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)

S

StrikeS2k

Footballguy
Gov. Paterson's proposal to tax soda in New York fizzled, but President Obama believes it may be time to pop a similar sin tax on the nation.

The President, in an interview with Men's Health magazine released yesterday, said he thought taxing soda and other sugary drinks is worth putting on the table as Congress debates health care reform.

"It's an idea that we should be exploring," the president said. "There's no doubt that our kids drink way too much soda. And every study that's been done about obesity shows that there is as high a correlation between increased soda consumption and obesity as just about anything else."

Obama is floating the idea seven months after a storm of protest forced poll-challenged Gov. Paterson to drop his plans for an 18% tax on soda and other sugary drinks.

Despite that debacle, congressional lawmakers have considered soda taxes as one way to cover the cost of revamping the nation's health care system, estimated to eat up much as $1 trillion over the next decade.

But Obama - who works out six days a week and keeps a bowl of apples in the Oval Office - has been largely mum on the controversial topic, at least until now.

As in Paterson's case, Obama's comments drew the immediate wrath of industry and consumer-choice groups yesterday.

"The tax code should not be used as a method for social engineering, and that's what this is," said J. Justin Wilson, the senior research analyst for the Center for Consumer Choice, a group funded in part by the food and beverage industry. "It smacks of the regulation that government imposed on tobacco, but soda is not tobacco."

Obama acknowledged that the idea could lead to charges that Uncle Sam is trying to dictate personal diets, but he hinted the trade-off may be worth it.

"Look, people's attitude is that they don't necessarily want Big Brother telling them what to eat or drink, and I understand that," Obama said.

"It is true, though, that if you wanted to make a big impact on people's health in this country, reducing things like soda consumption would be helpful."
Click to expand...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2...or_thought.htmlI could be wrong but this MIGHT just affect those making under 250k a year.

:shrug:

 
Just beginning. I have been telling you guys for years this stuff is coming. There are people embedded all over the government that want to tell you what to eat and punish you when you don't follow their guidelines. They see the battle with tobacco as a guide on how to do this. Not at all surprised it keeps popping up.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Yes, let's subsidize soda and then slap a sin tax on it. So much simpler more governmental than doing neither.
Click to expand...
I agree, we should pull some our corn subsidies before we tax soda. Make soda more expensive by making the ingredients more expensive.
 
You can't use a sin tax to fund a program with recurring costs. Eventually the sin tax will reduce consumption and reduce revenue, yet the costs are still there. Actually, this applies to all taxes. You should always budget to have a surplus and put that surplus into escrow for emergencies and years where tax revenue is down due to recession. I don't get how people in government don't get this.

 
Slap a sin tax on Big Macs and maybe people will start making more rice-a-roni and actually fit into a theater seat. :shrug:

 
DevilsTrifecta said:
You can't use a sin tax to fund a program with recurring costs. Eventually the sin tax will reduce consumption and reduce revenue, yet the costs are still there. Actually, this applies to all taxes. You should always budget to have a surplus and put that surplus into escrow for emergencies and years where tax revenue is down due to recession. I don't get how people in government don't get this.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's because they're all morons?
 
There should be a junk food tax across the board. It's shameful that in this country it is cheaper to eat unhealthy food than it is to eat healthy food.

 
NCCommish said:
Just beginning. I have been telling you guys for years this stuff is coming. There are people embedded all over the government that want to tell you what to eat and punish you when you don't follow their guidelines. They see the battle with tobacco as a guide on how to do this. Not at all surprised it keeps popping up.
Click to expand...
is it really "telling us what to eat" or "taxing that which people will buy"?if the gov't taxes things until we stop buying them then they don't get to collect taxes on that item any more. kinda killing the golden goose and all that.
 
mr. furley said:
NCCommish said:
Just beginning. I have been telling you guys for years this stuff is coming. There are people embedded all over the government that want to tell you what to eat and punish you when you don't follow their guidelines. They see the battle with tobacco as a guide on how to do this. Not at all surprised it keeps popping up.
Click to expand...
is it really "telling us what to eat" or "taxing that which people will buy"?if the gov't taxes things until we stop buying them then they don't get to collect taxes on that item any more. kinda killing the golden goose and all that.
Click to expand...
First step is taxes.
 
NCCommish said:
SHOUT said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Yes, let's subsidize soda and then slap a sin tax on it. So much simpler more governmental than doing neither.
Click to expand...
I agree, we should pull some our corn subsidies before we tax soda. Make soda more expensive by making the ingredients more expensive.
Click to expand...
We should drop all farm subsidies. They no longer serve their intended purpose if they ever did.
Click to expand...
I will take your word on this, I tend to agree but am not knowledgable about all the subsidies to comment knowledgably. I understand corn and would support pulling corn subs.
 
