VeggieBoards - Reply to Topic

Thread: City to consider taxing sodas Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
02-06-2010 01:17 PM
rabid_child
Quote:
Originally Posted by Photojess View Post

NY was one of the first states to consider doing this, at the end of last yr, but it never went through.....I didn't have a problem with it at all.....soda is a leading contributer to obesity and diabetes in our youth.....



anyway, I know that a 20 oz bottle of Mtn Dew has 19 tsp of sugar in it. That would be a 1/4 cup + 2 Tbsps. They have to add all of that citric acid to counter balance the sweetness.



We do tax bottled water in NY though... not that that's hard to avoid (just carry your own bottle!) but why beverage discrimination?
02-06-2010 11:43 AM
unovegan
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomebodyElse View Post

It will affect those of us who don't drink soda, when the meat lobby suggests taxes on soy foods, and uses the soda tax as some sort of bizarre precedent.



As we should have learned from the Prohibition, forcing people, or punishing them, for consuming things that aren't good for them, doesn't work. Education is the only solution to the obesity problem. Shame on the government for exploiting the obesity problem in order to profit from it.



also well said.
02-06-2010 11:41 AM
SomebodyElse It will affect those of us who don't drink soda, when the meat lobby suggests taxes on soy foods, and uses the soda tax as some sort of bizarre precedent.



As we should have learned from the Prohibition, forcing people, or punishing them, for consuming things that aren't good for them, doesn't work. Education is the only solution to the obesity problem. Shame on the government for exploiting the obesity problem in order to profit from it.
02-06-2010 11:40 AM
unovegan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptartfrog View Post

I definitely think people should drink less soda, but I believe that is the consumer's responsibility. I also don't think people should eat meat, (the cruelty factor aside, I don't think it's good for you) but I'd be against a tax increase on meat products too. (on principle...) What it comes down to is personal responsibility. People need to take control of their own lives and decide for themselves what they do or don't want to eat. Who do they think they're kidding anyway? This additional tax isn't going to make people stop drinking soda just as an additional tax on meat would not turn people vegetarian. That's not what it's about. Like someone already said the government is just trying to squeeze more money out of people.



I don't drink much soda, so this additional tax isn't going to affect me too much. If I honestly believed an additional tax would make people drink less soda (and I knew the money wasn't going to be mismanaged) I don't think I would be against this. Soda is garbage, and I don't WANT people to drink it but that's not up to me.



Well said.
02-06-2010 11:37 AM
Willowriver I see the logic in this. Soda is one of the leading causes of Western health problems. It's almost like making tiny down payments on how much these health problems will cost the system later. It is, however, disproportionately affecting people who have less money to begin with. And I don't think that's right. Overall though, I wouldn't mind if this gets passed, because (1) let's face it, it's not a huge tax, and it's on something people really don't need, (2) I see it possibly gradually changing the overall health of this country, and (3) honestly, it doesn't affect me much as I don't drink soda (at least I'm honest).



A much SMARTER thing for the government to do would be to end the stupid subsidies that make soda so cheap in the first place. We subsidize the crap out of corn and soybeans - so every bit of processed food in this country is made of corn and soybeans (including the animal products - it's nearly all they're fed). No variety = terribly unhealthy food. It should NOT be cheaper for me to buy a disgusting, processed burger, soda, and bag of potato chips than it is for me to buy some freakin' produce (ACTUAL FOOD!). These subsidies have condemned poor people in America to a permanent state of disease. You can't feed healthy people OR animals on just the different physical and chemical extractions you can get from 2 plants. (It's crazy what you learn when you start reading ingredients labels, huh? lol) It's a terribly unethical thing we're doing. The government should spread those subsidies to local, organic, sustainable produce of all types. Subsidizing something so it's the cheapest ingredient, then taxing it back when people eat/drink it, is stupid and discriminatory.
02-06-2010 11:06 AM
GhostUser I definitely think people should drink less soda, but I believe that is the consumer's responsibility. I also don't think people should eat meat, (the cruelty factor aside, I don't think it's good for you) but I'd be against a tax increase on meat products too. (on principle...) What it comes down to is personal responsibility. People need to take control of their own lives and decide for themselves what they do or don't want to eat. Who do they think they're kidding anyway? This additional tax isn't going to make people stop drinking soda just as an additional tax on meat would not turn people vegetarian. That's not what it's about. Like someone already said the government is just trying to squeeze more money out of people.



