Latest in the Nanny State: Taxes on Sugary Drinks!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Part of me thinks governments shouldn't meddle this far, part of me thinks its actually a good idea

The fact that coca-cola are scared of it makes me think it must be right.

They have somehow made me their slave. This is my fridge

6816_137861330881_590985881_3149832_3298450_n.jpg
 
ToxicAdam said:
No, I'm talking about the assertion that the "Nutritional Facts" on the sides of all colas are factually incorrect because they are not measuring the calories in sugar correctly.

Hey Jason's Ultimatum, I saw you posted in this thread and didn't answer my question. How does a can of soda have additional calories?
Click to expand...

I already answered it in my previous post. Hidden calories such as artificial/refined sugars that companies use that aren't calculated by the only method company's use: Atwater method.
 
Jason's Ultimatum said:
What about sugar? Is the sugar in grams the same as listed in the ingredients? Aren't they usually disregarded due to artificial/refined sugars, which the method of determining the nutrutional value? A product that says 0 calories is actually false due to the artificial/refined sugar.

As far as BMI, yes it has its flaws, but it's still considered by the WHO. There is a difference measuring a child and an adult's BMI.
Click to expand...

sugar = carbs


A product that says 0 calories is actually 0 calories. If I'm wrong I'll buy you a coke. These refined sugars are the difference between a 150 calorie can of soda and a 0 calorie can of diet soda. I can't think of any snack that has 0 calories that isn't using an artificial sweetener, and I bet you won't ever be able to find a nutritional label that says >0 carbs while at the same time stating that it's 0 calories.

I wouldn't put it past companies to try and fabricate some of their numbers, but sugars - refined or not - are accounted for already in that total calorie number. It's not x calories PLUS sugar, it's x calories, where x comes from sugar, other carbs, fat, and protein.
 
Use the tax to pay for diabetes treatment and I'd be for it. Pepsi max tastes good enough anyhow, who needs real sugar?
 
GREAT IDEA! The government can help recoup the money lost from the lower smoking tax revenues. The best thing about these taxes is that they never go down over the years, only up!

im going to write to my representatives about this!
 
heh, funny, i didn't even notice this thread but i just posted this chart over in the "killing myself with food" thread:

bhn7eb.jpg



so, uh, yeah. . . not trying to say this action is right or wrong, but looking at the chart, it certainly gives you something to think about.
 
beelzebozo said:
so, uh, yeah. . . not trying to say this action is right or wrong, but looking at the chart, it certainly gives you something to think about.
Click to expand...
Everything on that list should be taxed or banned. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US.. and obesity is one of the major contributing factors. Over 1/2 million lives could be saved every year. Then you also take into account the relief on the healthcare system that lifting the obesity burden will bring. Win/Win/Win all around.
 
Number 2 said:
Everything on that list should be taxed or banned. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US.. and obesity is one of the major contributing factors. Over 1/2 million lives could be saved every year. Then you also take into account the relief on the healthcare system that lifting the obesity burden will bring. Win/Win/Win all around.
Click to expand...

i know you're being facetious, but i wasn't coming down on either side, and was merely presenting the chart to provide further topics for discussion.
 
well, regardless, i think it's interesting that two of the individual food items at the top of the list are also the two that provide the least in the way of roughage and fiber on the entire list. they're essentially just big sugar bombs that give you nothing nutritionally, sweet or delicious as they may be.
 
beelzebozo said:
well, regardless, i think it's interesting that two of the individual food items at the top of the list are also the two that provide the least in the way of roughage and fiber on the entire list. they're essentially just big sugar bombs that give you nothing nutritionally, sweet or delicious as they may be.
Click to expand...

You could go even further. The top seven are sugar bombs, since all those refined carbohydrates just turn to glucose in your body - unless you're constantly working out and creating a need for muscle glycogen. And even then, that's way too much. Really sad list, jesus.
 
Number 2 said:
Everything on that list should be taxed or banned. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US.. and obesity is one of the major contributing factors. Over 1/2 million lives could be saved every year. Then you also take into account the relief on the healthcare system that lifting the obesity burden will bring. Win/Win/Win all around.
Click to expand...

Banned? Saved lives for what? A centralized system where they are told what to do?

I need some of those foods when I work out to keep going. Pretty much any athlete does. Exercise increases life span, increases energy, increases productivity, drastically reduces obesity, heart disease and cancer. Should we force all people to exercise too? Should we ban the couch potato?
 
teh_pwn said:
Banned?
Click to expand...
Well you dont have to ban them outright. Just tax them enough to make them too expensive to purchase.