NCCommish said:
SHOUT said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Yes, let's subsidize soda and then slap a sin tax on it. So much simpler more governmental than doing neither.
Click to expand...
I agree, we should pull some our corn subsidies before we tax soda. Make soda more expensive by making the ingredients more expensive.
Click to expand...
We should drop all farm subsidies. They no longer serve their intended purpose if they ever did.
Click to expand...
They do serve their intended purpose. They attract campaign contributions from Cargill, Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland, et al.
 
mr. furley said:
NCCommish said:
Just beginning. I have been telling you guys for years this stuff is coming. There are people embedded all over the government that want to tell you what to eat and punish you when you don't follow their guidelines. They see the battle with tobacco as a guide on how to do this. Not at all surprised it keeps popping up.
Click to expand...
is it really "telling us what to eat" or "taxing that which people will buy"?if the gov't taxes things until we stop buying them then they don't get to collect taxes on that item any more. kinda killing the golden goose and all that.
Click to expand...
Yes it is, I don't think they could get away with telling us what to eat any other way.
 
Maurile Tremblay said:
NCCommish said:
SHOUT said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Yes, let's subsidize soda and then slap a sin tax on it. So much simpler more governmental than doing neither.
Click to expand...
I agree, we should pull some our corn subsidies before we tax soda. Make soda more expensive by making the ingredients more expensive.
Click to expand...
We should drop all farm subsidies. They no longer serve their intended purpose if they ever did.
Click to expand...
They do serve their intended purpose. They attract campaign contributions from Cargill, Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland, et al.
Click to expand...
haha, well played.
 
Maurile Tremblay said:
NCCommish said:
SHOUT said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Yes, let's subsidize soda and then slap a sin tax on it. So much simpler more governmental than doing neither.
Click to expand...
I agree, we should pull some our corn subsidies before we tax soda. Make soda more expensive by making the ingredients more expensive.
Click to expand...
We should drop all farm subsidies. They no longer serve their intended purpose if they ever did.
Click to expand...
They do serve their intended purpose. They attract campaign contributions from Cargill, Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland, et al.
Click to expand...
As always MT is correct. I should have said they no longer serve their advertised purpose if they ever did.
 
I do not drink any soda, but I do not think it's right to tax something just because it's not "healthy." Dangerous path to head down. Soon they'll just tax all food except fruits and vegetables.

 
Rayderr said:
I do not drink any soda, but I do not think it's right to tax something just because it's not "healthy." Dangerous path to head down. Soon they'll just tax all food except fruits and vegetables.
Click to expand...
There are things I think that shoul dbe illegal, consumables that just do not benefit the general welfare but actually harm them. I know some will disagree saying that making them illegal is what causes the harm, but I will have to agree to disagree.However I do not think soda has yet to fall into that category, that I think a fair way of reducing consumption while increasing prices is by removing the subsidies, as already mentioned.
 
Rayderr said:
I do not drink any soda, but I do not think it's right to tax something just because it's not "healthy." Dangerous path to head down. Soon they'll just tax all food except fruits and vegetables.
Click to expand...
I'd rather have a tax on unhealthy behaviors such as junk food, tobacco, marijuana and gambling than have a tax on my income.
 
Rayderr said:
I do not drink any soda, but I do not think it's right to tax something just because it's not "healthy." Dangerous path to head down. Soon they'll just tax all food except fruits and vegetables.
Click to expand...
Imagine the health care cost savings...
 
NCCommish said:
Just beginning. I have been telling you guys for years this stuff is coming. There are people embedded all over the government that want to tell you what to eat and punish you when you don't follow their guidelines. They see the battle with tobacco as a guide on how to do this. Not at all surprised it keeps popping up.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: Our freedoms in this regard have been eroding for years.
 
ScottNorwood said:
Rayderr said:
I do not drink any soda, but I do not think it's right to tax something just because it's not "healthy." Dangerous path to head down. Soon they'll just tax all food except fruits and vegetables.
Click to expand...
I'd rather have a tax on unhealthy behaviors such as junk food, tobacco, marijuana and gambling than have a tax on my income.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting concept.
 
parrot said:
ScottNorwood said:
There should be a junk food tax across the board. It's shameful that in this country it is cheaper to eat unhealthy food than it is to eat healthy food.
Click to expand...
It's not cheaper, it's just easier.
Click to expand...
A dollar can buy 1,200 calories of cookies or potato chips but only 250 calories of carrots. (link)ETA, from the same article:

Compared with a bunch of carrots, a package of Twinkies, to take one iconic processed foodlike substance as an example, is a highly complicated, high-tech piece of manufacture, involving no fewer than 39 ingredients, many themselves elaborately manufactured, as well as the packaging and a hefty marketing budget. So how can the supermarket possibly sell a pair of these synthetic cream-filled pseudocakes for less than a bunch of roots?

For the answer, you need look no farther than the farm bill.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SHOUT said:
Rayderr said:
I do not drink any soda, but I do not think it's right to tax something just because it's not "healthy." Dangerous path to head down. Soon they'll just tax all food except fruits and vegetables.
Click to expand...
There are things I think that shoul dbe illegal, consumables that just do not benefit the general welfare but actually harm them. I know some will disagree saying that making them illegal is what causes the harm, but I will have to agree to disagree.However I do not think soda has yet to fall into that category, that I think a fair way of reducing consumption while increasing prices is by removing the subsidies, as already mentioned.
Click to expand...
When you make candy bars illegal you'll have candy bar dealers. Guaranteed.
 
ScottNorwood said:
Rayderr said:
I do not drink any soda, but I do not think it's right to tax something just because it's not "healthy." Dangerous path to head down. Soon they'll just tax all food except fruits and vegetables.
Click to expand...
I'd rather have a tax on unhealthy behaviors such as junk food, tobacco, marijuana and gambling than have a tax on my income.
Click to expand...
But there's the problem. junk food is not entirely unhealthy. It has some nutritional value. Not as much as non-junk food, but it does have some.
 
Rayderr said:
ScottNorwood said:
Rayderr said:
I do not drink any soda, but I do not think it's right to tax something just because it's not "healthy." Dangerous path to head down. Soon they'll just tax all food except fruits and vegetables.
Click to expand...
I'd rather have a tax on unhealthy behaviors such as junk food, tobacco, marijuana and gambling than have a tax on my income.
Click to expand...
But there's the problem. junk food is not entirely unhealthy. It has some nutritional value. Not as much as non-junk food, but it does have some.
Click to expand...
Well I guess it's healthier than starving to death, but I think you get my point.
 
ScottNorwood said:
Rayderr said:
ScottNorwood said:
Rayderr said:
I do not drink any soda, but I do not think it's right to tax something just because it's not "healthy." Dangerous path to head down. Soon they'll just tax all food except fruits and vegetables.
Click to expand...
I'd rather have a tax on unhealthy behaviors such as junk food, tobacco, marijuana and gambling than have a tax on my income.
Click to expand...
But there's the problem. junk food is not entirely unhealthy. It has some nutritional value. Not as much as non-junk food, but it does have some.
Click to expand...
Well I guess it's healthier than starving to death, but I think you get my point.
Click to expand...
What, that you eat fairly healthy so you want others to foot your portion of the tax bill?
 
Rayderr said:
ScottNorwood said:
Rayderr said:
I do not drink any soda, but I do not think it's right to tax something just because it's not "healthy." Dangerous path to head down. Soon they'll just tax all food except fruits and vegetables.
Click to expand...
I'd rather have a tax on unhealthy behaviors such as junk food, tobacco, marijuana and gambling than have a tax on my income.
Click to expand...
But there's the problem. junk food is not entirely unhealthy. It has some nutritional value. Not as much as non-junk food, but it does have some.
Click to expand...
:nerd: There's nothing wrong with "junk food" as an occasional snack if you're in otherwise-good health.

I'll happily grant that eating some kettle chips and drinking some IPAs on Sunday afternoons isn't as healthy as eating carrots and drinking water, but I'm in good shape and its none of the government's business if I want to indulge from time to time.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Rayderr said:
ScottNorwood said:
Rayderr said:
I do not drink any soda, but I do not think it's right to tax something just because it's not "healthy." Dangerous path to head down. Soon they'll just tax all food except fruits and vegetables.
Click to expand...
I'd rather have a tax on unhealthy behaviors such as junk food, tobacco, marijuana and gambling than have a tax on my income.
Click to expand...
But there's the problem. junk food is not entirely unhealthy. It has some nutritional value. Not as much as non-junk food, but it does have some.
Click to expand...
:nerd: There's nothing wrong with "junk food" as an occasional snack if you're in otherwise-good health.

