Support NeoGAF

[Black Mamba]

Cigarrettes also got a massive campaign against their use, not just taxes. The Surgeon General warnings, the massive amounts of commercials, the agreement to not allow ads on TV (etc), the school programs, and on and on.

Soda has none of that.

A tax alone won't do enough to change it. It would be nice if there was a big effort against soda that leaned on the education side of things.

I say this as a once addicted user of Coke

Spoiler

mostly Dr. Pepper

. And I am not exasperating, I went through withdrawal. Unlike an alcoholic, I can dip in for a drink once in a while, though.

 

[speculawyer]

I can't help but think our government is 'bricked'. It is wedged into a state where it can't be fixed. We need campaign finance reform . . . but we can't get campaign finance reform because all the elected politicians got elected with the old system so why would they change it?

No wonder why healthcare reform, so obviously needed, barely passed and got nerfed so badly before it did pass in a way that provides lots of new patients to private insurers.

 

[speculawyer]

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

Sin taxes actually work great. All you have to do is look at smoking and oil usage in places with different tax regimes. High taxes do reduce wasteful usage.

 

[Jackson50]

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 total elimination of smoking seems an unrealistic measure of effectiveness. Otherwise, excise taxes are quite effective at reducing smoking. They certainly change people's behaviors. Individuals might circumvent them through smuggling, in which case federal measures are pertinent, but they still depress smoking rates.

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.

Not if your model serves as the consensus.

 

[Black Mamba]

Sin taxes actually work great. All you have to do is look at smoking and oil usage in places with different tax regimes. High taxes do reduce wasteful usage.

Again, Cigs had a massive campaign outside of cig taxes, so you can't just argue sin taxes work.

Oil, and by that I assume you mean gas, also are problematic. Places with high gas taxes tend to have lots of good public transit which makes the gas itself naturally less elastic than in the US, especially a place like Los Angeles.

 

[zero shift]

Sin taxes actually work great. All you have to do is look at smoking and oil usage in places with different tax regimes. High taxes do reduce wasteful usage.

Didn't sin taxes fail Denmark when they taxed unhealthy foods?

 

[speculawyer]

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.

I'm a huge solar advocate. I worry that this might be over-reach but if it works, it could be revolutionary. The price of solar PV equipment is now dirt cheap. Adding solar to a new house in California can be as cheap as adding 1% to 3% of the costs of the house! And it is much easier to do when building the house than adding later. Depending on the size of the PV system, it is probably only $4K to $10K in equipment costs.

If everyone did it, there would probably be no 'brown-out' problem at all during those peak times because the peak times are hot sunny days when everyone turns on their air conditioners. The utilities would not have to waste so much money building peaker plants that mostly sit idle until they are needed.

 

[Piecake]

I'm starting to think that a good single payer model might be to expand medicare to the entire population, but have a designated hospital for each state (States can get more for every 5 million of population) that receives 20% more than the medicare price for 'exceptional service" That 20% would be knocked down to 10% and then 5% depending on how huge the hospital complex is. That exceptional hospital designation would last a 1-5 years

States, if they dont want to use it, can sell their exceptional hospital award to other states (might be useful to states like Wyoming or North Dakota, etc)

That way, Hospitals like Mayo and Johns Hopkins wont completely reject single payer and flood Congress with money and lobbyists. They'd still might do it, but those well-renown hospitals would gain a competitive advantage over their competition in their region and still be able to be leaders in medicine, care and research so long as they kept that exceptional hospital designation.

I don't see single payer happening for a long while since I'd imagine that every hospital opposes it. This way, at least you might get the best, wealthiest, and most prestigious hospitals on your side

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/in-the-south-and-west-a-tax-on-being-poor/?hp

Speaking of taxes, thats a pretty interesting article in the NY Times about the Union/confederate+West divide on state tax policy. What I found interesting was the Earned income tax credit at the state level. I didnt even realize Minnesota had an EITC, and I think I would actually prefer if that was raised and expanded to single Minnesotans, and the minimum wage only raised up to 8.

Course, that might be a bit more tricky since I dont think it takes tax dollars to raise the minimum wage, but it does to expand the EITC. Still, I think the EITC is better policy

 

[Oblivion]

It's not my fault I couldn't get a full time job at 12 that pays enough to live on and save up while also preparing for college!

