Support NeoGAF

[entremet]

"I can't control my eating habits so now the government has to tax everyone so I don't accidentally kill myself"

Fat people ruin everything.

This post and avatar combo are hilarious.

 

[Moose Biscuits]

"I can't control my eating habits so now the government has to tax everyone so I don't accidentally kill myself"

Fat people ruin everything.

Hey, I may be fat but I'm certainly not asking the government to help me stop, nor ruin it for everyone else. I'm perfectly fine to eat myself into an early grave. #notallfatpeople

 

[BajiBoxer]

Hey, I may be fat but I'm certainly not asking the government to help me stop, nor ruin it for everyone else. I'm perfectly fine to eat myself into an early grave. #notallfatpeople

Drives up insurance costs.

 

[killer rin]

I stopped drinking soda a few years ago and honestly I rarely miss it. I get the occasional craving but that's it.

Same. I've pretty much switched exclusively to water. Occasionally I'll get a craving for something with more flavour, but that can be easily solved with a cup of juice on the off chance it comes up.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

How would that work? Sounds like a nightmare and a lot of government control. No thanks. Also,sime people who are healthy can eat a ton of food and not gain weight.

The same way taxing sugar or alcoholic content works.

And that's one of the hitches, I agree (but the same can be said about sugar/soda taxes). It still works out for 95%+ of the population and is the best way to reduce obesity without punishing people who already eat properly.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

Drives up insurance costs.

So does any number of activities you can do outside of drinking soda or eating anything.

 

[CornBurrito]

"I can't control my eating habits so now the government has to tax everyone so I don't accidentally kill myself"

Fat people ruin everything.

You realize the prices of your unhealthy shit food is only so low because of mass corporate subsidies, right?

 

[Lkr]

I stopped drinking soda a few years ago and honestly I rarely miss it. I get the occasional craving but that's it.

That's why the soda tax (or sugary beverage in general) appeals to me. Or paid refills at a restaurant. I don't drink a lot of soda, just like I don't eat a lot of cake or ice cream. Sometimes I crave it and the shit is addicting and nothing feels better than to stuff your face with it bc it tastes so good.
You can't go a day in America without Coca Cola reminding you via some sort of advertisement that you like soda, it makes you happy, and it's good for you. I don't see the problem with the government taxing it and saying wait just a second remember that none of that shit is true and here's an incentive to cut back.

 

[BajiBoxer]

So does any number of activities you can do outside of drinking soda or eating anything.

Yes. Some more than others though when looking at the total population.

 

[BajiBoxer]

You realize the prices of your unhealthy shit food is only so low because of mass corporate subsidies, right?

That's a good point.

 

[Chocolate & Vanilla]

Of course soda is not great to consume in any serious quantity.

Certain people who struggle to drink water, who have trouble digesting food without painful gas, who have no other source of calories, who have low blood sugar, drink soda in moderate quantities. Did it never occur to you that someone might drink soda because they can't afford a meal?

The ridiculousness of the rest of your post aside, pretty sure even factoring in the cost of water and the boiling of said water, cup-a-soup/packet soup would still be cheaper and more filling than a can of Coke.

 

[TyrantII]

You realize the prices of your unhealthy shit food is only so low because of mass corporate subsidies, right?

This is my issue with this. It seems absurd to subsidize corn sugar on one hand, and tax soda on the other (or even refined sugar).

But good luck getting the former policy fixed. Iowa ain't gonna have any of your shit.

 

[Ryzaki009]

Of course soda is not great to consume in any serious quantity.

Certain people who struggle to drink water, who have trouble digesting food without painful gas, who have no other source of calories, who have low blood sugar, drink soda in moderate quantities. Did it never occur to you that someone might drink soda because they can't afford a meal?

As someone who was at that point that's ridiculous. You just guzzle water until your stomach is bloated. If I had enough for soda that was enough for like 3 packs of ramen.

 

[Ihyll]

And meat consumption raises your chances of heart disease significantly...When is the tax on red meat coming?

 

[The Last Wizard]

Should be a tax on added sugar, to all food products - not on carbonated drinks per se.

Yeah. Sugar tax would ultimately be a better way. Might also have the effect of companies reducing or removing needlessly added sugar in their products.

This would be amazing, there's way to much sugar in shit. It needs to be regulated better

 

[Moose Biscuits]

And meat consumption raises your chances of heart disease significantly...When is the tax on red meat coming?

Soon, don't worry friend. Once the sugar taxes have gone through then red meat will be the next thing.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

And meat consumption raises your chances of heart disease significantly...When is the tax on red meat coming?

We need a methane tax because it's a greenhouse gas, so that's a roundabout way of doing that xD

But red meat consumption is already dropping without the need for any tax, unlike obesity, so I don't think it's as necessary. The problem with general food is that the body is a poor book keeper on how much is healthy for you. It's not the same for red meat, it has no addictive qualities, and there are many alternatives, so the tax isn't necessary.

 

[Sophia]

Switching to diet sodas and then to carbonated waters was one of the best choices I ever made in my life.

I'd be okay with a tax on the sugar, if it means leading people to healthier alternatives >.<;

 

[texasairhead101]

Large Soda isn't gonna stand for this.

I like this post.

 

[Abounder]

Not only are most of 'em loaded on sugar but caffeine as well - they're a goddamn drug industry that sells to kids, they should suffer like cigarettes.

 

[The Llama]

Any idea what the tax revenue good to? Is the revenue earmarked for any programs, like healthcare and the like?

As a soda and beer drinker, this would affect me, but I like the concept especially if the revenue is also put to use for health initiatives.

In Philadelphia the money is going towards universal Pre-K and rebuilding parks and recreation facilities. A small portion is going to random things like the pension fund for the first few years as well (just until the other projects are fully underway).

I work for the city of Philadelphia, so am obviously biased, but the main point with the tax here wasn't to encourage healthy behavior, but because we need revenue for better social services and infrastructure and are very, very limited in our options. The state Constitution prohibits progressive taxation here, for example, so something like raising taxes on high income earners isn't even an option, and state law makes it difficult for us to tax commercial properties at higher rates like they are in most other cities. Add that to the fact that despite the city's recent growth, we're still very poor, and something like this beverage tax was necessary.

And it's still in heavy litigation so be wary of what you read about it; the PR war is ongoing.

 

[hollomat]

It may just be that people are buying soda in the neighboring towns instead to save money. I'd be interested to see if soda sales have increased in those towns. This is what usually happens with cigarette taxes.

 

[R10Neymarfan]

And meat consumption raises your chances of heart disease significantly...When is the tax on red meat coming?

Well at least end the subsidies. Hamburgers don't need to be $1-4 anyway

 

[AstroNut325]

Why make these kinds of laws that are supposed to adjust behavior if it only adjusts the behavior of poor people?

Because the impact of poor diets affects the poor to a much larger scale: Link

Edit:
One more: Link

 

[Manmademan]

In Philadelphia the money is going towards universal Pre-K and rebuilding parks and recreation facilities. A small portion is going to random things like the pension fund for the first few years as well (just until the other projects are fully underway).

I work for the city of Philadelphia, so am obviously biased, but the main point with the tax here wasn't to encourage healthy behavior, but because we need revenue for better social services and infrastructure and are very, very limited in our options. The state Constitution prohibits progressive taxation here, for example, so something like raising taxes on high income earners isn't even an option, and state law makes it difficult for us to tax commercial properties at higher rates like they are in most other cities. Add that to the fact that despite the city's recent growth, we're still very poor, and something like this beverage tax was necessary.

And it's still in heavy litigation so be wary of what you read about it; the PR war is ongoing.

I've been trying to make this point forever. nobody listens.

 

[The Llama]

I've been trying to make this point forever. nobody listens.

If only the state didn't hate us so much &#128530;

 

[Cromat]

I've read research suggesting that people affected by the soda tax mostly substitute into other forms of candy and sweets. As long as the tax isn't applied to all high-sugar products, it probably won't achieve most of its stated health goals.

 

[Team Alucard]

Is Diet Soda exempt?

If so then its extremely dumb given that most juices, iced teas, and coffee beverages have more sugar and calories than a can of Diet Pepsi.

Taxing all soda will just push people to drink the aforementioned "healthy" beverages that are still loaded with sugar, while just taxing regular soda will push them to drink diet which has zero sugar and zero calories.

Starbucks Iced Coffee
80 calories
20g of sugar

Simply Orange Juice
110 calories
23g of sugar

Gold Peak Iced Tea
140 calories
35g of sugar

Diet Pepsi
0 calories
0g of sugar

 

[Manmademan]

Is Diet Soda exempt?

no.

If so then its extremely dumb given that most juices, iced teas, and coffee beverages have more sugar and calories than a can of Diet Pepsi.

Those are also taxed. The only exception are 100% fruit juices (like OJ) and milk.

Taxing all soda will just push people to drink the aforementioned "healthy" beverages that are still loaded with sugar, while just taxing regular soda will push them to drink diet which has zero sugar and zero calories.

Starbucks Iced Coffee
80 calories
20g of sugar

Simply Orange Juice
110 calories
23g of sugar

Gold Peak Iced Tea
140 calories
35g of sugar

Diet Pepsi
0 calories
0g of sugar

everything you mentioned except for the OJ is taxed. And once again, the point of the Philly beverage tax was NOT a health initiative and it was never marketed this way.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

Switching to diet sodas and then to carbonated waters was one of the best choices I ever made in my life.

I'd be okay with a tax on the sugar, if it means leading people to healthier alternatives >.<;

Be healthy all you want, its not your right to force by proxy your ideals of a healthy life style on others.

No, I am on the side of this being a nanny state over reach.

 

[Malakai]

In Philadelphia the money is going towards universal Pre-K and rebuilding parks and recreation facilities. A small portion is going to random things like the pension fund for the first few years as well (just until the other projects are fully underway).

I work for the city of Philadelphia, so am obviously biased, but the main point with the tax here wasn't to encourage healthy behavior, but because we need revenue for better social services and infrastructure and are very, very limited in our options. The state Constitution prohibits progressive taxation here, for example, so something like raising taxes on high income earners isn't even an option, and state law makes it difficult for us to tax commercial properties at higher rates like they are in most other cities. Add that to the fact that despite the city's recent growth, we're still very poor, and something like this beverage tax was necessary.

And it's still in heavy litigation so be wary of what you read about it; the PR war is ongoing.

So you guys push a regressive tax on people to raise revenue.

 

[Manmademan]

So you guys push a regressive tax on people to raise revenue.

First, as mentioned before, the tax isn't regressive, because it's not a sales tax, it's a tax on the distributor. The retailer is free to distribute the cost of that tax any way they like. Ideally even a small grocery store could spread the cost out over their inventory to reduce the impact to the buyer to completely negligible levels. They could also choose to simply absorb it as many bars and fast food restaurants are, since the profit margins on soda there are so laughably high that the tax is irrelevant.

Some retailers don't, however because the industry doesn't like the tax- and many are going out of their way to invent a "soda tax surcharge" that they then stick on receipts to try to get customers riled up. Many of those retailers were caught applying it on soda items that were bought from their distributors in december (remember, everyone knew it was coming and stocked up in advance) and were never hit with the tax in the first place.


Second- Philadelphia taxpayers were OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of this tax, because once again they are aware of things you aren't about the state of their city and school system. The state assembly has through any number of means banned the city from raising the funding it needs for the school system in general, and the Pre-K initiative specifically. Progressive income taxes are banned by (the current interpretation of) the state constitution, and the philadelphia school system is the only one in the state that is not permitted to raise property taxes for the purposes of funding the school district. Suburban and Rural districts simply raise school taxes to fund initiatives and plug budget holes, Philly cannot do this.

The benefit to the city outweighs the financial impact created by a tax on luxury items which is trivial for anyone to avoid who is so inclined.

The soda tax was floated to the public as a way in which money could legally be raised without the risk of Harrisburg vetoing the idea or wringing expensive concessions out of the city to do it as they did with the cigarette tax. Mayor Kenney ran heavily on this idea when running for election and the voters chose him by a landslide.

any complaints that "this is regressive!" demonstrates a profound ignorance of how state and local politics actually work to fund things that the vast majority of the city's citizens want to do.

 

[RumblingRosco]

My only complaint is that mah boy La Croix is also taxed. Like, dude, it's sugar free, sodium free, and free of artificial sweeteners. Why ya gotta tax it!?

 

[BajiBoxer]

Be healthy all you want, its not your right to force by proxy your ideals of a healthy life style on others.

No, I am on the side of this being a nanny state over reach.

No one is forcing you to be healthier. It may have no effect on your health at all. It does recoup some of your cost on society, however.

 

[Phu]

My only complaint is that mah boy La Croix is also taxed. Like, dude, it's sugar free, sodium free, and free of artificial sweeteners. Why ya gotta tax it!?

That really sucks.

 

[Two Words]

Because the impact of poor diets affects the poor to a much larger scale: Link

Edit:
One more: Link

This is an absurd argument.

 

[BajiBoxer]

My only complaint is that mah boy La Croix is also taxed. Like, dude, it's sugar free, sodium free, and free of artificial sweeteners. Why ya gotta tax it!?

It's bad for your teeth, I guess?

 

[metalslimer]

People don't seem to understand how bad soda is. If alcohol and cigarettes can be taxed, soda should be right there with how addictive it is

 

[Manmademan]

My only complaint is that mah boy La Croix is also taxed. Like, dude, it's sugar free, sodium free, and free of artificial sweeteners. Why ya gotta tax it!?

There are two big reasons for this.

a minor reason is because without taxing diet along with everything else, the per ounce cost of the tax would be a lot higher. this lowers it by about half, I think. Some retailers were complaining that the previous per ounce tax was unreasonably high- and I think I agree here for certain items sold by the case.

Second, there have been legal challenges to the tax, one of which being that it potentially violates Pennsylvania's uniformity clause, which states that similar classes of items must be taxed at the same rate. Originally the proposal was for diet to be exempt- To not tax diet but to tax sugared soda would mean arguing that the two are technically different classes of item, which might have ended up with the courts invalidating the tax altogether.

 

[Phu]

There are two big reasons for this.

a minor reason is because without taxing diet along with everything else, the per ounce cost of the tax would be a lot higher. this lowers it by about half, I think. Some retailers were complaining that the previous per ounce tax was unreasonably high- and I think I agree here for certain items sold by the case.

Second, there have been legal challenges to the tax, one of which being that it potentially violates Pennsylvania's uniformity clause, which states that similar classes of items must be taxed at the same rate. Originally the proposal was for diet to be exempt- To not tax diet but to tax sugared soda would mean arguing that the two are technically different classes of item, which might have ended up with the courts invalidating the tax altogether.

But La Croix isn't diet soda, it's sparkling water. I would argue they are different classes of item.

 

[Manmademan]

But La Croix isn't diet soda, it's sparkling water. I would argue they are different classes of item.

the tax is on any sweetened beverage, not "soda." both artificial sweeteners, corn syrups, and sugar fall into this category.

if lacroix is being taxed, there's a sweetener in it somewhere.

 

[Phu]

the tax is on any sweetened beverage, not "soda." both artificial sweeteners, corn syrups, and sugar fall into this category.

if lacroix is being taxed, there's a sweetener in it somewhere.

Then it's amazing that they can advertise it as not having sweetener.

 

[Manmademan]

Then it's amazing that they can advertise it as not having sweetener.

they advertise it as having no ARTIFICIAL sweeteners. Lacroix is water and "natural flavor" which can be just about anything, as long as it comes from a plant or animal somewhere.

Don't let marketing trip you up. How did you think all the flavors lacroix comes in actually got in the can?

 

[Phu]

they advertise it as having no ARTIFICIAL sweeteners. Lacroix is water and "natural flavor" which can be just about anything, as long as it comes from a plant or animal somewhere.

Don't let marketing trip you up. How did you think all the flavors lacroix comes in actually got in the can?

Nah, they don't, it just says sweetener. The lines in the laws are drawn in strange places if it is considered to have sweetener but allowed to advertise as no sweetener while also having enough of whatever to be taxed for having it.

 

[Manmademan]

Nah, they don't, it just says sweetener. The lines in the laws are drawn in strange places if it is considered to have sweetener but allowed to advertise as no sweetener while also having enough of whatever to be taxed for having it.

https://www.wired.com/2016/12/heres-lacroix-addictive/

read that.

According to the FDA, natural flavor can be anything that adds flavor to a product so long as it comes directly from a plant or animal source. That's a pretty wide range, but it's further muddled by the fact that natural flavors can be made up of more than one ingredient&#8212;including artificial ingredients that help preserve the flavor or help it mix well with the other ingredients. ”You see &#8216;natural flavor' on a label and it's really a black box of secrecy in terms of what's being added to that product," says David Andrews, a chemist from the Environmental Working Group.

Just like their artificial counterparts, natural flavors are complex chemical formulas invented by food companies and a small handful of flavor houses around the world. The FDA lets companies call these formulas natural even if they have synthetic solvents or preservatives because it classifies those filler ingredients as ”incidental additives," which usually come in trace amounts and get a pass from ingredient disclosure laws.

Lacroix is using marketing bullshit to claim "natural essence" and "natural flavor" aren't sweetener. Can't call them out on it because they're not legally required to tell you what "natural flavor" is.

 

[The Llama]

So you guys push a regressive tax on people to raise revenue.

We're constitutionally prohibited from any sort of progressive taxation, so &#129335;

 

[Phu]

https://www.wired.com/2016/12/heres-lacroix-addictive/

read that.

Lacroix is using marketing bullshit to claim "natural essence" and "natural flavor" aren't sweetener. Can't call them out on it because they're not legally required to tell you what "natural flavor" is.

But they're legally allowed to say it doesn't have sweetener. Your second pic even features 'sweetener' free, so I don't know why you want to argue with me about my initial claim of:

Then it's amazing that they can advertise it as not having sweetener.

I'm talking about the advertising/labeling.

 

[Manmademan]

But they're legally allowed to say it doesn't have sweetener. Your second pic even features 'sweetener' free, so I don't know why you want to argue with me about my initial claim of:

the second picture if you look at the can says the product is sweetener free but contains "natural flavor" (look at the sidebar next to the nutrition info) and is "naturally essenced." (look at the can). What exactly do you think "naturally essenced" means? It means they added what is for practical purposes a sweetener to it, but they don't HAVE to call it that for legal reasons.

I'm talking about the advertising/labeling.

Like I said before, Lacroix is using marketing bullshit to claim that their product has no "sweetner", but it DOES have "natural flavor" which doesn't count.

In advertising/marketing/labeling terms they're correct. Natural Flavor and sweetener are distinct and not the same thing, because the FDA says they can get away with it. From a common sense and practical perspective, "natural flavor" is obviously an artificial additive that sweetens the water.

get it?

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

We're constitutionally prohibited from any sort of progressive taxation, so &#129335;

That's the proper emoji. Thanks Republicans.

 

[danm999]

Certain people who struggle to drink water, who have trouble digesting food without painful gas, who have no other source of calories, who have low blood sugar, drink soda in moderate quantities. Did it never occur to you that someone might drink soda because they can't afford a meal?

What?!