"No tax on 'juice drinks' and sodas."

[Atman]

The ads seem to run mostly on cable news shows, though I don't really know. I only watch (or have on in the background while getting ready for work) some of "Morning Joe" and hopefully KO in the evening, but I'm not into the sitcom/reality tv/crime drama thing. Or network TV in general -- I'm just not a big tv guy. But in the brief time commercial television is on in my house, those soda tax commercials seem to be in fairly heavy rotation.

I'm curious...what do DUers think about a tax on soda and "juice drinks?" I put juice drinks in quotes, because it is a specific category of beverage, and should not be confused with JUICE, wbich is the actual squeezins' of a fruit or vegetable. For example, Ocean Spray Cranberry Juice or Sunny Delight are NOT "juices." They are "juice drinks," because they actually are made up of water and a whole bunch of crap created by food engineers (including HFCS), and they happen to contain some cranberry or citrus juice. In fact, most of the "juice" in your juice aisle isn't really juice. Hi-C is another classic example. All of this stuff is bad, but confusion is what I am pretty sure what the ad agency was going for when they tried to pass off "juice drinks" as just one of those "simple pleasures" that don't do anyone any harm. Except they do. They cause disease and obesity, and that in turn causes higher health care bills for all of us. I know how the word game is played, because I work at a political advertising agency. We do this type of stuff all the time (only for Dems and progressive causes, though!).

Basically, it's a tax on soft drinks containing High Fructose Corn Syrup, which is just fine by me. HFCS is a horrible food ingredient with many demonstrated and suspected health ramifications, from obesity to diabetes. Is anyone actually calling their congressman about this? Is anyone really concerned about a tax on HFCS-containing sodas and fake juice?

Inquiring minds want to know.

.

[polichick]

1. I'm all for it - great funds for healthcare. People can drink water if they...

...don't want to pay the tax.

[Forkboy]

22. What happens when people use these items less and less and the amount of money gained goes down?

What do they tax next to keep funding healthcare?

[polichick]

24. That hasn't happened with cigs and alcohol - but I say let's make...

...weed legal and tax that.

[Forkboy]

27. Don't give them any ideas.

:smoke:

[polichick]

32. Small price to pay...

Though I'd probably grow some nice plants organically.

:smoke:

[Luminous Animal]

33. Actually, it is happening with cigs.

Fewer people are smoking and the result has been to increase cigarette taxes.

[polichick]

37. Hard for me to feel bad about that - smoking is such an unhealthy habit...

...and I'm sick and tired of seeing butts all over the beach, streets, etc.

[Luminous Animal]

48. Then you advocate building a social system on the backs of poor people.

Because, working class and poor folks smoke at a higher rate than rich folks. Why? Because it is fucking hard being poor and struggling and nicotine gives a legal lift.

I'm sick of seeing butts all over, too. I am also sick and tired of seeing gum all over the place. I am also sick and tired of seeing advertising plastered on nearly every available surface. It's fucking ugly.

[polichick]

49. I think it makes sense to tax items that make people sick in order to pay for...

...healthcare to make them better.

Rich or poor, it's a choice to use crap like cigs and sugar drinks. Some poor people in my family smoke and some don't, some drink sodas and some don't. It's a choice. Poor people aren't stupid ~ they're just poor.

[Luminous Animal]

77. And some people fish for a living, one of the most dangerous profressions...

other people log... another dangerous profession. Maybe we should tax them for choosing a profession that is likely to have an outcome that results in injury.

People have to live. And for the working class living means working in a job that results in a higher risk of injury or death. And people have to cope. And for the poor AND the rich, that means choosing things that might harm one.

The difference is, when it comes to "sin" taxes, the poor bear a more odious burden. What you suggest is that the poor be penalized more for making the same "bad" choices as the rich.

[wuvuj]

60. Big butts are EVERYWHERE....

...and it's because of sugar/corn syrup laced soft drinks!

[Kalyke]

96. They're not quitting - they're finding alternative ways to purchase them.

[Kalyke]

95. Actually, it has.

More people haven't quit, mind you - they're just buying them online and lying about their state income tax and/or purchasing them from Native American reservations.

I've read several stories lately about states going after consumers' online purchases of cigarettes (read on DU, so I don't have the link - maybe the person who posted it before can give that to you).

[Luminous Animal]

97. U.S. smoking rates decline

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109048/US-Smoking-Rate-Still-Coming-Down.aspx

[anigbrowl]

59. that would have a downward effect on health care costs and so reduce future obligations

[rd_kent]

90. Healthcare costs would go down

It should work out to a zero sum gain. Simple math, really.

[JerseygirlCT]

101. I think the idea is that as they are used less, we'd

see a commensurate lowering of health problems. And healthier people need less healthcare.

[burning rain]

36. You ought to rethink that position, buddy.

Discipline for the poor and laissez-faire for the rich, is a bum stance for lefties.

[polichick]

40. Forget it. Discipline for both - I'm all for taxing the habits of the rich...

How about taxing golf games and spa treatments along with the sodas?

[burning rain]

45. That's an improvement, at least.

I particularly dislike regressive taxes in the current enviroment, though, because lower income folks' real incomes have basically stagnated since the late '70s.

[polichick]

47. My mom has helped people with diabetes get off meds by changing...

...their diets ~ poor people deserve to be healthy every bit as much as rich people do. I'm for everyone getting off that crap, at least on a daily basis.

[Luminous Animal]

50. Of course they do. But a tax on sodas will disproportionately

effect the poor. And it is not even an equivalency. A poor person may only drink one soda a week but still pay more, as a percentage of income, than a rich person who drinks twelve sodas a day.

[polichick]

51. Please see #49

[Luminous Animal]

53. Like I said. It is a regressive tax.

A poor person may like a soda now and then as a treat. But the impact on their income would be larger than a rich person drinking a soda as a matter of daily habit.

[polichick]

56. The rich have higher tax rates too - not everything can be even. nt

[Luminous Animal]

76. The issue isn't higher taxes. It's a matter of progressive vs regressive.

That is, the percentage of your income that goes towards taxes and the impact that that percentage would have on your standard of living.

[polichick]

85. It's not an issue with me when you're talking about crap that makes people sick...

...and loads up the healthcare system with additional costs due to obesity issues and diabetes.

[burning rain]

52. No doubt about how bad sugary drinks are for you.

I'd be a great big fatty if I didn't drink diet, with all the soda I drink. But I don't like to compromise poor folks' choices--as few choices as they have in our society. I'd rather try and improve lower income folks' health by raising their incomes and mandating paid vacations. It's dismal, but overeating is one of the few forms of recreation poor Americans can afford, and that the overworked have time for.

[polichick]

86. Maybe the tax would encourage more people to make better choices...

...oranges or apples instead of juice drinks. Be careful with diet drinks; those chemicals are pretty bad for you too.

[bertman]

65. It's definitely NOT JUST the poor who buy those things in mass quantities. Just stand

beside the checkout counter at an upscale food market sometime. Americans love their high fructose corn syrup and sodas.

Tax the shit out of them. Then when people have to drink water maybe our water supplies will be better protected and cleaned up.

[burning rain]

66. This tax would hit lower-income folks proportionately harder.

.

[Atman]

69. You know what? SO THE FUCK WHAT?

We're not saying "Tax information which could make people smarter." We're not saying "Tax library books." We're not saying "Tax home gardens." We're talking about a nasty, disease-causing, no-nutrition, high-calorie, worthless p.o.s. product. Look, I drink "soda." If, by "soda" you include diet. I'm torn enough about aspartame vs. Splenda vs. stevia vs. sucrose. But at least they aren't making me fat and diabetic...with heart disease. The point is, so the hell what if it costs poor people more? Their use of the shit in the first place costs all of us more because these are usually the same people without decent health care in the first place. So we pay for their care when their hearts explode or their diabetes takes a limb and they show up in the ER because they can't afford a regular doctor.

If making a 2 liter bottle of Coke cost the same as a pack of cigs would curb soda drinking, SO WHAT? DO IT! Stop using the "regressive" fallback. It's a non-starter. It ignores the bigger issue.

Now, if you could tax the use of "quotation marks" in one post, I'd have the deficit damned near paid off!

.

[burning rain]

73. I favor expanding choices for lower-income folks, not further limiting them.

I'd rather improve folks' health through better education, higher wages, and mandated paid vacations, which would allow time and provide income sufficient for fulfilling leisure. As it is, unfortunately, overeating is one of the few forms of recreation lower-income folks can afford, and the overworked have time for. I do not favor approaches based on punishing or enforcing discipline on the poor. That is right-wing.

[bertman]

74. Laudable sentiments, burning rain. Based on my experience, all of those great things

you mention don't make one bit of difference to a lot of folks. I work with and for some well-educated folks who know better but just love the taste of their ice cream and chocolates, and love their ciggies so much they almost eat them. But when I or someone else talks with them in a non-condescending way they usually say "well something's gonna kill me one day . . . might as well be (fill in the blank)".

One of the things a lot of these educated folks with good incomes and benefits have in common is love of the TeeVee. Couch potatoship is big.

Just sayin'

[Luminous Animal]

78. It is true, though. Something IS going to kill them someday.

If they are enjoying their life, really, what is it to you?

[Atman]

105. A friend had a Deepak Chopra book on her table last weekend...

One of the reviews on the dust jacket said "A must read for anyone will die someday." I thought it was kinda funny.

But to answer your question, I am sure there is a figure somewhere regarding how much poor health and bad eating habits costs each and every one of us through health care costs, just as there was/is for cigarettes. Between lost work and wages, emergency room visits for the uninsured, long term diabetic care, there are lots of ways it's about more than someone simply "enjoying their life."

.

[JMMendez1989]

72. Coke Fan

I am kind of obsessed with Coca-Cola and Im not putting it out, The price of Coke has already gone up under Bush so Im used to rising Coke prices, I say yes, but very little, just a couple cents or something like that, $149 is the most I will pay for a 2 liter soda. I dont like taxing juice drinks however, cuz they are'nt very dangerous. Coke does have addicting ingredients which I probably fell for.

[JerseygirlCT]

102. Remember though, that "Juice drinks" are not juice

they're basically soda without the fizz. Mostly sugar, with a bit of fruit juice in there for flavoring, perhaps.

[Slit Skirt]

2. tax away....preventative health care

[virgogal]

3. A tax on them would be fine with me. eom

[Jane Austin]

5. Me, too. . . . . . . n/t

[Catshrink]

4. Everything you said.

I've had the same thoughts as I hear those commercials. Just a few cents really add up, huh? Well, Suburban Mom, it's probably cheaper to give your kid an orange than that processed juice drink crap -- and healthier too. Obesity is caused by lots of little decisions to indulge in crap food. Getting kids addicted to super-sweet empty calories is the first step.

[cali]

6. it's too regressive for me.

[Egalitariat]

8. It's too easy to opt out of paying for it to be regressive

[Luminous Animal]

12. Nope. Regressive.

It doesn't matter if there is an option to opt out. It's very structure is regressive.

[Atman]

16. So are taxes on alcohol and tobacco regressive?

They're generally extremely high taxes. And poor people drink and smoke, too. Should we eliminate those taxes so that the poor can get sclerosis of the liver and emphysema without the undue burden of taxation? I bet all of these people have great health care coverage, too. Uh, okay, maybe not.

.

[Luminous Animal]

18. Yep. They are.

And so are sales taxes (and numerous other taxes disguised as user fees). These regressive taxes are why poor people in California pay 11.7% of their income in taxes while the rich only pay 7% of their income in taxes.

[CTyankee]

91. Your argument on this thread has a disturbing subtext, IMO.

I don't like regressive taxes in general. I favor higher income taxes over sales taxes for that reason. But I do see the point in taxing harmful substances.

Your argument seems consistently based in a belief that since a high percentage of low income people are consumers of sodas it follows they have no alternative and are somehow not smart enough to find an alternative. In other words, you cast them as pretty much helpless and unable to make their own decisions about where to spend what little discretionary income they have. The point is it IS discretionary. Rent, food and transportation are not discretionary.

In my long life I have lived through a remarkable change in Americans' habits with regard to cigarette smoking. Increased taxes and vigorous anti-smoking campaigns worked!

It may interest you to know that at the very beginnings of our republic, we were a nation of drunks. There was a huge social cost to families of workers who spent much needed money on liquor--interestingly enough, brought about by our overabundance of corn production. It was the beginning of the industrial revolution and drunk workers risked death or serious injury on machine operations. A social movement called the Temperance Movement literally barnstormed the country, holding emotionally charged group meetings in towns and cities, to get people to "take the pledge" and stop abusive drinking.

I am not suggesting here that we need revival type meetings to persuade the populace that sodas are bad for them. But in our history, we have seen large segments of our population "buy into" an idea and change their habits, whatever their income level. Taxation alone can't do it. The companies that make sodas are large and powerful, but so were the cigarette companies and they are now held in ill repute. We need a wise and well funded public education campaigns, starting with the very young. People can and do change their habits. There is much we can do to help them and the cost factor can be a powerful disincentive.

Let's look at what actually worked in the past...

[Luminous Animal]

98. I've never made the argument that a high percentage of poor drink sodas

I've made the argument that it is a regressive tax that would disproportionately impact the poor. That is, a rich person and a poor person could drink the same amount of soda, whether it be 1 a week or 1 a day, but the poor person would be paying more as a percentage of income.

[CTyankee]

99. Sorry, I didn't mean to misrepresent your argument.

And you are correct about the regressive tax but that is not where the discussion should necessarily end. Sodas are not required to sustain one's life and livelihood. Indeed, there are compelling arguments that they are detrimental to one's health. People can choose not to drink them and avoid the tax. Lower income people are not unaware of their financial situation, or any less so than anyone else, and they have the power to withhold their discretionary dollars from the soda companies. There are other choices available to them. When the public's health is at stake, it makes good sense, IMO, to discourage consumption of a harmful product. I saw it work with cigarette smoking, in concert with public education campaigns. I think it CAN happen with soda consumption.

[JVS]

104. Agreed

[The Straight Story]

7. Why not, it won't hurt the rich at all and the poor, well they don't need as many choices

Let's tax things we know the poor use, like yachts, luxury cars, watches that cost 85k to start (like the one I saw in a magazine today), home theater systems, etc.

[Luminous Animal]

9. It is a regressive tax so I'm against it.

I do think that they should be regulated. That is, no advertising towards children, not allowed in schools, ban all HFCS in products geared towards children (lunchables, Hi-C, juice boxes, etc), "juice drinks" should be banned from using the word "juice", all the sugar should be listed as one ingredient with a parenthetical breakdown of the sugar, and big warning signs should be put on the labels.

[endless october]

10. end the failed drug war and the war in Afghanistan

and you have more than enough money for single payer without regressive sugar sin taxes on the poor.

[SammyWinstonJack]

89. +1 nt

[prairierose]

11. A tax on HFCS would be a good idea, I think...

the rise in obesity and diabetes can be linked to the time frame of the rise of the use of this so- called food sweetener. New studies show that the human body reacts differently to this than to sugar.

[Luminous Animal]

13. A ban would be better.

Next best, no more price supports for corn production.

[housewolf]

14. I support the tax

Those items have virtually no nutritional value and, on the basis of "tax what you don't want, give tax breaks & credits for what you do want", I think a tax on them is a good idea. Kinda like taxing cigarettes and tobacco.

[pipi_k]

15. Saw a stupid commercial this AM

this woman is talking about a tax on juices and soda and how wrong it is..says something like, yeah, it's only a few cents, but those few cents can add up when you're trying to feed your family.

WTF???????????

Nobody NEEDS soda. Anybody who's really worried about feeding their family shouldn't be wasting any amount of money on shit that doesn't even have nutritional value, for crissakes.

Yet loads of people are going to believe that bullshit.


anyway, I definitely have a sweet tooth, and even I think that crap should be taxed.

[Atman]

17. That's the commercial I'm talking about.

And that was my first reaction, too. If you're "trying to feed your family," you shouldn't be buying these laboratory-created Frankendrinks, which offer absolute NO nutrition, but lots of empty calories. If you're concerned about "feeding your family," learn what the fuck it is you're feeding them.

.

[polichick]

21. They even showed her carrying one bottle of soda in each petroleum-based bag...

I was yelling, "You don't need that soda ~ and where are your cloth grocery bags?" LOL

[DireStrike]

19. Regressive tax. No.

[Forkboy]

20. Here's a question: If we use these kinds of taxes to fund healthcare...

...and people start drinking water or what have you, won't the amount of money gained drop as people use these items less and less?

[Atman]

28. Yes, but theoretically, so would the incidences of disease caused by HFCS...

...and consequently, the cost of care would drop accordingly.

It's all theory at this point. But what are our options? We KNOW HFCS causes all sorts of maladies. What is the worst that could happen if we tax them and put the money toward current health care issues?

.

[Forkboy]

34. The insanely high cost of healthcare isn't due to soda drinkers.

It's the insurance industry and the pharmaceuticals.

The money gained from taxes could easily be gained by running a better ship and controlling costs far better than they do now. Taxes seem like a cop out from doing anything to really reform things, and taxes of this types usually affect the poor the most.

[Atman]

43. You know, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

The high cost of health care is certainly not attributable to soda drinkers, and I think it is a rather absurd stretch to say that that was the case I was making. The insanely high cost of health care is the result of many factors, insurance industry and pharmaceuticals being among the many culprits. But there can be no denying that our nation's terrible eating habits -- created, in large part, by mass-marketing, highly-processed Frankenfoods -- contribute the the total health care picture. The people most likely to consume this crap food, tend to be the very same people who have no regular health care and rely upon the ER as their doctor. It is a vicious cycle that the insurance and pharma industries (have you seen all the ads for fancy iPod-like monitors for diabetics?) profit handsomely from, while the processed food industry keeps feeding them new customers.

.

[Luminous Animal]

44. So, ban it.

Ban it like lead, or asbestos, or DDT. If it is a toxin, then it deserves to be banned.

By the HFCS is an additive in nearly all processed food.

And I submit that HFCS is not on a par with alcohol, cigarettes, or drugs. Human beings will seek out the altered states that nicotine, alcohol, and THC will give them. It is human nature and altered states can be fun. They may also seek out salt and sugar and fat. What they will not seek out is HFCS.

[Luminous Animal]

29. Absolutely. Witness CA and cigarette taxes to fund children's healthcare.

It became a tax of diminishing returns. Not to mention the lottery and school funding, which, because of diminishing returns, the lottery commission had to invest in more and more advertising and consultants to devise more "exciting" scratchers.


There is no way to build a social welfare system on the backs of the people who need that system the most.

[jeffrey_X]

23. the ads are fucking bogus. If you are that poor, you should be drinking water...

and not soda. That's a bit harsh and maybe not fair. It really sucks that the really shitty stuff is so fucking cheap. All the shit that is good for you is too god-damn expensive. it's just not fair.

[Luminous Animal]

25. Oh indeed. The poor deserve no pleasures in life.

[quiller4]

26. I am all for it and my late mother was a Pepsi retiree. The ads

irritate me so that I emailed every member of the Washington delegation asking them to support such a tax and sent a copy of my email to the soft drink lobby contact I had telling her that the ads insprired my activism.

[MichiganVote]

30. Opposed. Nuff' said.

[Dappleganger]

31. Tax the corn syrup.

[madeline_con]

35. The price of soda will go up.

Then, the whining about it being a regressive tax just gets louder, doesn't it?

[Dappleganger]

67. It should go up.

Aside from the corn syrup issues, that shit strips the enamel right off your teeth. You know how many little kids have increased cavities due to drinking so much soda??

[madeline_con]

70. Agreed, but what about the whining that the poor won't be able to afford it?

:cry:

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. As regressive as the damn thing is. I am all for it

I am also all for taking the damn price supports from it, and re-examining our cheap food policy in-toto.

Of course I want those funds to be used to educate, encourage people to drink healthier stuff, and all that.

It worked with tobacco to a point... and I hope it works with this crap

Oh and if they took the supports away, HCFS would not look as good to the food industry mavens, that alone should force a return to ... sugar, oh the horror

[Sebastian Doyle]

39. Stop subsidizing the GMO AgriWhores who make the corn poison.

And stop subsidizing tobacco companies, including Phillip Morris, which owns some of the food companies that use the corn poison in their products.