Uh...actually it IS! Do you not know what the term "bootstrapping" means?!

 

[CyclopsRock]

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.

I think when a price change makes people "less inclined" to purchase a certain good, then that is making it off limits to them. They have clearly deemed the sacrifice of having it (ie less to spend on other stuff) too great to justify buying it. If a poor person wanted, they could probably save up for their entire lives and then buy a Ferrari - but it'd require a lot of sacrifice. That doesn't mean Ferrari's can reasonably be said to be available to the poor. That's a slightly silly example, but only by way of scale - my point is that if a tax is high enough to change someone's desire to buy it, then it's not too small to be surmountable by everyone. "Look, it's only 1 cent - if they want to buy it, they still can, but maybe they won't want to anymore." - well, why won't they? Because they'll deem that they can't afford to anymore.

 

[CyclopsRock]

As an aside, whenever a politician talks about the need for "bi-partisanship" or "a-political" responses, I shit myself. The last thing I want is all the politicians agreeing for. Who the hell do I vote for when they fuck it up then?

 

[Chichikov]

I can't help but think our government is 'bricked'. It is wedged into a state where it can't be fixed. We need campaign finance reform . . . but we can't get campaign finance reform because all the elected politicians got elected with the old system so why would they change it?

The one thing politicians need more than money is votes, if enough people demand, mobilize and vote like that things will change.
As long as people are willing to forgive/ignore such things (and yes, I'm talking about Obama here) nothing will change.

 

[faridmon]

Crap, wrong thread, sorry!

 

[Owzers]

O'Reilly spent the whole hour getting people to pat him on the back for calling Colmes a liar. He has the respected opinion of Glenn Beck on his side as an interview guest currently.

 

[rocketknight]

I'm starting to think that a good single payer model might be to expand medicare to the entire population, but have a designated hospital for each state (States can get more for every 5 million of population) that receives 20% more than the medicare price for 'exceptional service" That 20% would be knocked down to 10% and then 5% depending on how huge the hospital complex is. That exceptional hospital designation would last a 1-5 years

States, if they dont want to use it, can sell their exceptional hospital award to other states (might be useful to states like Wyoming or North Dakota, etc)

That way, Hospitals like Mayo and Johns Hopkins wont completely reject single payer and flood Congress with money and lobbyists. They'd still might do it, but those well-renown hospitals would gain a competitive advantage over their competition in their region and still be able to be leaders in medicine, care and research so long as they kept that exceptional hospital designation.

I don't see single payer happening for a long while since I'd imagine that every hospital opposes it. This way, at least you might get the best, wealthiest, and most prestigious hospitals on your side

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/in-the-south-and-west-a-tax-on-being-poor/?hp

Speaking of taxes, thats a pretty interesting article in the NY Times about the Union/confederate+West divide on state tax policy. What I found interesting was the Earned income tax credit at the state level. I didnt even realize Minnesota had an EITC, and I think I would actually prefer if that was raised and expanded to single Minnesotans, and the minimum wage only raised up to 8.

Course, that might be a bit more tricky since I dont think it takes tax dollars to raise the minimum wage, but it does to expand the EITC. Still, I think the EITC is better policy

What determines access to the exceptional hospitals in this model?


Also, today in economics: http://krugmantimes.com/

 

[speculawyer]

Paul Krugman Bankrupt? Boston Globe, Breitbart.com Fall For Satirical Daily Currant Story
by Meenal Vamburkar | 11:22 am, March 11th, 2013 » 129 comments

The Daily Currant is at it again, this time fooling the Boston Globe‘s Boston.com and Breitbart.com with it’s story about New York Times columnist Paul Krugman filing for bankruptcy. Krugman himself responded to the mix-up on Monday, relishing in the hoax.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/paul...t-com-fall-for-satirical-daily-currant-story/

They just can't help themselves. They so want such stories to be true that they'll run with them on the flimsiest of evidence.

 

[Piecake]

What determines access to the exceptional hospitals in this model?


Also, today in economics: http://krugmantimes.com/

I was thinking that the state would decide, hopefully based on some sort of quality metric or at least national prestige. Oh, access meaning patients, huh? Well, considering that the government would be paying for everyone, I guess it would just be up to the hospitals discretion. I'd imagine that they would take specialty cases, rich foreigners, and service their locality. Not like the rich can pay more money to get a spot in this scenario or donate a new wing to the hospital (private donations to individual hopsitals seem like a bad idea in this set up).

 

[pigeon]

I think when a price change makes people "less inclined" to purchase a certain good, then that is making it off limits to them. They have clearly deemed the sacrifice of having it (ie less to spend on other stuff) too great to justify buying it. If a poor person wanted, they could probably save up for their entire lives and then buy a Ferrari - but it'd require a lot of sacrifice. That doesn't mean Ferrari's can reasonably be said to be available to the poor. That's a slightly silly example, but only by way of scale - my point is that if a tax is high enough to change someone's desire to buy it, then it's not too small to be surmountable by everyone. "Look, it's only 1 cent - if they want to buy it, they still can, but maybe they won't want to anymore." - well, why won't they? Because they'll deem that they can't afford to anymore.

Well, sure, but in that case making something "off-limits" is kind of meaningless. You're not wrong to say that this policy will forever lock soda away from those people who are happy to pay the current price for soda but not one cent more than the current price, but that's not exactly a suspect class -- it's a very small group whose membership is constantly fluctuating and which can easily be left by even a tiny increase in, say, annual income. So why should we care?

 

[Gruco]

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.

That's not exactly right. The burden is not just determined by who is consuming in the market the tax is imposed on. The distortions in the consumption portfolio are still part of the burden. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensating_variation

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?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=consumption+effects+of+cigarette+tax

Again, Cigs had a massive campaign outside of cig taxes, so you can't just argue sin taxes work.

Fortunately we have state and local level variation and fixed effects models. Cigarette taxes definitely lower consumption.

 

[jamesinclair]

Both houses were "dem" for like six weeks.

I only have a couple of minutes, so this is the best I can find. Truth be told, cant rememebr if it was the 2009, 2010, 2011 or all of the above where Obama told the senate to cut HSr funding.

Mr. Obama proposes $1 billion for FY 2011, the same as he suggested in FY 2010. The Congress increased total spending on fast trains to $2.5 billion during negotiations last year; it seems poised to do the same again considering the bipartisan support for what’s becoming a national project.

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/...portation-appropriations-stay-largely-intact/

The website has a nice chart for that time period.


The point was that when he had the opportunity, he punted, and when theres no chance in hell, he proposes his ass off. Seems like he wants to talk but not follow through.

GOP does the same. Bush talked about eliminating Amtrak. He could have, but he never did because its all talk - too many of his GOP friends would get hurt if the only form of transportation in town gets cut off.

 

[Chichikov]

The point was that when he had the opportunity, he punted, and when theres no chance in hell, he proposes his ass off. Seems like he wants to talk but not follow through.

I think he just seriously underestimated the GOP antagonism toward them, I get the sense that like Clinton he believes he can win anyone over if he just got them in a room with him.
He's been proven quite wrong.
I'm not sure if he fully learned the lesson tough.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

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

Especially when you can get a diabetes milk shake down the street. Was this ban pushed by wholefoods or something? 'Let's ban 32 oz sodas but still allow you to buy more expensive smaller versions.' The bigger versions are more economical.

Screw the poors and their purple drink.

If you want to help people eat healthy, subsidize fruits and vegetables, like we do grains.

 

[jamesinclair]

I think he just seriously underestimated the GOP antagonism toward them, I get the sense that like Clinton he believes he can win anyone over if he just got them in a room with him.
He's been proven quite wrong.
I'm not sure if he fully learned the lesson tough.

All he had to do was sit back and let the senators do their thing. He went out of his way to lower the funding, and then the next year when the tea party cut the funding to zero he sat back. Only the year after did he cone back proposing a ludicrous amount.

It just left a bitter taste in knowing he panders like no other.

Then extends the same attitude to taxes....same behavior with payroll tax

 

[pigeon]

Especially when you can get a diabetes milk shake down the street. Was this ban pushed by wholefoods or something? 'Let's ban 32 oz sodas but still allow you to buy more expensive smaller versions.' The bigger versions are more economical.

