Senate Considers Federal Tax On Soda

[Tech]

The Senate Finance Committee today is hearing proposals on how to pay for President Obama's proposed universal health care plan, which is expected to cost more than $1 trillion. Among the proposals, as Consumer Affairs reports: A three-cent tax on sodas as well as other sugary drinks, including energy and sports drinks like Gatorade. Diet sodas would be exempt.


America. lol.

 

[Hypocrisy86]

Oh ...wow clever idiots, sure make diets exempt, but isn't high levels of sucralose or the aspartame bad for you?

 

[TJ]

Oh ...wow clever idiots, sure make diets exempt, but isn't high levels of sucralose or the aspartame bad for you?

High levels of anything is bad for you....

I was waiting for something like this to happen, though. I mean, it's pretty clear that this government wants to babysit Americans so I'm not at all surprised.

 

[Samoan-Z]

Taxing soda might no be a bad idea maybe overweight americans ... so 70% of the population will ease down on drinking soda.

And we could back our governement spending some... how ever the current administration is just going to spend it as fast as they can get it so ....shit.

 

[Tech]

Taxing soda might no be a bad idea maybe overweight americans ... so 70% of the population will ease down on drinking soda.

And we could back our governement spending some... how ever the current administration is just going to spend it as fast as they can get it so ....shit.

no. it's not a good idea for a hundred different reasons.

first and foremost, the government isn't your mommy and daddy.

second, it wouldn't change a thing. People would still drink soda, just like people still smoke cigs.

third, soda doesn't make people unhealthy. lack of exercise and an improper diet does. we all know that.

fourth, the government wouldn't need more tax money if they'd cut 50% of the useless shit they spend money on now.

Obama wants to fund healthcare? fine. end the wars. that will free up billions of dollars.

 

[Samoan-Z]

^^ True enough, I admit defeat here.

 

[Bulkboy]

i dont see the problem, i mean cmon, the US has a serious obesity problem, and at the same time the government needs money, this is a good way to get in money, and at the same time maybe reduce the amounts of soda people drink.

 

[Tech]

i dont see the problem, i mean cmon, the US has a serious obesity problem, and at the same time the government needs money, this is a good way to get in money, and at the same time maybe reduce the amounts of soda people drink.

I'm starting to wonder if you actually believe what you post, or if you just say these things for the lulz.

 

[Bulkboy]

I'm starting to wonder if you actually believe what you post, or if you just say these things for the lulz.

right back at ya! i knew from the minute i came into this thread that u would be negative towards such a proposal. what im not sure off is whether or not u have any arguments against it, other than the usual "taxes is bad, personal freedom is good" thingy weve heard on here for the last 2 years. is there really ANYTHING negative about making sugar loaden drinks like this alittle more expensive? its not like were gonna ban em.

samoan said the same thing, the US is a fatass country, and making soda more expensive aint the worst thing to do. more expensive soda= less fat people= less money from society to pay for fat peoples problems. win win situation if u ask me.

 

[Tech]

right back at ya! i knew from the minute i came into this thread that u would be negative towards such a proposal. what im not sure off is whether or not u have any arguments against it, other than the usual "taxes is bad, personal freedom is good" thingy weve heard on here for the last 2 years. is there really ANYTHING negative about making sugar loaden drinks like this alittle more expensive? its not like were gonna ban em.

samoan said the same thing, the US is a fatass country, and making soda more expensive aint the worst thing to do. more expensive soda= less fat people= less money from society to pay for fat peoples problems. win win situation if u ask me.

I stated my reasons a few posts up.

A. It's not the governments responsibility to be your dietitian.
B. Soda is not the reason why America is fat, thus you could completely ban soda and it wouldn't do a damn thing in regards to the obesity problem.
C. It's unfair to tax something simply because it's ignorantly regarded as "unhealthy".
D. The government doesn't need any more tax revenue. They have more than enough.

Just like everything else in this world, soda is perfectly fine to drink in moderation.

/I don't drink soda.

 

[Bulkboy]

I stated my reasons a few posts up.

A. It's not the governments responsibility to be your dietitian.
B. Soda is not the reason why America is fat, thus you could completely ban soda and it wouldn't do a damn thing in regards to the obesity problem.
C. It's unfair to tax something simply because it's ignorantly regarded as "unhealthy".
D. The government doesn't need any more tax revenue. They have more than enough.

Just like everything else in this world, soda is perfectly fine to drink in moderation.

/I don't drink soda.

A. its not about the government being ur dietitian. its about making economic priorities, and in that regard, its a good idea to make unhealthy products alittle more expensive. basically ure encouraging people to make healthy choices.

B. Soda alone is obviously not the only reason, its a combination of several things, but i think we can both agree that fast food and soft drinks, and the removal away from traditional family dinners towards eating out on such restaurants plays a large role in making america fatter, combined with lack of exercise etc as u mentioned. why not encourge people to drink less soda, and maybe make fruit and veggies and more healthier options cheaper.

