Soda Tax

[Gerry Clinchy]

NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/bu...html?th&emc=th

What a tangled web this all becomes! We started with tobacco and alcohol, now the next step.

Let's tax soda because it's an influential cause of obesity, due to the sugar content. This would include the iced teas, etc. But the "diet" versions would be exempt.

Well, gee, why not also tax everything else that has sugar above "X"%? How about sugar itself?

Then we take that money & use it to pay part of the bill for expanding health care coverage.

While we're at it why not take a closer look at bacon, scrapple, high-fat beef cuts? Anybody interested in buying chicken futures?

The article would have us believe that the cigarette taxes are because our government cares about our health. I'd reserve judgment on that until I get an accounting of how our states spent those big bucks from the tobacco settlement cases. How much of the $ went into implementing stop smoking measures? Caring for those already diseased?

The extrapolations of this become very intriguing. That health care stuff ... if you're too overweight, smoke, or do other unhealthy things (let's not forget unprotected sex or sharing needles for illicit drugs) ... do you automatically get "taxed" in some way, like having some limitations put on the health care treatments? Extra income tax if you are overweight? (Japan fines people for waistline size!)

If they want to tax groceries, just do it awready, but don't try to tell me it's because they "care" about the constituencies. There is too much evidence that they really don't give a d%#$ about what their constiuencies think except when it comes to campaign sweet-talk.

[WRL]

I am all for it.

Lets start by making illegal drugs legal.

It would reduce the crime rate (if you can buy it, less people will steal or kill for it). Then tax the crap out of it.

That way the people who want to use it (and are doing so already) can pay for their health issues down the road.

Make it all legal.......that's how Obama could fund his health care plan!!

WRL

[WRL]

PS.....I think "cupcake tax" has a nice ring to it!

WRL

[lizard55033]

well with more and more states, counties, cities, and establishment going smoke free... The gov't is lossing so much monies they have to start taxing everything else to make up for the loss.

[Bruce MacPherson]

well with more and more states, counties, cities, and establishment going smoke free... The gov't is lossing so much monies they have to start taxing everything else to make up for the loss.

It's called the law of unintended consequences. When you tax a product to what people think is a confiscatory level they will A, quit buying the product or B, figure out a way to get it cheaper. In the case of tobacco, the states with high cigarette tax rates used the logic that it was going to provide more revenue to treat those with related conditions and would eventually work as a deterrent to the behavior. I suppose it did because, in my state at least, lawmakers are complaining that the revenue has dropped considerably. Since these same lawmakers of course didn't really earmark this money for it's intended purpose and most was rolled into the general fund they have created a drop in revenue without any real cost savings in the area they intended it for.
There is a reason that you will not find many outstanding businessmen or women in politics. They wouldn't take the cut in pay to listen to a bunch of idiots who apparently had problems with Econ 101.

[Gerry Clinchy]

The "cupcake tax" ... yup, does have a ring to it!

I suppose it did because, in my state at least, lawmakers are complaining that the revenue has dropped considerably. Since these same lawmakers of course didn't really earmark this money for it's intended purpose and most was rolled into the general fund they have created a drop in revenue without any real cost savings in the area they intended it for.

Exactly! Maybe the high cigarette tax and the smoking prohibitions actually did what they were supposed to do? Imagine that. If you tax something too much people stop buying it; or a black market it created where the tax is evaded. So, what do you think they do? Here in PA they keep raising the tax & say that the increase will create $X in additional revenue. They've been doing that almost every year, but never explain whether the revenues are increasing or not when they raise it again the following year.

In the case of taxing recreational drugs, if they "tax the heck out of it", it will just create a black market for the product & might not solve the crime problem.

But if you're going to legalize some drugs, I'd prefer it be something we can manufacture in the U.S. so that the money isn't going to Mexico or Columbia ... how about it? Tax drugs and create jobs at the same time! And it's probably a "green" industry, too. Al Gore would be so proud!

[dnf777]

Its not sugar. That only comes in high-end botique sodas at the end of the aisle that cost $5/six-pak. Most softdrinks have high-fructose corn syrup, which until the soda companies lobbied with millions, was considered an "artificial sweetner". Currently, Coca-Cola is attempting to get itself labeled as having "anti-oxidants" and being a healthy drink!

We would do well as a society to get that poisonous $#it out of schools and daycare. It makes kids fat.

[ducknwork]

We would do well as a society to get that poisonous $#it out of schools and daycare. It makes kids fat.

It is not society's job to regulate what children eat and drink. We need more parents that are worth a crap.
________
KIDS AVANDIA

[kjrice]

PS.....I think "cupcake tax" has a nice ring to it!

WRL

Pop Rocks tax.

[dnf777]

It is not society's job to regulate what children eat and drink. We need more parents that are worth a crap.

By that logic, it's not societie's job to ban what people smoke and snort and inject, right? So you're for legalizing drugs I presume?

I see parents buying their kids breakfast at our convenience store each morning.....twinkies and pop!