Saved lives for what?
Click to expand...
To live. Plus the added benefit of releasing pressure that obesity is pushing on the health care system.

A centralized system where they are told what to do?
Click to expand...
What does this have to do with anything?

I need some of those foods when I work out to keep going. Pretty much any athlete does. Exercise increases life span, increases energy, increases productivity, drastically reduces obesity, heart disease and cancer. Should we force all people to exercise too? Should we ban the couch potato?
Click to expand...
Government heart monitors would be good. If you dont make the weekly quota you are fined. Would be a good way to get the country to exercise.
 
Number 2 said:
Well you dont have to ban them outright. Just tax them enough to make them too expensive to purchase.


To live. Plus the added benefit of releasing pressure that obesity is pushing on the health care system.


What does this have to do with anything?
Click to expand...

Banning foods, behaviors, and substances fundamentally goes against free will and makes life meaningless. It is inhumane. It is not worth living. Now that you've changed you're mind about banning, I don't have any (edit: strong) disagreement with you.
 
teh_pwn said:
Banning foods, behaviors, and substances fundamentally goes against free will and makes life meaningless. It is inhumane. It is not worth living. Now that you've changed you're mind about banning, I don't have any (edit: strong) disagreement with you.
Click to expand...
i hear you.. its much more effective to fine, tax and demonize a behavior than to just ban them.
 
turnbuckle said:
sugar = carbs


A product that says 0 calories is actually 0 calories. If I'm wrong I'll buy you a coke. These refined sugars are the difference between a 150 calorie can of soda and a 0 calorie can of diet soda. I can't think of any snack that has 0 calories that isn't using an artificial sweetener, and I bet you won't ever be able to find a nutritional label that says >0 carbs while at the same time stating that it's 0 calories.

I wouldn't put it past companies to try and fabricate some of their numbers, but sugars - refined or not - are accounted for already in that total calorie number. It's not x calories PLUS sugar, it's x calories, where x comes from sugar, other carbs, fat, and protein.
Click to expand...

I know that Splenda No Calorie Sweetener has dextrose and/or maltodextrin, which does contain like 3 or 4 calories per gram.
 
SapientWolf said:
I don't think the government would support what you do to vegetables.
Click to expand...
Me neither, but for some reason I am not afraid. I welcome the judgement with open arms, and the warmest of sentiments.

Take me o lord of judgemetn, for I am ant your whim if healthiwise.
 
Jason's Ultimatum said:
I know that Splenda No Calorie Sweetener has dextrose and/or maltodextrin, which does contain like 3 or 4 calories per gram.
Click to expand...

The sweetener that consumers buy, but not the form that is put in diet soda.

And again, what's your source that shows the calories listed on packaging doesn't take carbohydrates into account? You might of posted a link but I didn't see it. If the product says it has 150 calories per serving, it has 150 calories per serving - give or take a few for rounding. It certainly doesn't mean 150 calories before taking carbohydrates into account.
 
But there are artificial sweeteners besides what I listed above in those sodas, right? Also, I was reading earlier that a150 calorie soda came straight from the sugar. All 150. Wouldn't that not include carbs? The math wouldn't make sense. I don't remember the link and I'm not on my computer right now.

If I'm wrong, I'll gladly accept that I am. I always assumed those artificial sweeteners in sodas were hidden calories adding more.
 
Jason's Ultimatum said:
But there are artificial sweeteners besides what I listed above in those sodas, right? Also, I was reading earlier that a150 calorie soda came straight from the sugar. All 150. Wouldn't that not include carbs? The math wouldn't make sense. I don't remember the link and I'm not on my computer right now.

If I'm wrong, I'll gladly accept that I am. I always assumed those artificial sweeteners in sodas were hidden calories adding more.
Click to expand...
It was always my impression that the calories listed on the product included everything in the product. So a can of soda that is 150 calories has the carbs as a part of the 150 calories. Its not like there is much else in the soda to make 150 calories BEFORE you add in the sugar. Its sugared water.

EDIT: afaik only diet sodas have artificial sweeteners. The diet sodas typically have 0 calories. As far as the sweeteners adding more calories it is either an FDA rounding issue or a non-issue since the form of sweetener added in at the cola plant doesnt use the binders that the table top/packet versions use.
 
Taxes on bad food is a good idea. And in return, subsidise fresh fruits and vegetables.

A lot of low income households resort to eating crap, because it's so much cheaper than good food. It's a real loss for those people.

It's hard to regulate ingredients such as sugar and fats (I mean a lot of good fats are actually pretty good for you), but they can start by taxing fast food places or soft drinks.

