Let's look at another positive, what if some poor people end up saving money because they don't want to spend anymore on soda?
So the benefits are twofold: A healthier life and potentially more money in the pocket.
-
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
Let's look at another positive, what if some poor people end up saving money because they don't want to spend anymore on soda?
So the benefits are twofold: A healthier life and potentially more money in the pocket.
perfectchaos007
Member
If there's a sugary soda tax, why should coffee ( other than plain black coffee ) be exempt?
These need to be taxed if sugar sodas are. Lets not discriminate
Soapbox Killer
Grand Nagus
Using me is a bad example. I have a big family (7) but both me and Mrs Soapbox Killer have solid jobs and this is not a make or break thing for us. Also I live in household that prefers water so its not a deal breaker. But I grew up in this city poor and I know the choices one has to make when its either lights or food and I hate when I see a city that is already taxing the hell out of it people come up with a another tax under the guise of helping the community. It's really horse shit in a flower basket.
BronsonLee
Member
If there's a sugary soda tax, why should coffee ( other than plain black coffee ) be exempt?
These need to be taxed if sugar sodas are. Lets not discriminate
I'm pretty sure they are getting taxed too. If not the ones they make there, then definitely the prepackaged ones
witchedwiz
Member
This over and over..
And seriously, a coke once in a while?
Sure..
Everyday? Lolno..
While this might be more beneficial for the state coffer, so to speak, and just as a side-effect aimed to be beneficial for the citizens, it's better than nothing...
thecouncil
Banned
It's getting crazy here in Philly. Anarchy has broken out. Riots, daily.
The rich sit in their office towers, looking down at the madness, with a smile on their faces. And I'm not sure if it's because they love the chaos or because of the sweet soda they're sipping on.
Just yesterday, I saw a man rip another man's head off, drink his gushing blood and shriek "This is the only drink I can afford now" at the sky.
The rich sit in their office towers, looking down at the madness, with a smile on their faces. And I'm not sure if it's because they love the chaos or because of the sweet soda they're sipping on.
Just yesterday, I saw a man rip another man's head off, drink his gushing blood and shriek "This is the only drink I can afford now" at the sky.
How about we allow people to make their own choices regarding drinks they consume? There is plenty of information out there (including nutrition labels on every drink) to make an informed decision on how healthy a drink is.
Soapbox Killer
Grand Nagus
If there's a sugary soda tax, why should coffee ( other than plain black coffee ) be exempt?
These need to be taxed if sugar sodas are. Lets not discriminate
Will NOT be taxed at the counter as the base product may be sugar free.
Wafflecakes
Member
Climate change deniers have about as much evidence as people who claim diet soda is worse or even close to as bad for you as regular soda.
PrivateWHudson
Member
I was thinking more about being on the go and grabbing something cold to drink.
Mairjuana does have negative effects, although not as significant as many claim.
Sugary drink use does have indirect effects on all of us by making us a more obese and less healthy nation, but by that logic so do any number of things.
Society would be safer and spend less on rescue/health care if no one hiked mountains, no one rode skateboards, no one ate red meat, no one visited Chicago, no one rode motorcycles, etc...
The question is not whether something is completely safe or not, but where the threshold should be for government to step in and use taxes as a cudgel to curb behavior. While I don't drink sugary drinks at all frequently it would not impact me if such a tax were instituted here, but I do think it's not the best approach.
Sometimes for the sake of the nation, we have to nudge people in the right direction. We want to lessen the burden on our health system.
The Albatross
Member
Evidence and past experience hasn't bore this out though. Poor people still end up buying the item, so they end up spending more on soda.
Sin taxes can be justifiable when they 1:1 go along with a campaign of education against the sin. This is almost never the case, the tax is used partially for educating against the sin, and mostly towards something else.
Sin taxes also have to be a delicate balance, or else cities lose revenue on them, especially if they risk running education campaigns against the sin. In New York City, 60% of cigarette sales are illegal and free of NYC's steep tax on cigarettes. The city ends up losing money on the sin tax and at least in the last half decade, smoking rates have increased in the city.
If there's a sugary soda tax, why should coffee ( other than plain black coffee ) be exempt?
These need to be taxed if sugar sodas are. Lets not discriminate
I'd imagine almost all cities implementing sugar taxes would also be taxing highly sugared drinks like this. "Soda taxes" are nicknamed "soda taxes" but they're applied to any highly sugar'ed drink like in the OP, his example was Sunny Delight, an orange-juice like substance. *Edit* Although, there may be exceptions for drinks made on the premises... For instance, beer and wine is taxed as alcohol if you buy a 6 pack or a bottle retail, but if you go to a bar and have a pint or a cocktail, it's taxed under the restaurant/hospitality tax usually. Hospitality taxes are almost universally higher than sales taxes so it hasn't been brought up.
That said, taxing coffee with simply cream or milk ("anything other than plain black coffee") is ridiculous. Do you really want to implement a milk tax?
That's dumb, they could tax the price increase from whatever vanilla bullshit latte cappa thing people want added to their coffee.
This should totally be an ep in Always Sunny though; The Gang Smuggles Soda. And then to cut costs, Charlie and Frank start mixing their own Charlie Cola in their bathtub.
SecretMoblin
Member
We should tax every vice to the point that it affects the ability for lower-income people to enjoy minor luxuries, frankly. It's wins all around: the state gets more money to spend on the public good, the poor aren't wasting their incomes on terrible and unsavory behaviors, and they get to save money, making them wealthier!
Obviously that's not working looking at our diabetes and obesity problem. If we as a society are paying for people's healthcare then it's in the interest of society to something about it. And nobody truly makes their own choices. Are you going to be against advertising sugary drinks because that's not letting people make their own choices?
Mammoth Jones
Member
And let's be honest: It's not going to be used to fund health initiatives. It's going to be used to pad holes in the budget in general. It's just a tax hike for poor people. But use something that's "bad" to hold off criticism.
Ron Mexico
Member
Not quite hyperbolic at all.
Retailers were already raising prices before the tax, which is levied on the distributors level, could even stock their shelves with the newly-taxed goods.
Several places also raised their prices on bottled water, even though it was not and was never on the table to be taxed.
There's also arguments galore about how the breakdown of where the tax income was going changed once the bill went through committee.
All of these, while seemingly minor at face value, are going to be fought. That fight is going to cost resources, putting even more of a strain on a city that can't keep its fiscal shit together to begin with.
So yeah, wreaking havoc. And all of that is ignoring both a) the impact on the poor and b) the nonstop arguments over diet vs. regular and all that other nonsense.
so this states that fluoride in philadelphia's water is at .7 ppm
http://www.phila.gov/water/wu/Water Quality Reports/2015WaterQuality.pdf
and this states that fluoride in sunny d is .71 ppm
https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80400525/Data/Fluoride/F02.pdf
Soapbox Killer
Grand Nagus
Spuck-uk
Banned
Sunny D in the UK has been entirely sugar free for close to a decade.
If you're giving soda to your kids, you're contributing to their future eating habits, and potentially obesity in the future. I'm really glad we never had sweets, snacks, soda in my house growing up, so me and my brother never got a taste for it.
God Dayumm
Banned
I used to agree with this, and I also would favor legalizing all drugs. That stopped when I saw my health insurance premiums rise last year. If someone is going to be taxed for bad consumption habits, I sure don't want it to be me. They can make their own choices when I can make my own choice of not paying for their healthcare.
Generic Power Ranger
Member
we have a bottle fee, that you pay when purchasing most drinkables in stores. You get the fee back when you return the bottle through a machine (you get a slip that you can convert to cash at a counter) so you're compelled to return bottles. It's nationwide (but should be worldwide). The fee is bigger if the bottle is bigger. It also includes soda cans.
edit. Only skimmed through the op. Was not entirely on topic. My bad. Thought it was relevant to the title
edit. Only skimmed through the op. Was not entirely on topic. My bad. Thought it was relevant to the title
H.Protagonist
[-_-]/
I don't really see a downside. People would save and be healthier drinking less soda and more water which is 'free', and the revenue raised goes into schools and recreational programs. I suppose there's a question of exactly how much of the money is actually going into the communities, but we've got a serious sugar/weight problem in the states, so I'm in favor of any efforts to that end, really.
whatsinaname
Member
lol. I hope we have a high tax on M3s and any cars that give less than 50 MPG. Less of a burden on our ecosystem.
If you are really concerned about the burden on our health system, you should know that the obese and smokers have less lifetime healthcare costs than healthy people.
I'll just leave this here.
http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/marijuana-and-lung-health.html
Skellig Gra
Member
Every tax affects lower income people worse. It's a tax to control behavior. This is very common in many places.
This.
Sugar and the soda/"fruit" drink peddlers are killing us. Start fixing that now by not getting your kids hooked on it.
Wafflecakes
Member
I like how you are trying to be funny with this when that is essentially what the government is doing with MPG requirements.
metalslimer
Member
Soda is so horrifically bad for you that it's hard to be against the concept. Like I don't think people realize just how bad that crap is. That being said the implementation of these bills will likely just fuck poor people with no big changes to improve health.
Still stop buying 12 packs of soda every couple of days and replacing water with it especially for kids.
Still stop buying 12 packs of soda every couple of days and replacing water with it especially for kids.
Sure.
Let's add a Sin Tax to all unhealthy drinks and foods. Don't discriminate.
I'm sure most don't even want to tackle this side of the argument.
Let's add a Sin Tax to all unhealthy drinks and foods. Don't discriminate.
I'm sure most don't even want to tackle this side of the argument.
Vincent Grayson
Member
Isn't this just about smoking? There's plenty of other, healthier ways to use MJ.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
They claim it's a "compromise". Hope they're charging for bottled water as well.
It constantly amuses me how many of us give the government unlimited credit for their brilliant social ideas, but Average Joe is a perennial idiot.
The Albatross
Member
It's hard to state this over and over again, but "Taxing it" does not mean "moving people towards healthier drinks." Most sin taxes do not do that or do not do that proportionally and there is no definitive evidence that sin taxes like sugar taxes cut down on consumption.
There isn't this 1:1 inverse relationship between something being taxed and something being consumed.
Also, not to make this into a pot thread, but "And marijuana has no direct negative consequences" is ......... absurd. Don't mix up "marijuana doesn't kill people" with "marijuana has no negative consequences." I'm all for legalization, but get real.
The overwhelmingly vast majority of marijuana consumption is smoked marijuana. This is like tobacco companies arguing for the safety of cigarettes because chewing tobacco leaves is safer than smoking cigarettes.
perfectchaos007
Member
Or an episode of Portlandia where they're at a coffee shop discussing how great it is sodas are being taxed due to the health risks while sipping on their soda tax exempt mochaccinos with extra whipped cream and chocolate sauce.
Well yes, but then think of it this way. Let's say there is a food you really like, say you like eating hamburgers. The new law is that you can only eat turkey burgers and hamburgers are taxed according to how much you make. So let's say you make 100k a year. Your tax on per ounce of hamburger is $10. But hey, there is always turkey burger or veggie burger. People need to be healthier.
But on the flip side, the problem with sugar is that there is no nutritional value and it's been shown to have detrimental effects on health. Children should not be consuming it regularly.
I guess my point is, it's not as black and white as people think, "well poor people don't need dat anyway."
orthodoxy1095
Banned
The downside is probably that this kind of thing would more likely affect those at lower incomes.
More importantly though, I don't see how these two bolded things really go together. Using a "six tax" to do something like build a rainy day fund is a great idea. Conversely, using the tax to do something like a universal Pre-K program doesn't sound like a great idea. Your tax is ostensibly put into place to encourage people to drink less soda, which means theoretically your hope is actually for revenue from the tax to decline as people start drinking less soda which negatively affects the bottom line of the project you created.
All of that of course is ignoring any actual studies about the effectiveness of sin taxes versus say real pushes at education and health knowledge being disseminated.
Skellig Gra
Member
The way I see it is no one needs it poor middle class or rich. Just like tobacco products which are taxed to high hell.
Studies have shown that the soda tax does work and that preventative measures are much more feasible. It's meant to hit the poor working class since they have higher rates of diabetes and other diseases related to unhealthy diets.
I do disagree with where the tax money is going to go.
Fast food is terrible, but it's affordable. They should've supplemented either a farm subsidy to lower the costs of veggies and nutritional meals or run ads to educate the public about soda vs water. As it stands right now, it looks to some people that it's just another punishment for being poor.
Soapbox Killer
Grand Nagus
Wow...there would be no return from he black hole of this discussion.
Ok but where is the line? DO we start saying you don't need hamburgers, pizza, fatty pastas, sodas, juice alcohol. I mean I guess if you are a health nut that doesn't consume those thigns anyway then that would be fine for you. But how much are we going to start controlling the decisions people make in their lives. Is it a slippery slope?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked