• 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.

Latest in the Nanny State: Taxes on Sugary Drinks!

Status
Not open for further replies.
SmokyDave said:
Amen. As a smoker myself I'd just like to say to fatties all over "I fucking warned you".

just another on the near endless list of the government taxing the shit out of any of mans vices. alchohol check, smokes check, tastey soda ? lets do it. plus the many others that are outright banned and punishable by laws.

Also the news report i saw on these was suggesting something like 2 cent a ounce of soda, thats insane. That would about double the cost of your grocery store 2 litre.
 

Dipswitch

Member
Pound to a penny they'll tax diet soda as well. In which case it'll be revealed for what it is - a new ongoing revenue source rather than a punitive tax for our own "good".
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
Dipswitch said:
Pound to a penny they'll tax diet soda as well. In which case it'll be revealed for what it is - a new ongoing revenue source rather than a punitive tax for our own "good".
there are better and easier ways to tax for revenue, and if this was modeled on the proposed NYS tax then it wouldn't touch diet.
 

Pimpwerx

Member
No fucking way. Worst idea ever. I think Bloomberg proposed something ridiculous like this in NY and got laughed at. PEACE.
 
I'm sickened that I have to pay tax on the tax of my taxes. Doesn't all of this taxation piss anyone else off?

Why do we put up with it? Fuck it, I'm gonna become a pikey...
 

jmdajr

Member
I'm all for sin taxes.

But what about video game taxes? How do you all feel about that?
An extra dollar or two wouldn't bother me much.
 

captive

Joe Six-Pack: posting for the common man
Jason's Ultimatum said:
False equivalency.
How so? You want to limit the amount of consumption of something that has marginally harmful effects on people even when used en masse or irresponsibly.

Personally your idea is absolutely disgusting. Who are you to say something like soda should be limited?
People who are obese aren't obese because they drink soda. They are obese for a variety of reasons, one of which may be an extremely slow metabolism, and they dont control how much they eat. Or they eat fast food for 3 meals a day for every day.

I'm sickened that I have to pay tax on the tax of my taxes. Doesn't all of this taxation piss anyone else off?
Yes. 40% of my earnings go to local, state and federal taxes. Special interest groups lobby for their own interest and the ways and means committee adds new tax codes for their special interest to loophole through taxes, making the tax code so confusing that even people who are smart enough to figure out it just dont care because the laws and tax code is so convoluted.
 

Evlar

Banned
Fragamemnon said:
I support this, especially for sugary sodas and other garbage drinks/juices that aren't much more than sugar-laden water. These products need to be less competitive with healthier alternatives and they really are providing most people who drink them with nothing more than empty calories in their diets.

That being said, corn subsidies from the government already provide a means of making these products artificially inexpensive. I love how the CEO of Coca-Cola decries this idea as outrageous when his company's syrups are loaded to the brim with with subsidized HFCS.
This is what I came in to say.
 

jmdajr

Member
captive said:
How so? You want to limit the amount of consumption of something that has harmful effects on people when used en masse or irresponsibly.

Personally your idea is absolutely disgusting. Who are you to say something like soda should be limited?
People who are obese aren't obese because they drink soda. They are obese for a variety of reasons, one of which may be an extremely slow metabolism, and they dont control how much they eat. Or they eat fast food for 3 meals a day for every day.

which reminds me, tax the shit out of fast food as well. :D

Also, to say that not drinking Sodas doesn't impact obesity is insane.
It's probably the fastest way to get fat. Shit, you are basically drinking pure sugar.
You don't even have to waste energy fucking chewing! Hell, our teeth would be better off as well.
 

gdt

Member
Eh, I say go for it.

I was sitting in a waiting room this morning and 6 out of the 8 people in there were overweight. It got me thinking about obesity in this country quite a bit.
 
captive said:
How so? You want to limit the amount of consumption of something that has harmful effects on people when used en masse or irresponsibly.

Personally your idea is absolutely disgusting. Who are you to say something like soda should be limited?
People who are obese aren't obese because they drink soda. They are obese for a variety of reasons, one of which may be an extremely slow metabolism, and they dont control how much they eat. Or they eat fast food for 3 meals a day for every day.