This is basic behavioral stuff, though. If people have smaller portions, they'll eat less and still be satisfied -- and they'll avoid asking for seconds because they think it looks bad. So, naturally, in America we push larger portions so that people will eat more and thus pay more for food. There's a section in the Omnivore's Dilemma specifically about the introduction of super sized fries to get people to buy more french fries, in which the manager says essentially the same thing that you're saying -- "if people want more fries they can just buy more fries" -- and learns that it isn't true when adding a larger size of fries drastically increases fry sales.

 

[Gotchaye]

Am I a bad person if I only drink Dr. Pepper 10?

 

[pigeon]

Am I a bad person if I only drink Dr. Pepper 10?

You're a bad person for drinking any type of Dr. Pepper.

 

[speculawyer]

Am I a bad person if I only drink Dr. Pepper 10?

You'll be a sick person if you drink 10 Dr. Peppers a day.

 

[Chichikov]

All he had to do was sit back and let the senators do their thing. He went out of his way to lower the funding, and then the next year when the tea party cut the funding to zero he sat back. Only the year after did he cone back proposing a ludicrous amount.

It just left a bitter taste in knowing he panders like no other.

Then extends the same attitude to taxes....same behavior with payroll tax

Yeah, I think he was negotiating in earnest with people who didn't do the same.
That was a critical tactical error and I think the country paid for it, but I don't think you can pin it on his lack of drive.

 

[Gotchaye]

You'll be a sick person if you drink 10 Dr. Peppers a day.

My ex went through a two liter of Coke Zero every day. I know it's basically water, but I'm surprised she's still alive. I guess that's only 6 cans' worth, though.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I haven't had pop in more than a year. If it's not tap water (or the occasional beer or lemonade) I'm not drinking it

 

[GhaleonEB]

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

I just got back from buying a new car. I did not consider the taxes and fees we paid an intrusion into my personal life.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

You're a bad person for drinking any type of Dr. Pepper.

yo! dr pepper is the shit.

dr pepper 10, not so much. also coke zero is gahbage. dunno how you could drink a can let alone a whole 2 liter.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I just got back from buying a new car. I did not consider the taxes and fees we paid an intrusion into my personal life.

CONGRATS! What didyouget?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I haven't had pop in more than a year. If it's not tap water (or the occasional beer or lemonade) I'm not drinking it

Ugh. The only people I know who refer to soda as pop are from Michigan.

 

[GhaleonEB]

CONGRATS! What didyouget?

A Mazda 5, downsizing from a minivan. It hit the sweet spot between kid/stuff hauler and smaller size with better fuel economy. Plus, it has an oh shit handle, which the van didn't. That was my top criteria; my wife had a longer list. It's nice, definately the nicest car we've ever bought. My wallet hurts though. I'm good at the saving part, spending, not so much.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

A Mazda 5, downsizing from a minivan. It hit the sweet spot between kid/stuff hauler and smaller size with better fuel economy. Plus, it has an oh shit handle, which the van didn't. That was my top criteria; my wife had a longer list.

Nice man. Always feels good to get a new car.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

What? This post sounds like you're staging an exciting breakaway from the PoliGAF liberal hivemind but I seriously have no idea what you're saying.

Schultz was asking for $600 billion or so in additional revenue to address a deficit that's being driven primarily by automatic stabilizers and economic performance. Automatic stabilizers are estimated to be $422 billion for FY 2013 according to the CBO. Let Obama, Schultz, and others implode on this issue.

With Krugman, I was just saying he's didn't ask about the economic impacts of the proposed SS reforms. How will it affect youth employment, senior poverty, overall economic activity, etc. Instead of lulz either SS is restricted to payroll tax or it isn't senator!

 

[Black Mamba]

That's not exactly right. The burden is not just determined by who is consuming in the market the tax is imposed on. The distortions in the consumption portfolio are still part of the burden. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensating_variation

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=consumption+effects+of+cigarette+tax

Fortunately we have state and local level variation and fixed effects models. Cigarette taxes definitely lower consumption.

1. Short term utility vs long term. You're right it distorts short term utility in the short term but if people were thinking long term properly they might change their utility functions to begin with. Since soda has many negative effects its possible the distortion created by the tax is simple filling the away erratic information gap. And even if not, it's at least forcing them to take the longer term view. This is good.

2. I don't deny that cig taxes affect sales. Just that its not only that. The decline in cig smoking has been staggering. Also those taxes can be quite high compared to what soda will be.

Forgot to mention laws to prevent smoking in places like the beach, bars, etc. all of this bad a huge effect coupled with cig taxes.

Also fuck you pigeon.

 

[speculawyer]

A Mazda 5, downsizing from a minivan. It hit the sweet spot between kid/stuff hauler and smaller size with better fuel economy. Plus, it has an oh shit handle, which the van didn't. That was my top criteria; my wife had a longer list. It's nice, definately the nicest car we've ever bought. My wallet hurts though. I'm good at the saving part, spending, not so much.

Ugh. Skyactiv.

(from the EV snob)

I would have recommended the C-Max Energi.

 

[speculawyer]

Ugh. The only people I know who refer to soda as pop are from Michigan.

It is a midwest thing. I was born in New York and moved to Minnesota as young kid . . . I never got used to "Pop". It is soda damn it.

 

[airmangataosenai]

My Facebook news feed is loaded with idiotic military friends of mine bitching about tuition assistance cuts, many of the same people who constantly complain about Obama's supposed out of control spending. Turns out they love spending so long as they can benefit. The money has to come from somewhere morons, this is what you get for voting against your interests.

I also am amazed at their sense of entitlement. Most of these people have never deployed and have cushy office jobs, yet they're owed something.

 

[Piecake]

It is a midwest thing. I was born in New York and moved to Minnesota as young kid . . . I never got used to "Pop". It is soda damn it.

Heathen. At least you probably don't call a drinking fountain a bubbler

 

[pigeon]

1. Short term utility vs long term. You're right it distorts short term utility in the short term but if people were thinking long term properly they might change their utility functions to begin with. Since soda has many negative effects its possible the distortion created by the tax is simple filling the away erratic information gap. And even if not, it's at least forcing them to take the longer term view. This is good.

2. I don't deny that cig taxes affect sales. Just that its not only that. The decline in cig smoking has been staggering. Also those taxes can be quite high compared to what soda will be.

Forgot to mention laws to prevent smoking in places like the beach, bars, etc. all of this bad a huge effect coupled with cig taxes.

Also fuck you pigeon.

Dr. Pepper hivemind!

 

[B-Dubs]

Heathen. At least you probably don't call a drinking fountain a bubbler

Who would call it that? That's madness!

 

[speculawyer]

My Facebook news feed is loaded with idiotic military friends of mine bitching about tuition assistance cuts, many of the same people who constantly complain about Obama's supposed out of control spending. Turns out they love spending so long as they can benefit. The money has to come from somewhere morons, this is what you get for voting against your interests.

I also am amazed at their sense of entitlement. Most of these people have never deployed and have cushy office jobs, yet they're owed something.

Indeed.

Tell them the chairforce should not qualify.



Man the WND is getting desperate.

 

[Piecake]

Who would call it that? That's madness!

Morons from Wisconsin

 

[Oblivion]

Can someone please punch Glenn Kessler in the kidneys? Here he is trying to explain why Obama's budget plan isn't really a plan:

By the same token, just having “a plan” on a Web site is not really a plan either. The White House’s proposal contains a mix of tax increases and modest reductions in entitlement and other spending programs, allowing the White House to claim it has made such proposals. In effect, however, this is another talking-point plan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ab9733c-88e5-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_blog.html

 

[Piecake]

Can someone please punch Glenn Kessler in the kidneys? Here he is trying to explain why Obama's budget plan isn't really a plan:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ab9733c-88e5-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_blog.html

I'll never understand why Washington types think cutting spending to programs that benefit the low and middle class is serious, and we need serious plans now. Yup, screw the middle class some more. I am sure that will work out well for our economy

 

[RDreamer]

Who would call it that? That's madness!

I would. And do. No one around here calls them water fountains. Fuck that.

Morons from Wisconsin

Hey man, wanna fight about it?

 

[Piecake]

I would. And do. No one around here calls them water fountains. Fuck that.




Hey man, wanna fight about it?

Ill meet you at the border in 3 hours