Soft Drink Tax?

[crzyjournalist03]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WellnessNews/leading-researchers-propose-tax-sugared-drinks/story?id=8594299

I've got a better idea. Instead of taxing sodas to curb obesity, let's just tax obesity! It accomplishes the same goal, right?

[BreckTxLonghorn]

But my Coke Zero is healthy dammit!

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by BreckTxLonghorn
But my Coke Zero is healthy dammit!
.
I gave up diet Coke and lost 10 pounds.:eek:

[Old Tiger]

Boston coke party? Well maybe not that name ;)

[Emerson1]

I stopped drinking Cokes cold for about 9 months so I wouldn't care either way.

[carter08]

2 reason this never becomes a law.

1) the public will be so anti-legislation on this that neither party will risk losing a large chunk of voters on this.

2) this would destroy the coca-cola company, pepsico, etc and we need their money for our economy

[BwdLion73]

Ever time I read one of these great tax ideas it makes me want to start that bunker project on some land I have.

:mad: :(

[44INAROW]

that's what this country needs - a BIGGER COKE PROBLEM :eek:

[zebrablue2]

Originally posted by 44INAROW
that's what this country needs - a BIGGER COKE PROBLEM :eek:


LOL!!!

[sinton66]

I didn't hear many of you griping when they added a dollar tax to a pack of cigarettes. Don't gripe now, it's just YOUR turn to get hosed. As soon as they get away with this one, there'll be more coming. Alcohol, entertainment, maybe even football tickets.

If you don't want stuff like this happening, you need to speak up whenever they target ANYBODY. Unless ALL taxpayers stick together, the old "divide and conquer" will always work for them.

[carter08]

Originally posted by sinton66
I didn't hear many of you griping when they added a dollar tax to a pack of cigarettes. Don't gripe now, it's just YOUR turn to get hosed. As soon as they get away with this one, there'll be more coming. Alcohol, entertainment, maybe even football tickets.

If you don't want stuff like this happening, you need to speak up whenever they target ANYBODY. Unless ALL taxpayers stick together, the old "divide and conquer" will always work for them.

cigarettes are different, because the second hand smoke from them harms others, not just yourself.

second hand belching doesn't cause weight gain and cancer.

[sinton66]

Originally posted by carter08
cigarettes are different, because the second hand smoke from them harms others, not just yourself.

second hand belching doesn't cause weight gain and cancer.

You missed the point. If you're not willing to stand up for MY rights, why should I care about yours when YOU get hosed? That's what Congress depends on, divide and conquer.

[carter08]

Originally posted by sinton66
You missed the point. If you're not willing to stand up for MY rights, why should I care about yours when YOU get hosed? That's what Congress depends on, divide and conquer.

because standing up for the rights of someone to cause harm to other people is more of a moral wrong than standing up the rights of a much larger group of people who drink sugary sodas.

i don't have any numbers, but i think it is safe to assume the majority of the american public does enjoy colas, while the majority does not smoke.

there is also a good chance those smokers also drink sugary colas. they're not going to want to pay 2 separate taxes.

the point is, people did not gripe about the cigarette tax because people aren't dumb, they understand cigarette smoke can hurt other people. drinking sodas is a different monster. because it does not directly harm others, standing up for sodas is standing up for your personal rights, while standing up to be allowed to harm others with cigarette smoke is viewed as being selfish and uncaring.

[sinton66]

Originally posted by carter08
because standing up for the rights of someone to cause harm to other people is more of a moral wrong than standing up the rights of a much larger group of people who drink sugary sodas.

i don't have any numbers, but i think it is safe to assume the majority of the american public does enjoy colas, while the majority does not smoke.

there is also a good chance those smokers also drink sugary colas. they're not going to want to pay 2 separate taxes.

the point is, people did not gripe about the cigarette tax because people aren't dumb, they understand cigarette smoke can hurt other people. drinking sodas is a different monster. because it does not directly harm others, standing up for sodas is standing up for your personal rights, while standing up to be allowed to harm others with cigarette smoke is viewed as being selfish and uncaring.

Congress is telling you you're WRONG! "Sodas cause obesity". It's for the children! Since you didn't gripe about the cigarette tax, don't gripe about this one (and it's going to be on snacks too) or the one to come on alcohol (drunk drivers and all) or sporting events. You're bound to be pretty government trusting and simple minded if you don't see the correlation. I beg to differ with you about whether or not people are dumb.

[carter08]

Originally posted by sinton66
Congress is telling you you're WRONG! "Sodas cause obesity". It's for the children! Since you didn't gripe about the cigarette tax, don't gripe about this one (and it's going to be on snacks too) or the one to come on alcohol (drunk drivers and all) or sporting events. You're bound to be pretty government trusting and simple minded if you don't see the correlation. I beg to differ with you about whether or not people are dumb.

I CAN ARGUE AGAINST A SNACK AND SOFT DRINK TAX BECAUSE THE CONSUMPTION OF THEM ONLY AFFECTS THE PERSON WHO IS EATING/DRINKING THE SUBSTANCES.

cigarettes and alcohol cause damage to people other than the ones partaking in the substances.

i'd like to know how you can put those in the same class and say we should either gripe about them all or about none of them. plz, do tell.

[sinton66]

Put your predjudice aside for a moment, open your mind and examine them closely.

1st, the government says cigarettes are dangerous.....tax them out of existence. (Did it?)
2nd, the government is saying soft drinks and snacks cause obesity.........tax them out of existence. (Will it?)
Next, alcohol is dangerous........tax it out of existence.
Then Violence in TV and movies cause violenece in real life....tax the heck out of them.
If they get away with those, then they'll start on stuff enjoyed by practically everyone (like sporting events). NOTHING will be out of their reach before long.

Do you see a pattern here?

YOU don't like cigarettes so you don't care about that tax, you even support it.

I don't drink soft drinks so I don't care about that tax, might even support it.

And so it goes on and on. (Divide and conquer)

[carter08]

Originally posted by sinton66
Put your predjudice aside for a moment, open your mind and examine them closely.

1st, the government says cigarettes are dangerous.....tax them out of existence. (Did it?)
2nd, the government is saying soft drinks and snacks cause obesity.........tax them out of existence. (Will it?)
Next, alcohol is dangerous........tax it out of existence.
Then Violence in TV and movies cause violenece in real life....tax the heck out of them.
If they get away with those, then they'll start on stuff enjoyed by practically everyone (like sporting events). NOTHING will be out of their reach before long.

Do you see a pattern here?

YOU don't like cigarettes so you don't care about that tax, you even support it.

I don't drink soft drinks so I don't care about that tax, might even support it.

And so it goes on and on. (Divide and conquer)

prejudice?
i have friends that smoke, i'm around it all the time despite the health risk and i don't get bothered.

i can see this pattern, but you saying that we can't gripe over this because we didn't gripe over a cigarette tax is not only wrong but completely un-American.

we have the right to complain over something like this. you are going to find more people against this than against the cigarette tax because the general fact is a larger percentage of the public cares about sodas.

cigarettes have not been taxed out of existance, step on any college campus and you will see that.

the point that you fail to get is that snack food and soda consumption is a personal choice that only affects you, therefore we should stand up for our personal rights and unify against it, whereas a tax on something that harms others is A TAX ON SOMETHING THAT HARMS OTHERS.

and thats not the government saying it is bad, it's scientific evidence.

find some evidence saying that the friend sitting beside me eating a pizza and drinking a 2 liter of dr. pepper is going to make ME fat and i will agree that we shouldn't gripe over this, but as long as they are merely trying to tax something that only affects the health of the person partaking in the "bad thing", there should not be an extra tax placed on it.

[IrishTex]

As an ex-cigarette smoker (I smoked for 40 years)

I just hope that taxes makes anyone stop smoking.
I'm only 58 and have had 2 heart surgeries this year....

I know, I know, you couldn't tell me anything either when it came to smoking. Heck, even today some of my best dreams are when i smoke.

But the bottom line is, smoking makes your arteries constrict and cause heart attacks...

I'll tell you for sure, I wish I had quit years ago...but I didn't, and I'm in pain at this moment because I figure I'm working on some more blockage...

Folks, I say this as a friend...stop smoking.

[IrishTex]

Originally posted by IrishTex
As an ex-cigarette smoker (I smoked for 40 years)

I just hope that taxes makes anyone stop smoking.
I'm only 58 and have had 2 heart surgeries this year....

I know, I know, you couldn't tell me anything either when it came to smoking. Heck, even today some of my best dreams are when i smoke.

But the bottom line is, smoking makes your arteries constrict and cause heart attacks...

I'll tell you for sure, I wish I had quit years ago...but I didn't, and I'm in pain at this moment because I figure I'm working on some more blockage...

Folks, I say this as a friend...stop smoking.

Oh, and by the way? Because of my heart issues due to smoking...i can't drink soft drinks and high cholesterol foods and drinks...so one connects the other...I can't win.

I was working part time at the Cowboys Stadium, but because I can't walk very far now..I can't even do that...

I would have loved to have been working today to see that stadium and the party at the Cowboys Stadium....but because i thought I had to smoke for 40 years, that's out the window...nice life eh? It's all my fault though..

[sinton66]

Originally posted by Carter08the point that you fail to get is that snack food and soda consumption is a personal choice that only affects you, therefore we should stand up for our personal rights and unify against it, whereas a tax on something that harms others is A TAX ON SOMETHING THAT HARMS OTHERS.

I'm not missing your point, you're missing mine. Smoking is a personal choice also (whether you agree or not). Most smokers I see these days are very considerate of other people around them. I don't even smoke in my own house, I go outside. I don't smoke in restaraunts even if they allow it. I don't smoke near the entrances or exits of buildings, I walk away. I don't promote smoking to anyone. So, as far as I'm concerned, your secondhand smoke theory is full of bull, and I think you've been brain-washed. Why am I STILL being punished for MY personal choice?

The WHOLE point of all of this is that the government firmly believes they know better than you do what is best for you and has decided to legislate you into compliance with their wishes. (In other words, giving you no choice in the matter) They have gotten away with this practice for so long, it's becoming automatic to them. Throw the BUZZ words out, claim "it's for the children" and legislate.

And, if you think it's going to be put on a ballot that you can vote on, boy will you have a surprize coming.

Smokers were the pirannah of the last decade and obese people will become the new ones. Hide and watch.

[carter08]

Originally posted by sinton66
I'm not missing your point, you're missing mine. Smoking is a personal choice also (whether you agree or not). Most smokers I see these days are very considerate of other people around them. I don't even smoke in my own house, I go outside. I don't smoke in restaraunts even if they allow it. I don't smoke near the entrances or exits of buildings, I walk away. I don't promote smoking to anyone. So, as far as I'm concerned, your secondhand smoke theory is full of bull, and I think you've been brain-washed. Why am I STILL being punished for MY personal choice?

The WHOLE point of all of this is that the government firmly believes they know better than you do what is best for you and has decided to legislate you into compliance with their wishes. (In other words, giving you no choice in the matter) They have gotten away with this practice for so long, it's becoming automatic to them. Throw the BUZZ words out, claim "it's for the children" and legislate.

And, if you think it's going to be put on a ballot that you can vote on, boy will you have a surprize coming.

Smokers were the pirannah of the last decade and obese people will become the new ones. Hide and watch.

i'm glad you are considerate of other people and sorry you have to pay a little extra for your smokes.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by IrishTex
As an ex-cigarette smoker (I smoked for 40 years)

I just hope that taxes makes anyone stop smoking.
I'm only 58 and have had 2 heart surgeries this year....

I know, I know, you couldn't tell me anything either when it came to smoking. Heck, even today some of my best dreams are when i smoke.

But the bottom line is, smoking makes your arteries constrict and cause heart attacks...

I'll tell you for sure, I wish I had quit years ago...but I didn't, and I'm in pain at this moment because I figure I'm working on some more blockage...

Folks, I say this as a friend...stop smoking.

Im sorry it made you sick in your later years of life, but that doesnt mean that you have the right to make that decision for me and neither does Congress. I remember saying things like this are a slippery slope when you peeps were advocating eradication of a dog breed and an increase of taxes. Anytime civil liberties are trampled everyone should stand up and say something about it.

[IrishTex]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Im sorry it made you sick in your later years of life, but that doesnt mean that you have the right to make that decision for me and neither does Congress. I remember saying things like this are a slippery slope when you peeps were advocating eradication of a dog breed and an increase of taxes. Anytime civil liberties are trampled everyone should stand up and say something about it.

Oh, I agree...my overall point was I think all taxes need to be weighed upon very carefully. I can't think of any tax that's really popular, and I can understand people being upset if they feel as though it's an unfair tax to boot. My point was even though cigarette taxes are indeed very high..in my opinion if it gets someone to quit...then so be it. My belief is a person't health and mortality are worth more than the tax. But then, that's just me being a bitter ex-smoker..I wouldn't agree with me if I didn't have health issues from smoking cigarettes for most of my life.

[sinton66]

Well, when our non-representing representatives get around to putting a "user fee" on my Whataburger, Hot Apple Pie, and senior drink (Fast Food is fattening argument) I might start advocating opening season on them.:D

[SHSBulldog00]

I love Dr. Pepper.

[Farmersfan]

Wouldn't this be a form of coercion on the part of our government???? To us as consumers and to the companies that exist to produce these products. There are millions and millions of products out there that can be deemed unhealthy or unsafe so for the government to "PICK" soft drinks to levy taxes against would seem to violate a whole lot of laws. Soda companies compete with other companies for profits and for the government to take part of one companie's profits and not the others might just cost them big time in court........ Does anyone doubt that these "Energy" drinks are just as bad for us as sodas are? How about candy? Doughnuts? Potato Chips? Burgers? Fried Pies? Bread? Jello?.............Ok! Maybe not Jello!

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Wouldn't this be a form of coercion on the part of our government???? To us as consumers and to the companies that exist to produce these products. There are millions and millions of products out there that can be deemed unhealthy or unsafe so for the government to "PICK" soft drinks to levy taxes against would seem to violate a whole lot of laws. Soda companies compete with other companies for profits and for the government to take part of one companie's profits and not the others might just cost them big time in court........ Does anyone doubt that these "Energy" drinks are just as bad for us as sodas are? How about candy? Doughnuts? Potato Chips? Burgers? Fried Pies? Bread? Jello?.............Ok! Maybe not Jello!

or pit bulls....:rolleyes:

[Keith7]

Originally posted by sinton66
Put your predjudice aside for a moment, open your mind and examine them closely.

1st, the government says cigarettes are dangerous.....tax them out of existence. (Did it?)
2nd, the government is saying soft drinks and snacks cause obesity.........tax them out of existence. (Will it?)
Next, alcohol is dangerous........tax it out of existence.
Then Violence in TV and movies cause violenece in real life....tax the heck out of them.
If they get away with those, then they'll start on stuff enjoyed by practically everyone (like sporting events). NOTHING will be out of their reach before long.

Do you see a pattern here?


LOL No I don't see a pattern.. How can you jump from the government taxing dangerous things to taxing football games? Seems like a typical slippery slope arguement that has no pattern to even make sense..

[Pick6]

Originally posted by Keith7
LOL No I don't see a pattern.. How can you jump from the government taxing dangerous things to taxing football games? Seems like a typical slippery slope arguement that has no pattern to even make sense..

So you don't think there can be a tax on entertainment? Sounds like you already fell off the slippery slope and it must of been a long fall.

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Pick6
So you don't think there can be a tax on entertainment? Sounds like you already fell off the slippery slope and it must of been a long fall.

what a pathetic attempt at humor

[Pick6]

Originally posted by Keith7
what a pathetic attempt at humor

Pathetic = your attempt at shtick. Or maybe it's you being jealous of Celina. Or your Philly team never winning the big one. The list could go on and on but the one common denominator, .

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Pick6
Pathetic = your attempt at shtick. Or maybe it's you being jealous of Celina. Or your Philly team never winning the big one. The list could go on and on but the one common denominator, .

Why would I be jealous of a town like Celina?? That has got to be a joke.. And the Eagles have a better chance of winning the Super Bowl sooner than the cowpies.. Quit living in the past..

[sinton66]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Wouldn't this be a form of coercion on the part of our government???? To us as consumers and to the companies that exist to produce these products. There are millions and millions of products out there that can be deemed unhealthy or unsafe so for the government to "PICK" soft drinks to levy taxes against would seem to violate a whole lot of laws. Soda companies compete with other companies for profits and for the government to take part of one companie's profits and not the others might just cost them big time in court........ Does anyone doubt that these "Energy" drinks are just as bad for us as sodas are? How about candy? Doughnuts? Potato Chips? Burgers? Fried Pies? Bread? Jello?.............Ok! Maybe not Jello!


Originally posted by sinton66(and it's going to be on snacks too)
Trust me, it won't be JUST sodas, and it'll probably be a built-in tax. That way state and local governments earn more using sales taxes on top of it. (Ye old "tax upon a tax" common English practice that led in part to the American Revolution.)

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by sinton66
Trust me, it won't be JUST sodas, and it'll probably be a built-in tax. That way state and local governments earn more using sales taxes on top of it. (Ye old "tax upon a tax" common English practice that led in part to the American Revolution.)




Although I do follow the "slippery slope" thought process here, I can see some merit to taxing cigarettes. They are proven to be dangerous to not only the smoker but those around the smoker. And they are addictive. I'm thinking that alone should make them illegal. An addictive substance that has been proven dangerous sold over the counter??????? That's a no-brainer in my mind. Sodas and other "unhealthy" consumables are not addictive so over indulgence is a CHOICE. I have a co-worker who stated yesterday that he felt the government should tax Obese people higher than "Healthy" people because they are the ones that drive up the healthcare costs. He stated that Obesesity causes diabetes and therefore if you are going to be obese then you should pay more of the tax burden because you are putting yourself at risk. Needless to say this brought about some pretty colorful explatives from me! I felt as if I had just jumped back in time to the 1800's with this kind of backwards ignorant thinking. No amount of rational discussion would sway his opinion on the subject. He felt obesity was 100% a CHOICE issue and people should be held accountable for that choice. Even though he acknowledged that not all obese people had diabetes or that not all people with diabetes were obese he still felt the same way. So it was stated that the next socially unacceptable target will be obesity and I would agree with that.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Although I do follow the "slippery slope" thought process here, I can see some merit to taxing cigarettes. They are proven to be dangerous to not only the smoker but those around the smoker. And they are addictive. I'm thinking that alone should make them illegal. An addictive substance that has been proven dangerous sold over the counter??????? That's a no-brainer in my mind. Sodas and other "unhealthy" consumables are not addictive so over indulgence is a CHOICE. I have a co-worker who stated yesterday that he felt the government should tax Obese people higher than "Healthy" people because they are the ones that drive up the healthcare costs. He stated that Obesesity causes diabetes and therefore if you are going to be obese then you should pay more of the tax burden because you are putting yourself at risk. Needless to say this brought about some pretty colorful explatives from me! I felt as if I had just jumped back in time to the 1800's with this kind of backwards ignorant thinking. No amount of rational discussion would sway his opinion on the subject. He felt obesity was 100% a CHOICE issue and people should be held accountable for that choice. Even though he acknowledged that not all obese people had diabetes or that not all people with diabetes were obese he still felt the same way. So it was stated that the next socially unacceptable target will be obesity and I would agree with that.

Smoking is a choice as well. It is regulated to protect non-smokers by banning indoor smoking currently, so additional taxation seems excessive. A person would have to endure a tremendous amount of second hand smoke to develop cancer...

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Smoking is a choice as well. It is regulated to protect non-smokers by banning indoor smoking currently, so additional taxation seems excessive. A person would have to endure a tremendous amount of second hand smoke to develop cancer...




I would say as many as 90% of smokers would CHOSE to quit if they could. It is addictive in nature and this addiction is the single most prominent factor in people's choice to either quit smoking or not. For the government to allow this substance to be sold to consumers and then tax them extra for using it is borderline retarded. The choice to start is theirs. The choice to quit in most cases is out of their hands. I agree excessive taxation is not right. The product should be made illegal. From a moral standpoint it is even more ridiculous than over taxing Twinkies because people aren't addicted to Twinkies. (now Ho Ho's are a different story!)
:D :D :D

[crzyjournalist03]

Boy, it took a few days, but this thread is really getting opinionated now!

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by crzyjournalist03
Boy, it took a few days, but this thread is really getting opinionated now!



Opinionated? Opinionated? No opinions here! Only FACTS!!!!!
:D

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I would say as many as 90% of smokers would CHOSE to quit if they could. It is addictive in nature and this addiction is the single most prominent factor in people's choice to either quit smoking or not. For the government to allow this substance to be sold to consumers and then tax them extra for using it is borderline retarded. The choice to start is theirs. The choice to quit in most cases is out of their hands. I agree excessive taxation is not right. The product should be made illegal. From a moral standpoint it is even more ridiculous than over taxing Twinkies because people aren't addicted to Twinkies. (now Ho Ho's are a different story!)
:D :D :D

Caffeine, sugar (possibly, depends on your definition), and alcohol are all addictive too. By your definition we should tax sweets and soda so I think your argument is somewhat flawed. Sure addictions are there, but if someone CHOOSES to quit they have that option. It may be hard, but it can be done if a person chooses to do so. Bottom line, where do we draw the line on government regulation of personal freedoms? Be sure to buckle up too...it saves insurance money. :D