Sugared beverages -- #1 source of calories in the American diet. Tax soda?

[LuckyLib]

NY Times article, 2/15/10 raises the question with much interesting information --

<snip> sugared beverages are the No. 1 source of calories in the American diet, representing 7 percent of the average person’s caloric intake, according to government surveys, and up to 10 percent for children and teenagers. These calories, they point out, are worse than useless — they’re empty, and contribute to a daily total that is already too high.

<snip> The problem is that at roughly 50 gallons per person per year, our consumption of soda, not to mention other sugar-sweetened beverages, is far from moderate.

A tax on soda was one option considered to help pay for health care reform (the Joint Committee on Taxation calculated that a 3-cent tax on each 12-ounce sugared soda would raise $51.6 billion over a decade).

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/weekinreview/14bittman.html?ref=weekinreview

[ananda]

1. Tax corn heavily.

That'll take care of it.

[KittyWampus]

20. Noooo! don't be taxing on my tortillas or grits!

[dysfunctional press]

65. eliminate all corn subsidies to growers.

for starters.

[Warpy]

2. Taxing by total sugar content would be a good thing

since I can foresee some companies coming out with a half sugared, half diet mixture that would probably please the sugar lovers. People would be more likely to cut down on full sugar Mountain Dew, anyway.

[Hutzpa]

4. Did taxing tobacco stopped people from smoking?

:shrug:

[DJ13]

6. No, it just hurt them economically

[Obamanaut]

32. Only because they refuse to quit smoking. Quiting would be win/win. n/t

[CTyankee]

35. Not sure people didn't quit smoking b/c they couldn't afford it anymore.

As the saying goes, "If you want to have less of something, tax it more."

I don't think it is the ONLY consideration in debating whether or not one stops smoking, but it is an incentive.

People can make rational decisions about what they will/won't do. And not every smoker is addicted. I smoked for 20 years and quit with no withdrawal symptoms whatsoever...that's an overhyped meme, IMO and in my own personal experience...

[Warpy]

17. No, but it caused a lot of people to quit

and prevented a lot of stupid younger teenagers from starting.

The later people start, the better for their health.

I just got a push poll from people wanting to put another buck a pack tax here in NM. I said no thanks, that's about the point where they'll encourage a black market for butts from out of state.

For the record, I hate smoking. It makes me sick and it killed my mother. However, it's a legal behavior like drinking over sugared sodas that can and should be discouraged instead of banned and taxing is a good way to do that.

[Captain Hilts]

18. It cuts down on teen smoking. Teen tobacco purchases are significantly affected by price. nt

[Quantess]

30. Yes, especially these days when hardly any teenagers can find a job.

[Scout]

12. diet pop sucks ... *IF* i'm going to drink pop, i'm going to drink leaded

not that unleaded stuff.

diet pop just makes me crave more pop. it's better to drink the real stuff, or best to give it up entirely.

[Captain Hilts]

19. Same here. I don't drink it a lot. But when I want a fountain coke with a squeeze of lime...

I'm going to do it right.

[Rhiannon12866]

22. +1

I don't see the appeal of diet soda. Artificial sweeteners are much worse for you and I can't stand the aftertaste. x(

I gave up alcohol 9 1/2 months ago, so I now drink more Coke or Ginger Ale. Not even my doctor disapproves... :shrug:

[Captain Hilts]

27. They're just nasty. Drink an iced tea if you don't want the calories. nt

[Rhiannon12866]

36. The only time I drink iced tea is when I'm in the South...

And I ask for sweet tea. :evilgrin:

I try to avoid the caffeine more than the sugar... I also drink Vichy water, no caffeine, no sugar, and it's carbonated... :D

[Captain Hilts]

86. Most iced tea is served pretty weak. Or you can dilute it at the table. nt

[Rhiannon12866]

92. It becomes pretty weak, when they put ice in it, LOL.

But sweet tea is one of the things I like about the South. :-) And don't get me started about the weather. I'm in NY and it's been snowing all day. :-(

[Captain Hilts]

107. I drove through some incredible snow squalls two weeks ago on the Thruway. nt

[JerseygirlCT]

81. I'm trying to switch to unsweetened ice tea

most days. (Boy, I love a coke from the fountain!)

At first it tastes sort of weird - no sugar! But I'm used to it now, and it serves for some morning caffeine. (Do not like coffee, or really hot drinks in general).

[Captain Hilts]

87. I'm down to one sugar packet. 16 calories!!!! I use much less than I used to...

but I really need a spot of sugar in it if I'm drinking it without a meal. With a meal I don't need sugar with it.

I'm tellin' you, finding decent, brewed, unsweetened iced tea in Canada is a royal pain.

But, I recently explained fountain cokes to a buddy when she wondered why I don't drink coke out of plastic bottles. I can't remember where she was, but she found herself drinking a fountain coke and was astonished at how much BETTER it tastes than the crap in plastic bottles!

I save a coke for a treat on weekends.

I only started drinking coffee when I hit 40 because it was free at the office.

Cheers!!!

[JerseygirlCT]

98. So know what you mean!

Dunkin Donuts' iced tea isn't bad. And I can grab it quickly on the way to work!

My father used to insist I couldn't be a grown-up since I didn't drink coffee. I'm starting to think that's a good thing as I near 50! (I haven't heard that from him in a while though.)

[Captain Hilts]

106. I was astonished at how expensive the Dunkin' Doughnuts stuff is. nt

[JerseygirlCT]

108. Yeah, well there's that

But I'd spend the same $2 on a soda on the way in, too - and there's the small bonus that at least they use cups I can recycle!

[blueamy66]

95. I'm with ya.

I just don't get the draw of soda pop. Is it an addiction? Like nicotine?

[JerseygirlCT]

99. I certainly crave it

Don't know that that counts as an addiction, but I hear someone open a can, and start wishing!

[blueamy66]

103. Okay.

The only time I crave a Up is if I have a hangover. Other than that, I prefer iced tea.

:-)

[JerseygirlCT]

105. Better for you, for sure! nt

[Jennicut]

33. Sometimes I want soda and cannot have the "real stuff" being a diabetic.

My one vice, drinking diet soda.

[mike_c]

54. I prefer diet soda-- the sugared stuff is cloyingly sweet to my taste....

Luckily, I can count the number of sodas I drink in a month on one hand, easily. And they are ALWAYS diet sodas because those are the only ones I even half like. But my drink of choice is carbonated mineral water, with plain water a close second. If I want something sweet to drink I'll usually drink fruit juice, but even still, I don't drink very much of it. I suppose I'm fortunate to have never gotten hooked on sweet beverages.

[Romulox]

104. Try any of the "throwback"/real cane sugar pops out now--much dryer than HFCS sweetened

The corn syrup tends to cling to the mouth and throat, making the stuff linger longer and preventing it from ever truly quenching one's thirst.

[JerseygirlCT]

80. Same here

and it causes me problems with my Crohn's.

Can't use that stuff.

[Romulox]

102. Sorry, I'll disagree. Diet Pepsi has a fantastic cola flavor. Can't wait til they switch to stevia

[Hutzpa]

3. I can never understand why taxing is the only

solution people seemed to come up with when it comes to health care.

This is absolutely absorbed and makes no goddamn sense.

I remember hearing this same thrash about tobacco, how taxing tobacco
would help pay for health care, how is that working out so far?

It's all about making the poor and middle class pay so someone else can
get rich.

This really pisses me off.....

[SoCalNative]

5. taxing tobacco DOES pay for healthcare

for those who end up having to go on the dole to pay for their chemo, oxygen, etc.

[justabob]

10. the poor and middle class pay so someone else can get rich

Yes, exactly. It pisses me off too. Higher taxes *may* reduce comsumption, but I doubt you could get a high enough rate passed to make the cost prohibitive....cigarettes are only now getting to that level.