I'll happily grant that eating some kettle chips and drinking some IPAs on Sunday afternoons isn't as healthy as eating carrots and drinking water, but I'm in good shape and its none of the government's business if I want to indulge from time to time.
Click to expand...
Exactly
 
Jim11 said:
Mario Kart said:
ScottNorwood said:
There should be a junk food tax across the board. It's shameful that in this country it is cheaper to eat unhealthy food than it is to eat healthy food.
Click to expand...
:nerd:
Click to expand...
C'mon, how much power do you want the government to have? Maybe they should outlaw "junk food" entirely. Maybe they should FORCE you to exercise.Let's just make this country a totalitarian state.
Click to expand...
I agree and that's twice in one day. You didn't let someone else have the keys did you?
 
Philo said:
DevilsTrifecta said:
You can't use a sin tax to fund a program with recurring costs. Eventually the sin tax will reduce consumption and reduce revenue, yet the costs are still there. Actually, this applies to all taxes. You should always budget to have a surplus and put that surplus into escrow for emergencies and years where tax revenue is down due to recession. I don't get how people in government don't get this.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's because they're all morons?
Click to expand...
I don't think so. There are plenty of really smart people in politics (even if they don't act that way all the time) and I'm guessing most of them know that some sort of emergency fund would be a good long-term idea. I think it's more a matter of politics and willpower. It's harder to say no to some lobbyist with his hand out promising future votes/campaign funding/etc. when you're spending less than you're bringing in. I'm not sure how we can change the system to align the incentives to be honest. Enough political pressure to introduce some law that dictates congress can only spend 90% of income during good years and can only take out something like 10 or 20% of the reserves to cover revenue declines in bad years?
 
StrikeS2k said:
ScottNorwood said:
Rayderr said:
ScottNorwood said:
Rayderr said:
I do not drink any soda, but I do not think it's right to tax something just because it's not "healthy." Dangerous path to head down. Soon they'll just tax all food except fruits and vegetables.
Click to expand...
I'd rather have a tax on unhealthy behaviors such as junk food, tobacco, marijuana and gambling than have a tax on my income.
Click to expand...
But there's the problem. junk food is not entirely unhealthy. It has some nutritional value. Not as much as non-junk food, but it does have some.
Click to expand...
Well I guess it's healthier than starving to death, but I think you get my point.
Click to expand...
What, that you eat fairly healthy so you want others to foot your portion of the tax bill?
Click to expand...
Striker please, I make so much :nerd: that I'll be able to bathe in Dr. Brown's regardless of what the taxes are. But if we reduce income tax and replace those funds with a junk food tax it will ease the burden of a middle class family that is trying to make healthy choices for their diet and the diet of their children.
 
NCCommish said:
Just beginning. I have been telling you guys for years this stuff is coming. There are people embedded all over the government that want to tell you what to eat and punish you when you don't follow their guidelines. They see the battle with tobacco as a guide on how to do this. Not at all surprised it keeps popping up.
Click to expand...
Don't know if you're kidding or not. Are you being sarcastic? Do you think the government should control food in this way?J
 
Joe Bryant said:
What about diet soda?J
Click to expand...
The study of more than 600 normal-weight people found, eight years later, that they were 65 percent more likely to be overweight if they drank one diet soda a day than if they drank none. And if they drank two or more diet sodas a day, they were even more likely to become overweight or obese.
Click to expand...
That's from the University of Texas. So for me I don't find diet sodas that much better.My own personal experience. I used to run a flight line snack bar. It's one of those duties you get "volunteered" for and every unit has to supply people for a month at a time. Anyway we used to have these guys come in that were on the weight program and they would order a large chili cheese dog, a large bag of chips, an ice cream sandwich and a diet Coke. So I think diet drinks just give a false sense of doing something and lead people to other bad choices they think they are mitigating.
 
Joe Bryant said:
NCCommish said:
Just beginning. I have been telling you guys for years this stuff is coming. There are people embedded all over the government that want to tell you what to eat and punish you when you don't follow their guidelines. They see the battle with tobacco as a guide on how to do this. Not at all surprised it keeps popping up.
Click to expand...
Don't know if you're kidding or not. Are you being sarcastic? Do you think the government should control food in this way?J
Click to expand...
I'm dead serious. I have been posting links here for a long time outlining every little move. You and I have even discussed my candy pusher analogy. And to be clear I absolutely do not believe the government should control food in this way. Education is the best long term prescription not prohibition.
 
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
478
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
528
squistion
squistion
Witz
Obama Tweets
Replies
42
Views
1K
dozer
dozer

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top