C. unfair, i dont get that notion at all. politics is about making priorities. the government have to take the money from somewhere. i mean if u dont want sales taxes and u dont want income taxes, how the hell is anything gonna get funded? i think its great that instead of taxing familys wages more, why not tax products that are bad for u and thus encourage people to spend their money on other things.

D. i agree that government should never tax people over a certain level, but the way i see it, this sort of tax, is one of the better kinds. i rarely drink soda either, and wouldnt loose anything to such a tax. while fat people who relies on u and me to pay for their care when they get a massive heart attack, would be encouraged to think again, and would pay back alittle more to society.

and i defo agree with u about moderation. but alot of people dont think that way, they drink a gallon of soda a day, and develop diseases like diabeetus, heart conditions etc, and this is sort of an indirect help to these people.

 

[TJ]

A. its not about the government being ur dietitian. its about making economic priorities, and in that regard, its a good idea to make unhealthy products alittle more expensive. basically ure encouraging people to make healthy choices.

Not sure what things are like in your country but healthy foods in America and f*cking expensive! Honestly, it costs more to eat healthy than it does to eat whatever you want in America.

B. Soda alone is obviously not the only reason, its a combination of several things, but i think we can both agree that fast food and soft drinks, and the removal away from traditional family dinners towards eating out on such restaurants plays a large role in making america fatter, combined with lack of exercise etc as u mentioned. why not encourge people to drink less soda, and maybe make fruit and veggies and more healthier options cheaper.

I can actually agree with this. Education is going to help people become far more healthy than they ever would by just simply making unhealthy foods expensive or anything illegal.

C. unfair, i dont get that notion at all. politics is about making priorities. the government have to take the money from somewhere. i mean if u dont want sales taxes and u dont want income taxes, how the hell is anything gonna get funded? i think its great that instead of taxing familys wages more, why not tax products that are bad for u and thus encourage people to spend their money on other things.

Sales tax is fine but income tax is not. If the government "needs" more money than they need to stop spending excessively (war on drugs, war on terrorism, building an empire, etc).

D. i agree that government should never tax people over a certain level, but the way i see it, this sort of tax, is one of the better kinds. i rarely drink soda either, and wouldnt loose anything to such a tax. while fat people who relies on u and me to pay for their care when they get a massive heart attack, would be encouraged to think again, and would pay back alittle more to society.

and i defo agree with u about moderation. but alot of people dont think that way, they drink a gallon of soda a day, and develop diseases like diabeetus, heart conditions etc, and this is sort of an indirect help to these people.

This tax won't do anything. Cigs go up in price and all people do is complain but they still smoke the same amount. Actually, you kind of answered your own question. Most people do not know about moderation so why not educate them about it?

 

[Bulkboy]

^^ good post TJ, im all for making healthy foods cheaper, and i wholeheartedly support educating people and encouraging people to make healthier choices. its the exact same thing in norway as in america, shitty foods seem to get cheaper and healthy options are expensive, and obviously as a result our population is getting fatter as well.

what i dont agree with though, is the notion that economic tools are useless when it comes to educating people and encouraging them. i do think that consumption of soda will go down if it becomes alittle more expensive. it does send a signal to people. alot of people are very aware of their wallets, and tend to reduce consumption if certain things get more expensive. to me it just makes more sense to tax something like soda alittle more. about smoking, consumption overally have gone down over the years, thats because of education no doubt, and the same thing should be done when it comes to making healthy food choices. in the meantime, i have no problem with making crap food alittle more expensive for the fatties that buy them and then gets diabeetus and relies on everyone elses tax money to treat them.

 

[Tech]

Bulkboy, your heart is in the right place but it seems like you don't think people should have any personal responsibility.

When it comes to obesity in America, you can't point the finger at fast food, soda, larger portions, etc. Honestly, it comes down to ignorance. Unhealthy people simply don't care to educate themselves on what food does to their body, and they don't care about exercise.

You can't make people change their lifestyle by force.

 

[Hypocrisy86]

Good healthy foods are definitely expensive here...organic shit is like nearly twice the price of the non-organic crap, and most of the healthier foods you get less in a box, carton or etc, and usually costs the same as a "regular" product that has more, and average income people can't keep forking out dough to pay for this shit, like me for instance i get by with what i eat, with what i can afford.

 

[Bulkboy]

Bulkboy, your heart is in the right place but it seems like you don't think people should have any personal responsibility.

When it comes to obesity in America, you can't point the finger at fast food, soda, larger portions, etc. Honestly, it comes down to ignorance. Unhealthy people simply don't care to educate themselves on what food does to their body, and they don't care about exercise.

