Tax on soda

[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.

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

Maybe. $0.07/can would mean that if the heavy soda-drinking family drinks a 12-pack every day, that's $25/month. Alternatively, that's just less money to buy fruit or go to the doctor's. I'm not convinced that people who drink so much soda every day will rebudget their finances in such a way to really improve their health.

[zqt3344 21]

And you too!

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.

[trailmix 77]

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.

You are implying that you would pay more for taxes in Canada than you do now - care to back up that statement with some facts?

Also, from what I see in that article, soda is not the culprit - sugar is - wouldn't it be fairer to just tax everthing that has sugar in it?

[mawilson 2,133]

Maybe. $0.07/can would mean that if the heavy soda-drinking family drinks a 12-pack every day, that's $25/month. Alternatively, that's just less money to buy fruit or go to the doctor's. I'm not convinced that people who drink so much soda every day will rebudget their finances in such a way to really improve their health.

Hmm. Yeah, I guess it'll have to be more than a few cents to make a difference.

[Peikko 1,575]

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.

How so? If you are poor you are not going to be drinking a lot of soda it's not economic. If you are poor you can afford the odd one which is not going to damage your health.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And you too!

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.

No Sarah, you're in a class all by yourself. After all, I haven't suggested that Germany (or Ethiopia to give you the benefit of a doubt here) belong to the Middle East. You have.

[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.

How so? If you are poor you are not going to be drinking a lot of soda it's not economic. If you are poor you can afford the odd one which is not going to damage your health.

I disagree. Poor people drink a lot of soda - surely a larger percentage of their income is spent on soda than rich people's. The tax is regressive, just like the tobacco tax. I understand that the intent is to make people consume less, but in reality it's essentially a tax on the poor.

[Peikko 1,575]

Maybe. $0.07/can would mean that if the heavy soda-drinking family drinks a 12-pack every day, that's $25/month. Alternatively, that's just less money to buy fruit or go to the doctor's. I'm not convinced that people who drink so much soda every day will rebudget their finances in such a way to really improve their health.

Hmm. Yeah, I guess it'll have to be more than a few cents to make a difference.

No, probably not and certainly not simply because it's taxed, but that's not a function of the fact that they are poor because drinking too much soda isn't a product of economic status.

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.

How so? If you are poor you are not going to be drinking a lot of soda it's not economic. If you are poor you can afford the odd one which is not going to damage your health.

I disagree. Poor people drink a lot of soda - surely a larger percentage of their income is spent on soda than rich people's. The tax is regressive, just like the tobacco tax. I understand that the intent is to make people consume less, but in reality it's essentially a tax on the poor.

Not true, it is a tax on those who decide to spend their budget on Soda at the expense of other goods. That has nothing to do with economic status.

I don't think the intent to make people consume less is particularly relevant, but the intent to produce revenue to finance those who might get sick from over consumption, that's reasonable.

[mawilson 2,133]

I disagree. Poor people drink a lot of soda - surely a larger percentage of their income is spent on soda than rich people's. The tax is regressive, just like the tobacco tax. I understand that the intent is to make people consume less, but in reality it's essentially a tax on the poor.

I agree with Jenn that it's essentially a tax on the poor; however I'm in favor of specifically

targeting the poor with this tax, as the poor tend to make *ahem* poor health choices.

[Jenn! 918]

Maybe. $0.07/can would mean that if the heavy soda-drinking family drinks a 12-pack every day, that's $25/month. Alternatively, that's just less money to buy fruit or go to the doctor's. I'm not convinced that people who drink so much soda every day will rebudget their finances in such a way to really improve their health.

Hmm. Yeah, I guess it'll have to be more than a few cents to make a difference.

No, probably not and certainly not simply because it's taxed, but that's not a function of the fact that they are poor because drinking too much soda isn't a product of economic status.

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.

How so? If you are poor you are not going to be drinking a lot of soda it's not economic. If you are poor you can afford the odd one which is not going to damage your health.

I disagree. Poor people drink a lot of soda - surely a larger percentage of their income is spent on soda than rich people's. The tax is regressive, just like the tobacco tax. I understand that the intent is to make people consume less, but in reality it's essentially a tax on the poor.

Not true, it is a tax on those who decide to spend their budget on Soda at the expense of other goods. That has nothing to do with economic status.

I don't think the intent to make people consume less is particularly relevant, but the intent to produce revenue to finance those who might get sick from over consumption, that's reasonable.

What do you mean it doesn't have anything to do with economic status? What sort of people would spend their budget on soda at the expense of other goods? Not well-educated high-income families. You can't dismiss the fact that the tax will disproportionately affect lower-income families. You can call it a "stupidity" or a "don't have their priorities in order" tax, but you can't ignore the correlation between those and economic status.

[Peikko 1,575]

Maybe. $0.07/can would mean that if the heavy soda-drinking family drinks a 12-pack every day, that's $25/month. Alternatively, that's just less money to buy fruit or go to the doctor's. I'm not convinced that people who drink so much soda every day will rebudget their finances in such a way to really improve their health.

Hmm. Yeah, I guess it'll have to be more than a few cents to make a difference.

No, probably not and certainly not simply because it's taxed, but that's not a function of the fact that they are poor because drinking too much soda isn't a product of economic status.

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.

How so? If you are poor you are not going to be drinking a lot of soda it's not economic. If you are poor you can afford the odd one which is not going to damage your health.

I disagree. Poor people drink a lot of soda - surely a larger percentage of their income is spent on soda than rich people's. The tax is regressive, just like the tobacco tax. I understand that the intent is to make people consume less, but in reality it's essentially a tax on the poor.

Not true, it is a tax on those who decide to spend their budget on Soda at the expense of other goods. That has nothing to do with economic status.

I don't think the intent to make people consume less is particularly relevant, but the intent to produce revenue to finance those who might get sick from over consumption, that's reasonable.

What do you mean it doesn't have anything to do with economic status? What sort of people would spend their budget on soda at the expense of other goods? Not well-educated high-income families. You can't dismiss the fact that the tax will disproportionately affect lower-income families. You can call it a "stupidity" or a "don't have their priorities in order" tax, but you can't ignore the correlation between those and economic status.

I mean that just because you are poor doesn't mean you must or in fact will buy a lot of soda. That some do, and that becomes a large part of their budget is definitely a problem, but the problem is not a function of being poor so adding a tax on to it is not some evil plot to make poor people poorer.

Perhaps your problem is that low income families should not be taxed on consumer goods at the same rate as higher income people? I personally don't consider that a problem, but it seems to be what you are getting at. Now, if someone suggested taxing milk I would be more inclined to believe that it was unfair to the lower income families.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

When people make arguments like that its easy to imagine what it might be like to be clinically insane.

Relativism taken to the edge and pushed off the cliff of rationality.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Maybe. $0.07/can would mean that if the heavy soda-drinking family drinks a 12-pack every day, that's $25/month. Alternatively, that's just less money to buy fruit or go to the doctor's. I'm not convinced that people who drink so much soda every day will rebudget their finances in such a way to really improve their health.

Hmm. Yeah, I guess it'll have to be more than a few cents to make a difference.

No, probably not and certainly not simply because it's taxed, but that's not a function of the fact that they are poor because drinking too much soda isn't a product of economic status.

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.

How so? If you are poor you are not going to be drinking a lot of soda it's not economic. If you are poor you can afford the odd one which is not going to damage your health.

I disagree. Poor people drink a lot of soda - surely a larger percentage of their income is spent on soda than rich people's. The tax is regressive, just like the tobacco tax. I understand that the intent is to make people consume less, but in reality it's essentially a tax on the poor.

Not true, it is a tax on those who decide to spend their budget on Soda at the expense of other goods. That has nothing to do with economic status.

I don't think the intent to make people consume less is particularly relevant, but the intent to produce revenue to finance those who might get sick from over consumption, that's reasonable.

What do you mean it doesn't have anything to do with economic status? What sort of people would spend their budget on soda at the expense of other goods? Not well-educated high-income families. You can't dismiss the fact that the tax will disproportionately affect lower-income families. You can call it a "stupidity" or a "don't have their priorities in order" tax, but you can't ignore the correlation between those and economic status.

I mean that just because you are poor doesn't mean you must or in fact will buy a lot of soda. That some do, and that becomes a large part of their budget is definitely a problem, but the problem is not a function of being poor so adding a tax on to it is not some evil plot to make poor people poorer.

Perhaps your problem is that low income families should not be taxed on consumer goods at the same rate as higher income people? I personally don't consider that a problem, but it seems to be what you are getting at. Now, if someone suggested taxing milk I would be more inclined to believe that it was unfair to the lower income families.

I agree that being poor doesn't mean that people buy lots of soda - it kind of implies that there is nothing else to drink (presumably the poor have never heard of water); or indeed that the poor have worse nutrition than the rich.

There is actually no evidence that wealthier people have better nutrition than poor people. From what I read its about equivalent - largely depends on your lifestyle and if you make the time to cook fresh food from fresh ingredients.

Convenience is the real problem - like the person who decides that they're going to have pizza (or not go to the gym) because their favorite show is on 4 nights a week. Easier to pour soda from the bottle than it is to make iced tea, or juice your own oranges.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Gene Hunt

[chri'stina 190]

I've heard the argument a bunch of times about how poor people DO have worse nutrition because of things like fast food being cheaper, various unhealthy food sometimes cheaper than healthy. Produce and fruit are not cheap. If you think they are, then it's because you maybe always have bought at the same level you do now. But it's not cheap. It's cheaper to buy crappy food a lot of the time. I am not trying to apply that to this soda tax but you can't say nutrition and economic status don't impact each other.

Edited October 5, 2009 by chri'stina

[Jenn! 918]

I mean that just because you are poor doesn't mean you must or in fact will buy a lot of soda. That some do, and that becomes a large part of their budget is definitely a problem, but the problem is not a function of being poor so adding a tax on to it is not some evil plot to make poor people poorer.

Perhaps your problem is that low income families should not be taxed on consumer goods at the same rate as higher income people? I personally don't consider that a problem, but it seems to be what you are getting at. Now, if someone suggested taxing milk I would be more inclined to believe that it was unfair to the lower income families.

My problem is that the effect will be a larger hit against the poor as a whole. It doesn't matter that it's not the goal (e.g. an evil plot to make poor people poorer), but it will be the result. I don't see this as being an issue of low income families being taxed at the same rate as higher income people - on the contrary, it is taxing low income families at a higher rate. Excise taxes levied against certain goods which happen to make a larger part of the budget of poor people than rich people are regressive. I guess you can argue that it's not an automatic tax against the poor, but that would be like saying that a yacht tax is meant to raise taxes on yacht owners, not to effect a progressive tax.