noticed that a lot of people here get prematurely hysterical about politicians putting stuff on the table. I guess it's cool that people are so on guard, but at the same time it's bizarre to watch people get so worked up over the simple suggestion of an exchange of ideas. Discussing anything and everything is almost always a good idea- it doesn't mean that a cola tax is anywhere near reality now or any time in the foreseeable future.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
I wonder if you have ever read anything that you did not have a thought about how crappy Republicans are and how wonderful Democrats are.
Parrothead
Footballguy
Gunz is precious...
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Please don't mistake my dislike for what the Republican party has become for an endorsement of all things Democrat. I'm a liberal first and only a democrat because they're light years ahead of Republicans on 95% of the issues right now. Once Republicans have a make over and end their marriage to the deep south south on social issues, I may well switch parties.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
Oh... so you might switch parties if the Republican party completely changes on 95% of the issues and becomes a liberal party.
Do polls agree with you that the Democrats are right on the issues? From stimulus package, to the takeover of the auto industry to healthcare, I don't think polling is on your side.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Actually voters don't know what they want. I posted a poll from august 5th that shows over 60% of Americans want a public option but they only want it if the GOP goes along and it doesn't cost anything. Oh and if it doesn't come with a requirement to actually have insurance. These things can't or won't happen and so they are mad. The average voter is woefully uninformed and too easily swayed by soundbites.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Keep laughing. What are the biggest issues of the past 6-8 years, and where do both parties stand? I'd argue that it's foreign policy and health care. Conservatives didn't hesitate to fork over a trillion dollars to invade a country halfway around the globe that it turns out was absolutely no threat to our security whatsoever. But try to spend a trillion dollars on health care in order to bring our country out of the dark ages and in line with the rest of the industrialized world and we're told that it will bankrupt the nation.Is that sound policy? I understand there are differences in philosophy and outlook, but these two approaches provide a clear distinction between the parties right now.Oh... so you might switch parties if the Republican party completely changes on 95% of the issues and becomes a liberal party.
KnowledgeReignsSupreme
Footballguy
If only the govt didn't have as much money to throw around...
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
ADM = the Government?Actually, maybe so. Although that doesn't explain all the price-fixing investigations.
NCCommish
Footballguy
If only we would scrap the current tax code and stop allowing politicians to use it for their own personal fund raising efforts. Fair Tax is the answer to that.
Was that because of the diet soda or because they thought they could have that extra snickers bar since they were drinking diet soda?
NCCommish
Footballguy
A bit of both. Diet sodas help make you fat and fat people who drink them think they can eat more crap because they are.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
I will keep laughing because your whole schtick of 'if the Republicans changed in 95% of the issues and turned into a liberal party, then I might just switch' is just classic. I mean pure classic schtick!
perry147
Footballguy
Diet soda tastes better.
What specific foods have a consumption/sin tax attached to them today?I've got news for you- Big Brother already does decide what you eat. The litany of requirements and restrictions in the FDA and USDA regulations would make your head swim, and the government already taxes some things and subsidizes others as a matter of policy.Where does it end? Thankfully, it ends where we decide it should end and convey that sentiment to our elected officials through direct contact, polling, the media and the ballot box. And from what I can tell, that's where this will end, because most of us on both sides of the aisle- myself included- don't like this tax. If the public is even 60/40 on something I can promise you it will go nowhere.But that is, in fact, Big Brother dictating to people what they can and cannot eat. What stops them from targeting ice cream or maple syrup next? What about candy, butter, or donuts? A chocolate cake tax? How about a red meat tax? What stops Uncle Sam from putting a tax on anything and everything that is not an organic vegetable? I can come up with an excuse to tax anything and everything. Orange juice should be taxed because clearing those groves results in mass deforestation. Coffee should be taxed due to its high caffeine levels that make it a practical stimulant.http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2...or_thought.htmlI could be wrong but this MIGHT just affect those making under 250k a year.
Where does it end?
I've noticed that a lot of people here get prematurely hysterical about politicians putting stuff on the table. I guess it's cool that people are so on guard, but at the same time it's bizarre to watch people get so worked up over the simple suggestion of an exchange of ideas. Discussing anything and everything is almost always a good idea- it doesn't mean that a cola tax is anywhere near reality now or any time in the foreseeable future.
D_House
Footballguy
Times editorial relevant to the discussion by Saints-Man, NCC, and MT on the Farm Bill:
Michael Pollan: Big Food vs. Big Insurance
He makes the argument that with the impending health care reform, we may see health insurers politically aligning against agribusiness and the federal subsidies that contribute to the high levels of obesity-related diseases in this country.
Michael Pollan: Big Food vs. Big Insurance
He makes the argument that with the impending health care reform, we may see health insurers politically aligning against agribusiness and the federal subsidies that contribute to the high levels of obesity-related diseases in this country.
Thanks for the link.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
New national soda tax bill:
http://delauro.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1664:delauro-introduces-bill-to-tackle-dual-epidemics-of-obesity-diabetes&catid=2&Itemid=21
It has no chance of passing right now but just introducing a bill is a first step.
http://delauro.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1664:delauro-introduces-bill-to-tackle-dual-epidemics-of-obesity-diabetes&catid=2&Itemid=21
It has no chance of passing right now but just introducing a bill is a first step.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Googling reveals that a can of Coke has about ten teaspoons of sugar, so the tax on a single can would be ten cents if this were to pass. This tax seems like it would be difficult to administer, because every beverage could be taxed a different amount.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
We already have national tax on tobacco, this seems like pretty much the same idea.This can't be real. What next? A tax on people and businesses that don't use metric?
Mario Kart
Footballguy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZp29Qeu8_U
I'm not a fan of taxes overall and I still enjoy a Coke once in awhile... maybe one a week but watch the video to see what you're putting into your body. Yuck!
I'm not a fan of taxes overall and I still enjoy a Coke once in awhile... maybe one a week but watch the video to see what you're putting into your body. Yuck!
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Seems really dumb to tax sugar in beverages but not tax sugar in other things.We already have national tax on tobacco, this seems like pretty much the same idea.This can't be real. What next? A tax on people and businesses that don't use metric?
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I agree this seems somewhat arbitrary, but the soda tax is better than nothing.Seems really dumb to tax sugar in beverages but not tax sugar in other things.We already have national tax on tobacco, this seems like pretty much the same idea.This can't be real. What next? A tax on people and businesses that don't use metric?
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Also seems pretty dumb to pay farmers to grow extra corn, then tax consumers when they buy HFCS.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I don't know Rosa DeLauro's position on these kinds of farm subsidies. If she supports them I agree that seems to conflict with this bill.
Courtjester
The Town Drunk
Stupid, unnecessary, selective tax and just another example of a liberal politician doing something just to say they did something that will have little to no impact on the overall rates of obesity in this country.
If you could show that the primary reason people are overweight is soda, then I am fine with this. But you can't. People are overweight and contract Type 2 Diabetes for many reasons to include eating too much chocolate or other candy (are we going to tax those next?) or perhaps they eat too much fried chicken and other fried foods (again tax that too?) Ice cream sandwiches and other deserts are fattening by themselves (so those must be taxed as well, right). What about maple syrup or honey?. The list goes on with items that, if consumed to extremes, would lead to obesity. Where do you stop??
People also get type 2 from living a sedentary lifestyle--are we going to mandate the government now institute weight control programs for all people? BMI check stations? How much control over our daily lives do we cede to the government in the name of them "just doing this for your own good?"
This isn't like a tobacco tax, which 100% impacted people that chose to smoke. This is a money grab and punishes all people--a lot of whom do not have a weight problem, by having them pay more at the register for a product based on another person's misuse of it.
And don't give me well, you already pay now by higher insurance rates due to obese people. A soda tax will not change these rates.The obese will still be obese due to other reasons and you and I will be paying more whenever we want to have a party and buy a few cases of soda.
If you could show that the primary reason people are overweight is soda, then I am fine with this. But you can't. People are overweight and contract Type 2 Diabetes for many reasons to include eating too much chocolate or other candy (are we going to tax those next?) or perhaps they eat too much fried chicken and other fried foods (again tax that too?) Ice cream sandwiches and other deserts are fattening by themselves (so those must be taxed as well, right). What about maple syrup or honey?. The list goes on with items that, if consumed to extremes, would lead to obesity. Where do you stop??
People also get type 2 from living a sedentary lifestyle--are we going to mandate the government now institute weight control programs for all people? BMI check stations? How much control over our daily lives do we cede to the government in the name of them "just doing this for your own good?"
This isn't like a tobacco tax, which 100% impacted people that chose to smoke. This is a money grab and punishes all people--a lot of whom do not have a weight problem, by having them pay more at the register for a product based on another person's misuse of it.
And don't give me well, you already pay now by higher insurance rates due to obese people. A soda tax will not change these rates.The obese will still be obese due to other reasons and you and I will be paying more whenever we want to have a party and buy a few cases of soda.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
This would only impact people that choose to buy sugary drinks. I'm not seeing the distinction you're trying to draw here.
Last edited by a moderator:
jonessed
Footballguy
It's not going to impact anybody because it's a liberal pipe dream.
I'd favor getting rid of the subsidies for all of those things.
Real maple syrup and real honey are kind of awesome. And they're completely unsubsidized as far as I know.
It might not be a terrible idea to have the government siphon some of its current anti-drug ad campaign money to do some pro-exercise campaigns.
Courtjester
The Town Drunk
I think we can agree that people that buy tobacco are smokers. I mean I don't think 80% of the population buys tobacco--the number is closer to 15%. But I can guarantee probably 80% of the population at some point in time, buys a sugary beverage for themselves or for a party. I have been a type one diabetic for 38 years--I don't/can't drink sugary drinks, but for a birthday party this weekend, I needed to buy soda for the designated drivers, chasers for drinks, a few root beers for the kids for root beer floats, etc..
We have to assume in theory this tax is meant as a deterrent so people drink less sugary soda. However, understanding I am not a regular consumer of this type of product, why should I pay more for this? My use of this item is for regular use and not under the category of abuse which is the sole intent of what this tax is addressing. Under my circumstances, it becomes a selective tax to generate money without any beneficial to society whatsoever and therefore a punitive tax.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I agree that a greater percentage of the population buys soda than tobacco. I don't see why that matters. Both taxes are designed with the purpose of discouraging people from using those products. Whether 15% or 80% of people buy them seems irrelevant.I think we can agree that people that buy tobacco are smokers. I mean I don't think 80% of the population buys tobacco--the number is closer to 15%. But I can guarantee probably 80% of the population at some point in time, buys a sugary beverage for themselves or for a party. I have been a type one diabetic for 38 years--I don't/can't drink sugary drinks, but for a birthday party this weekend, I needed to buy soda for the designated drivers, chasers for drinks, a few root beers for the kids for root beer floats, etc..
We have to assume in theory this tax is meant as a deterrent so people drink less sugary soda. However, understanding I am not a regular consumer of this type of product, why should I pay more for this? My use of this item is for regular use and not under the category of abuse which is the sole intent of what this tax is addressing. Under my circumstances, it becomes a selective tax to generate money without any beneficial to society whatsoever and therefore a punitive tax.
And the tax you pay correlates with the amount that you consume. People who only buy cigarettes infrequently aren't paying all that much in tobacco tax. Same with people who rarely purchase sugary drinks (if this bill actually became law).
Last edited by a moderator:
MC Gas Money
Footballguy
I dont think the corn syrup and artificial sweetener juggernauts will let something like this pass easily. Personally I have no problem with it because I almost never drink this garbage and it would be good for everyone to stop because it is one of the worst things you can put in your body that isnt a narcotic.
Although I hope it doesnt apply to soda that contains real sugar and natural ingredients rather than the toxic waste that is in most, because many people are going to drink soda anyway so hopefully they at least drink the ones that arent polluting your body with chemicals in addition to the empty calories.
Although I hope it doesnt apply to soda that contains real sugar and natural ingredients rather than the toxic waste that is in most, because many people are going to drink soda anyway so hopefully they at least drink the ones that arent polluting your body with chemicals in addition to the empty calories.
Courtjester
The Town Drunk
I just think the push needs to be education and not taxation at this point. I mean, my kids hardly ever touch soda--they drink water. Soda isn't available in their schools in the vending machines--but high sugar juices are which is weird. I would be all for warning labels on cans. I think continued dietary education in schools is important. Programs like the NFL-Play60 is great. There needs to more like it.
It is a fun debate--but there is no way in hell this goes anywhere. The Dems themselves will kill this thing after all the criticism they have taken over the passing of the ACA and "Big Government's" perceived forced involvement in everyone's life.
It is a fun debate--but there is no way in hell this goes anywhere. The Dems themselves will kill this thing after all the criticism they have taken over the passing of the ACA and "Big Government's" perceived forced involvement in everyone's life.
NCCommish
Footballguy
One Cinnabon has 55 grams of sugar. That is nearly 20 grams more than is in a can of Coke. This is so arbitrary it isn't even funny. Plus childhood obesity rates are already on the decline in this country:
No tax needed. Education is almost always a better option than taxation in these instances.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Although I agree with your conclusion, not sure about the example you chose. Nobody eats 4 or 5 Cinnabons a day without thinking twice about it.
NCCommish
Footballguy
I know people that have just one coke a day with a meal. I was just pointing out how arbitrary it is to single out soda.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
The overall obesity rate hasn't really declined, just the rate for 2-5 year olds. And that rate is still at 8%. We haven't solved the problem yet. Education is great but taxes can also be part of the solution. The reduction in tobacco use in this country is likely due to multiple factors including taxes.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Yes but I also know people that down a couple 20 ounce cokes a day and don't really think they're taking in obscene amounts of calories and sugar. Nobody takes down 4 cinnabons a day and harbors any illusions about what they'd doing to themselves.
Like I said I agree that education is the way to go and I don't like the idea, mostly because I think disproportionately taxing the poor negates any good that might come of it. But it's not really arbitrary. People's soda-drinking habits and awareness are different from their cinnabon-eating habits and awareness.
Similar threads