I don't drink much soda, so this additional tax isn't going to affect me too much. If I honestly believed an additional tax would make people drink less soda (and I knew the money wasn't going to be mismanaged) I don't think I would be against this. Soda is garbage, and I don't WANT people to drink it but that's not up to me.
02-06-2010 09:40 AM
Photojess Michael, I couldnt agree more! I think cigarettes should be banned. Health related effects directly resulting from the use or second hand use of cigarettes is the leading money sucker in health care today. 95% of all health care dollars is spent on treatment and only 5% is spent on prevention. If we were to eliminate the cause, just think what those health care dollars spent on emphysema, COPD, heart diseases, diabets, and asthma could be used for!
02-06-2010 07:23 AM
Dutchabbey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post

Fair enough but it's the same with cigarettes, if something is unhealthy make it harder (or impossible) for companies to produce such products. Don't be a hypocrite and profit from it. If you look at it that way there's really no difference between Phillip Morris, McDonalds, etc. and our government - it's just one doesn't have the production costs, marketing, and liability.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I agree with this. I think the government is using the obesity crisis more as an excuse to just leech tax dollars than acting from a genuine concern for its citizens. I suspect this sort of thing is to replace the cash cow of the tobacco tax which has largely dried up over the years due to the number of people who have quit smoking. I'm also concerned with where the line would be drawn. I would prefer to see the government lean more heavily on the corporations that produce this junk. Stop giving them tax breaks and other monetary incentives and make it harder and less acceptable for them to peddle the kind of crap that's harmful in the long run.
02-06-2010 07:08 AM
unovegan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post

Fair enough but it's the same with cigarettes, if something is unhealthy make it harder (or impossible) for companies to produce such products. Don't be a hypocrite and profit from it. If you look at it that way there's really no difference between Phillip Morris, McDonalds, etc. and our government - it's just one doesn't have the production costs, marketing, and liability.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I don't know about that. I guess it depends on how much control you're willing to give the gov't and how much freedom you're willing to sacrifice.



Like I said earlier, there are different opinions/viewpoints on what is considered ok to consume. Vegan candy bars could very easily be included in additional taxes.
02-06-2010 05:18 AM
Michael
Quote:
Originally Posted by Photojess View Post

I don't disagree at all with stating the gov should learn how to manage their money better.....but somone has to step in....look at the crap foods that are available now that weren't even thought of back in the 1950s, much less the 1800s! Back then, you had to worry about too much alcohol, or what now-illegal drugs were used as actual medicine back then. They worked hard, didn't have processed garbage food, or soda to say the least....and no HFCS, which I believe came about strongly in the 1960s or 80s...I forget now.



Anyway, there has to be a change somewhere, and there is proven fact that sugars and fat, can have the same effect as drugs on some peoples brains (esp if they aleady have addictive personalities)....hence the addiction to junk food.



We've seen an improvement with trying to include more whole grains in food, indicated by how many grams are listed on the package. I don't really find that very helpful myself, but it was a positive change anyway.....If McD's and BK, and other fast food chains went back down to the sizes they served in the 70's, it may help also, as all of that food is a much larger portion than it used to be. Who in the world needs a 32 oz cup of soda?



Fair enough but it's the same with cigarettes, if something is unhealthy make it harder (or impossible) for companies to produce such products. Don't be a hypocrite and profit from it. If you look at it that way there's really no difference between Phillip Morris, McDonalds, etc. and our government - it's just one doesn't have the production costs, marketing, and liability.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
02-06-2010 04:52 AM
Photojess I don't disagree at all with stating the gov should learn how to manage their money better.....but somone has to step in....look at the crap foods that are available now that weren't even thought of back in the 1950s, much less the 1800s! Back then, you had to worry about too much alcohol, or what now-illegal drugs were used as actual medicine back then. They worked hard, didn't have processed garbage food, or soda to say the least....and no HFCS, which I believe came about strongly in the 1960s or 80s...I forget now.



Anyway, there has to be a change somewhere, and there is proven fact that sugars and fat, can have the same effect as drugs on some peoples brains (esp if they aleady have addictive personalities)....hence the addiction to junk food.



We've seen an improvement with trying to include more whole grains in food, indicated by how many grams are listed on the package. I don't really find that very helpful myself, but it was a positive change anyway.....If McD's and BK, and other fast food chains went back down to the sizes they served in the 70's, it may help also, as all of that food is a much larger portion than it used to be. Who in the world needs a 32 oz cup of soda?
02-06-2010 04:10 AM
fadeaway1289 I really hope these laws don't get passed. I think it's ridiculous.
02-05-2010 08:07 PM
danakscully64 There is always death and taxes; however, death doesn't get worse every year. ~Author Unknown
02-05-2010 07:51 PM
unovegan
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomebodyElse View Post





And I think it is dangerous to allow the government to start taxing food. It's bad enough that they tax prepared food in restaurants. They need to leave food alone.



And this will be my concern. Where does the line get drawn? In some conservative city, they could start taxing veg food as it's "not the norm" or something. There are lots of directions this could go and some would not be good.
02-05-2010 07:49 PM
Michael
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaddSkillz View Post

It won't fix the obese problem. People will still be fat, they'll just have less change in their pocket.



Besides, raising taxes because a government mismanages money and can't stay within a budget is not the answer. The answer is holding them responsible for their misappropriating.



Thank you, that's exactly how I feel.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
02-05-2010 07:30 PM
SomebodyElse
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaddSkillz View Post

It won't fix the obese problem. People will still be fat, they'll just have less change in their pocket.



Besides, raising taxes because a government mismanages money and can't stay within a budget is not the answer. The answer is holding them responsible for their misappropriating.





And I think it is dangerous to allow the government to start taxing food. It's bad enough that they tax prepared food in restaurants. They need to leave food alone.
02-05-2010 02:00 PM
MaddSkillz It won't fix the obese problem. People will still be fat, they'll just have less change in their pocket.



Besides, raising taxes because a government mismanages money and can't stay within a budget is not the answer. The answer is holding them responsible for their misappropriating.
02-05-2010 01:50 PM
danakscully64 Think about what soda is doing to the teeth of people and their insides. Ewwwww. I share a soda once and a great while with my guy, but i know my limit. I may sip 1 can for 3 days on days I know I'm eating healthy.
02-05-2010 01:44 PM
Photojess NY was one of the first states to consider doing this, at the end of last yr, but it never went through.....I didn't have a problem with it at all.....soda is a leading contributer to obesity and diabetes in our youth.....



anyway, I know that a 20 oz bottle of Mtn Dew has 19 tsp of sugar in it. That would be a 1/4 cup + 2 Tbsps. They have to add all of that citric acid to counter balance the sweetness.
02-05-2010 01:41 PM
danakscully64 Wait, this site says "One can of soda is equivalent to 11 tablespoons of sugar." That can't be right. No way. Doing more research.





EDIT: I'm right. 12 g = 1 tbl. A lot of soda has about 39-44g of sugar.
02-05-2010 01:38 PM
danakscully64
Quote:
Originally Posted by unovegan View Post

Ahhh, the good ol' days. Drinking a 40oz of coke in the morning and maybe another 20oz in the afternoon. And another 20oz if i was going out.



I used to down 6-8 cans of Dr. Pepper a day while sitting at the computer. No wonder I was 10 pounds heavier.



Quote:
Originally Posted by unovegan View Post

are you sure that's right? i thought a can of coke had either 12/16 tablespoons of sugar in it.



4g = 1 tsp. 3 tsp = 1 tablespoon.
02-05-2010 01:29 PM
unovegan
Quote:
Originally Posted by danakscully64 View Post





I measured out to sugar amount one day.



are you sure that's right? i thought a can of coke had either 12/16 tablespoons of sugar in it.
02-05-2010 01:28 PM
unovegan
Quote:
Originally Posted by danakscully64 View Post

People will easily put away 2-3 sodas a day without thinking twice



Ahhh, the good ol' days. Drinking a 40oz of coke in the morning and maybe another 20oz in the afternoon. And another 20oz if i was going out.
02-05-2010 01:28 PM
danakscully64



I measured out to sugar amount one day.
02-05-2010 01:24 PM
danakscully64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post

Why single out sodas for a sugar tax and not tax candy bars? Or any of the myriad of other sugar filled junk foods? It seems very arbitrary to single out one garbage food.



I would be fine with taxing all of it, but I think soda is easier because it's SOOO easy to drink your sugar and not even realize it. A can of soda has about 44g of sugar, a Snickers bar has 28g. People will easily put away 2-3 sodas a day without thinking twice, people are more aware with candy.
02-05-2010 01:23 PM
dormouse The beverage thing does seem arbitrary, but I've read many places how much drinks contribute to our weight problem. When people drink a soda, they don't realize that they're consuming hundreds of calories. I'd be supportive of a wider variety of products falling into this tax category, for sure.
02-05-2010 12:08 PM
unovegan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post

Why single out sodas for a sugar tax and not tax candy bars? Or any of the myriad of other sugar filled junk foods? It seems very arbitrary to single out one garbage food.



The only thing: In health food stores there are more natural sodas, candy bars, etc. Who's to say that those wouldn't be included in that category as they are technically sodas and candy bars. That would be a bummer.
02-05-2010 12:01 PM
Purp I love the idea. It would make me cut back on soda drinking (believe me, I needit, too). I wish it was extended to other things (candy bars, potato chips (crisps), Hostess Ding Dongs and Twinkies, etc). When I'm off work on Thursday, and the bus stop is at a 7-11, with two minimarts across the street (it's a 4-way stop) and there's one on two the the corners, the third has a Mexican restaurant), I would say, "You cannot afford it, keep going."
02-05-2010 11:54 AM
Mojo Why single out sodas for a sugar tax and not tax candy bars? Or any of the myriad of other sugar filled junk foods? It seems very arbitrary to single out one garbage food.
02-05-2010 11:36 AM
unovegan
Quote:
Originally Posted by dormouse View Post

Is there already a special tax on soda, or is it just normal sales tax?



I believe it's just the normal sales tax.
This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off