[Captain Hilts]

16. Tobacco is taxed, in part, because there is huge price elasticity in tobacco sales to teens.nt

[Abq_Sarah]

23. It's taxed

Because only a minority of the population uses it and they've been demonized to the point where many people would agree to just about any punishment for smokers. In other words, it's an easy sell for non-smokers.

[Captain Hilts]

26. Yes, that's true. But higher prices are effective in limiting teen smoking.

I did work for the Tobacco Institute. That's where I learned it.

[laughingliberal]

90. delete wrong place

[On the Road]

61. It Would Almost be Better

to simply require beverage companies to substitute sugar for corn syrup. That in itself would be an improvement.

You don't want to regulate everything, but this is becoming a serious public health issue.

[JVS]

72. We are a society that has forgotten about the carrot and ascribes all power to the stick

[The Gunslinger]

7. tax it.

Make it too expensive for me to drink anymore.

[Bill219]

8. But "Soda Bitch" says no to taxing Soda and fruit drinks

Remember her commercials as she is putting away groceries warning us that Congress wants to take start taxing this garbage.

Her commercials are about annoying as those pro High Fructose Corn Syrup commercials where they claim that that crap is good for you.

[Sebastian Doyle]

15. Probably because they're paid for by the same lobby?

MonSatan and their fellow mutant corn producers.

[GoCubsGo]

34. But, but, they're "simple pleasures"!

And, poor, poor Americans shouldn't have to live without their simple pleasures in such tough times. All those empty calories will make your financial hardships just disappear, dotcha know?

:sarcasm:

[MisterP]

56. ah yes, the "trust me, I'm so much a treacly-voiced corporate shill I'm almost a parody"

those are almost as funny as the Happy Fun Ball

or Douglas Adams's "byproducts of perfectly safe processes"

[onehandle]

9. Just add nicotine.

Why not go all the way?

[frazzled]

11. Well, it's regressive, but we have plenty of similar taxes

On cigarettes, alchohol, gasoline ... and other products. Taxing these items is supposed to get people to consume less of them. It may not accomplish that goal (I think the heavy taxes on cigarettes has helped to reduce consumption, but people seem willing to pay anything for liquor and gas).

So, sure. I'm game. It raises a ton of money.

[NoNothing]

13. Tax fat, also.

And salt! And MSG. And red dye #2, and cholesterol, and fast food, and non-organic vegetables. Higher taxes on alcohol, of course, and too many carbs cause obesity, better tax carbs too. In fact, people eat too much generally, just make food real expensive. After all, the only alternative is too educate people and let them make their own decisions, which is obviously unacceptable.

[CTyankee]

37. Fine with me, except on non-organic vegetables/whole grains which at least have some nutrition.

But at the same time, I'm all for a food subsidy making healthy foods more affordable. Make cheap, unhealthy food cost more as long as we have a coherent food policy in this country for affordable healthy foods. I don't see why we can't/shouldn't do that. We'd be a helluva lot healthier and leaner.

[NoNothing]

39. In case my post isn't sarcastic enough

The reason why we shouldn't do that is because we should have enough respect for peoples' autonomy not to coerce them to make "correct" decisions. I don't want to live in a country that can decide what is good and bad for me and try to make me behave appropriately.

[CTyankee]

43. Have you ever tried to eat healthier, just out of curiosity to see what the fuss is about?

I mean, this is a friendly question. I don't disrespect your autonomy here, I'm just wondering. I've gone thru a change of my diet and will never go back to what I used to eat. I don't see what is wrong with subsidizing healthy food and taxing unhealthy food. If people still want to eat unhealthy food then they can, I am not for banning them. Maybe ifhealthy food were more affordable people would take more of an interst. After all, haven't you noticed that the richer people are, the less fat they are? That's because if you can afford better food, you eat better. What I am saying is that healthy food should be affordable for everybody, not just the rich. What is your complaint about that?

[NoNothing]

47. Absolutely I have

I encourage everybody to do so, and they should. But you don't make healthy food affordable by making unhealthy food expensive. You make it affordable by making it cost less.

Though frankly, I don't think it is price that causes people to eat unhealthily, it is simply laziness. Making healthy meals is more work than microwaving a box or calling for a pizza.