Hit the fucking pieces of shit who are causing the problem. Not the poor folks who can't afford to buy healthy food as it is.

[Trekologer]

46. The problem really is the protectionalist price floors placed on sugar

In order to protect the domestic sugar refining industry, a price floor is on sugar, preventing the importation of cheaper foreign sugar (the same thing occurs with milk too). In the last 20 years, food manufacturers, where possible, have witched from sugar to HFCS simply for the cost. If you go outside the US, foods are made with sugar, which is cheaper than HFCS everywhere else in the world.

[conflictgirl]

81. We also subsidize corn to such a degree that it makes HFCS far cheaper as well.

nt

[JerseygirlCT]

103. Well said. nt

[boppers]

41. Remove sugar price subsidies.

ADM and other Big Food companies support price supports and import tariffs on sugar. HFCS is the alternative, one they coincidentally happen to make.

[Trekologer]

42. Its actually Cranberry Juice Cocktail which is the not-quite-juice

Cranberry juice by itself is very tart so you will typically not see pure cranberry juice; only cocktail (part juice, part sweetener) or blended with other juice (apple, grape, raspberry, etc), which is used to cut the tartness. The juice blends are usually 100% juice but, as always, you need to check the labels.

The downside to taxing juice drinks is that it will make the juice drinks more expensive. The reason that juice drinks are popular is that they are less expensive verses pure juice. Most buyers probably don't even realize the difference between juices and juice drinks. Once the difference is explained to someone, they usually think twice about it but end up buying the cheaper juice drink instead. Obviously, the target of such a tax would be to discourage the consumption of unhealthy juice drinks. But the reality may be that they are just made more expensive.

On the other hand, tax away at soda. In New Jersey, it is already taxed (actually both juice drinks and soda are).

[Sebastian Doyle]

54. Trader Joes sells unsweetened cranberry juice

It's sour, but it mixes well with some other juice that's sweet. Like apple or grape. Or some sparkling water.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

55. Regressive tax. BTW, junk food has been taxed for years in NY.

[Gulftrout]

57. Tax might be a good idea!!

It's unfortunate this has to be done. Americans are getting fatter and fatter. More victims of diabetes and heart disease. You can't make people exercise and make good choices it's true. But cigarette consumption is down thanks to extra taxes on smokers that give themselves COPD n heart disease. Americans have a complete lack of exercise discipline.

[Maru Kitteh]

58. I don't have a problem with taxing nutrient poor foods the way booze and ciggi's are. A big box of

generic Cherrios is cheap, and makes a much more nutritious (and economical) snack than a monster bag of Oreo crisps.

Brita filters are not expensive, and provide you with gallons upon gallons of perfect drinking water. Kids won't do water? Generic Kool-aid gives you vitamin C, is affordable AND you can control the amount of sugar your kids are drinking.

I would also imagine that about 10 minutes after a new tax were enacted, food manufacturers would start producing more nutritious food and less total crap.

[mwooldri]

61. If there are food taxes, then they should be categorized accordingly.

I for one am not for food taxes - period - but if food has to be taxed then let's tax it progressively based on a variety of factors. Plain raw ingredients (milk, eggs, fruit, vegetables, flour, sugar, etc) should not be taxed at all. Certain foods that could be considered hazardous to your health should be taxed at a higher level. Other foods, e.g. some of your convenience foods (microwave TV dinners, "healthy" snacks) should be taxed but at a low level.

It might encourage people to cook with raw ingredients, and hey, make the food they buy!

I know though it wouldn't work for everyone so choices need to be made. I for one would be happy to see a 20% tax slapped on a full sugared Coca-Cola or Mountain Dew.

[rucky]

62. Why don't we just quit subsidizing HFCS?

Same effect. Less regressive.

[Atman]

64. I think the corn lobby is bigger and more powerful than the poor non-voting lobby.

Sad to say, but that probably sums it up.

.

[Dappleganger]

88. I wish that Ed Schultz would take this on

and expose these lobbying groups as the bullies they are!

[4lbs]

63. I drink my fair share of sodas and artificial fruit drinks and I support taxing them.

Many people don't realize that the 64-oz Big Gulp of Coke or Pepsi is almost 800 calories by itself!

That's half the caloric content recommended for an average adult with little to moderate activity.

[jakefrep]

68. No tax on HFCS unless there's a tax on the even riskier crap they put in diet soda

I don't see the point in making HFCS drinks more expensive than the cancer-in-a-can that is most diet soda.

[Atman]

71. When I drink "soda" it's always diet. I agree with a tax on that stuff, too.

I just can't drink full-sugar soda. It's like drinking a bottle of maple syrup...don't know how anyone can stomach the stuff. But I realize the artificial sweeteners used in mass-market diet drinks are full of dangers all their own. I don't have a problem taxing such beverages and putting the money toward research into determining the long-term risks/benefits of their use. But that's just me...a crazy liberal.

.

[REP]

75. I think it's a great idea - and I enjoy the occasional soda

I drank a lot of PepsiThrowback, and still have a poison Coke now and then. It's a great idea. Sodas aren't a must-have food.

[Liquorice]

79. It's a regressive tax, a stupid idea, and it's terrible politics. I can hear it

already: "Democrats want to tax your kid's morning juice now!" It's an absolutely awful idea, and no democrat in his/her right mind should promote it.

[Gulftrout]

83. Poor people are kinda dumb

We have to do their thinking for them. This tax is only regressive 'cause it's mostly poor people that drink sugar water, smoke cigs, buy lottery tickets, buy cheap booze etc. Are hospitals are flooded with poor fat diabetics? Tax 'em!!

[conflictgirl]

80. I support it.

The comparison to cigs and alcohol doesn't hold up for me because cigs and alcohol are methods of escape for lower income people, whereas soda and "juice drinks" are not. If you want to give your kids a drink that's not water and avoid the tax, get a 15-cent package of kool-aid powder and mix it with sugar and water (like all of us in my neighborhood grew up with).

I am the first to stick up for the poor, I grew up that way, I work in an advocacy role for the low-income in my community now. And in this case it's not even about giving them incentive to eat healthier or punishing them for the way they eat. For me it's that I think HFCS has terrible health effects, it's the government's corn subsidies that has resulted in foisting it on the American public (and particularly the poor) in place of sugar. It would be ideal to switch from soda or "juice drinks" to plain old water from a health standpoint but I realize that might not be realistic, but I honestly believe it would be far better - and cheaper - for poor families to just go back to the way we did it in the late 70s and early 80s and give good old Kool-Aid with real SUGAR instead.

FYI - the "Americans Against Food Taxes" group running those ads you've seen is actually a front group for a coalition of companies including the American Beverage Association, Yum Brands (owned by PepsiCo) and 7-11. They make it look like it's concerned citizens, but it's actually the concerned corporations who fear some lost profits if sales decrease as a result of the tax.

[Withywindle]

82. I'm in favor of it.

"juice drinks" and sodas are nothing but artificial sugar-water, they're no good for anybody, and I have no pity for that fictional SUV-driving "soccer mom" whining about it. If she can't afford to keep giving her kids that swill, she should tell them the truth: it's swill. It's not something anybody needs. If they're thirsty, there's always water. Or actual real fruit juice, which won't be taxed as I understand (only the fake sugar drinks pretending to be juice.)

[quaker bill]

84. Against

not because of the product, but generally against targeted sales taxes (except oil/gas). The burden of this sort of tax falls unevenly and unpredictably. I prefer a tax vehicle that can be controlled and specifically targeted to impact progressively.


edited to add:

All this being said, the ads against this tax are really irritating.

[YoungAndOutraged]

87. Extremely against

We'll tax cigarettes, then soft drinks, and anything else but never the super-rich. Go ahead and let a democrat lead a fight to put a tax on soft drinks, but don't be shocked when we lose another election.

[kjackson227]

92. I favor the tax.

[redqueen]

93. Very much against this regressive tax. (nt)

[mod mom]

94. TAX it! not nutritional, adds to obesity.

[Blue_In_AK]

100. I don't have a problerm with it personally,

but I don't drink these things so I really don't have a personal stake in the matter.