Support NeoGAF

[B-Dubs]

Agree, on both counts. It is my hope that the city follows through. Tax based on the ounce served.

That was the first thing the city tried, the beverage companies lobbied against it pretty heavily so it went nowhere. When that failed they went with the ban.

 

[kehs]

Wait, what does the senior vote have to do with Obamacare? Most of the ACA deals with non-seniors...

edit:



LMAO

I can't believe people like this exist.

 

[GhaleonEB]

That was the first thing the city tried, the beverage companies lobbied against it pretty heavily so it went nowhere. When that failed they went with the ban.

Which the beverage companies sued to block. I'd hope they go back to the original plan, but if not, it's a clear win for the industry. Which is unfortunate. Maybe we'll get labels at best.

We really need to stop building these Rube Goldberg policy machines (i.e. cap and trade) and just keep it simple: tax what we want to discourage. Sigh.

 

[Hitokage]

Those are all good points but it sounds like you were talking about Bush junior whereas he said Bush senior.

For reference:

Obama ran a the anti bush and yet has governed like bushes third and forurth terms

I didn't fall for the dodge.

 

[Amir0x]

Fuck yeah free market soda for everyone *rocks*

 

[B-Dubs]

Which the beverage companies sued to block. I'd hope they go back to the original plan, but if not, it's a clear win for the industry. Which is unfortunate. Maybe we'll get labels at best.

We really need to stop building these Rube Goldberg policy machines (i.e. cap and trade) and just keep it simple: tax what we want to discourage. Sigh.

The whole thing is just insane. Lobbyists have way too much pull.

 

[TestOfTide]

Seems like it's more of lack of information. How many people buying 32oz. sodas know what all that sugar is doing to them. And all a tax would do is make people spend a little more on it.

Make them put giant "Increases Risk for Type 2 Diabetes" labels on them though and people will be more inclined to reconsider.

 

[massoluk]

Poe's Law and all.

Is jamesinclair for real or is he pulling a Phoenixdark on me?

 

[Mackenzie 92]

Tingling is one of the best names I've ever heard.

Should've taxed the drink instead.

sin taxes don't work and just punish the poor.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Poe's Law and all.

Is jamesinclair for real or is he pulling a Phoenixdark on me?

He's real.

 

[The Librarian]

sin taxes don't work and just punish the poor.

I don't what "sin taxes" are, but in this case I don't buy "hurt the poor" reasoning. People don't have to buy soda to live, and that tax revenue could be used to fund other social welfare programs.

 

[Mackenzie 92]

I don't what "sin taxes" are, but in this case I don't buy "hurt he poor line" reasoning. People don't have to buy soda to live, and that tax revenue could be used to fund other social welfare programs.

because it isn't gonna stop poor people from buying them and sales taxes are already regressive, we don't need to add to it.

the cigarette taxes in new york are a good example of sin taxes not working to stop people from buying them, now over half of them are smuggled in from other states are are sold untaxed anyway

 

[Chichikov]

I don't what "sin taxes" are, but in this case I don't buy "hurt the poor" reasoning. People don't have to buy soda to live, and that tax revenue could be used to fund other social welfare programs.

They still ends up being pretty damn regressive.
I think an ideal solution will tax only the profits made by those sales or make those sales impact their overall corporate tax rate. The underlying problem is that those soda companies have economic incentives to act in a way which harm the common good, and that's need to be addressed, and it's difficult to achieve that goal with vice taxes.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

I don't think those taxes on soda's would be enough. They're incredibly cheap already, especially the $1 deals that McD's and Jack in the Box have, unless you're really penny pinching Limiting sizes seemed a better way.

 

[PhoenixDark]

sin taxes don't work and just punish the poor.

It's certainly a regressive tax but I still support the general idea of it; I don't support an outright ban on large pops though, that certainly strikes me as unconstitutional and stupid.