[CTyankee]

50. It's still incentivizing one behavior over the other. And people can make their own rational

decisions. But once you get started on healthier foods, you find out that they taste better. The smarter people will simply switch to better eating and will live longer and better. Somewhere along the way others will wake up to reality...

[blueamy66]

96. But, has education worked?

I don't think so.

I don't believe in taxing everything, but something has to give.

[Captain Hilts]

14. I'm okay with a tax on soda. nt

[Staph]

21. We've had a tax on soda in WV since 1951.

The "pop" tax helped to build the Medical School at West Virginia University, training doctors, nurses, and dentists for more than 50 years. As of 2007, the tax was generating $14 million of the approximately $60 million budget for the WVU Medical Center.

[Sebastian Doyle]

24. Another stupid regressive tax? No thanks?

Besides, what would they do, tax the "sugared" (mostly high fructose corn poisoned) drinks, and NOT tax the diet drinks, which are mostly flavored with Donald Rumsfeld's favorite neurotoxin, Aspartame?

That's complete bullshit.

The focus with the drinks should be to make them less harmful. Dump the mutant corn poison, bring back the sugar. Hopefully the soda companies will take the hint from the sales of the recent "limited time" releases of Pepsi/Mountain Dew/Dr. Peppper, and the fact that people are willing to pay three times more for a bottle of Mexican Coke, when none of those others are available.

And if they put Stevia in the diet drinks, instead of a chemical that will fucking kill you, maybe even the sugared drinks will decline in sales. Coke with Stevia? Fuck yeah, I'd buy it.

As for Taxes.... start with the rich. Roll back the Chimp tax cuts this year, and the Reagan tax cuts next year. And if that doesn't raise enough money, go back to the JFK tax cuts, and roll them back. The Eisenhower era tax rates were just about right.

[NoNothing]

42. Let's not get silly

Fructose *is* sugar. There is no scientifically grounded rationale that corn sugar is nutritionally any different than beet sugar or cane sugar. They are all a combination of fructose and glucose, with minor variances in proportion.

[Jamastiene]

44. +1000000

[Hutzpa]

89. Now this I totally agree with

As for Taxes.... start with the rich. Roll back the Chimp tax cuts this year, and the Reagan tax cuts next year. And if that doesn't raise enough money, go back to the JFK tax cuts, and roll them back. The Eisenhower era tax rates were just about right.

along with eradicating HFCS entirely, that is the killer, taxing would not solve the problem but
creates more pandemonium and more hardship.

[earthside]

25. Tax Grandparents, Too!

From another DU thread this afternoon:

Grandparents who care for kids increase obesity risk
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7726458

So, the nannies will probably want a special tax on grandparents, too ... since they are contributors to childhood obesity.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

28. Why not just tax fat people according to their weight?

Quit pussy-footing and beating around the bush - taxing soda because it's the top calorie source...
Just fucking tax the heifers. Obviously, they are the one's gulping down all this HFCS and pop.

[CTyankee]

38. Oh, please. Can't we have a rational discussion here instead of this stuff?

We should be subsidizing the production and distribution of healthy foods and taxing unhealthy food. If people are driven to healthier foods because it makes economic sense to do so, I don't see what is so wrong with that.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

58. Why tax the unhealthy foods when we are ALREADY subsidizing them.

Just drop the HFCS subsidy. HFCS is MORE expensive than sugar.
It's only cheaper because of HFCS corn farming subsidies.

Taxes should not be a tool to encourage behaviors.
That they are used in such a way already is no excuse for the proliferation of such taxes either.
The lower & middle class do not need nickle & dimed.

[CTyankee]

60. I'm all for dropping ANY subsidy for bad stuff. But why not incentivize healthy eating by

subsidizing healthy foods more and taxing unhealthy foods more? If we consider people in the lower and middle class as rational human beings who can make rational decisions based on economic factors, then they will choose healthier, and more affordable foods. You don't give much credit to the people that you want to champion.

