Tax on soda

[almaty 19]

i drink soda and tax it./// IF, it is considered a health issue...

[Peikko 1,575]

No thanks, there are no free lunches in this world and everything comes with a high cost and people like you wanting to tax everything all the time scare the hell out of me, why don't you move to England and pay their taxes. See how you like it or better yet try Canada.

I do not see any reason to tax anything at all anymore than it already is, the more you wingnuts from the left post on here the more I realize if it was up to you all the USA would be a socialist commune of welfare degenerates with their hand out all the time.

Watermelons are a not a health risk and in fact are an excellent source of vitamin c so I can't see any reason to tax it, or any other fruit or vegetable for that matter.

Not sure what you mean by taxing BBQ - the sauce? I don't have a problem with taxing BBQ sauce either, but it's not a very neat category to apply taxes to. What is or isn't a BBQ sauce? It's very easy to identify what is and isn't soda for tax purposes.

They're loaded with sugar too. Just because it's in a fruit doesn't mean it's automatically healthy.

It's about moderation!!

Yes, too many people eat too much watermelon, it's really a problem that we need to combat!

As I said already, I don't see the tax on soda as a panacea for weight loss but I certainly think it's fair game for taxation.

ZQT, don't live in society and then you will not have to contribute to the fabric of it via taxation. I personally would be willing to grant you tax exemption if you no longer benefit from anything that taxes contribute to.

I am so happy to be of service.

But, talking of free lunches, not wanting to pay taxes and expecting to have the privileges afforded by organised society seems to me to be the biggest free lunch of all.

Oh, and I know all about taxes from different parts of the world and actually, the US isn't somehow this tax free haven that you seem to assume it is. I have paid less tax and got more from them elsewhere. It's more about accountability of government than it is about lower or higher taxes, that's where the real outrage should be. Still, you keep going on your 'tax is evil' outrage and see where that gets you

[mawilson 2,133]

i don't know about making people thinner by taxing soda. heavier taxes on cigarettes have not stopped the majority of people from smoking. all in all, if people want to do something, they will find the means necessary to get it.

Really? I'm pretty sure they have. Smokers are very much a minority group these days.

[mawilson 2,133]

Why not tax the health issues directly though, rather than tax things that *might* lead to health issues?

Because then it's already too late.

I'm sure that people who drink soda in moderation can afford 20c or whatever the tax is going to be.

Those who drink nothing but soda will be hardest hit - which is the idea.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Actually eating too much fruit or vegetables can be bad for you but a certain amount is good for you. A better idea is to let the government decide which is the healthy amount for each. The government can then issue ration cards to each. Then when shopping the ration card can be ran through a scanner and if that allotment has been reached then the excess is taxed. That way the government can't say they are controlling us completely but just somewhat. This can be used for anything at all. If a really fat person needs to lose weight his allotment of good food needed to survive is tax free and the rest is taxed. Since we are a nation of fat azzes then this revenue stream would go a long way to pay for Socialism. I can even foresee them being able to tax the TV. Of course many people park their azz in front of the TV when they could be doing something more fruitful like walking their fat azzes off more or learning something or just generally getting more active. The Tax could be not applied if the people are watching something that is considered healthy like propaganda shows that the government approves of but the tax could be increased iif the shows are more unhealthy like porn or even reality shows. A government panel could set the ratings on a scale for less or more taxes.

Now get this and what a awesome idea this is. We can have monitors that we can wear so when we are doing especially healthy things like jogging, walking or hardcore sex acts we can get credits to erase some taxes and be allowed to eat or drink a tad more unhealthy stuff. I do think the only way it can be properly be done is to have health police manning the stores and even maybe have one on each block and maybe even having a cam in each room in the house to properly insure that a fair tax is being done. Of course now that Socialism is the rage in the country and we have this taxing and controlling the populace and government from cradle to grave we can be come up with many new ways to tax and spend and socialize.

[zqt3344 21]

Rightttttttttttttttttt...... not in England or Canada you did not.

No thanks, there are no free lunches in this world and everything comes with a high cost and people like you wanting to tax everything all the time scare the hell out of me, why don't you move to England and pay their taxes. See how you like it or better yet try Canada.

I do not see any reason to tax anything at all anymore than it already is, the more you wingnuts from the left post on here the more I realize if it was up to you all the USA would be a socialist commune of welfare degenerates with their hand out all the time.

Watermelons are a not a health risk and in fact are an excellent source of vitamin c so I can't see any reason to tax it, or any other fruit or vegetable for that matter.

Not sure what you mean by taxing BBQ - the sauce? I don't have a problem with taxing BBQ sauce either, but it's not a very neat category to apply taxes to. What is or isn't a BBQ sauce? It's very easy to identify what is and isn't soda for tax purposes.

They're loaded with sugar too. Just because it's in a fruit doesn't mean it's automatically healthy.

It's about moderation!!

Yes, too many people eat too much watermelon, it's really a problem that we need to combat!

As I said already, I don't see the tax on soda as a panacea for weight loss but I certainly think it's fair game for taxation.

ZQT, don't live in society and then you will not have to contribute to the fabric of it via taxation. I personally would be willing to grant you tax exemption if you no longer benefit from anything that taxes contribute to.

I am so happy to be of service.

But, talking of free lunches, not wanting to pay taxes and expecting to have the privileges afforded by organised society seems to me to be the biggest free lunch of all.

Oh, and I know all about taxes from different parts of the world and actually, the US isn't somehow this tax free haven that you seem to assume it is. I have paid less tax and got more from them elsewhere. It's more about accountability of government than it is about lower or higher taxes, that's where the real outrage should be. Still, you keep going on your 'tax is evil' outrage and see where that gets you

[Jenn! 918]

Why not tax the health issues directly though, rather than tax things that *might* lead to health issues?

Because then it's already too late.

I'm sure that people who drink soda in moderation can afford 20c or whatever the tax is going to be.

Those who drink nothing but soda will be hardest hit - which is the idea.

That makes sense if you really believe that a tax will result in less consumption. I don't - the tax isn't high enough. Make a 2-liter bottle of Coke $10, and then maybe you'll see some results. I think this is essentially a poverty tax, not a luxury tax.

[Peikko 1,575]

Actually eating too much fruit or vegetables can be bad for you but a certain amount is good for you. A better idea is to let the government decide which is the healthy amount for each. The government can then issue ration cards to each. Then when shopping the ration card can be ran through a scanner and if that allotment has been reached then the excess is taxed. That way the government can't say they are controlling us completely but just somewhat. This can be used for anything at all. If a really fat person needs to lose weight his allotment of good food needed to survive is tax free and the rest is taxed. Since we are a nation of fat azzes then this revenue stream would go a long way to pay for Socialism. I can even foresee them being able to tax the TV. Of course many people park their azz in front of the TV when they could be doing something more fruitful like walking their fat azzes off more or learning something or just generally getting more active. The Tax could be not applied if the people are watching something that is considered healthy like propaganda shows that the government approves of but the tax could be increased iif the shows are more unhealthy like porn or even reality shows. A government panel could set the ratings on a scale for less or more taxes.

Now get this and what a awesome idea this is. We can have monitors that we can wear so when we are doing especially healthy things like jogging, walking or hardcore sex acts we can get credits to erase some taxes and be allowed to eat or drink a tad more unhealthy stuff. I do think the only way it can be properly be done is to have health police manning the stores and even maybe have one on each block and maybe even having a cam in each room in the house to properly insure that a fair tax is being done. Of course now that Socialism is the rage in the country and we have this taxing and controlling the populace and government from cradle to grave we can be come up with many new ways to tax and spend and socialize.

It says something when a right winger, in his desire to warn us off the evils of taxing soda makes the claim that too much fruit and veg can ruin your health.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

It says something when a right winger, in his desire to warn us off the evils of taxing soda makes the claim that too much fruit and veg can ruin your health.

Well, too much fiber can give you the sh!ts.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If it's fair game to tax beer, wine, liquor and tabacco for the health issues and corresponding costs to society which they create, I don't see why soda drinks should be off limits. Or nutritionally questionable fatty fast foods, for that matter. Supposed proponents of consumption taxes should be more supportive of this idea as these kind of taxes are exactly that - consumption taxes.

Don't want to pay them? You have the option not to. If you consume these products in moderation, you're tax burden is moderate. If you consume them a lot - and hence increase the associated health and cost risks significantly - then you pay a lot of those taxes funding more heavily the cost burdened on society by these products.

[zqt3344 21]

It is confirmed, the liberal left wing nuts on here are all ok with taxing soda, now I can see the right wing republicans are not just delusional and making this stuff up, it is true. Thanks for the proof!

If it's fair game to tax beer, wine, liquor and tabacco for the health issues and corresponding costs to society which they create, I don't see why soda drinks should be off limits. Or nutritionally questionable fatty fast foods, for that matter. Supposed proponents of consumption taxes should be more supportive of this idea as these kind of taxes are exactly that - consumption taxes.

Don't want to pay them? You have the option not to. If you consume these products in moderation, you're tax burden is moderate. If you consume them a lot - and hence increase the associated health and cost risks significantly - then you pay a lot of those taxes funding more heavily the cost burdened on society by these products.

[mawilson 2,133]

Why not tax the health issues directly though, rather than tax things that *might* lead to health issues?

Because then it's already too late.

I'm sure that people who drink soda in moderation can afford 20c or whatever the tax is going to be.

Those who drink nothing but soda will be hardest hit - which is the idea.

That makes sense if you really believe that a tax will result in less consumption. I don't - the tax isn't high enough. Make a 2-liter bottle of Coke $10, and then maybe you'll see some results. I think this is essentially a poverty tax, not a luxury tax.

I do think the tax will result in less consumption - when you're poor, even $10-20 extra per month can make a difference.

[john & jean 37]

It says something when a right winger, in his desire to warn us off the evils of taxing soda makes the claim that too much fruit and veg can ruin your health.

Well, too much fiber can give you the sh!ts.

too much of this thread will have the same effect

[zqt3344 21]

I used to think the wing nuts from the radical ** right were just full of it but now I know they are not, look at all these liberal left wing loons flocking to this thread to post in delight about raising more taxes, I mean they love it, anytime you mention raising taxes and they think it is wonderful, they see more welfare coming their way once again. Sad but true.

It says something when a right winger, in his desire to warn us off the evils of taxing soda makes the claim that too much fruit and veg can ruin your health.

Well, too much fiber can give you the sh!ts.

too much of this thread will have the same effect

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It is confirmed, the liberal left wing nuts on here are all ok with taxing soda, now I can see the right wing republicans are not just delusional and making this stuff up, it is true. Thanks for the proof!

If it's fair game to tax beer, wine, liquor and tabacco for the health issues and corresponding costs to society which they create, I don't see why soda drinks should be off limits. Or nutritionally questionable fatty fast foods, for that matter. Supposed proponents of consumption taxes should be more supportive of this idea as these kind of taxes are exactly that - consumption taxes.

Don't want to pay them? You have the option not to. If you consume these products in moderation, you're tax burden is moderate. If you consume them a lot - and hence increase the associated health and cost risks significantly - then you pay a lot of those taxes funding more heavily the cost burdened on society by these products.

What I'd really like to tax is stupidity - that would put you right out of business, Sarah.