Poor people drinking less pop strikes me as a good idea, and means tax payers pay less to for their dental and health coverage. That strikes me as a conservative view of this issue but unsurprisingly most conservatives refuse to see it that way. They'd rather complain about a nanny state and government overreach while also complaining about wasting money on social Welfare. You lower your social Welfare obligations by promoting healthy eating/drinking. People should be able to drink whatever they want (hence my disagreement with Bloomberg) but I have no problem with offering monetary incentives to encourage people to drink healthier stuff.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Let people have their fun. Most people's lives are shitty enough already, no need to make one of their humble pleasures more expensive on the grounds that you don't think they should be drinking as much. This is a philosophical point rather than an economic point for me.

 

[The Librarian]

because it isn't gonna stop poor people from buying them and sales taxes are already regressive, we don't need to add to it.

We're not taxing everything, just sugary drinks. And estimates say that a particularly large tax would reduce consumption.

They still ends up being pretty damn regressive.

I don't see how. They can just buy other drinks, and it really depends on what the revenue is used for.

Let people have their fun. Most people's lives are shitty enough already, no need to make one of their humble pleasures more expensive on the grounds that you don't think they should be drinking as much. This is a philosophical point rather than an economic point for me.

Except we have healthcare costs to think about.

 

[Chichikov]

Let people have their fun. Most people's lives are shitty enough already, no need to make one of their humble pleasures more expensive on the grounds that you don't think they should be drinking as much. This is a philosophical point rather than an economic point for me.

It's not about people's fun, it's about giant companies that have economic incentives to hurt society as a whole.
We wouldn't have this problem if people couldn't get filthy rich selling that crap to people (same as cigarettes and drugs).

Edit: I oppose the ban.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I'm on the other side of this one, GAF.

Fix the healthcare system, do try to regulate further what people eat or drink. Too invasive.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Rex Parris, the mayor of Lancaster, California, wants every new home in his city to host solar. And starting next January, that could be a reality.

Recently in Lancaster, homebuilder KB Home celebrated its 1,000th new home with solar panels from SunPower. Speaking at the event, Mayor Parris announced his city will institute a first-of-its-kind requirement that solar be installed on every new single-family home built in Lancaster after January 1, 2014.

The new law will be written into Lancaster’s “Residential Zones Update” on residential solar. Along with a range of green building provisions, it specifies that new single family homes meet minimum solar system requirements.


image via Shutterstock

“The purpose of the solar energy system standards,” it reads, “is to encourage investment in solar energy on all parcels in the city, while providing guidelines for the installation of those systems that are consistent with the architectural and building standards of the City.” It is further intended “to provide standards and procedures for builders of new homes toinstall solar energy systems in an effort to achieve greater usage of alternative energy.”

Residential homes on lots from 7,000 square feet must have a solar system of 1.0 kilowatt to 1.5 kilowatts. Rural residential homes of up to 100,000 square feet must have a system of at least 1.5 kilowatts.

The standards spell out simple, common-sense rules for both roof-mounted and ground-mounted systems. They also deal with some interesting issues:

A builder’s model home must show the kind of solar system the builder will offer.
Builders of subdivisions will be able to aggregate the houses’ requirements. If ten houses in a subdivision each have a 1.0 kilowatt requirement, the builder can install a single 10-kilowatt system, two 5-kilowatt systems or four 2.5 kilowatt systems.
If a housing tract is built in phases, each phase must meet the requirement.
Multi-family developments can meet the requirement with a rooftop system or a system on a support or shade structure.
Finally, builders “may choose to meet the solar energy generation requirement off-site by providing evidence of purchasing solar energy credits from another solar-generating development located within the City.”

Mayor Parris, who frequently promises to make Lancaster “the solar energy capital of the world,” expressed confidence that he has the City Council votes for approval, despite resistance from the building industry.

“I understand the building industry is not happy with this,” Parris said. “We will just have to take the heat. I could not do that without a City Council — made up of people who want a political career — with the courage to take that heat.”

The building industry should understand “that we work with them, not for them,” he said. “They are not in a hurry to disrupt our partnership. Opposition would disrupt it.”

Even with resistance from some members of the building community, the market is shifting.

“There are a rapidly increasing number of solar homes being built,” said Matt Brost, SunPower’s national director for new home sales. “One of every five built in California this year will be solar powered.”

Along with partnering with KB Home, SunPower has worked with other major home builders like Lennar Homes, Richmond American Homes, and Standard Pacific Homes.

Mayor Parris, a Republican, noted that Lancaster is “one of the most conservative Republican districts in the country. But Republicans are smart,” he said. “When you show them a solution, they will take it.”

http://www.earthtechling.com/2013/03/chicken-in-every-pot-solar-on-every-new-home-for-calif-city/

If there was one time I hope the domino effect comes into play, this is one of those times.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Except we have healthcare costs to think about.

Well, from the same philosophical POV, the government taking responsibility over the provisions of a certain service and then using that as a hammer for social engineering isnt exactly immune to the charge of government over-reach. What's the philosophical difference between banning it and making it only available to those with more money? But it also begs the question of where that road leads to - taxing skiing? Skateboarding? Do you know how many people collapse running the New York Marathon?

Besides, there's more to a governments role than extending people's lives as far as possible by imposing artificial barriers on their actions. Do they live longer, or does it just feel longer?!

 

[The Librarian]

Yes, there exits the possibility in the future that the government is going to tax skateboarding.

 

[kehs]

http://www.earthtechling.com/2013/03/chicken-in-every-pot-solar-on-every-new-home-for-calif-city/

If there was one time I hope the domino effect comes into play, this is one of those times.

Sunpower was one of those companies accused of using stimulus money to build factories in mexico during the elections.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/stimulus-money-for-jobs-overseas/

 

[CyclopsRock]

It's not about people's fun, it's about giant companies that have economic incentives to hurt society as a whole.
We wouldn't have this problem if people couldn't get filthy rich selling that crap to people (same as cigarettes and drugs).

What does that have to do with it, though? You find a country where people all brew their own booze in their garden sheds using potatoes and get hammered every night and tell me that their drinking culture is caused by large corporations making money. It baffles me how you look at people making a choice in a free market and blame the company selling the product for their choice. These aren't guns, they don't hurt other people. Damage is sustained through a significant over consumption oover a long period of time - that isn't Pepsis fault, and making it more eexpensive for these people to do it won't stop them. There needs to be more personal responsibility on issues like this.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'd prefer changing incentives to regulation. Taxing sodas more, for example.



The difference is that in one case it's available and in another it isn't.

Also, it's a little much to describe a $.01/oz tax as "making it only available to those with more money." I understand your point, but that's over the top.

Well either it's limiting its audience, or it isn't making a difference to consumption habits. It can't do both.

 

[Byakuya769]

Not sure another regressive tax would be worthwhile.

 

[PhoenixDark]

What does that have to do with it, though? You find a country where people all brew their own booze in their garden sheds using potatoes and get hammered every night and tell me that their drinking culture is caused by large corporations making money. It baffles me how you look at people making a choice in a free market and blame the company selling the product for their choice. These aren't guns, they don't hurt other people. Damage is sustained through a significant over consumption oover a long period of time - that isn't Pepsis fault, and making it more eexpensive for these people to do it won't stop them. There needs to be more personal responsibility on issues like this.

Making things more expensive does help influence certain behaviors though. If people want to buy pop go ahead, but as much as you want. But at the same time the state should benefit from extra tax revenue from items that impact health - cigarettes, pop, etc. After all it's the state that often has to pay when someone without insurance goes to the emergency room due to diabetic complications, it's the state that pays for children's dental care, etc.

In short do what you want to do, but recognize the state will get paid back.

 

[airmangataosenai]

I'm not talking about competence, I'm talking policy.

But w is still a touchy topic since he's so recent.

Let's look at this. Outside of modern social issues like gay marriage, Obama is to the right of bush sr on what he does. That's a fact.

This is nowhere near to. Bush actively pursued dangerous anti-Constitutional policies such as disbanding Habeas Corpus and created a culture of torture which Obama had to clean up. To say that he's anywhere near Bush's level is idiotic and shows a very short-term memory.

Edit: Haha, I fell for the fake.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Well, from the same philosophical POV, the government taking responsibility over the provisions of a certain service and then using that as a hammer for social engineering isnt exactly immune to the charge of government over-reach. What's the philosophical difference between banning it and making it only available to those with more money? But it also begs the question of where that road leads to - taxing skiing? Skateboarding? Do you know how many people collapse running the New York Marathon?

Besides, there's more to a governments role than extending people's lives as far as possible by imposing artificial barriers on their actions. Do they live longer, or does it just feel longer?!

I think of it as akin to the gas tax.

Gasoline fuels vehicles. Vehicles drive on roads, which produced wear and tear. The gas tax helps provide the revenues to repair the roads. And if a high gas tax discourages people from buying giant SUVs with shitty fuel economy, yay.

Soda is contributing to the USA's healthcare woes, contributing to obesity and disease such as type 2 diabetes. Those woes are adding enormous costs to our healthcare system. A soda tax could help pay for those added costs ("wear and tear"). And if it discourages someone from buying a giant Megagulp and thus reduce the burden on the system, yay.

Sure you can make a slippery slope argument and bring up skateboards, but I'm not sure how that helps.

 

[Mackenzie 92]

You lower your social Welfare obligations by promoting healthy eating/drinking. People should be able to drink whatever they want (hence my disagreement with Bloomberg) but I have no problem with offering monetary incentives to encourage people to drink healthier stuff.

Except we have healthcare costs to think about.

If we're going that route we'd be better off getting rid of all the corn subsidies that gives companies incentives to produce cheap and unhealthy food, instead of punishing the poor people who buy it.

Huh? I'm not really understanding what you're getting at here.

You implied that a soda tax was equivalent to "making it only available to those with more money." This is obviously false: you don't have to be wealthy in order to afford a tax of the size we're talking about. This doesn't in any way conflict with the fact that with a slightly higher price, people may be less inclined to purchase sodas.

They disproportionally target the poor. Basically saying it's OK to sin if you have more money.

Soda is contributing to the USA's healthcare woes, contributing to obesity and disease such as type 2 diabetes. Those woes are adding enormous costs to our healthcare system. A soda tax could help pay for those added costs ("wear and tear"). And if it discourages someone from buying a giant Megagulp and thus reduce the burden on the system, yay.

But it may just serve to make illicit alternatives that are more unsafe, unregulated and untaxed more attractive.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Soda is contributing to the USA's healthcare woes, contributing to obesity and disease such as type 2 diabetes. Those woes are adding enormous costs to our healthcare system. A soda tax could help pay for those added costs ("wear and tear"). And if it discourages someone from buying a giant Megagulp and thus reduce the burden on the system, yay.

Which is why I said we should fix the healthcare system before we start encroaching further into people's personal lives.

 

[The Librarian]

Hell, let's do both.

Agreed. I also don't understand how it hurts the poor.

 

[Chichikov]

What does that have to do with it, though? You find a country where people all brew their own booze in their garden sheds using potatoes and get hammered every night and tell me that their drinking culture is caused by large corporations making money. It baffles me how you look at people making a choice in a free market and blame the company selling the product for their choice. These aren't guns, they don't hurt other people. Damage is sustained through a significant over consumption oover a long period of time - that isn't Pepsis fault, and making it more eexpensive for these people to do it won't stop them. There needs to be more personal responsibility on issues like this.

It's not so simple, those foods and drinks are designed to be addictive, they are engineered to be over-consumed, it's not that American are genetically obese (really good article about the subject if you're interested).

Now again, I think you have every right to kill yourself any way you want, from hanging, through drugs to cheeseburgers, but I also thing it's better for society (even from a pure cold healthcare cost and productivity perspective) that we don't encourage such behavior, and I think the best way to do it is to try and curb the profit incentivization these companies have to sell products that are harmful for society.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Joe Lieberman, who left the Senate in January after a career that saw him go from Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2000 to shedding his party label in 2006 after losing a bitter primary, will join the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the conservative think tank announced Monday.

Lieberman will serve as co-chair of AEI's "American Internationalism Project," which will seek to "renew the foundations of American internationalism and the commitment to political and economic freedom that has been the hallmark of U.S. leadership for more than half a century," according to a press release.

The Democrat-turned-independent from Connecticut will lead the project with former Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), whose career in the Senate also drew to a close in January. In the press release, Lieberman said he's hopeful that the project will help forge foreign policy consensus between Democrats and Republicans. He added that he's "grateful" to AEI for spearheading the project.

"There is an urgent need to rebuild a bipartisan -- indeed non-political -- consensus for American diplomatic, economic, and military leadership in the world," Lieberman said in the release. "That's why I am grateful to AEI for initiating and sponsoring this project and why I look forward to leading it with my friend Jon Kyl."

Truly a despicable human being.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Truly a despicable human being.

Dude was always a hawk, wasn't he? Even as a democrat?

EDIT: That's not contradicting you.

 

[massoluk]

If we're going that route we'd be better off getting rid of all the corn subsidies that gives companies incentives to produce cheap and unhealthy food, instead of punishing the poor people who buy it.

Sounds good to me.

Your argument that this is somehow going to lead to government taxing skateboarding is steering dangerously close to "Gay marriage today, Bestiality marriage tomorrow", imo.

 

[Mackenzie 92]

Hell, let's do both.



Can you back this up?

Edit:

Meant to quote this for that second bit:

They've (sin taxes) have never worked regarding alcohol and tobacco, in terms of changing people's behaviors, I see no reason why that would be any different if we start taxing food and drinks. It's a regressive tax that just makes the poor poorer (hurting the economy in the process) and unfairly punishes them while it makes no difference to the rich who can still go about their business and smoke, drink and eat what they want.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I'd get rid of corn subsidies in a heart beat

 

[pigeon]

Agreed. I also don't understand how it hurts the poor.

Well, it's true to say that Pigouvian taxes are usually regressive -- in this case, this is trivially true, unless you think rich people drink more soda on average than poor people. And regressive taxes are typically viewed as problematic from a liberal perspective. But that doesn't mean that a soda tax has to be a bad idea, because the tax can be considered in concert with the spending it empowers. This is why "socialist" European countries often levy a VAT, which is typically a quite regressive tax, but use it on extremely progressive social programs such as socialized medicine to counter the negative effects. So the question is what we do with the money raised by a soda tax.

Personally, I honestly think that at some point in the future we'll have a drastically different perspective on sodas and refined sugar, and I am happy to limit its consumption when possible. If anything, our society could use more Pigouvian taxes, not less. New York can use that money to pay for its extremely progressive programs like its mass transit system.

 

[Black Mamba]

I'd get rid of corn subsidies in a heart beat

I'd do this no matter what because then Coke would taste better.

Well, it's true to say that Pigouvian taxes are usually regressive -- in this case, this is trivially true, unless you think rich people drink more soda on average than poor people. And regressive taxes are typically viewed as problematic from a liberal perspective. But that doesn't mean that a soda tax has to be a bad idea, because the tax can be considered in concert with the spending it empowers. This is why "socialist" European countries often levy a VAT, which is typically a quite regressive tax, but use it on extremely progressive social programs such as socialized medicine to counter the negative effects. So the question is what we do with the money raised by a soda tax.