BTW, have you noticed that as people get richer, they get thinner and fitter? Why not equalize that by subsidizing good food for EVERY class of people?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

66. Without market manipulation, raising the price of competing goods (via taxes)

will encourage comepeting goods to raise prices as well.

For Example:
In a supply/demand market, the goods with more demand will always cost more than the goods with lower demand. Obviously, better products have more demand. Makers of whole grain ceareals know thier goods are better than sugar loaded crap cereal. Therefore, they can charge more because thier product has more value. Thier customers will always be willing to pay more for the good stuff. If the price of crap cereal is brought up with a fat tax, then the price of whole grain cereal would rise as well. The price hike would be paid by people that want to eat healthy. People that cannot afford the price hike will have to buy the crap cereal - but don't worry about the whole grain cereal makers... they can afford fewer customers because each box now sells for more.

Alternate Example:
A Prius costs $24k and a Fusion costs $22k. The Fusion gets worse milage so the government hits it with a $2k "undesireable" tax. With both cars @ $24k, most would be inclined to get a Prius for fuel economy. Honda knows they have a more efficient product so they will raise thier price $2k to $26k. Mostly the same people buy the Prius (because it's worth more) and mostly the same people buy the Fusion (because the savings is worth the worse economy). But some people can now not afford the Prius (but used to be able to) and must settle for the "undesirable" alternative.

This is why taxes are NOT a good tool for encouraging behavior - especially when nontaxed alternatives are involved.
A tax on unhealthy food is NOT like taxing all types of cigarettes across the board.
Selective market taxes, once the market adjust to the taxes, will actually price more people into the undesirable products.

[CTyankee]

73. In your first example I would say that a subsidy would help lower the cost of whole grains.

My example is one that yes, the government does put its thumb on the scale in favor of healthy foods. But if the subsidy for healthy foods, accompanied by a tax on unhealthy foods, is enacted, there is a real economic impetus for people to buy the better product. The subsidy must accompany the tax in this formulation.

You know of course that when people in our country have access to better foods they are fitter and thinner. And they tend to be in a higher income bracket. All I am asking for is a way to equalize that for the lower and middle classes. If you have a better tax (or tax subsidy) scheme, please let us know that on this board, otherwise you are just throwing up your hands and saying "nothing can be done, so give up!" That tells me that you don't think much of their abililty to make rational choices in their lives. I say give them a little credit, don't you think?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

78. A subsidy would not lower the end price of the better product with or without a competing tax.

The subsidy would simply line the pockets of the corporation. Corporate Rule #1 - Make the most money you can.
The company would raise end prices to match/beat the inferior product... and people will pay more for the better product.
No matter how expensive you make the undesireable choice the better product is worth more because it offers more utility.
The consumer does not care how prices are set... they only care if the better product is worth $X more. If so they buy it.

You see this in college tuition. Government raises financial aid for students... Colleges Raise tuition. Like clockwork.
This is because no matter how much subsidy students & colleges recieve, that degree is WORTH something to the students.
Students are willing to pay X amount out of pocket for that degree. Colleges know this and set tuition accordingly.
It's no coincidence that throughout my college attendence, tuition raised over 25% but my out of pocket expenses did not.
Schools raise tuition until enrollment no longer fills. More student aid simply means they can raise tuition more.
Colleges skim the subsidies right off the top. Subsidies + Degree Value = Tuition. Welcome to capitalism.

My solution is you need to manupulate the market through price fixing. Not jack-boot fascist price fixing either.
If you accept government subsidy... you shouldaccept government regulation. (this is where they fucked with the bailout, BTW)
Tell them, you can accept our subsidy if that subsidy comes directly off the purchase price.
Alternately, you can increase WIC and food stamp assistence but not support buying unhealthy products.

[CTyankee]

93. I don't disagree with that. I'm glad you brought up the government regulation side.

Of course, and I am glad you led this discussion in that direction, particularly with the last sentence of your response. There has been hue and cry against it however from some DUers and I have tangled with them on other occasions (not allowing food stamps to be used to buy unhealthy products, e.g. sugary sodas). People start yelling about "nanny statism."