It's difficult though. For example, do you tax a gourmet pizza from an upmarket restaurant?

Where do you draw the line?
 
Boonoo said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is precisely why health-care should be run under a single payer system, but that is another debate (albeit closely related).

Anyway, I definitely have some concerns about this issue. On the one hand HFCS has been proven over and over to be one of the prime causes of obesity, so any policy that would curb consumption would be a good thing. On the other-hand I think it should be the prerogative of people to consume whatever they please as long as they are self-supported (i.e not on government welfare and employed). My opinion on this matter would obviously change were the government to be the sole provider of health-care. But taking our current sociopolitical environment into account I believe a tax on soda would unfairly target the poor and downtrodden. Congress should concentrate on the larger issue of health-care reform before they attempt to tackle smaller periphery issues like this.
 
mrkgoo said:
Taxes on bad food is a good idea. And in return, subsidise fresh fruits and vegetables.

A lot of low income households resort to eating crap, because it's so much cheaper than good food. It's a real loss for those people.

It's hard to regulate ingredients such as sugar and fats (I mean a lot of good fats are actually pretty good for you), but they can start by taxing fast food places or soft drinks.

It's difficult though. For example, do you tax a gourmet pizza from an upmarket restaurant?

Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...

Maybe food itself should just be taxed across the board so obese people are forced to consume less of it.

edit: or maybe food itself shouldnt be purchasable with money. Instead ration credits should be issued based on BMI or something. You have addicts ballooning out of control and putting massive strain on our health care infrastructure.. there is a recent thread here on GAF about this obese guy who cannot control himself at all. Harsh times call for harsh measures.
 
The government dictates a shit ton of things that affects and adjusts your behavior.
This is just another thing on the pile... and a good thing too.

SUGAR IS A DRUG!
 
Number 2 said:
Maybe food itself should just be taxed across the board so obese people are forced to consume less of it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a great idea! While we're at it lets tax people for dropping out of high school, getting pregnant as teenagers, having parties with alcohol. playing videogames, wasting toilet paper, and breathing too much.
 
LegendofJoe said:
Sugar is a natural carbohydrate, HFCS is a drug.
Click to expand...
Just because something is natural doesnt revoke its drug status. Marijuana, opium, shrooms, etc.

LegendofJoe said:
Yeah, that's a great idea! While we're at it lets tax people for dropping out of high school, getting pregnant as teenagers, having parties with alcohol. playing videogames, wasting toilet paper, and breathing too much.
Click to expand...
Well humanity has shown that having freedom makes societal ills run rampant. People as a whole cannot control themselves and bring everyone else down with them as a result.
 
Doesn't bother me really. Soda is pretty cheap, I wouldn't mind a slight tax hike if it meant a little more revenue for the government to drag itself out of debt.

But it won't do anything for the health of our nation. I am very skeptical of the belief that raising taxes curbed smoking to any significant extent. And I doubt very much that anybody who loves soda enough to consume enough that it becomes a health risk would stop because it costs a bit more. Wow that was a terrible sentence that was barely comprehensible.

Number 2 said:
Just because something is natural doesnt revoke its drug status. Marijuana, opium, shrooms, etc.
Click to expand...

All of which should be legal. But thats a different argument.
 
missbreedsiddx said:
Doesn't bother me really. Soda is pretty cheap, I wouldn't mind a slight tax hike if it meant a little more revenue for the government to drag itself out of debt.

But it won't do anything for the health of our nation. I am very skeptical of the belief that raising taxes curbed smoking to any significant extent. And I doubt very much that anybody who loves soda enough to consume enough that it becomes a health risk would stop because it costs a bit more. Wow that was a terrible sentence that was barely comprehensible.
Click to expand...

i know this is anecdotal but i quit smoking when it cost me $7 a pack. If a 2-liter bottle of soda was $5-10 i know i would stop even moderately drinking soda.
 
Number 2 said:
Well humanity has shown that having freedom makes societal ills run rampant. People as a whole cannot control themselves and bring everyone else down with them as a result.
Click to expand...

This is why every established society has a system of administering social justice. However, if people are knowingly choosing to consume substances that harm them (and no one else) what business is it of yours to tell them what they can and can't do?
 
LegendofJoe said:
This is why every established society has a system of administering social justice. However, if people are knowingly choosing to consume substances that harm them (and no one else) what business is it of yours to tell them what they can and can't do?
Click to expand...
Nothing happens in a vacuum. People do things to themselves that make them sick and society ends up paying to keep them alive.
 
It's going to be hilarious when a tax on soda-pop is what gets America to hate Obama. Are people really talking about the fucking Coke/Pepsi tax? Apparently health care, Afghanistan, and the missing birth certificate are all bygone issues. I just hope all the people that supported all the cigarette tax hikes support this. Otherwise they are unjust and irrational types who only want a reason to bitch about the president.


LegendofJoe said:
Sugar is a natural carbohydrate, HFCS is a drug.
Click to expand...

It's natural, man. It can't be bad for you because it's natural
 
Number 2 said:
Nothing happens in a vacuum. People do things to themselves that make them sick and society ends up paying to keep them alive.
Click to expand...

As a counterpoint to this argument doesn't society also do things to people that make them sick? And what about me? I was diagnosed with Type I Diabetes at the age of 5. While I pay a large insurance premium, copay, and deductible some of my health-care costs are still subsidized by my fellow citizens. What should the government do with me?
 
LegendofJoe said:
As a counterpoint to this argument doesn't society also do things to people that make them sick? And what about me? I was diagnosed with Type I Diabetes at the age of 5. While I pay a large insurance premium, copay, and deductible some of my health-care costs are still subsidized by my fellow citizens. What should the government do with me?
Click to expand...
Personally i feel there is a difference between someone who gets a condition to manifest without any known means of controlling the circumstances vs someone who gets health problems because they overeat for 30 years packing on an extra 200 pounds giving themselves heart disease and diabetes.
 
Number 2 said:
Personally i feel there is a difference between someone who gets a condition to manifest without any known means of controlling the circumstances vs someone who gets health problems because they overeat for 30 years packing on an extra 200 pounds giving themselves heart disease and diabetes.
Click to expand...


If you admit this is the problem then why punish everyone because some people lack self control?
 
rainking187 said:
If you admit this is the problem then why punish everyone because some people lack self control?
Click to expand...
It would be easier and probably cheaper to raise taxes on junk foods vs having mandatory BMI testing and a sort of ID card to go with it. The guy at the 7-11 is not going to be qualified to know whether to charge $1.50 for the Snickers or $6.50 just by looking at you. i would also imagine that having different brackets for taxes would be a fucking nightmare. Besides what is stopping your skinny bf/gf/other family member from getting the food and then having the fat one at home just eat it. Any taxes would have to apply to everyone.

Night_Trekker said:
Oh, I see. That's cute.
Click to expand...
Whatever.
 
Number 2 said:
Personally i feel there is a difference between someone who gets a condition to manifest without any known means of controlling the circumstances vs someone who gets health problems because they overeat for 30 years packing on an extra 200 pounds giving themselves heart disease and diabetes.
Click to expand...

There certainly is a difference, but you need to directly account for the costs of an individual's reckless consumption on the rest of society for any attempt at control to be effective. And as long as the U.S. goes without government run health-care I don't see how the Obama administration can muster the political capital to get something like this passed.
 
Good. It's about time. Even if I'm a consumer of these products, I think expectations of personal responsibility are entirely overrated.

People that harp on personal responsibility simply don't understand that behaviour is an answer to a complex multifactorial equation.

You'd all drink sodas continously without stop if they were free, did no damage to your teeth, your body, and you enjoyed the taste. Some people don't enjoy the taste; they don't drink it. For some people, they'd rather not damage their health and teeth by imbibing in soda constantly. And for some people, it's an economic issue; if it stops been so cheap, then they'd probably seek alternatives.

On the flipside, the money that's taxed off the sugary drinks can contribute directly to healthcare... it's a win-win as far as health care costs go; get some money from the people damaging themselves so that they can be covered in the future, or reduce the healthcare costs associated with obesity.

The idea of personal responsibility is good, don't get me wrong. It is a handy idea to have to get people doing things that benefit themselves and society in the long term, and one of the multiple factors that you have towards achieving that end... but it is not the be all and end all of solutions, or even a reasonable social response to anything (because let's face it... if the person you were shouting at to be more responsible could be, the great likelihood is that they would've already been more responsible)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Apple ordered to pay Ireland €13bn in Taxes
2
52
4K
Trilobit replied
Has GAF already healed to pre-exodus state?
33
1K
mopspear replied
Do you day drink on your days off?
2 3
102
3K
Nocty replied
  • Locked
Does the entire world economy depend on the United States having its doors open to everyone?
39
1K
EviLore replied
Someone burned $1.38 million in crypto to state that China has deployed its own mind control Neuralink
47
3K
Wandering Leopard replied
Top Bottom