Personally, I honestly think that at some point in the future we'll have a drastically different perspective on sodas and refined sugar, and I am happy to limit its consumption when possible. If anything, our society could use more Pigouvian taxes, not less. New York can use that money to pay for its extremely progressive programs like its mass transit system.

TBH, a tax on soda might not be regressive.

It depends on the elasticity of Demand for soda among low income people.

I'd assume higher income people will pay the tax and drink their soda. But if the tax causes a substitution effect on lower income people, they might end up buying more water or iced tea or somesuch. If that is the case, not regressive.

 

[Amir0x]

Why is Obama doing the whole wine and dine Republicans and pretend they'll ever work with him on anything ever thing again?

Click

I mean I can't tell if he's sincere or just going through the motions to check it off on a list to "independents" who like that sort of thing, even if it's an empty gesture

 

[The Librarian]

Well, it's true to say that Pigouvian taxes are usually regressive -- in this case, this is trivially true, unless you think rich people drink more soda on average than poor people. And regressive taxes are typically viewed as problematic from a liberal perspective. But that doesn't mean that a soda tax has to be a bad idea, because the tax can be considered in concert with the spending it empowers. This is why "socialist" European countries often levy a VAT, which is typically a quite regressive tax, but use it on extremely progressive social programs such as socialized medicine to counter the negative effects. So the question is what we do with the money raised by a soda tax.

Personally, I honestly think that at some point in the future we'll have a drastically different perspective on sodas and refined sugar, and I am happy to limit its consumption when possible. If anything, our society could use more Pigouvian taxes, not less. New York can use that money to pay for its extremely progressive programs like its mass transit system.

Agreed! And the revenue for mass transit sounds like a splendid idea.

 

[pigeon]

Why is Obama doing the whole wine and dine Republicans and pretend they'll ever work with him on anything ever thing again?

The best analysis I've seen on it says, basically, that Obama is having dinner with Republicans so that they can no longer claim he doesn't even have dinner with Republicans. I am not convinced that this approach will work since it relies on the assumption that the Republicans won't just lie about it with no consequences, but I guess there you go.

 

[kehs]

Why is Obama doing the whole wine and dine Republicans and pretend they'll ever work with him on anything ever thing again?

Click

I mean I can't tell if he's sincere or just going through the motions to check it off on a list to "independents" who like that sort of thing, even if it's an empty gesture

Divide and conquer.

It also seems he's out of ideas, I mean, he was asking that reporter for suggestions.

The best analysis I've seen on it says, basically, that Obama is having dinner with Republicans so that they can no longer claim he doesn't even have dinner with Republicans. I am not convinced that this approach will work since it relies on the assumption that the Republicans won't just lie about it with no consequences, but I guess there you go.

I don't think they care anymore if they turn around and lie to people's faces, they just needs the votes to get shit done at this point. Any bs they try to spin will get put out front and center anyway, no need for the president to do it.

 

[el retorno]

Truly a despicable human being.

So more Israel is the best thing ever and neo-con lets invade papers?

 

[Black Mamba]

yeah, it's all for show. It's just to avoid criticism that he's not trying to make a deal (which we know he is but can't).

Puts more pressure on the GOP, if anything.

 

[Mackenzie 92]

Yes, I understand that this is your assertion, I asked if you can back it up.

Seems self-evident to me since we still have people living in poverty spending what little money they have on alcohol and tobacco. But if you are looking for some type of study or statistics, there may be something out there, but no I can't produce them or back up my assertions. Can you back up yours, that they do work or will work?

 

[soul creator]

if anyone was curious, I just got a response from John Cornyn

Spoiler

's office

. I posted a few weeks ago that I asked him about health care costs, and I also sent a link to that Bitter Pill article about health care costs (and also a link to HR 676)

Thank you for contacting me regarding health care reform. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this important issue.