[flvegan]

64. Heifers?

Jesus Christ, some people.

[Yurovsky]

79. Why not just kill 'em???

I mean, they're eating all the food and breathing more than their share of air and taking up more space and creating more greenhouse gases with all the flatulence...

Seriously folks... THEY'RE HUMAN BEINGS. How about showing them a shred of kindness and decency? I'm not overweight but I have a sister in law who is very heavy but is a wonderful person. It never ceases to amaze me how incredibly cruel some people can be to her or her kids (who are also overweight). Being mean to someone just because they don't measure up to your physical standards is just vicious. You all should know better.

[Skink]

29. For what it is worth beer taxes have drastically cut into my consumption.

Beer prices are way up for imports.

[Jennicut]

31. It is not sugar. It is high fructose corn syrup. As it is, I can't touch soda with a ten foot pole.

Unless it is diet. Or my blood sugar is extremely low. Such is the life with diabetes.

[FarCenter]

41. High fructose corn syrup has almost the same ratio of fructose to glucose as cane sugar (sucrose)

A sucrose molecule is a molecule of fructose and a molecule of glucose (50-50).

HFCS is 55% fructose and 45% glucose.

The sucrose molecule is split into the fructose and glucose molecules in your intestines.

After that, there is no metabolic difference.

[Jennicut]

46. Thanks for the info. I guess it is all bad for me though! Even an orange makes my blood sugar

go high.

[FarCenter]

51. Its actually the glucose that provokes the more severe insulin response

Fructose is metabolized differently, more like a fat, and it is first converted in the liver. On the other hand, too much fructose over too long a time also seems to impair glucose metabolism. We're built to eat only 2-3 pieces of fruit each day.

[Jennicut]

53. Yeah. I generally don't have much more then that.

I am a type 1 but got diagnosed at 28. I was told my C-peptide test was really low. I guess I am almost out of insulin in my pancreas. Oh well. Insulin dependence is not the end of the world.

[pipi_k]

74. Even some vegetables can do that...like carrots

When Mr Pip first got diagnosed with Type II diabetes over 10 years ago, he got a list of high glycemic foods, and I was surprised to see that carrots will also spike blood glucose.

Who would guess...

[Jennicut]

76. Potatoes, carrots, peas. But it takes a lot of carrots and peas to make it go

high. Potatoes are just like a regular carb. But I take insulin to cover every single meal (I am a Type 1). Type 2's really have to follow that diet exactly. I tried the diet for two weeks. Then they put me on insulin as my blood sugars were in the 400s. Now they realize I am a Type 1. You have to spend a lot of time trying foods and seeing what makes the blood sugar spike (even with insulin).

[derby378]

40. You should retitle your post

That NYT article is trying to dumb down everyone again. Those sodas do not contain sugar - they contain high-fructose corn syrup. In other words, Frankenfood.

I have access to Mexican-bottled Coca-Cola and Dublin Dr. Pepper, both of which are made with pure cane sugar, no HFCS included.

[Hutzpa]

48. It's all part of misleading the American public.

just look at the misleading responses up thread.

[mike_c]

55. fructose IS sugar....

It's a five carbon monosaccharide, i.e. a simple sugar. So is glucose, only with six carbons instead of five. Sucrose, I'm sure you know, is a disaccharide sugar that combines glucose and fructose. Anyway, the term "sugar" is a generic term that applies equally well to glucose, fructose, sucrose, ribose, maltose, galactose and a whole bunch of other sugars, including HFCS which is a blend of two sugars.

[derby378]

57. Pure, natural fructose IS sugar, true, but...

...sucrose, fructose, glucose, maltose, dextrose, D-ribose, and all the other sugars are found in nature. They are the products of billions of years of evolution. HFCS, on the other hand, does not exist in nature - it is manufactured in a laboratory using noxious production techniques.

[tabbycat31]

45. how about freaking end the HFCS subsidies?

[derby378]

Or how about just outlawing HFCS production?