You can't make people change their lifestyle by force.

i also think u mean well, we just disagree on the governments role as always.

first, i do think personal responsibility is a major factor up in this. the point is not to ban soda, or deny people the right to drink it. by all means, if people want to live unhealthy then so be it. but i do think the government can provide incentives for people to live healthier. and a little more expensive soda, is just that kind of incentive. having said that, nothing provokes me more than people sitting on their ass complaining that theyre getting fat, while at the same time chugging in mcdonalds and drinking coke by the barrel. personal responsibility should never be left out. but i dont see anything wrong with helping the public see the errors of their ways.

i agree that alot of it comes down to ignorance. but look at okinawa, a place where people just have a whole different outlook on food and eating. its a cultural problem when u can find a mcdonals on every street corner, and ure constantly surrounded by unhealthy food.

we have to realize tech, that not everyone are like ourselves, this is a forum for people who are conserned with training, diet and health. most of society doesent share our passion, but we can still help them make healthier choices. for instance, in america, u see the fattest people are often poor, black and uneducated. can u blame all of it on personal responsibility when they have had no chance to educate themselves, when they may have to work 2-3 jobs to make ends meet, and dont have the time to exercise, cook healthy meals etc. combine that with the fact that sugary, fatty food is the cheapest and u have a recipe for a health disaster. thats why i support making crappy food more expensive, and fruit veggies etc cheaper, at the same time more should be done to enlighten the population. after thats all said and done, the rest is all about personal responsibility. but lets give people a chance.

 

[Ironslave]

Bulkboy, you're not even thinking what effect this will have on manufacturers of soda. Why is it fair to them that the government is going to make their profits go down? This means people will lose their jobs.

mean if u dont want sales taxes and u dont want income taxes, how the hell is anything gonna get funded?

sigh.

"government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck. Even today, individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion-- a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000! Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels?"

thats why i support making crappy food more expensive, and fruit veggies etc cheaper,

This is basically nationalization of the food industry, government has no right to set prices and tell one business to earn x dollars, while another earn y dollars.

 

[Bulkboy]

Bulkboy, you're not even thinking what effect this will have on manufacturers of soda. Why is it fair to them that the government is going to make their profits go down? This means people will lose their jobs.

oh come on IS, manufacturers of soda and other soft drinks are doing quite well, and alittle extra tax is not gonna ruin them, its an incentive for them to develop other, healthier products. its a way for the government to steer them in the right direction. sales taxes are normal everywhere, and when trying to increase revenues, i think this is one of the better taxes proposed.

sigh.

"government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck. Even today, individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion-- a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000! Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels?"

u dont think the government have more tasks and higher costs than in 2000? more elderly people, economic crisis, wars being fought overseas. taxes in the US arent even that high. compared to europe, tax rates are relatively low in the US. they have been alot higher. i remember reading something about the top marginal rate being something like 91% during ww2. today its 35%. im not saying lets go back to 91%, but a top marginal rate of 35% is pretty low compared to alot of other countries.

This is basically nationalization of the food industry, government has no right to set prices and tell one business to earn x dollars, while another earn y dollars.

nationalization means the government takes over the companies.

increasing sales taxes for unhealthy products and cutting them for healthy products in order to help avoid and prevent a global obesity epidemic is not the same as nationalization. u gotta stop tossing around terms like that. its about regulating capitalism that has started to become self destructive.

 

[Ironslave]

oh come on IS, manufacturers of soda and other soft drinks are doing quite well, and alittle extra tax is not gonna ruin them, its an incentive for them to develop other, healthier products. its a way for the government to steer them in the right direction. sales taxes are normal everywhere, and when trying to increase revenues, i think this is one of the better taxes proposed.

It won't "ruin" them, but it will hurt them, and will cost people their jobs, fact.

Government steer them in the right direction? ... when does government ever steer anything in the right direction? It's not their job to produce healthy products, it's their jobs to run a profitable business. There are tons of healthy alternatives already for people to choose.

How about people take care of themselves and their health? If they don't, they should have to suffer the repercussions of their actions, and have to pay for their medical bills, be less likely to get the best jobs due to being less productive, and so on.

u dont think the government have more tasks and higher costs than in 2000? more elderly people, economic crisis, wars being fought overseas.

There are more elderly, but what's your point on the economic crisis and overseas wars? The wars are the most wasteful spending there is and need to be cut ASAP. Furthermore, the economic crisis is even more of a reason for the government to cut spending and cut taxes to get out of it, NOT spend/tax more.

taxes in the US arent even that high. compared to europe, tax rates are relatively low in the US.

Why do you think a country like England is doing so awful?

nationalization means the government takes over the companies.

increasing sales taxes for unhealthy products and cutting them for healthy products in order to help avoid and prevent a global obesity epidemic is not the same as nationalization. u gotta stop tossing around terms like that. its about regulating capitalism that has started to become self destructive.

I know, it was an exasperation with all the insanity going on in the world today.

Capitalism has become destructive? .... it has nothing to do with the economic problems of today, and nobody forces people to eat McDonald's, or drink Pepsi.... they choose to do so. The government can't babysit everyone and tell them what to do, in a free society people have the right to make choices, and if they make bad choices they suffer the consequences of them.

Technology is much more responsible for the obesity epidemic than soft drinks and fast food, should the government tax tv's, computers, video games and such too?

 

[Braaq]

I read that it will also be put on tobacco, alcohol and junk food as well. the beer part pisses me off, literally half of what you pay now on alcohol is tax.