The existing American health care system faces a myriad of complex challenges. The 2010 passage of sweeping health care reform holds dramatic implications for our health care system and for all 300 million Americans.

I often hear the frustration of many Texans struggling to meet their health care needs in the existing system, and I understand the importance of implementing common-sense reforms that achieve results. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), if current laws remain in place, spending on the major mandatory health care programs would grow from 5.4 percent of Gross Domestic Product today to about 9.6 percent in 2037 and would continue to increase thereafter. Additionally, the Medicare trustees most recently reported that the Medicare program’s unfunded liability—benefits Washington has promised but lacks a plan to pay for—is more than $274 trillion and growing. There is no question that meaningful health care reform is needed.

As you know, during the 111th Congress, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA; P.L. 111—148) was signed into law by President Obama. While I understand the need for health care reform, I voted against this law because I believe it did nothing to lower the actual cost of health care. I was also deeply disappointed with the process of health care reform. Rather than an open and transparent process to allow careful evaluation of complex legislation affecting all 300 million Americans, this law was developed behind closed doors and passed with special interest deals and political payoffs. Appropriate reform must lower health care costs for American families, taxpayers, and businesses. Unfortunately, this law simply expanded a broken system exacerbating our current health care problems.

The PPACA spends $2.6 trillion over a ten year period. Additionally, it raises taxes by more than half a trillion dollars over the next decade—negatively impacting job growth and the economy. These taxes include a substantially higher Medicare payroll tax, which could harm small businesses, and new taxes on medical treatments, which will ultimately mean higher costs for patients. Furthermore, the PPACA will cut more than half a trillion dollars from the nearly-bankrupt Medicare program to create unsustainable new entitlement programs.

The PPACA also does nothing to effectively address rising health care costs. According to the non-partisan CBO, small businesses will continue to face premium increases and premiums for families purchasing insurance on their own will also increase. In fact, the average family premiums for employer-provided insurance have risen by $3,065 over the last four years. Medicare’s Chief Actuary issued a report showing that national health expenditures will increase, not decrease, under the new law.

As you know, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the majority of the PPACA. I am disappointed by the Supreme Court’s ruling and remain committed to repealing the PPACA. To this end, I am proud to cosponsor Senate Bill 177 (S. 177), which would repeal the health care reform law. We must repeal this fundamentally flawed law and replace it with realistic reforms that lower health care costs, address entitlement spending, and increase access to affordable health coverage. The right kind of reform will emphasize individual choice and allow patients, their families, and their doctors—not government bureaucrats—to make their own health care decisions.

I appreciate having the opportunity to represent the interests of Texans in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator

 

[sc0la]

Now you made it a beyond awful Peter Sagal joke.

Peter Sagal is the enemy of subtlety, he is like a subtlety nazi.
He pushes subtlety into ovens.

Spoiler

Like Hitler

 

[pigeon]

Seems self-evident to me since we still have people living in poverty spending what little money they have on alcohol and tobacco. But if you are looking for some type of study or statistics, there may be something out there, but no I can't produce them or back up my assertions. Can you back up yours, that they do work or will work?

The existence of some people who are not deterred by sin taxes doesn't magically prove that nobody is ever deterred by sin taxes.

Here's the Wonkblog:

Taxing alcohol is pretty effective at convincing moderate drinkers to consume less. But it does little to reduce heavy consumption of alcohol, according to a new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/06/25/a-case-against-the-sin-tax/

In other words, sin taxes are effective at reducing alcohol consumption but not necessarily at reducing alcohol abuse -- because the people who abuse alcohol are already ignoring lots of negative signals in order to abuse alcohol. So what's your goal? I don't think refined sugar is like alcohol, where a small amount is okay or even good, too much is bad, and the tendency towards addiction is heavily genetic. I think it's more like cigarettes, where small amounts are already bad and any consumption also tends to be addictive for everybody. So a sin tax would presumably help in this case -- there's no soda equivalent to being Irish.