Uh, because the internet or listening to music doesn't lead to obesity, unlike soda which studies do suggest it does?
 

avaya

Member
Tax more not less.

Running deficits?

Tax more not less.

Laffer curve is a fantasy. Much like the ability of the free market to to self-regulate.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Works for me.

I think labeling sugar in the nutrition information properly would do a lot as well. Hopefully that's addressed this time around and the sugar lobby doesn't kill it again.
 

captive

Joe Six-Pack: posting for the common man
Jason's Ultimatum said:
Uh, because the internet or listening to music doesn't lead to obesity, unlike soda which studies do suggest it does?
And in these studies did they cover people who actually exercise? or lazy fucks who's parents let them sit around and do shit all day and drink soda and eat nasty food?

Ancedotally i know many people, myself included that drink soda and arent even close to obese, let alone actually overweight.

At what point does the government take over raising kids instead of parents?
 
scorcho said:
The point isn't to make money, it's to change habits. And if revenue was the mitigating factor we'd save much more by retooling the farm bill than through this tax.

This.

Ultimately, a sugar tax or a fat tax is about changing consumer habits. Makes sense given that obesity generates a huge load on healthcare costs that is largely preventable.
 
Jibril said:
Tax Bacon and junkie fast food in general, too.

Agricultural subsidies are targeted at commodity grains that are used to produce HFCS-laden products like pop as well as fatty meats. Growing fruits and vegetables, of course, is not subsidized.

I'm pretty far left and not opposed to raising taxes in general. But there's such an obvious way for the government to help reduce obesity rates without any new taxes, that will even save it money, that I can't support a tax like this until after ag subsidies are eliminated and it turns out to not have done enough.
 

turnbuckle

Member
I'd completely support this.

What I don't think I could be in favor of outright is a tax on fast food though. With pop, there are easily accessible and affordable - or free - alternatives (diet drinks, juices, water). Unfortunately, if you applied the same tax on fast food or otherwise unhealthy high calorie food you'll be pinching the poor more than the wealthy. The only way I'd be ok with a tax on unhealthy food is if it coincided with a subsidy on healthier food options. The incentive of food/beverage suppliers (aside from profit) shouldn't be on providing the cheapest way to deliver calories, but in finding the cheapest way of delivering healthier calories.

Why would someone struggling with a budget choose a plain baked potato and grilled chicken @ $6-10 when they can get french fries, double cheeseburgers, and mayo loaded pressed chicken filled breading from a dollar menu? Why should companies provide the former option if at a lower price when the latter option works so well? The "nanny state" should intervene here to better align company and consumer interests.
 
DigitalA1chemy said:
Which, you know, isn't the government's job.

Uh, sure it is. Without the government (at all levels) to create and enforce laws (which basically, you know, changes habits), this country would be pretty shitty.

i.e. traffic laws (speeding, signage, etc), food safety laws, drug safety laws, etc.
 

Boonoo

Member
DigitalA1chemy said:
Which, you know, isn't the government's job.

It is to a degree, though--esp. in the interest of saving money, and laws, laws help change habits, and I'm pretty sure it's the governments job to create and enforce laws.

Smoking, drinking, seat belts, general safety issues, obesity. The government has a vested interest in changing these habits because they are a drain on public funds.
 

jmdajr

Member
DigitalA1chemy said:
Which, you know, isn't the government's job.

No, but the government needs to make revenue and I'm perfectly ok with them making a few extra bucks from people who shouldn't be drinking a liter of coke a day anyway.
 

Pimpwerx

Member
DigitalA1chemy said:
Which, you know, isn't the government's job.
Precisely. I'm all for crazy, progressive taxes, and single-payers and whatnot, but I am not in favor of government trying to influence my habits like this. If I want to get fat and die, so be it. This is not the reason healthcare is a fiscal nightmare. Costs would be lower if people were healthier, but then it would just be something else that's causing people to get sick, like cholesterol and saturated fat. Since when did sugar become more evil than those two? Am I going to pay a cholesterol tax on eggs? PEACE.
 
Fragamemnon said:
I support this, especially for sugary sodas and other garbage drinks/juices that aren't much more than sugar-laden water. These products need to be less competitive with healthier alternatives and they really are providing most people who drink them with nothing more than empty calories in their diets.

That being said, corn subsidies from the government already provide a means of making these products artificially inexpensive. I love how the CEO of Coca-Cola decries this idea as outrageous when his company's syrups are loaded to the brim with with subsidized HFCS.


How can they be any less competitive ? the only healthy alternative is damn near free in our society its called water. Any other drink is loaded with useless sugar that is no good for the body and leads to health issues in excess and inactivity. Milk,tea,juices,and sodas.
 

turnbuckle

Member
DigitalA1chemy said:
Which, you know, isn't the government's job.

The government wouldn't be forcing anyone to change habits. It's still entirely up to the individual if they want to consume these sugary items. As a matter of public interest, the government is inclined to step in when the behavior of people and corporations are detrimental to the whole. Here's the perfect place to interject a slippery slope argument, but I think that's pretty ridiculous.

I mean, the government fines businesses and citizens for breaking certain regulations. They tax us to provide a police force and a legal system. They have rules limiting the ability for corporations to behave as a monopoly, to base decisions on race/creed/sex, etc. All are enacted to change habits. Are those all a part of the slippery slope as well?
 

Phobophile

A scientist and gentleman in the manner of Batman.
All this will do is fuck over more and more the working class and the poor, the fattest people in the nation.
 
captive said:
And in these studies did they cover people who actually exercise? or lazy fucks who's parents let them sit around and do shit all day and drink soda and eat nasty food?

Ancedotally i know many people, myself included that drink soda and arent even close to obese, let alone actually overweight.

At what point does the government take over raising kids instead of parents?

Excercise isn't the problem, as the study here suggests:

http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Sc...-due-to-more-calories-not-less-exercise-Study

US obesity due to more calories, not less exercise: Study

Increased calorie intake – rather than lack of exercise – is nearly exclusively responsible for the obesity epidemic in the US, according to a new study presented at the European Congress on Obesity on Friday.

Although the World Health Organization (WHO) sees obesity as a global epidemic, the US still heads the list, with obesity affecting over a third of American adults.

The study is potentially important for the food and beverage industry, which has taken a dual approach to tackling obesity. It has focused its efforts not only on product reformulation to reduce trans fats, saturated fats and sugar, but also on encouraging increased physical activity.

But the study’s leader, Professor Boyd Swinburn, chair of population health and director of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Obesity Prevention at Deakin University in Australia, said: “There have been a lot of assumptions that both reduced physical activity and increased energy intake have been major drivers of the obesity epidemic…This study demonstrates that the weight gain in the American population seems to be virtually all explained by eating more calories. It appears that changes in physical activity played a minimal role.”

The researchers took a sample of 1,399 adults and 963 children and tested how many calories they burned in free-living conditions. They were then able to establish what their calorie intake would need to be in order to maintain a stable weight or, for the children, to maintain a normal growth curve. They then used national survey data of US weights in the 1970s and early 2000s and compared actual weight gain to expected weight gain if food were the only factor.

More food, more exercise

The results suggested that children are just as active as they were in the 70s, and increased energy intake alone accounts for higher average weights today, the researchers said.

For adults, on the other hand, Swinburn said that exercise had actually increased over the past 30 years, leading to an average weight gain of 18.9lbs (8.6kg). If adults had not increased levels of physical activity, extra energy intake would have led to a gain of 23.8lbs (10.8kg), he said.

“Excess food intake still explains the weight gain, but that there may have been increases in physical activity over the 30 years that have blunted what would otherwise have been a higher weight gain,” Swinburn said.

Going back to the 70s

He added that in order to return to the average weights of the 70s, children would have to reduce their daily energy intake by about 350 calories, equivalent to a can of soda and a small portion of French fries, and adults would have to consume about 500 calories less, or about one large hamburger.

Despite the study’s conclusions, Swinburn said that the role of physical activity should not be ignored because it carries additional health benefits, but added that public health policy needed to be shifted so it does not over-emphasize exercise’s potential effects for weight loss.

“We could achieve similar results by increasing physical activity by about 150 minutes a day of extra walking for children and 110 minutes for adults, but realistically, although a combination of both is needed, the focus would have to be on reducing calorie intake,” he said.

Although the study itself doesn't mention soda, only high caloric diets, it still doesn't change the fact that soda is a leading role in obesity, not that children and adults aren't exercising less.
 

jmdajr

Member
Pimpwerx said:
Precisely. I'm all for crazy, progressive taxes, and single-payers and whatnot, but I am not in favor of government trying to influence my habits like this. If I want to get fat and die, so be it. This is not the reason healthcare is a fiscal nightmare. Costs would be lower if people were healthier, but then it would just be something else that's causing people to get sick, like cholesterol and saturated fat. Since when did sugar become more evil than those two? Am I going to pay a cholesterol tax on eggs? PEACE.
I don't see people slamming down 3 liters of whole milk all over the place.
 

captive

Joe Six-Pack: posting for the common man
Jason's Ultimatum said:
Excercise isn't the problem, as the study here suggests:

http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Sc...-due-to-more-calories-not-less-exercise-Study



Although the study itself doesn't mention soda, only high caloric diets, it still doesn't change the fact that soda is a leading role in obesity, not that children and adults aren't exercising less.
Thank you for proving my point. Parent's dont know how to prepare healthy meals for their children, but sure lets blame it on soda and tax it that will fix the problem.
If you take in more calories than you burn in a day your going to gain weight. So, in this study if they take in more calories but didn't increase their exercise proportionally then of course it shows that they gained weight.
 

Boonoo

Member
Phobophile said:
All this will do is fuck over more and more the working class and the poor, the fattest people in the nation.

Perhaps instead it will change the habits of the working class and poor. It will in turn help unburden the overburdened medical system since it's typically the poor that don't have the insurance to pay for the medical care needed due to their bad habits. And if we do switch to a national health care plan all the more reason for the government to promote healthy living for those that depend on the government for their care.

captive said:
Thank you for proving my point. Parent's dont know how to prepare healthy meals for their children, but sure lets blame it on soda and tax it that will fix the problem.

But soda, surely is part of the problem. Cutting some odd 500-800 (about four or five cans) calories out per day should have some benefit.
 
yeah thats really doesnt make much sense they go hand in hand if you are going to increase your calories then you increase calories burned to balance out. Obviously if you are gaining weight then you need to burn more calories if you are going to continue eating the same amount of calories a day. If not then decrease the amount of calories. Its the same with the fast food shit vs the $7.00 grilled chicken and baked potato. Just get a damn hamburger and water and walk away. calories are calories.
 

jmdajr

Member
beastmaster said:
yeah thats really doesnt make much sense they go hand in hand if you are going to increase your calories then you increase calories burned to balance out. Obviously if you are gaining weight then you need to burn more calories if you are going to continue eating the same amount of calories a day. If not then decrease the amount of calories. Its the same with the fast food shit vs the $7.00 grilled chicken and baked potato. Just get a damn hamburger and water and walk away. calories are calories.

NO
 

Escape Goat

Member
President Obama has said it is worth considering

What idea isn't worth considering? If you outright dismiss everything you're not being a very good leader.


Also, poor people can't afford healthier foods so they eat alot more CARBS than wealthier people. THEY EAT MORE CARBS BECAUSE CARB HEAVY FOODS ARE CHEAPER.
 
Pimpwerx said:
Precisely. I'm all for crazy, progressive taxes, and single-payers and whatnot, but I am not in favor of government trying to influence my habits like this. If I want to get fat and die, so be it. This is not the reason healthcare is a fiscal nightmare. Costs would be lower if people were healthier, but then it would just be something else that's causing people to get sick, like cholesterol and saturated fat. Since when did sugar become more evil than those two? Am I going to pay a cholesterol tax on eggs? PEACE.

I don't agree with the sugar tax (just kill the grain subsidies), but sugar is far "more evil" than cholesterol and saturated fat. Over the past few decades, saturated fat intake has actually dropped while sugar/starch intake has risen - right in line with the governmental dietary recommendations. We've only gotten sicker, though, and the diseases that such a shift was supposed to prevent, like heart disease and Type 2 diabetes, have only become bigger problems.
 

Rookje

Member
What people don't realize is that this hurts the lower class hard. I used to not have a job and live with my less-than-middle-class family, and buying processed food, soda, fast food etc is cheaper and easier than cooking healthy meals. Especially if both parents are working. You also can't "go to the gym" when you're poor either.

Instead, I'd try to fix what they feed kids in school (that shit is shameful) and try to lower prices/taxes on healthy food.
 

captive

Joe Six-Pack: posting for the common man
Boonoo said:
Perhaps instead it will change the habits of the working class and poor. It will in turn help unburden the overburdened medical system since it's typically the poor that don't have the insurance to pay for the medical care needed due to their bad habits. And if we do switch to a national health care plan all the more reason for the government to promote healthy living for those that depend on the government for their care.
oh come on, you cant seriously believe this? Taxing soda is going to fix the fact poor people get medical care without health insurance.
 

stupei

Member
People really think this is about improving the overall health in America? I mean, if that actually resulted, I'm sure they would consider it a bonus, but I always assume taxes like this are because they know the majority of people are going to buy their sugary drinks no matter what it costs, and this is a guaranteed source of income.
 

Freshmaker

I am Korean.
GoutPatrol said:
Do I think it will work? Probably not as much as they hope. But it can't hurt.
They need to tax bottled water too. Not for health risks, but to save the environment.

whalecrying.gif
 
beastmaster said:
yeah thats really doesnt make much sense they go hand in hand if you are going to increase your calories then you increase calories burned to balance out. Obviously if you are gaining weight then you need to burn more calories if you are going to continue eating the same amount of calories a day. If not then decrease the amount of calories. Its the same with the fast food shit vs the $7.00 grilled chicken and baked potato. Just get a damn hamburger and water and walk away. calories are calories.

So, your contention is that the body sees no distinction between protein, fat, and carbohydrate?
 

captive

Joe Six-Pack: posting for the common man
Boonoo said:
But soda, surely is part of the problem. Cutting some odd 500-800 (about four or five cans) calories out per day should have some benefit.
Ok and so is this the governments job or the parents job?. I know, a radical idea, i know. Just like parents who dont know that their kids are smoking pot or doing harder drugs or drinking alcohol i guess thats the governments job too?
Or the parent's who are so ambivalent they don't know their kids are stock piling a small arsenal in their closet?
 

Rorschach

Member
Back when I was a kid, junk food was taxed by the state. Potato chips, soda, candy, etc. When it was taken off, it meant that kids could take that dollar or whatever that their moms gave them and spend it on a bag of 99 cent chips/soda. I remember covering it in one of my "current events." :D Much jubilation. :lol
 

Boonoo

Member
captive said:
oh come on, you cant seriously believe this? Taxing soda is going to fix the fact poor people get medical care without health insurance.

Oh, I don't think it will fix it. But it can't hurt can it? And it might even help a little bit.

captive said:
Ok and so is this the governments job or the parents job?. I know, a radical idea, i know. Just like parents who dont know that their kids are smoking pot or doing harder drugs or drinking alcohol i guess thats the governments job too?
Or the parent's who are so ambivalent they don't know their kids are stock piling a small arsenal in their closet?

I think that in many cases the parents are complete failures, and the result of their failure--children that grow up into drains on the government and society--become the government's (and society in general, we the people and all that) responsibility. Sure, it would be great if crappy parents could pay for the prison bills and medical bills and whatnot their spawn incur, but they can't, so I, and other tax payers, end up paying for it. So yeah, when parents fail the government, as the strong arm of society, steps in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom