What's new
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)

fatguyinalittlecoat said:
What about helping people with drug addictions?  Is that something that similarly is too intimate for government involvement?
Click to expand...
I think there's a difference in punitive measures and measures undertaken with the willing consent of those affected. 

I guess that's a great question. It sort of pokes a hole in the accepted response, "but the government is acting for good in this instance," which is a premise moderns have long accepted. I mean, government is acting in some form in this instance. I guess I'd draw the line that helping people with drug addictions falls under actions that befit a philanthropic safety net that overwhelming majorities agree with, as opposed to a tax that can be seen as a punitive measure. But sure, there's government involvement in both. 

It's not a pure libertarianism I'm espousing here; it's more of the regulation or taxation of intimate behaviors that gives me pause.  

It's also a libertarian question and purity check: What is the role of government, good or ill? You'll find a lot of people that still disagree with the public funding of drug treatment. A pure libertarian or anarchist might say, "No. I don't want that. That's not my business, and I shouldn't be taxed for it." 

This I disagree with. I happen to be a fusionist, so the classical liberal in me allows for certain outreaches to be made by collective decision and funding. I think there's a role for government in the drug addiction instance. Whether this leaves me open to the charge of inconsistency depends on whether we emphasize the means by which the collection and outreach is undertaken, or the ends, or the nature of the policy itself. 

I think, if I may check back upthread about originalism, that colonial America and America at the beginning of the republic allowed for these sort of philanthropic endeavors at the local level. I'd like to keep it that way. An aside: Georgia and the Massachusetts Bay Colony really were the leaders/biggest espousers of a sort of pre-Constitutional socialist and philanthropic utopia. Our own history and our own development as a country is certainly not something that would pass a purity test regarding government intervention. That's why if I seem ad hoc in my choice in this instance, it's not really different than what American history has been, writ large. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction said:
I just think there are certain things that should be beyond the purview of government intervention, and eating and diet is one of them. 
Click to expand...
Berkeley doesn’t have a choice about this. There is government intervention in the form of federal HFCS subsidies whether Berkeley likes it or not. If Berkeley can’t end the subsidies, maybe the best it can do is levy a corresponding tax in order to try to cancel things out.

 
James Daulton said:
Smokers and obese people would die much earlier were it not for advances in healthcare.  Life expectancy has risen 10 years since the 60's, partly due to lower rates of smoking, but largely due to improved management of chronic conditions.  
Click to expand...
Smokers still die ten years earlier. Thats from cdc report from 4 months ago. 

Obesity figures i was quoting are also very recent.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Berkeley doesn’t have a choice about this. There is government intervention in the form of federal HFCS subsidies whether Berkeley likes it or not. If Berkeley can’t end the subsidies, maybe the best it can do is levy a corresponding tax in order to try to cancel things out.
Click to expand...
I disagree with corn subsidies. I think that the funding of corn and sugar tariffs led to disasters like HFCS. You do bring up a good point, though, and one that I haven't concentrated on: that the tax is a local tax rather than a federal one. That point I'll concede and is really important to the debate as we understand it.  

It's also a left-libertarian proposition, which I respect, if I don't necessarily agree with. When obvious political solutions to political interference prove intractable, then the best defense might be more policy. It's something I'm very sympathetic to, and one area that I think the left-libertarians in the aughts were able to advance with striking effectiveness.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My personal view on issues like this is that I don’t care at all about what the founders thought.  

The reason I brought up the drug addiction question is because I think it’s a very close parallel to what’s going on with food.  This isn’t a simple question of giving people freedom to make choices.  There are millions of America who desperately want to improve their diets but find it extremely difficult to do so living in our current environment.  They voluntarily fork over wads of money to all sorts of shady diet plans that have very spotty records of success.  Should the government help people to make the choices that they would want to make if only they could?  I think that’s a great role for government.  Helping people to be the people that they already want to be.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
My personal view on issues like this is that I don’t care at all about what the founders thought.  

The reason I brought up the drug addiction question is because I think it’s a very close parallel to what’s going on with food.  This isn’t a simple question of giving people freedom to make choices.  There are millions of America who desperately want to improve their diets but find it extremely difficult to do so living in our current environment.  They voluntarily fork over wads of money to all sorts of shady diet plans that have very spotty records of success.  Should the government help people to make the choices that they would want to make if only they could?  I think that’s a great role for government.  Helping people to be the people that they already want to be.
Click to expand...
Cool. Thanks for clarifying. I remember you in this thread being very pro-tax and being honest about it.  

I would say that not everybody is asking for that kind of help, though. You've taken a trend or common desire and turned your own estimation of the commonality of it into policy that affects everybody. But at least you've been honest and consistent about the desirability of the role of government in this instance, so it's possible to have a discussion, which is cool. 

I think that the USDA and Congress have a lot to answer for (through subsidies and direct purchases) regarding the price and availability of food, but that's sort of really involved policy wonkism that I'm not sure I'm either prepared to have or really capable of having. There is also, of course, city property zoning laws and rents that affect supermarkets, other stores, and the availability of produce and other healthy foods (the so-called food deserts) but that's a really difficult issue to try and get at, too.  

 
rockaction said:
I would say that not everybody is asking for that kind of help, though. You've taken a trend or common desire and turned your own estimation of the commonality of it into policy that affects everybody. 
Click to expand...
Yeah this is a valid criticism.  I’m not sure how to determine what proportion of unhealthy eaters would prefer to stay that way.  This article I just googled said about half of Americans are actively trying to lose weight but it may be that if they had to choose they still wouldn’t want junk foods to be taxed or otherwise made less convenient to consume.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Berkeley doesn’t have a choice about this. There is government intervention in the form of federal HFCS subsidies whether Berkeley likes it or not. If Berkeley can’t end the subsidies, maybe the best it can do is levy a corresponding tax in order to try to cancel things out.
Click to expand...
Thanks Nixon.   

 
rockaction said:
You know, msommer, I think it might be the opposite. It's the Ashton Kutcher (yes, that one) argument whereby since everybody is in the common health pool with taxation being the safety net that we actually have the impetus to determine outcomes even more than we do now since we're all paying for it. 

I'd expect an increase In sin taxes on food if we had universal health coverage, not a decrease.  
Click to expand...
Yes,  that's what I said. The argument for sin taxes would strengthen in the event of universal health care

 
I would imagine obesity and related metabolic diseases (high blood pressure, diabetes etc) are by far larger in terms of total costs than smoking related diseases. 

 
mr roboto said:
I would imagine obesity and related metabolic diseases (high blood pressure, diabetes etc) are by far larger in terms of total costs than smoking related diseases. 
Click to expand...
Probably. Smoking-related diseases, last I checked, were estimated to save money because killing people early (obviating further treatment) more than made up for the cost of whatever treatments they needed while they remained alive.

I'm not sure that obesity-related diseases kill people quite as quickly.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Probably. Smoking-related diseases, last I checked, were estimated to save money because killing people early (obviating further treatment) more than made up for the cost of whatever treatments they needed while they remained alive.

I'm not sure that obesity-related diseases kill people quite as quickly.
Click to expand...
20 years of insulin, heart meds, surgeries, dialysis etc...

 
If we're going to subsidize things, it should probably be ensuring the oceans are clean, we don't over fish, maybe figure out some way to actually increase natural fish stocks. Subsidizing corn production is a pretty suboptimal choice in terms of government policy from a diet/health perspective.

 
rockaction said:
Study shows people just went to the suburbs and left city grocers hurting further.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/residents-of-philadelphia-found-a-novel-way-around-the-citys-unpopular-soda-tax-2019-01-11
Click to expand...
"We find no significant reduction in calorie and sugar intake,” conclude researchers Stephan Seiler from Stanford University, Anna Tuchman from Northwestern and Song Yao from the University of Minnesota, in a study published this week."

“The tax does not lead to a shift in consumption towards healthier products, it affects low income households more severely, and it is limited in its ability to raise revenue,” they wrote.

I wonder if Tim will tell me I am being deceptive?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff said:
Maybe it’s own separate topic...but I’m all for an extra tax on items in single use plastic bottles.
Click to expand...
If this becomes a thing I'll be a big shareholder of Alcoa.

Maurile Tremblay said:
Philadelphia's sweetened drink sales drop 38 percent after beverage tax
Click to expand...
Interesting that they talk about sugary drinks but lower the hammer on both those and those with artificial sweeteners.  One part public good, one part unbridled greed - about right for city government.

 
Sand said:
Interesting that they talk about sugary drinks but lower the hammer on both those and those with artificial sweeteners.  One part public good, one part unbridled greed - about right for city government.
Click to expand...
Isnt the medical consensus generally that artificial sweeteners are bad for you too?

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
This seems like a good argument for a nationwide soda tax.
Click to expand...
But think of the people in the border states. I smell a competitive advantage for those that relocate. Plus, Mexico makes their soda with cane sugar because they don't subsidize corn like we do, so you can avoid the nastiness of high fructose corn syrup to boot. That's just a Wild West pipe dream, though. Best we get government involved in everything, down to a wall to keep us from leaving. 

 
rockaction said:
But think of the people in the border states. I smell a competitive advantage for those that relocate. Plus, Mexico makes their soda with cane sugar because they don't subsidize corn like we do, so you can avoid the nastiness of high fructose corn syrup to boot. That's just a Wild West pipe dream, though. Best we get government involved in everything, down to a wall to keep us from leaving. 
Click to expand...
Mexico has its own soda tax so no need for a wall down there.  Might need soda-sniffing dogs at the Canadian border though.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Isnt the medical consensus generally that artificial sweeteners are bad for you too?
Click to expand...
They do offer much, much less calories than sugar (and sugar does cause an inflammatory response that artificial ones don't).  In other words, they're better than sugar.  Policies should be specific - if the idea is to reduce calories then they should stick to sugar.  Branching out from there under these auspices is just trolling for tax revenue.

I wonder what they'll do when allulose comes into vogue.  It's a sucrose relative, but much lower calorie.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand said:
They do offer much, much less calories than sugar (and sugar does cause an inflammatory response that artificial ones don't).  In other words, they're better than sugar.  Policies should be specific - if the idea is to reduce calories then they should stick to sugar.  Branching out from there under these auspices is just trolling for tax revenue.

I wonder what they'll do when allulose comes into vogue.  It's a sucrose relative, but much lower calorie.
Click to expand...
You define the idea as “reduce calories”, I define it as “improve health.”   :shrug:

 
Sand said:
Policies should be specific - if the idea is to reduce calories then they should stick to sugar.  Branching out from there under these auspices is just trolling for tax revenue.
Click to expand...
Yep, these things always end up somewhat arbitrary. Why drinks to begin with? Is fruit juice with added sugar worse for your health than (or even equal to) candy? Because only the former is taxed.

 
They're even counting juice concentrates as sweeteners.
". Examples of juice concentrates that can be caloric sweeteners include: • APPLE JUICE CONCENTRATE • CHERRY JUICE CONCENTRATE • DATE JUICE CONCENTRATE • GRAPE JUICE CONCENTRATE • ORANGE JUICE CONCENTRATE • PEAR JUICE CONCENTRATE"

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mystery Achiever said:
Yep, these things always end up somewhat arbitrary. Why drinks to begin with? Is fruit juice with added sugar worse for your health than (or even equal to) candy? Because only the former is taxed.
Click to expand...
I would like these taxes to be more comprehensive but I’ll accept an arbitrary tax over none at all.

 
Mystery Achiever said:
Yep, these things always end up somewhat arbitrary. Why drinks to begin with? 
Click to expand...
For one, sugary drinks are the biggest source of added sugar in the American diet, so that makes them an easy target. Nutritionists also like to focus on eliminating unhealthy drinks because they don’t fill you up - drinking 200 calories of soda doesn’t lead you to consume 200 fewer calories of food, so unhealthy drinks can lead to weight gain and health problems even faster than unhealthy foods.

 
I appreciate everyone's pro-health arguments. I just have a strong anti-Nanny state bent.
Speaking of which, the mayor credits passing his bill, while Bloomberg's failed, to focusing primarily on funding pre-K over the health argument.
“All the times it was tried before for health reasons, we failed,” he said. “It failed in New York because of the health argument.” People resent the “nanny-state attitude," he said.

 
Leading up to 2016.

I don't drink sodas because I choose not to drink sodas.
I thought the Democrats don't want anyone else to make choices about their bodies....or does that only pertain to abortions?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
CNN: Obama On Republicans "Just Beat Them" Because They're "Mean, Racist, Sexist, Angry" (10/10/22 17:48 PST)
Replies
6
Views
480
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Did Barack Obama Destroy Abortion Rights By Lying About Codifying Roe v. Wade? (6/26/22 7:24 PST)
Replies
4
Views
536
squistion
squistion
Witz
Obama Tweets
Replies
42
Views
1K
dozer
dozer

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top