It's better for the environment to grown and harvest cane sugar than to manufacture HFCS in a laboratory.

And corn growers won't have any room to complain - we're gonna need more tortilla chips to go with the sugary sodas!

[Don Caballero]

49. I quit drinking soda over seven years ago.

Those who continue to use and abuse this product get no sympathy from me. They do not have the will power I needed to overcome my addiction.

[damntexdem]

52. Tax non-diet soda.

Interesting, given that sugared and diet sodas now cost the exact same prices.

[Sebastian Doyle]

62. If they were going to tax any of it, the diet shit should cost twice as much.

Anything that can be seen as encouraging people to drink Donald Rumsfeld's favorite neurotoxin, Aspartame simply cannot be allowed to happen. That shit is poison. Even more so than the mutant corn poison.

And its time to eliminate BOTH. If soft drinks were sweetened with Stevia, they might actually replace the sugared versions, and certainly the HFCS versions.

[KamaAina]

59. If only they were sugared.

HFCS = :puke:

[kimmerspixelated]

63. Sodas are harmful to health, and should rarely if ever be consumed.

Having said that, I grew up drinking Dr. Peppers, but we weren't allowed to drink them with breakfast or dinner, like I have seen some kids do. However, just like they should abolish artificial sweeteners(really harmful), if these kind of choices persist they should tax them. If the powers that be(Big Corporate Clowns) insist, they should have to pay a certain percentage of their profits to fund healthcare for Diabetes, etc.

[Posteritatis]

67. Sin taxes suck. (nt)

[trotsky]

84. That they do. However, they also work. Very well. n/t

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[upi402]

69. see "Food Inc", a must see film

IMHO

[Ter]

70. Tax nothing

High taxes are the reason we lose elections. Let's not give the pukes more ammo. A tax on soda only hurts the poor. Rich candy-asses don't drink it anyway, they think they are too good for it.

[CTyankee]

75. So, subsidize healthy foods and more people will be able to buy them!

Haven't you ever wondered why the rich are so thin and fit? Well, let's equalize this and give a subsidy for good foods so the rest of us can be healthy? Why not?

[JVS]

71. If soft drinks have become a staple, I think we have a big problem in America.

I interpret it to mean that people are very poor. a generic 2 liter bottle of pop at $0.85 is probably one of the cheapest and easiest ways to get 800 calories.

[CTyankee]

77. But there are people on this board who defend that "in the name of the poor."

That is very short sighted. We should not give up on people. We are better than that and can DO better. If we can't or won't, then we don't deserve to be called "progressives."

[depakid]

82. Makes perfect economic sense

which inevitably incenses the libertarians.

[Luciferous]

83. I wouldn't have a problem with them taxing it, but I'm trying to cut

processed crap out of my household. Maybe if they tax it my husband will finally give up his Mountain Dew because that stuff isn't cheap... 8.99 for a 24 pack!

[quaker bill]

85. No

Taxes should not be used as a disincentive, it only supports the republican meme and likely collects revenue from the wrong folks.

[NYC_SKP]

88. YES. And double the tax for HFCS over cane sugar. n/t

[laughingliberal]

91. Roll back the tax cuts on the rich

Then we can talk about passing any further regressive taxes.

[Shagbark Hickory]

94. Don't tax it. Just ban it.

Seriously. If it's not good for us, then it's not good for us. Sugary soft drinks are addictive like crack. I know lots of folks here are ok with legalizing and taxing crack but I take a different position on that.

[Odin2005]

97. I am fundamentally opposed to all sales tax-type regressive taxes, sorry.

[Ohio Metal]

100. They already tax soda

In Ohio at least. I didn't know that soda wasn't taxed else where. What's the big deal about the soda tax anyway? If you don't want to pay the tax, don't buy pop. It's that easy!

[NuttyFluffers]

101. Americans are like giant hummingbirds! :)

(this includes me -- i so love carbonated beverages! i try to get the sugar over HFCS kind when i can, though; tastes less sweet.)

this is what the American Hummingbird looks like trying to fly! --> :bounce: