Spin this: Bernie Sanders: Tax Cigarettes, But Not Soda

[wyldwolf]

Bernie Sanders on Sunday came out against a plan being considered by the city of Philadelphia to tax soda as a means of paying for universal pre-kindergarten programs.

He argued on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that it would be regressive, affecting the poorest families who often buy soda precisely because it is inexpensive.

But when host Chuck Todd pressed him about whether the same logic would compel him to oppose a tax on cigarettes, Sanders balked, arguing that cigarettes are a far worse health threat and suggesting that he’d like to see them banned.

“There’s a difference between cigarettes and soda,” the Vermont senator said. “I am aware of the obesity problem in this country. ... But cigarettes are causing cancer, obviously, and a dozen other diseases. And there is almost the question as to why it remains a legal product in this country.”

(Obesity is the #2 killer in our country, and will overtake smoking in the next decade)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-cigarettes-soda-philadelphia_us_571ccc88e4b0d912d5fee4cc

[kcjohn1]

1. How about burgers, donuts, cakes, etc?

His point is logical. Obesity is caused my lots of stuff. If you start taxing all these that cause obesity, you will hurt the poor and those most vulnerable as these taxes are regressive.

How about we tax the rich, and make more accessible healthy and organically grown food to the poor?

[YouDig]

4. Taxing cigarettes is highly regressive. Lower income Americans are a lot more likely to be

smokers than higher income Americans.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

9. this low income smoker wants them banned too

Tried to quit twice in the past year.

[kcjohn1]

10. Direct link between smoking & cancer

Higher taxes result in less consumption of cigarettes (=better health).

Higher taxes on soda cans will probably result in less consumption, but necessarily reduction in obesity as its not the primary cause of obesity. Those people could just replace sodas with donuts for all we know.

If the goal is to reduce obesity, there are more effective ways of going about it.

[YouDig]

36. There's a lot of evidence that sugary drinks contribute to obesity and type 2 diabetes.

The justification for taxing them is the same as for cigarettes.

[cherokeeprogressive]

2. I agree with every word he said. No spin necessary.

[CharlotteVale]

20. +1

[Marr]

21. +1, Weird that the OP thinks that needs 'spinning'.

[HooptieWagon]

26. They're just desparately seeking poutrage. Nt

[Gwhittey]

3. I wonder if Sanders said the sky is blue if you would also have problem with that?

And another thing should you not wait until HRC gives you marching orders on how you feel about this issue? Or Brock or who ever gives them.

[whatchamacallit]

5. So fuggin lame

You guys will try to turn anything into a shitstorm

[Bread and Circus]

19. Exactly, and given that Clinton is 99% sure to win the primary, are these shitstorms even needed?

[HooptieWagon]

28. Maybe thread starters get paid more?

[Bread and Circus]

30. LoL. Nicely done.

[Vattel]

6. He seems right on target as usual.

[azurnoir]

7. so you're in favor of Hillary's the poor don't know no better so we have to make it harder for them?

BTW proportionally who are a great deal of the poor? hmmmmm

[beedle]

8. OMG 'Sexism'

or wait .. 'classism' ... no, this obviously has something to do with not respecting Blacks ... or being a 'Papist'.

So, Sanders is wrong because?

Where does Hillary stand on this issue? Is she for taxing soda and not taxing cigarettes? Maybe she's for taxing both, or not taxing either? What day i sit again? Don't want to misquote her because it's Sunday and I think it's Saturday.

[qdouble]

11. I'm a Hillary supporter but...

I agree with Sanders. Taxing junk food is a bad tax on poor people. It also presupposes that it will lead every consumer of sugar to obesity, when that's completely false. While on the other hand, cigs will have a negative effect on every smokers health.

[DemocraticWing]

12. I don't think taxing either is a great idea, but taxing cigarettes is more reasonable.

I don't like regressive taxes, and I don't like that governments spend money from excise taxes whilst using them to regulate behavior...eventually the behavior will decline and the money will dry up too.

Progressive taxes don't have the same kind of long-term problems.

[kcr]

13. No need to spin. He's right.

Taxing food is regressive. Even food deemed unhealthy. It is true that taxes on cigarettes also hit the poor the hardest, but cigarettes aren't food. I don't support sin taxes in general, but there is nothing redeemable whatsoever about cigarettes. I have no problem with supporting a tax on them while being against taxing food items. There is no contradiction there.

[noretreatnosurrender]

14. Finally found

an issue where I disagree with him. Both are regressive taxes.

[Octafish]

15. He's correct.

Better to educate people about what they put into their bodies instead of taxing those who can least afford it.

[Adrahil]

22. So why tax cigarettes?

It's also a very regressive tax. Where I live the "smokes shops" are all in very poor neighborhoods.

[Bread and Circus]

24. Cigarettes are not food. Ever notice most states do not put sales tax on groceries?

There's a reason.

[CorkySt.Clair]

16. Bernie is 100 percent correct here

[jillan]

17. Cigarettes kill you. Soda doesn't. Is that too hard for you to understand?

[Bread and Circus]

18. Technically, sugar is food, cigarettes are not. Not saying sugar is good for you but it is food.

I say this as a physician who is very anti-sugar and universally rec'd no sugary drinks to my patients.

To be consistent and in accord with current most accepted guidelines, if you taxed soda, you'd have to tax anything with added sugar as well as fatty meats, cured meats, and many other food products that are bad for you if taken in excess.

Again, Bernie is right.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. If we don't tax soda Trump will win!!!

[Bread and Circus]

25. Snicker.

[Agnosticsherbet]

27. Does he think about what he says? Or does he simply not know about the problems from obesity.

And as for banning cigarettes, alcohol prohibition and the war on drugs should provide a clue as to why prohibition never works and leads to massive problems.

Disclaimer: I am happy that in California, I do not have smokers inside restaurants and other public spaces. Banning the outright, however, is no different than outlawing drugs, alcohol, or even prostitution.

[Armstead]

33. Hell eat too many mashed potatoes and you can get fat

And he DIN't propose banning cigarettes.

And I assume you are also opposed to Clinton's stand on marijuana.

[Agnosticsherbet]

35. He said they should be illegal, so he actually supports banning them.

I support the legalization of marijuana.
I don't support Sanders.

[snappyturtle]

29. Neither one is healthy. Just look at the rise in type 2 diabetes.

How about taxing both BUT exempt soda made with cane sugar not those sweetened with aspartame, etc. and high fructose corn syrup?

[lumberjack_jeff]

31. He's absolutely right.

Cigarette taxes provide funding to mitigate the ills that cigarettes cause.

To fund education, a cause that benefits society generally and the rich especially, soda taxes are an easier source of cash than asking more from the rich.

[Marrah_G]

32. I think he is right

Cigarettes are not the same as soda. You do not need to micro manage everything the poor does or eats.

[basselope]

34. You can't draw a parallel between cigarettes and soda.

First, I have no personal issue with a soda tax, but to equate it to a cigarette tax is just silly.

Cigarettes cause cancer not only to you, but potentially to those around you.

Soda doesn't cause obesity. OVER CONSUMPTION of Soda causes obesity. Often this involves over consumption of MANY other products as well.

[snowy owl]

38. You said it better! Tobacco smoke is public toxin. HRC supporters = illogical

[snowy owl]

37. Regressive tax. People still smoke,still drink sodas.You for tax-free tabacco? Or taxing the poor?

They always will. Moderate sugar may not cause obesity. Can you say tobacco smoking may not cause cancer with the same certainty? You hate the poor, don't you? Not judging . . . it just tells me you are not progressive.

[icecreamfan]

39. Secondhand cigarette smoke kills more people per year than guns, according to the CDC

Drinking soda is a personal choice that harms only the person drinking it in excess.

[jfern]

40. I never heard of 2nd hand diabetes