Dude Abides
Banned
I hear water is pretty cheap.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Do other big cities have a "Soda Tax" or are we just lucky in Philly?
- Thread starter Soapbox Killer
- Start date
- Status
I hear water is pretty cheap.
Because a Philly cheesesteak is 800 calories and has useful nutrients.
You drink one can of Soda, you have more than your recommended daily intake of sugar and no useful nutrients.
BronsonLee
Member
This is a poor person's tax and fuck Philly for it AND the Philly wage tax that you have to pay if you:
Live in the city OR work in the city
Live in the city OR work in the city
What's so bad about pushing people away from unhealthy beverages? Water is cheap and infinitely more healthier.
BronsonLee
Member
Because it's on EVERY beverage with artificial sugar in it, not just soda
I like this. It's local decision making. If the general populous is against it they ideally can vote to get rid of it at some point. Although there's an argument to be had that this should be done nationally because the federal government pays for most of the medical treatment for stuff like diabetes.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
You were buying a 60 ounce Sunny D for 99 cents?
Noticing the trend here yet?
I am all for making the country healthier.
Not all, but generally supportive of more legalization. And let's not start comparing soda with heroin.
I will never understand this point of view. I hate to break it to ya'll but if we should be taxing everything that's bad for you as a means of control, then be prepared to tax pretty much everything. Why single out soda?
perfectchaos007
Member
I'm not a fan of the nanny states. Some people like to be told what to eat, drink, and do but I don't.
Manmademan
Member
The tax is fine. Ideally it will bring in revenue AND cause lower income philadelphians to stop drinking crap all the time.
Poor people are still free to buy water, unsweetened tea and coffee, milk, and anything that's 100% juice without getting hit by the tax.
People forget that soda as the default drink is a VERY recent phenomena. HFCS and artificial sweeteners are SO cheap that they became the default somewhere around the early to mid 80s when obesity exploded. And much of that is because corn is subsidized to hell.
Want to reverse that, then take the price advantage away. And in the meantime the city can plug critical holes in the budget and fund early childhood initiatives.
Expect this one to spread rather quickly once Philly's revenue figures are in.
Poor people are still free to buy water, unsweetened tea and coffee, milk, and anything that's 100% juice without getting hit by the tax.
People forget that soda as the default drink is a VERY recent phenomena. HFCS and artificial sweeteners are SO cheap that they became the default somewhere around the early to mid 80s when obesity exploded. And much of that is because corn is subsidized to hell.
Want to reverse that, then take the price advantage away. And in the meantime the city can plug critical holes in the budget and fund early childhood initiatives.
Expect this one to spread rather quickly once Philly's revenue figures are in.
Nazgul_Hunter
Member
Chicago just passed a similar tax, and it's pretty broad, including even non-sugared drinks like Diet sodas.
BronsonLee
Member
I drink water almost exclusively and still think it's an absurd tax that specifically targets poor people because I live in Philly. It's been in effect for 4 days and has already wreaked havoc
Goro Majima
Kitty Genovese Member
They're taxing diet too?
Literally never moving to Philadelphia with my 3-4 can a day habit.
I'm guessing they're taxing unsweetened stuff because implemented a tax on just some sodas would be a nightmare for businesses.
Literally never moving to Philadelphia with my 3-4 can a day habit.
I'm guessing they're taxing unsweetened stuff because implemented a tax on just some sodas would be a nightmare for businesses.
Soapbox Killer
Grand Nagus
There is no tax on groceries in PA (but the SIN tax on cigarettes and booze is already sky high) This is exclusive to Philly and only on what is deemed "sugary".
Both Pepsi and Coke have facilities in the city and said they will preemptively lay-off people if they see a drop in revenue.
White sugar is pretty bad for you in larger amounts I agree but everything in moderation my kids drink more water than anything. I buy 1 bottle of SunnyD (or case of capri suns) to split between 7 people so it's not really all that bad (I wanted that purple stuff but whatever). All the while weed is still illegal and non-taxed by a city that allows every store in county to sell products that are only used for the consumption of marijuana. The Hypocrisy involved in this thinking is staggering!
Both Pepsi and Coke have facilities in the city and said they will preemptively lay-off people if they see a drop in revenue.
White sugar is pretty bad for you in larger amounts I agree but everything in moderation my kids drink more water than anything. I buy 1 bottle of SunnyD (or case of capri suns) to split between 7 people so it's not really all that bad (I wanted that purple stuff but whatever). All the while weed is still illegal and non-taxed by a city that allows every store in county to sell products that are only used for the consumption of marijuana. The Hypocrisy involved in this thinking is staggering!
The Albatross
Member
You're just lucky. Most big cities do not have this tax. NYC tried it under Mayor Bloomberg and it failed miserably, and so Bloomberg took the idea to the West Coast where it's succeeded in some cities.
Stuff You Should Know did a podcast about it. Well, it was about Sin Taxes, but soda tax is a sin tax: http://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/podcasts/sin-taxes.htm
The great irony of sin taxes is that the majority of them usually aren't implemented to cut down on the sin, and those who pass the tax are trying to get rich off of poor health choices. It's one thing if the soda tax directly goes into a fund to educate people to make healthy choices. I would not be against that very strongly, if as close to 100% of all raised funds from the sin tax went into education programs and alternative programs to cut down on that sin. But they don't. In most cases especially with light sins like Soda Taxes, 20% might go to that, and 80% will go into a general fund. In affect, the local government (or whoever is instituting this) is trying to get rich off of poor health choices without adequately informing the public about their poor choices.
Plus, the verdict is still out if all sin taxes actually work, especially when it comes to soda taxes or sugar taxes which are very rarely applied regionally and usually hyper-local.
Stuff You Should Know did a podcast about it. Well, it was about Sin Taxes, but soda tax is a sin tax: http://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/podcasts/sin-taxes.htm
The great irony of sin taxes is that the majority of them usually aren't implemented to cut down on the sin, and those who pass the tax are trying to get rich off of poor health choices. It's one thing if the soda tax directly goes into a fund to educate people to make healthy choices. I would not be against that very strongly, if as close to 100% of all raised funds from the sin tax went into education programs and alternative programs to cut down on that sin. But they don't. In most cases especially with light sins like Soda Taxes, 20% might go to that, and 80% will go into a general fund. In affect, the local government (or whoever is instituting this) is trying to get rich off of poor health choices without adequately informing the public about their poor choices.
Plus, the verdict is still out if all sin taxes actually work, especially when it comes to soda taxes or sugar taxes which are very rarely applied regionally and usually hyper-local.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
Soda may do way less damage to an individual than heroin, but it's doing an unfathomably larger amount of damage to the population than heroin.
Soda isn't singled out. Look up sin tax.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
The argument that it disproportionately effects poor people is correct, and is the best argument to use against taxes like this. But I'm just not quite understanding arguments that cite how much more specifically expensive it makes stuff when...it doesn't seem to? The example the OP posted is still ludicrously cheap if the volume is at least 48 ounces
Probably because it is much easier to overconsume sugary drinks. Philly cheesesteaks also contain protein and fat. They take longer to digest and trigger satiety in the body. The body is much better at naturally limiting your intake of cheesesteaks than it is of Mountain Dew.
There's nuance between taxing a product that effects the health of the country's populace, and your fear mongering of the "nanny state".
Manmademan
Member
Lol @ wrecked havoc. Joe six-pack bitching because his 16oz soda is 50 cents more is hardly "havoc".
And yeah I'm in the Philly area. Working out of my office on market street right now.
Poor people are also overwhelmingly the beneficiaries of the tax in the long run, since it's funding childcare initiatives, parks, etc targeted to their needs.
SecretMoblin
Member
But should people be allowed to buy soda with SNAP?
BronsonLee
Member
It affects any juices under 50%, all sweetened iced teas, any sweetened coffees, and Arctic Splash
ARCTIC SPLASH
But it doesn't include sparkling water so personally I am s a f e
Gimme dat SNAP
Obesity is a worse health epidemic then heroin and affects a much much larger percentage of people.
Phatosaurus
Member
It's not a tax to stop people from drinking sugary drinks, it's a tax to make money off of people that buy sugary drinks.
Just like the taxes on alcohol and cigarettes aren't to cut down on people buying them, but to make money off of the people that do.
I'm all for cutting down the amount of sugar in drinks and cutting down on overall obesity in the population, but tax doesn't solve it.
Legislations on the corporations and manufacturers is what is needed.
Sadly, there's a profit to be made through tax, and there's no money in outlawing the production of absurdly sugary drinks, so the former is the go to choice.
Just like the taxes on alcohol and cigarettes aren't to cut down on people buying them, but to make money off of the people that do.
I'm all for cutting down the amount of sugar in drinks and cutting down on overall obesity in the population, but tax doesn't solve it.
Legislations on the corporations and manufacturers is what is needed.
Sadly, there's a profit to be made through tax, and there's no money in outlawing the production of absurdly sugary drinks, so the former is the go to choice.
I know what sin tax is. Am I supposed to be for something just because I know it exists? I'm against the entire premise. Tobacco, alcohol, and now soda. And yet, I feel like we might be missing about one thousand entries on that old sin tax list.
'Don't drink crap! Coffee is fine though.'
Manmademan
Member
Might as well tax paint thinner and antifreeze, they're just as good for you as arctic splash and taste better.
Coffee is unhealthy? Receipts pls.
I get the desire to encourage people to curb how much soda they drink (I drink a few glasses a year at most), but it seems hypocritical when alcohol is widely available and advertised all the time and when the momentum is in favor of legalizing marijuana.
Either we should heavily tax and regulate everything unhealthy (bacon too would probably make the cut) or we should let people take responsibility for their own choices. Smoking is a bit of an exception as someone else smoking can cause me harm due to secondary smoke. Someone else drinking sugar water doesn't really effect me in any meaningful way.
Either we should heavily tax and regulate everything unhealthy (bacon too would probably make the cut) or we should let people take responsibility for their own choices. Smoking is a bit of an exception as someone else smoking can cause me harm due to secondary smoke. Someone else drinking sugar water doesn't really effect me in any meaningful way.
now coffee is unhealthy? what?!
I only drink my own pee. The only way to be truly safe.
BronsonLee
Member
...wait
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
Public health is a public concern and requires public solutions.
Unfortunately people need to be told what to eat and drink because of a lack of knowledge about nutrition, and the corporations trying to one up one another in making addictive, massively caloric food items are certainly not helping to establish healthy norms. I can't blame anyone for having completely miscalibrated ideas about healthy portions and ingredients, but the solution is education and behavioral nudging, which includes strategic taxation.
Technically the molecular structure of HFCS sugar is different, but there haven't been large studies on how different sugars effect obesity and metabolism.
Still, you could do what I do and water down your juice a tad. A serving a day of juice isn't going to do much bad, but most people are drinking 10s of servings of juice or soda.
That is a point of controversy in nutritional science. Rat studies have show that consuming diet soda leads to greater weight gain than non-diet soda. As far as I'm aware the study has not been done in humans yet, so it is not definitive, but I would take it as a warning sign. Personally I no longer consider diet drinks to be "free".
Manmademan
Member
Black coffee is mostly fine. Same with tea. It's not going to make you significantly healthier but a cup of coffee is WAY better than downing a monster energy drink.
Americans drink a ridiculous amount of pop. Whenever I'm down there, I can't get over the soft drink aisle at supermarkets. I've been told that many families will serve a 2 L bottle at dinner on a daily basis.
A 2011 study showed that people in the US drank an average 170 L per person, compared to 101 L in Canada. I'm trying to understand the difference, since we're so culturally similar, but can't.
A 2011 study showed that people in the US drank an average 170 L per person, compared to 101 L in Canada. I'm trying to understand the difference, since we're so culturally similar, but can't.
ClosingADoor
Member
Why single out cigarettes? Because they are proven to be damn unhealthy.
Most people don't drink alcohol daily. And marijuana has no direct negative consequences.
It does affect you in an indirect way, since it makes the country unhealthy. People in this thread say it targets poor people disproportionately. So how are those people going to pay the health bills for it later on? Better to tax it and move people towards healthier drinks.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
I was just responding to your claim that soda is singled out.
yeah I don't think diet soda is necessarily as bad as some people seem to think but some people thinks it's basically like drinking water which is absolutely crazy
Wafflecakes
Member
Maybe in the imaginations of stupid people.
There is no science behind the hate for diet soda in humans.
In terms of caloric intake, it is.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked