BronsonLee
Member
my god this turned into the diet soda health debate again
-
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
we should tax gaf posts
Soapbox Killer
Grand Nagus
FACT:
The water in Philly is neither free or good for you.
There is more fluoride in our water than in toothpaste (parts per million)
Bottled water cost more in philly than most "sugary" drinks.
a 20oz bottle of Aquafina is $1.50 while a 20oz Coke could be $1.25 AND COKE MAKES AQUAFINA
BronsonLee
Member
I am now broke
Food islands and poverty. Sometimes the only food available in inner cities is fast food of 711 / CVS / Walgreens.
When that's the case, you eat and drink like shit because you can't afford restaurant food and have no easy way to get to a supermarket 10-20 miles away.
RageWaffles
Member
I'd be more okay with sugary drink taxes if they accounted for reduced sugar drinks, including ones that have a mix of sugar and artificial sweeteners.
Philly's tax, which seems to include artificial sweeteners, is just stupid and mean. Like, how dare poor people drink anything other than water or milk?
Philly's tax, which seems to include artificial sweeteners, is just stupid and mean. Like, how dare poor people drink anything other than water or milk?
I would make some sense to tax the corporations and manufacturers directly but that would also just pass the costs down to the consumers so they're paying for it no matter what. But one thing you can't deny is that cigarette usage among young adults and teens is at an all time low. How much of that is from taxes or public health marketing campaigns or just social pressure - I don't know the numbers.
Legislation on companies that produce this stuff would help but is that something that's really feasible for cities? We'd be waiting forever if we had to wait on the federal government to do something like this (not that I would necessarily want the fed to initiate a tax like this)
Zoe
Member
I'm not so sure that orange juice won't be taxed under the definition in the OP.
Unprepared concentrate may be able to skirt that though.
PrivateWHudson
Member
The problem is that the alternatives to sugary drinks suck. Juice is twice as expensive as soda for the same oz. Good luck finding unsweetened iced tea that isn't some trendy expensive label. Water is pretty much the only option, and the second they add flavor, they add diet chemicals and up the price.
So is the answer to make sugary drinks cheaper then, or to fix the water?
Well, I think in the grand scheme of things, it definitely is. There's plenty of foods and beverages that are similarly unhealthy.
I don't think I can ever come eye to eye everyone else's position on this. It's so small and insignificant, but it goes against like every principle I have. This is a control mechanism by Philly to influence their population, and that sits wrong with me.
BronsonLee
Member
SecretMoblin
Member
This is the most pernicious part of the idea, and unfortunately it's the way a lot of soda tax fans think -- it isn't about the actual health effects of a specific drink, it's about attempting to cripple an entire market using the poor as guinea pigs.
Canadian here too. We never had pop at dinner it was water or milk. We got pop if there was a party. Abults would drink and kids could have a coke
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, though. It may be that the data from the rat studies is not predictive of what will happen with humans, but I hardly think that caution is "stupid".
I'm conflicted on it. Obviously we need to reduce the amount of sugar consumed in America as obesity is out of control.
Yet, this tax will effect the poor people, people with money will continue drinking whatever they want. So in a sense it is a poor people tax. Sugary drinks are far cheaper than more expensive options. Koolaid and soda is way cheaper than juice or even sparkling water, so of course a poor person will get koolaid even if they prefer juice.
The people that don't drink sodas or only drink water are understandably for this, because it won't effect them. But start taxing their fast food, coffee, or other things that aren't the healthiest or there are healthier options, and it's a whole different ball game.
In the end though, I think it's for the best simply because it's basically poison to the body and corporations have made it normal. Sugary drinks should be consumed in moderation. I say this as a soda drinker that has switched to juice and sparkling water.
So yeah it's really not as simple as just drink water. How about you just eat lettuce? People like what they like and what they can afford but health is a real concern.
