Log In | Register
The new federal excise tax on soda and other sugary drinks is being considered by the Senate Finance Committee as they listen to proposals on how to pay for President Obama's universal health care plan, which is expected to cost more than $1 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a three-cent tax would generate $24 billion over the next four years. The tax also has the full support of many in the health industry including Washington based Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which pressures food companies to make healthier products. Strong opposition is likely to come from an already tax burdened electorate and the beverage industry.
Soda Tax: Consider the Health Benefit and Paying for Healthcare
Seeded on Fri Apr 9, 2010 10:13 AM EDT
Article Source: Gulf human rights hero Thomas B. Manton falsely imprisoned, murdered- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (18)
Tax all foods that contain corn syrup, chemical sweeteners....the cost of health care for consumers is astronomical due to corporate/government bad judgement and food fraud.
- 4 votes
#1 - Fri Apr 9, 2010 10:17 AM EDTHow about an additional tax on any alcohol products consumed by a memeber of Congress? Do you suppose they would support their own sin tax? Pelosi could probably take care of the deficit on her own.
- 1 vote
Gozo, you propose a tax that would put more money in
corporate/government bad judgement
I'd prefer no more money go to government, it's quite big enough. Only fat people drink diet soda. Their body thinks they are consuming calorie-rich sugar, and are left with a craving. They rebound by eating like a pig.
155 calories in a can of Coke. Not much.
- 1 vote
#2 - Fri Apr 9, 2010 11:14 AM EDTWho's gonna pay the billions required to treat diseases caused by prepared foods?
- 2 votes
#3 - Fri Apr 9, 2010 11:24 AM EDTOnly fat people drink diet soda
There is a wealth of prejudice in that remark. Most people who are obese do not choose to be that way. Be grateful you do not have the genes, disease, chemical or hormonal imbalance that can cause obesity. In fact, let's just call you temporarily not-fat.
In fact, it is not only "fat people" who drink diet soda. My son who was extrememly thin due to his asthma and allergies actually enjoyed the taste of diet Coke. He was 6'2" at 17 and 170. Not a fat person. And I know other people who are weight conscious who commonly drink diet sodas.
155 calories in a can of Coke. Not much.
I don't know how many calories you put away per day, but if you are on a commonly prescribed, healthy 1200 calorie weight reduction diet, 155 calories is over one tenth of your daily intake. If you have two it is one fourth. If you have to drink a soda, diet soda is better than sugared. If you have to have a soda.
They rebound by eating like a pig
This is an extremely dehumanizing statement. No matter what their size, they are people just like you. Eating like a pig means that people are uncouth, filthy and without manners. They don't use their silverware. They put their faces in their food. I don't see a lot of that. Do you?
And I suppose you eat like a bird? Consuming three times your body weight daily by shoving your beak into the ground and munching on worms, bugs and seeds and crapping while in flight? I would find that insulting if I were you.
In the future I suggest you use other words besides "fat people". Try obese, blimpish, whale-like, bovine, elephantine, lard-bellied, ponderous and corpulent. Not only will this inprove your vocabulary, but one of those "fat folk" might just pop you one right in the kisser.
- 1 vote
#4 - Fri Apr 9, 2010 2:32 PM EDTMs. Perry....good to hear from you...I am all over your post. We are all in transition....which makes labeling anyone a bit ignorant....but understandable, when we realize...we are still stuck in the same ditch
- 1 vote
#5 - Fri Apr 9, 2010 4:38 PM EDTThank you. I realize it may seem a bit harsh, but folks who unthinkingly make those kinds of statements don't realize the damage they do.
- 1 vote
First off, I only drink diet soda and no, I am not overweight. I drink it because I drink a lot of soda and even 155 calories per can is a lot when you are drink 6-8 cans per day.
However, I disagree with the soda tax because its just a blame game tax. It will do NOTHING to curb the amount of soda people drink. There is always the claim that it will reduce obesity, which it will not. There is the claim that obesity is the cause for higher health costs, and therefore the tax to pay for it is somehow justified.
Let me ask you a question from another perspective. IF taxing soda is justified because it leads to higher health care costs which the government must pay, then shouldn't HEALTHY foods also be taxed? Eating healthy and following a regular exercise plan is supposed to lead to living a longer life. Doesn't that mean that healthy foods and gyms should be taxed to carry the burden of longer time spent on government assistance like social security and medicare?
If people that are severely overweight end up dying before they get to age 65, isn't the cost of their relatively short hospital stay already saved money because they don't spend the next 20 years collecting social security. That, in fact, it is HEALTHY and long-lived people that are costing the government more money and that those services that increase the longevity of people are the real culprits that should be taxed?
Of course, this is a tongue-in-cheek argument, but at the same time it portrays the idiotic rationale that politicians use to justify their attempts to increase their revenue streams by siphoning more and more money out of peoples pockets.
- 1 vote
#6 - Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:24 AM EDTWhat about folks who are hit by trucks? Higher transportation taxes? I like this idea
- 1 vote
Soda isn't the only thing they want to tax... get ready to pay more for all "junk" food. Science is getting into the debate over whether sin taxes will help stop the obesity epidemic. I say no, but this research says yes.
- 1 vote
#7 - Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:12 AM EDTHere's the problem, those studies are usually only looking at specific tests and NOT the overall picture.
Let me use a different problem to help clarify my point.
An environmental group wants to help the environment. They decide arbitrarily that people need to consume less water. They lobby the government to help reduce the consumption of water and the government decides to add a water tax to every gallon of water a household consumes. Higher costs should reduce the demand for water. The environmental group is happy and when they do a followup study they find that indeed water consumption has dropped proportionally. They deem the tax a success.
Now, let's look a bit closer than they do in these studies. I get my water bill and see the huge increase in cost. I decide I must use less water. So I consider all my options and make a few calculations and decide on a course of action. I can buy 250 paper plates at Sam's club for about $6, the good quality kind too that don't fall apart when they get a little grease on them. I found that if I switch to using paper plates for the vast majority of my daily use and reserve regular plates for special occasions, I use about 1 package of them every 2 months. My cost $36 a year. The money I no longer waste buying water to wash plates has dropped my water bill(with taxes included) down $90 a year. Plus, I am much happier since I don't have to waste time washing dishes and I can just toss these in the trash when I am done.
Now tell me, do you think that environmental group did more good or harm for the environment by pushing government to wield tax as a weapon? Do you think the researchers took the rise in paper plates sales into consideration when they were determining if the water taxation was successful in keeping the environment cleaner?
This is exactly what will happen with a soda tax. People will just find other avenues to satisfy their cravings, usually with even MORE harmful results.
- 1 vote
Good point.....just don't see a problem with replacing unhealthy soda with a healthy one.
- 1 vote
But you are not mandating that they switch to some healthier alternative. You are just increasing the cost of the soda. Its still the people that decide how they deal with that increase in cost. Often times it leads to something that is even less healthy.
Let me try this example: Let's say they decide to tax meat because some lobbying group has convinced enough politicians that it is unhealthy. So government slaps a 20% tax on all meat. I, for one, would cut off one of my own limbs before I would ever stop eating meat but I also have a certain budget that I allow for my food. With the 20% tax I can no longer afford the leanest cuts of meat that are 95% fat free and produced without hormones, so instead I buy the cheaper meats that are 30% fat but still lies within my budget.
Has this made me eat healthier?
I am certainly not going to choose to suddenly eat brussel sprouts instead of a good steak just because the steak I used to buy is now more expensive.
- 1 vote
Increasing the cost of soda will make replacing GMO deadly corn syrup and aspartame with a healthy replacement....like....stevia...cost effective.
- 1 vote
Have sin taxes stopped alcoholism and smoking related emphysema? Have they stopped sin? Taxes don't modify behavior as much as people would like to believe. If folks want to gamble here in Texas, they cross a border and go to a casino.
Go and tax no more
- 1 vote
See... now you are falling into the age old propaganda wars. You may not even realize it but the sugar lobby has been a POWERFUL lobbying organization in this country almost since the begining of this country.
Most of the (mis)information you have about things like aspartame and high-fructrose corn syrup are produced by sugar lobbying firms, who are seeking to discredit and cease those products competing for their market share. Go google the internet on the many political battles that have been waged over the sugar lobby.
Do you really want the tax code to be used to push one product over another simply because one can't compete in the marketplace? Its that kind of government interference in free market principles that makes a lot of our lives so expensive and difficult.
- 1 vote
#8 - Sun Apr 11, 2010 4:31 PM EDTI really don't care what they do (I don't consume soda)...as long as I don't have to pay for it. Pepsi has already reported that they, like the Japanese, prefer to transition to a healthy sweetener (that actually provides therapeutic impact on blood-sugar and blood pressure) and legitimately call themselves a healthy drink saving billions in health care costs.....Sounds good to me. Tax pressure provides incentive for the industry to do the right thing...don't you think?
- 1 vote
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