Yet, this tax will effect the poor people, people with money will continue drinking whatever they want. So in a sense it is a poor people tax. Sugary drinks are far cheaper than more expensive options. Koolaid and soda is way cheaper than juice or even sparkling water, so of course a poor person will get koolaid even if they prefer juice.
The people that don't drink sodas or only drink water are understandably for this, because it won't effect them. But start taxing their fast food, coffee, or other things that aren't the healthiest or there are healthier options, and it's a whole different ball game.
In the end though, I think it's for the best simply because it's basically poison to the body and corporations have made it normal. Sugary drinks should be consumed in moderation. I say this as a soda drinker that has switched to juice and sparkling water.
So yeah it's really not as simple as just drink water. How about you just eat lettuce? People like what they like and what they can afford but health is a real concern.
ClosingADoor
Member
Are you against any control mechanisms from the government? So no tax cuts for environmental beneficial stuff, no tax on gas, not on cigarettes, cars, etc. Then also no subsidies for public transport of course and that kind of thing.
Manmademan
Member
You can buy water by the case for 3 dollars for a pack of 24 literally anywhere.
The only reason single servings of aquafina cost that much at your local gas station is because you're being charged for convenience.
Actually there are some animal trials. The science is still out.
What we do know is huge amounts salt, fat, and sugar have been used post 80s to hide what's really unappealing, but quick processed foods. If you start trying to restrict those things, it's pretty amazing how after a few weeks your taste and smell senses reset and you can pick up on a lot of flavor you didn't before when those senses were overloaded with salt, fat, and sugar every meal.
ultratruman
Banned
Sunny D should be illegal
I always hated it cause I could literally feel the grit on my teeth after
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
Don't buy expensive brands of water. Don't buy water 20oz at a time. Problem solved.
Philly's failing infrastructure is a whole other thing, and it sucks. But you can affordably drink water instead of juice, sugar water, or soda.
Through taxing people (read: directly affecting people's livelihood), yes. Gas tax is far worse than this, however, because for many people, there are no feasible alternatives to driving (unlike this, where you can switch to drinking water, etc.).
"wreaked havoc" talk about hyperbole.
Juice concentrates can be bought for $1-2 and make 32-64 ounces. And you can control the concentration.
BronsonLee
Member
See you and Manmade both say that but I already threw his opinion in the bin because he works on Market Street, there's plenty of room for yours in there too
All I see from people supporting the tax are a lot of convoluted ways to dance around the fact that the tax specifically targets the poor and that's bullshit
It's also far more encompassing than a 'soda tax' would indicate
ClosingADoor
Member
Subsidies also directly affect peoples livelihoods, and that is also trying to influence them.
I have little problem with taxing this stuff. But in addition the government should then use the money to provide alternatives, such as cleaning up your water supply so you can drink it everywhere.
I find it pretty ridiculous the amount of people who seem to be all in favor of this kind of stuff. The government shouldn't be involved in telling me and my family to not drink soda. That's a decision that we are capable of making on our own with all the available information that is available about the risk factors of consuming too much sugar. The government doesn't need to make those decisions for me or attempt to force my hand with a pointless tax.
In any case, I don't think there is anything wrong with drinking an occasional soda.
In any case, I don't think there is anything wrong with drinking an occasional soda.
Phatosaurus
Member
I agree that it's at a low, but it'd be none existent if cigerettes were outlawed through legislation years ago, no?
They only reason they're not illegal is because they make the government money through taxation.
I'm not talking about a tax on the corporations and manufacturers of sugary drinks.
I'm saying that a law should be mandated that stops the manufacturer from producing drinks containing more that Xg of sugar per 100ml.
That's the right step in my opinion.
It cuts down on the population's consumption of sugar without taxing the poorest people, without costing the corporations (so no cost can be passed down), and it'd also possible cut down on the overall consumption of soft drinks too (because some people wouldn't like the new, less sweet taste and just stop drinking it).
Wafflecakes
Member
LOLOLOLOL.... seriously?
"I decided something is bad, and even though I have no evidence to support that it is bad, you have no evidence that it is not bad.... so it is bad."
I usually don't let my kids have pop (or juice) at dinner either. They are generally allowed to have one sugary drink (pop or juice) a day, and it's typically at lunch or if they are having a treat/snack in the afternoon.
My wife also stopped buying Coke nearly as much as we used to, which I consumed 99% of, so I've resorted to the healthy choice of replacing it with more (craft) beer. Seems like a good trade off thus far.
Laevateinn
Member
Why don't you get a water filter and some reusable water bottles?
Vincent Grayson
Member
I think it's largely because sugary drinks (especially anything outside the 100% juice) are nutritionally just utterly bereft of anything useful. Unhealthy foods at least contain things people need like fats and proteins and such.
BronsonLee
Member
Hispanic! At the Disco
Member
This isnt in LA right? Cuz im about to get a couple of 2 liters of coke but if its taxed I may have to drink WATER.
the horror.
See you and Manmade both say that but I already threw his opinion in the bin because he works on Market Street, there's plenty of room for yours in there too
All I see from people supporting the tax are a lot of convoluted ways to dance around the fact that the tax specifically targets the poor and that's bullshit
It's also far more encompassing than a 'soda tax' would indicate
How does it target poor people? Poor people aren't forced to drink soda and they also have government assistance.
American needs to focus on becoming healthier. Child diabetes is rampant and most of our population is overweight.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Does anyone have any literature on the actual effect of these taxes on the economics of poor households? Just running some quick numbers if you bought a 2 liter of soda every single day that would be about an additional $7 a week in expenses
Now obviously there are plenty of households for whom $7 a week is a significant problem, $28 a month matters to some people, but are those households really buying 2 liters a day in the first place? The answer could be yes! But I'd like to see some evidence that they are
I'm trying to understand if this tax actually matters
Now obviously there are plenty of households for whom $7 a week is a significant problem, $28 a month matters to some people, but are those households really buying 2 liters a day in the first place? The answer could be yes! But I'd like to see some evidence that they are
I'm trying to understand if this tax actually matters
whatsinaname
Member
Any consumption based tax targets people with lesser income disproportionately.
How is this tax hurting poor people? I can go to a supermarket and buy 32 water bottles for 3 dollars. Gallons are even cheaper.
The tax exists to push people away from sugary drinks.
Soapbox Killer
Grand Nagus
True. The practicality of this is however lost on the youth that this is supposed to help. Like in other east coast cities, kids here go to the "Papis" (Corner Store, Bodega etc) 100,000 kids are not going to Rite-aid for a case of spring water. The idea is far better than its executional promise. It becomes classic Tax & Spend. People don't quit cause the price goes up. Gas, booze and smokes has taught us that.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
All sales taxes effect poor people more than rich people, because poor people buy more stuff relative to their income (or, conversely, rich people save more)
With that said, I'm still uncertain how much this specific tax actually affects household finances
whatsinaname
Member
And it pushes poorer people away harder than those on higher incomes. A $1 soda going to $2 is harder on someone earning $30,000 a year than someone earning $100,000 a year. Just like any consumption tax or fine that is flat.
Nooo! I'd never get past junior...
Vincent Grayson
Member
And still should be consumed far, far less than it is.
Dude Abides
Banned
Loving the feigned concern for the poor.
No soda tax in Canada where I'm from at least. I can understand wanting to push people away from diabetes inducing liquids or whatever, but then every highly sugary edible substance should have additional taxes, including foods. But this would cause the price of so many foods to go up. 99c tax on a 99c thing seems excessive though.
Kind of odd that diet drinks are included, but maybe it was just easier legislation-wise to include them as well.
Didn't even know this was a debate among people.
Next can we start debating climate change?
Kind of odd that diet drinks are included, but maybe it was just easier legislation-wise to include them as well.
Didn't even know this was a debate among people.
Next can we start debating climate change?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked