Slashdot Mirror
California City May Tax Sugary Drinks Like Cigarettes
Hugh Pickens writes "Voters in Richmond, California are set to decide in November whether to make the Bay Area city the nation's first municipality to tax soda and other sugary beverages to help fight childhood obesity. The penny-per-ounce tax, projected to raise between $2 million and $8 million, would go to soccer fields, school gardens and programs to treat diabetes and fight obesity. Councilman Jeff Ritterman, a doctor who proposed the measure, says soda is a prime culprit behind high childhood obesity rates in Richmond, where nearly 20 percent of residents live below the poverty line. 'If you look at where most of our added sugar is coming, it's coming from the sugar-sweetened beverages,' says Ritterman. 'It's actually a poison for you, because your liver can't handle that huge amount of fructose.' Not everyone is pleased by the proposed license fee on businesses selling sweetened drinks. It would require owners of bodegas, theaters, convenience stores and other outlets to tally ounces sold and, presumably, pass the cost on to customers. Soda taxes have failed elsewhere — most notably in Philadelphia, where Mayor Michael A. Nutter's attempts to impose a 2-cents-per-ounce charge on sugary drinks have sputtered twice. However, Dr. Bibbins-Domingo says similar taxes on cigarettes have had a dramatic effect on public health. 'It was a few decades ago when we had high rates of tobacco and we had high rates of tobacco-related illnesses. Those measures really turned the tide and really led to lower rates of tobacco across the country.'"
It's nice to see so many cities are willing to help us out by telling us what to buy, then moving those funds to "help people" and "create jobs". The rhetoric is unending and unhelpful. I really don't care if this helps kids for five minutes, because ten minutes from now they'll switch to cheap artificially sweetened drinks that are cancerous. We don't need to talk about that though, just the fact's ma'am.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
Tax driving, because it can kill you.
Tax running because it can cause joint problems.
Tax all non-"organic" foods because they contain neurotoxins.
It's for our own good.
Much like taxing cigarettes. If cigarettes are so bad for the individual (as the government states - and anyone with a fucking brain knows) why is the government in the cigarette business? And try to be honest with yourself - the government is in the cigarette business when they make 20x the profit on a pack, compared to the cigarette company.
Taxing soda won't do anything but hand over more money to the government. It won't stop a thing and people know it.
Want to stop children drinking soda? then simply make it illegal for them to do so. (Which I don't agree with)
Talking about tax money as going somewhere specific is really meaningless, as money is perfectly interchangeable by definition. But it certainly helps to get public support!
Why should everyone else have to pay higher taxes because some people like to drink poison or smoke fiberglass particles?
It may be their choice but they should have to pay for their choice and not make everyone else pay.
Dr. Bibbins-Domingo credits the taxation of tobacco products with being the sole cause of decreased smoking. But it seems to me that I grew up with no desire to try cigarettes after spending my childhood watching PSA after PSA pointing out that it would cause all sorts of horrible diseases. Taxation never figured into it for me...and it also seems that taxation only matters after you're hooked on cigarettes, too. I smoke cigars occasionally, but whatever added cost comes from the taxes don't matter, since it's a rare occurrence. The taxes would matter only if I were regularly spending money on them, like habitual cigarette smokers do. And I've seen how hard it is for smokers to stop, once they are hooked...it's incredibly hard. So I doubt that taxation was the main cause of the decrease in smoking.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
So taxing products that contain high fructose corn syrup is taxing something that people already pay taxes on!
If you choose to be fat, if you choose to smoke, if you choose to live an unhealthy lifestyle, you should be the one to pay for your healthcare expenses. The tax allows the government to charge the people who are running up the healthcare expenses and this is an excellent idea for a state which provides universal coverage.
The people with the bad habits should shut up and pay the tax or better maybe the government can simply cut them off healthcare entirely and let them die? Which is it? All I know is the rest of us shouldn't have to pay for their choices.
That's the biggest problems with this kind of tax - it just ends up in the General Fund and they use it for whatever. It's like lottery proceeds, which are supposed to go to the schools. Well, they do. Except that as a result they don't have to pay as much out of the general fund for schools - it's not like they determine a realistic budget for schools, and then say "and we have $3 Billion extra from the lottery, so we're going to so these special projects this year."
Their idea is sound, but in three years it will just be another revenue source.
My question is if they'll try to pull a tobacco settlement out of this: tax the problem, then double dip by suing the product makers for the public healthcare costs.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Tax driving, because it can kill you.
Uh, I think a lot of counties and states do tax driving. Property taxes on vehicles, taxes in the form of registration, fines if you're caught without insurance (to pay for said deaths), the list goes on and on in that respect. So that's already been taken care of.
Tax running because it can cause joint problems.
In this case, I think any study would find that the benefits of running (on average) far outweigh joint problems. I'm pretty sure runners live a lot longer than non-runners and experience far less negative health effects than sedentary individuals.
Tax all non-"organic" foods because they contain neurotoxins.
It's for our own good.
You are so full of shit, it's hilarious. All non-"organic" food contains neurotoxins? Bananas? Potatoes? Horseshit. You know as well as I do that the FDA and a number of other watchdog groups keep their eyes on what you will actually find in a supermarket and that those pesticides and crap they do find are put through rigorous tests on other mammals to ascertain their safety. And, yes, the company responsible will find a very steep "tax" should that link ever arise -- just look at what happens in the cases of tainted produce that somehow make it through the processes involved to ensure they are safe.
What you don't seem to understand is that sweeteners have enjoyed an artificially low price due to subsidies and these subsidies are the reason why you can buy a big gulp at 7 eleven for pennies when there are 744 calories in that thing. Just like smoking, cities should be able to decide what measures need to be taken when lobbyist groups cause soda to be less expensive than water and this "tax" is actually an adjustment to reflect the true cost of these products. If you think that you're not being taxed already to pay for subsidies to make people fat that in turn drives up health care costs to everyone, you just can't comprehend the big picture.
Don't even get me started on how US corn subsidies and NAFTA have destroyed Mexico's farming and forced millions to turn to other crops like drugs.
My work here is dung.
I think drinking enough soda to become obese is terrible for you whether its made with HFCS or sugar.
If we really want to combat obesity (and not just childhood obesity), the single best thing we can do is take away farm subsidies. The cost of corn (and other things, of course) would double overnight, leading to a massive increase in the prices of unhealthy foods. Colas in particular would be hit hard since HFCS would no longer be so cheap. The key thing is that prices of soda won't necessarily go up, but serving sizes will go down. Notice how small the classic coca-cola bottles are? 6 fl oz. That's what people drank back in the day before subsidized corn allowed cheap sweeteners. Now we have 12 oz cans and 22 oz bottles available everywhere. That's what they did with the cheap sweeteners--they didn't lower the prices of colas, they just sold us more per unit.
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
For everyone furiously typing their post that includes words like "choice" "responsibility" and other good words you've cynically crafted in to politically charged euphamisims.
1. There is an obesity problem
2. It is linked to sugary drinks
3. The price of sugary drinks is artificially low due to government subsidies
4. Why do you support government handouts that hurt the public?
Ride a bike, pay more taxes.
Ride a motorcycle, pay double!
You like to bungee jump? What about parachuting? Rock climber? Do you walk in the city? Do you...
Its so easy to make other people pay isn't it, well it is when you have the force of government to make people do what is good for them. After all, you know what is good for them don't you. You should fear people who know what is good for you because your next.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Much like taxing cigarettes. If cigarettes are so bad for the individual (as the government states - and anyone with a fucking brain knows) why is the government in the cigarette business?
Because the government learned its lesson from Prohibition. Banning it doesn't work but taxing it does apparently mitigate the problem. If you can't beat 'em, tax 'em.
Taxing soda won't do anything but hand over more money to the government. It won't stop a thing and people know it.
Actually the really perverse bit is that sugar is subsidized by the government. A lot of the obesity problem we have arguably stem from that subsidy. So we're taxing something that we're subsidizing? Why not just eliminate the subsidy? You'll accomplish much the same thing with a lot less overhead.
Want to stop children drinking soda? then simply make it illegal for them to do so. (Which I don't agree with)
We tried something like that in the 1920s. Didn't work then. Won't work now.
So do I, but if we have twice as much sugar as they have fructose we are equally fucked if not more so. Fructose is itself is not the problem. Using a LOT of it is the problem, and a lot of cane sugar (sucrose) breaks down to half glucose (metabolised all over the place) and half fructose (liver only so bad news in large quanitites in small children).
Another part of the high fructose corn syrup problem is apparently that more is used than you would use cane sugar to get the same level of sweetness.
While the HFCS situation in the USA is an insane consequence of protectionism of their now tiny cane sugar industry (Brazil, Jamaca, Cuba etc could all sell the US cane sugar cheaper than HFCS), there are still a lot of people getting fat and apparently having liver problems in other parts of the world. Many Pacific islands have obesity problems approaching those of the USA on cane sugar.
That's pretty funny that you would invoke Orwell, who was a known Socialist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_orwell#Political_views
It makes me think you don't actually know what the word means, hmm? Or even what Animal Farm was about, which was more of a statement about the ills Stalinism and communism. But you know, go ahead and carry on about how much you don't know.
They might as well run a lottery for the same effect.
They've already been doing that for > 20 years.
I couldn't believe it when I was in the US last year, checking the bread section, not a single bread without high-fructose corn syrup! I don't think taxing sodas will fix the this deeper issue. Maybe it's easier to preach for some good old free market solution to fix this issue? "Factors for this include governmental production quotas of domestic sugar, subsidies of U.S. corn, and an import tariff on foreign sugar; all of which combine to raise the price of sucrose to levels above those of the rest of the world, making HFCS less costly for many sweetener applications." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup
"The rest of us" shouldn't have to pay for anybody's choices. How about everybody pays for their own healthcare expenses? Gosh, what a concept!
Tell me how well that works out for you when you have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for cancer treatment out of pocket.
We have insurance to spread the risk, not to encourage people to take stupid risks and make intentionally bad choices.
You commie liberals won't tell me what I can and cannot eat, drink, inhale, ingest, imbibe, consume, quaff, or absorb! I'm sick of government intrusion! So what if I drive up health care costs for everybody? I pay enough taxes already - too much in fact, for everything I get, without you whiny tards telling me what's good for me! If I want to sit on my front porch and eat an entire stick of butter in one sitting one day, you better stay the hell away! When I finally get up, if my knees can take it, you'll be looking down the barrel of my shotgun! YOU WILL TAKE MY FREEDOM BUTTER WHEN YOU PRY MY COLD DEAD FINGERS FROM IT !!!!1!!!!!
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
Aside from the f*cking nanny statist bullsh*t that this is, what's really wrong with it is that there's money involved. When the cigarette taxes were levied and sold to the uneducated electorate with the notion that the money would be spent on early childhood development programs or some other program, what they didn't realize is they just added to the parasitic economy. As cigarette sales dropped, so did the money available to spend on these programs which continued to grow. Then these same do-gooders whined that their precious bullsh*t social programs didn't have any money so other tax money had to be allocated to them which inevitable leads to higher taxes.
This scheme is no different.
However, the people of the city of Richmond, California have the right to decide if they want it, your anger not withstanding.
I think Richmond should work on crime first. Updating the roads, and schools before they start messing with what people can and can not drink. i mean really now. get with it people. -also not as big of a problem in Mexico where they DO NOT use High Fruitose Corn Suryp in their soads.. hmm makes you think. When did HFCS get big, yep you got it, in the 80s when New Coke came out. that was the first main brand drink in the US to use the HFCS junk. when they then moved back to coke classic they kept using the fake sugar and didnt go back to real sugar. since then has anyone else noticed how people are now getting larger and dying of more cancers?
Yes, this on the surface seems like an overreaching nanny state tax. Consider this though.
So what do you do about this? Let people eat up our healthcare system with obesity related illnesses (no pun intended), or try things out to fix the problem? The government has run educational programs before with little success. Taxing sugar almost seems like a reasonable alternative at this point.
the amount is too little.
The taxes should be based on something easier to calculate for the merchants.
a dollar for every groups of 12 ounce.
Making a soda cost 12 cents more for a can, won't do much.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
People are already paying $2.00 for a soda at restaurants when the restaurants get the same soda for $0.10
I really doubt forcing patrons to pay $2.32 will change anyone's behavior. And what about refills at fast food places? Honor bar (thus only those who carry change pay)?
An excess of a non-poison does not make it a poison.
Paracelsus: "Everything is poison, there is poison in everything. Only the dose makes a thing not a poison."
Set your phasers on "funky"!
How about instead of taxing them we end the god damn subsidies instead? The god damn corn farmers are ridiculously subsidized which is why we can afford super cheap soda with super cheap corn syrup in it. Soda so cheap because we paid for it with our tax dollars already! End the god damn subsidy instead of adding yet another retarded tax.
Same god damn gasoline. Oil producers are heavily subsidized, so our gas is only $3/gal because we collectively pay HUGE subsidies to the oil industry to make it cheap. On top of that there's a tax too! Why so complicated? Holy batman, end the god damn subsidies!
oh... and all these "taxed enough already" tea party fuckers are all for "reduce taxes, reduce government spending" are against cutting subsidies! A subsidy is a tax that we pay to private businesses. Oil subsidy = oil industry's tax on people. Corn farming subsidy = corn farmer's tax on people. Stupid.
subsidies are there to maintain a stable food market...and it works.
No, subsidies exist to feed money into corporate farms that in turn give their lobbying groups the edge to make sure that they come out turning taxpayer dollars into profit (often with negative or little disposition towards the family farms and little guys).
Soda are marginally cheaper because of it. Less then a penny a liter.
That's not true at all. To come to that conclusion, you're taking the billions of dollars that the federal government is paying out to farmers and dividing it across the number of servings in that time frame. But that's not the true net effect of what those subsidy dollars have on the industry. The market is literally flooded with corn now that ethanol subsidies have been put in place and removed. The price is going to plummet and you'll be able to make as much HFCS as you want for nothing. The amount the government put in to bait these farmers into this system is paltry compared to the effect it's going to have on the price of corn. You didn't even read the article I linked to, did you? A ton of people are producing corn right now thinking they're going to get a ton of money just like last year as that corn is turned into "green" ethanol and when that doesn't happen, HFCS will basically be free for soda manufacturers. Hell, the government (read: taxpayer) will probably end up paying (er, "incentivizing") again to prevent that corn from rotting in the fields.
"Don't even get me started on how US corn subsidies and NAFTA have destroyed Mexico's farming and forced millions to turn to other crops like drugs." Since it isn't true, there is nothing to start.
Citation granted. You don't realize it, but the poorest parts of Mexico are suffering from the above subsidies paid for on my and your dime.
My work here is dung.
Regulations like these enable businesses to have more productive employees without having to pay them more. We can pay workers enough to afford good food, or we can have the government artificially increase the price of bad food so that good food is cheapest. The poor will then be forced to divert some of their income from other areas (e.g. education, clothing, healthcare) to food, since there will be no cheaper options. In the words of Chesterton: "Without the trouble of adding twopence to her wages, he has added twopenny-worth to her food. In short, she has the holy satisfaction of being worth more without being paid more."
The mass of comments will be those saying this is some horrible government intrusion into their lives on the level of police cameras in their bathrooms.
Instead I view this as a valid experiment that the people of this city are conducting. Had they not wanted to conduct such a trial they would have elected other representatives. The wonderful thing about different levels of government is that we can test to see if this works or not. Just like we did with cigarette taxes.
Now carry on with your rants about how the government is stealing from you every time you buy a Coke even thought this single short lived experiment will have no impact on your life.
So you want to force people into a socialized system and then you want to berate them for making choices that hurt the community and exercising their own choices.
How about those who want to socialize everything have to suck it up and deal with a modicum of freedom that remains.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Councilman Jeff Ritterman, a doctor who proposed the measure, says soda is a prime culprit behind high childhood obesity rates in Richmond, where nearly 20 percent of residents live below the poverty line.
Really? So poor people have to drink soda because they can't afford water? Walmart shows a 24ct case of .5 liter water for $3.48 online. A quick look around my house found a Rite Aid pharmacy add for 3 12-can packs of Pepsi for just under $11 with a loyalty card. That comes out to roughly $3.66 per 12-can pack. Looks to me like water is actually in most cases cheaper than sugary drinks like soda. How about that.
Councilman Ritterman, listen up. You want to make people healthier, change their eating habits, ok. But don't say this is about "helping the poor". Because it's not. If you charge them more for soda, guess what? They're going to keep drinking soda, and be even poorer. The only people that might actually switch to water or something healthier are the people who can actually afford the tax already. If you want to make people healthier, you can't legislate it. You have to teach them, educate them about being healthy. Let me teach you a nice little rhyme that might help you. If you are trying to ban something or tax something to change people's behavior think of this: educate, don't legislate.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Instead of penny per ounce for sugar, a penny per pound being overweight? I don't see how building soccer fields and school gardens will help. Will kids drop their computer games and run off to play soccer and hoe the garden? Not if their parents don't kick their lazy assess to do so. If children are learning a poor nutrition life style at home, nothing will change that.
Instead this just seems like yet another attempt to push through a new tax by claiming it is good for something.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Wouldn't it be better just to ban HFCSes which is just damn right bad. Most sensible countries don't use it anyway. I don't drink sugary drinks in the US when I'm there anyway because HFCS gives me IBS. I also have to be very careful what I eat too. Its poisonous shit!
Taxing obesity would be a bad thing and quickly lead to a slippery slope of diminishing freedoms. When you advocate suggestions like these, you advocate eventual autocracy. No thank you! I don't see the harm in taxing these sugary beverages because they aren't a necessity for life. Water is! Taxing these beverages is better than increasing my property and income taxes.
So how about letting people be free people? A revolutionary idea, I know, I know. How about letting people decide what they want to eat, drink, who to fuck, when and where, whether they want to smoke or use drugs?
You say: it's a public thing, because of medical care? How about legalising freedom and letting people be free to make decisions on how to handle their health?
How about getting the gov't out of health care, health insurance, finances, money, interest rates, banking, social issues, labour and employment, regulating any business activity, licensing anybody for any purpose?
None of the above is any of governments' business, yet governments made it their business and the people allowed them to, and thus the people lost their freedoms and now see what this leads to - it's not JUST EPA and FDA and FCC and FDIC and HUD and SS and Medicare and FEMA and F&F and FED and IRS and FBI, it's also Patriot Act and HLS and FBI and CIA and NDAA and CISPA and ACTA and Drug War, etc.etc.
Gov't shouldn't be regulating anything that has anything to do with economy, the role of government is to PROTECT PEOPLE FROM THOSE WHO WANT TO VIOLATE THEIR RIGHTS, but the rights are only meaningful in the context of an individual and his relationship with the collective - with the government.
So when gov't talks about 'gay rights', the only thing that is meaningful in that context is how the government itself discriminates against people based on their sexuality. When gov't talks about women's rights, it is only meaningful in the context of women being discriminated by the government, same with minorities, races, religions, disabilities, etc.
The only meaningful concept of a 'right' is a that, which describes a person's relationship with the government - the government has no right to destroy a person, gov't has no right to steal from a person, gov't has no right to imprison a person unless the person is in violation of certain rules, and there is a JUDICIAL review (unlike what your AG wants to tell you, it MUST be a judicial review, not a review by some elite politicians before the State can kill you, take your property away from you or imprison you).
You see, the most important right of all is life, then it's liberty (not being detained, kidnapped, imprisoned) and then it's property.
All other rights pale in comparison to those 3 fundamental rights.
1. Without your life you don't exist, thus it's obvious.
2. Without your freedom your life doesn't exist, it's obvious.
3. Without your property, your life doesn't exist, it's obvious.
You can start understanding the right to property, once you understand right to your life and liberty, because your property starts with your BODY.
Your property starts with your body, with parts of your body. Unless you are the kind of person, willing to say that "from each, according to his ability, to each, according to his need", and then you are willing to use force to take away a kidney from a healthy person and give it to somebody with failing kidneys (all by force), then we can have a conversation. Once you cross that line, once you say that force can be used to steal body parts from one person so that another person can have those body parts, we can't have a discussion.
But if you admit that body parts represent ultimate property, then this can be used to explain the rest of property. It's not just stuff that is within your skin boundaries. The fruits of your LABOUR are your property without a question, because without your labour those things wouldn't exist, and thus you have the ultimate right to posses the output of your production. What you create is yours and gov't and society cannot steal from you just because you have created, and this must be understood under the same principle as the right to life and the right to liberty.
All other rights are irrelevant if any one of these 3 rights are violated.
So a State taxing a person's INCOME or WORK is violation of the basic principle of right to proper
You can't handle the truth.
Consuming sugar is known to greatly increase your risk of obesity
Not just obesity, but autism too. Both obesity and autism have soared in the last few decades. That is not a coincidence. Obese mothers are significantly more likely to have autistic kids. If they are obese enough to get diabetes while pregnant, the risk of autism doubles.
He's right though, and that scares you as the sheeple are slowly waking up and seeing what your type is trying to pull...
Sick of this shit? Move to New Hampshire. We had a state representative propose similar legislation here in 2010. It failed, in large part due to the work of the N.H. Liberty Alliance, and the rep herself lost her seat in the 2010 elections. The liberty movement here, largely through the NHLA, has helped elect about 30-40 pro-liberty reps to our State House (400 members total) and 4-5 senators (24 total), helped defeat hundreds of other anti-liberty bills, and helped get a handful of pro-liberty ones passed, too.
Liberty in your lifetime
Ok, then actually, we need to turn things around and tax people who try to live longer. No, seriously, the big cost in healthcare is end of life care. It is when you are old and everything just starts going wrong, particularly when you start suffering from mental problems like dementia. THAT'S what really costs. A guy who dies at 60 of a heart attack from being obese? Saved everyone a ton of money. Yes, during his life he cost more than someone who was in very good health, but by not living in to his 80s he saved a ton of money net.
This is all never mind retirement pay. It would be easy to fix SS if most people started dying before they needed to collect it. It could just pay out for disability, and for the rare retirement.
So if you want the taxes to align with the costs, then healthy living is what is going to be taxed. Those that do things that would lead to them living the longest will pay the highest taxes because they are the ones who are likely to cost the most.
If you don't like that idea because you are making the "right" choices, then maybe you need to rethink your premise. Seems to me like people want to "punish" people who they perceive to make the wrong choice, rather than set up something actually based on economics.
So some research, we know what the costs are in healthcare and it is that damn old age and end of life care that pushes it through the roof.
There's not a lot of difference. Most popular varieties of HFCS have 55% fructose (mostly used in soft drinks), or 42% fructose. Sugar is 50% fructose.
There has been a large exodus from CA. Granted this tax on soda is not the main cause, but all the taxes one everything are. CA really needs to get its own house in order. Look at what is going on. Taxing the people of the state more is not going to fix it. All the millionaires in the state have their funds elsewhere. They have a home in a lower tax state that is their primary residence so they do not have to pay income tax in CA. Look at why CA is massively in the red. Where are the funds going? It is not that hard to see. The people running that state need to stop worrying about getting votes and fix the issue. If they did fix the issue, there would be no need to worry about getting votes. The people would vote for those who did the fixing.
Nobody is saying they don't have that right as long as it ends at the city limits. But my point is still valid. Social engineering with no regard to the unintended consequences will fail every time. Instead of using the money to buy crap that will have to be maintained forever thus requiring more money and more government employees to manage it every year, IMHO, the money should be given back to every citizen in the form of a tax rebate.
"... and other sugary drinks," makes me curious about what this bill might evolve into decades down the road. Are we eventually going to be OK with cranberry juice, but not pineapple or apple juice, due to sugar content?
Also, regarding the "tax more for more unhealthy people if we're doing universal healthcare" argument (which I agree with in part), why not just require a standard health assessment that everyone has to take to get care, and assign costs based on the outcome of those tests? It's more or less what we have now with private care, except there's at least one player in the field not (as) interested in profit margin.
"...And who wants to make buttprints in the sands of time?" ~Bob Moawad
I agree.
And the citizens of Richmond who don't want it have the right to shop elsewhere to get their fixes...
And since the entire area around Richmond is urbanized, there will be plenty of places to choose from....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
A big thing that got people in to smoking was its status as a cool thing to do. It really lost that, for various reasons. Less people started smoking on account of that. That really is a big part of what gets people in to it. Everyone I knew as a kid that started smoking, which wasn't all that many people, did it because they perceived it is cool. I don't know anyone who started because it was so awesome or the like. However it was a counter-culture kind of cool, not a mainstream cool which is likely why there wasn't a ton who were interested.
The taxes may have helped, making it more expensive for people to start, but I think it is stupid to try and fully credit them. It was a combination of things, and no small part just being it became uncool.
If you think it takes a lot, clearly you don't understand any of the math involved.
Sugar subsidies and piss poor math education is a really bad combination.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Can't wait to tell my grand kids .
The Obesity Epidemic was awful, there was cheesecake and pork chops everywhere.
Grandpa what is "cheesecake" ?
Nobody is saying they don't have that right as long as it ends at the city limits. But my point is still valid. Social engineering with no regard to the unintended consequences will fail every time. Instead of using the money to buy crap that will have to be maintained forever thus requiring more money and more government employees to manage it every year, IMHO, the money should be given back to every citizen in the form of a tax rebate.
Perhaps the residents of Richmond, CA don't share your HO that what they buy with their tax money is crap.
Hey, kid, I'm glad you're reading. That's good. But what you're reading is absolute garbage. Here's a big point that you Ayn Randians seem to miss:
So a State taxing a person's INCOME or WORK is violation of the basic principle of right to property.
Property is defined by government, you realize, right? No government, no private property. Wrap your head around that one.
I don't respond to AC's.
Really?
Seems that the ones clamoring for everyone else paying for it are the ones spouting hateful attitudes.
http://twitchy.com/2012/06/06/kill-scott-walker-angry-libs-flood-twitter-with-death-threats-after-wisconsin-recall-defeat/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/police-investigating-death-threats-gov-scott-walker-recall-victory-article-1.1090894
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/06/Kill-Scott-Walker-Angry-Dems-Twitter
Yeah, it's unacceptable, all right. The problem is...he's not really being "hateful" and YOU and people like the above referenced links.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
...are...
*SIGH* Need more caffeine before posting on /.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
This should be insightful, as it applies logic to what's mostly treated as an emotional issue. I wish I had mod points and hadn't already posted.
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
Making soda more expensive can work a bit, but since the food & beverage budget of the average Joe is not a large part of his total budget, they will probably keep the habit and pay a bit more. It might have an effect on children, who have less money to spend.
What would really have an impact is forbidding advertisement of unhealthy products. Companies do advertisement because it works, i.e. it gets people to buy their products. If you want the opposite effect, ban ads for soda, candy bars, McDonald's just like cigarette ads are banned. Zero-cost, no-hassle solution for the government.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
... Things like butter and bacon.
Poor people eat imitation foods (usually made with "vegetable" oil), not because it's healthy, but because fake foods are the only possible way for Wall Street to get its share of all the money people spend on food.
Soda is immitation food too, but vegetable oil is much more fattening than sugar, or even mercury-contaminated hfcs.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
I never considered smoking because...I hated how my friends' houses all smelled because their parents were chain smokers...I saw how close my friend's mother came to dying when her lungs collapsed...I saw ads of people who had lost their voice, or had their finger nails turn yellow from the smoke...In essence the idea of smoking both grossed me out and scared me.
I don't think it ever crossed my mind that I shouldn't do it because it was 'too expensive'. When kids decide something is 'cool' I don't think the price tag is the foremost thought in their mind.
It's true, yes. But it's easier to do the act with HFCS than it is with sugars- and they're going to be MUCH more likely to become/be a Type II (which was changed from it's original definition because people following the American Diabetes Assn.'s dietary guidelines were getting worse...) because of the typical levels of Fructose in your system (which goes through differing metabolic pathways and doesn't have the same satiation triggers Sucrose has...) due to HFCS ends up playing merry hob with your endocrine system.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
They should ban the ads instead. It worked for tobacco so why not try it for unhealthy foods.
This is about increasing revenue, not our health.
ayottesoftware.com
you know those prepared dinners either frozen or in a box (kit) the ones that are loaded down with large quantities of HFCS, MSG and salt, those things are unhealthy and personally i consider borderline poisonous
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
yea i know are current government is done they know it so there going to do as much damage as they can before there kicked out of office. or the economy simply crashes.
This is nothing but a way to get more money to pay for CA's bloated government and debt..
Do you think they really care about you fatty?
If so, I have a bridge to sell you...
Have a look at the amount of sugar in an equivalent size can/bottle of fruit juice. It can have even more sugar than the soda. Are they going to tax fruit juice as well? How about all the foods that have sugar in them that aren't snack food? Have a look at food labels and ~gasp~ they have sweeteners!
Stop with the meaningless gestures that are nothing but tax grabs in the name of "Think of the children" already! If you want more tax money just say so and let the voters decide. Of course they may just decide to bounce your worthless butts out of public office so roll the dice and take your chances.
1. They are dumb
2. We know what's good for them
3. We can leverage the fact that they are poor to force them to do what we want
4. Those who don't do what we want IAW #3 just get poorer, and we don't care because we can blame that on the conservatives
To "Tax like cigarettes", the tax would need to be closer to 5cents per ounce.
It doesn't have to cost hundreds of thousands for cancer treatment. Outside the US, treatment for under 1/10 the US cost is possible. Outside of obsolete approved medicine, much better results *can be* obtained. Unfortunately the blare of the marketing machines keeps drowning out the real advances. Ordinary doctors can't be bothered, and in the US wouldn't have time/resources to "verify" them. I happen to be a researcher with real life examples utilizing others published research. Cheaper and better. Fascist medicine - state taxed, privateered medicine, is likely to cost a lot of lives. Already had some horrible family experiences with both Medicare and the cancer establishment - now they are "Living it up" without them.
LOL "hateful attitudes are not well received in America" Really , i think you are mistaken sir..Welcome to the land of the free and the pissed
~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
So if I choose to smoke.. and I have paid $2 per pack in taxes.. If I get cancer, then my treatment is all paid for.. Right ? .. I don't think so.. If I have insurance, whatever limits I have are used up, and then whatever else I have that can cover the costs are used up.. and then I either live or die with a huge debt.. Show me where that tax money really goes.. It goes to pay for commercials with coughing babies and old people smoking through their neck.. It does not go to pay for anybodies treatment.
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
My general feelings on taxes aside... we are talking about limited liability incorperated businesses. They operate under a legal fiction, I have no problem with regulating such entitites.
That said, there is a clear conflict of interest in all of this "Healthy living" regulation. Time and again, taxes have been proposed on specific "sins". The state runs the lottery, for one example. They ban all other gambling, and run the lotto. The original plan: we will specifically use the money the lotto takes in for schools. Great idea... you take some money from a vice, and use it to fund something positive.
The problem is, you put the money in the hands of the people who write the regulations. So it was schools, but now it funds other programs, including prisons.
Hell you don't even need the "sin". Income is taxed for social security. It was intended to be a seperate "trust fund". Why? To create trust. To keep it safe, to make it seperate from the normal budget....
Now? Well the people in charge of the regulating just go and buy bonds from themselves with the money. A violation of trust if any other trustee of any other trust fund were to do it... now SS is backdoored into the general budget, defeating the entire purpose of the seperate tax and fund.
Anyone else see the conflict of interest here? This will just be more of the same.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Take your packet of sugar and pour it into the can.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Sugar is actually sucrose.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Filtered Water is $0.25/gallon where I live... of course, you provide your own container.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
No wonder the free market is doing so well in this country. With all this rampant socialist policy being vomited out of the bay area, what direction are we moving in here. Honestly, I absolutely do not believe society has any right to impose taxes and laws on individual freedoms for an individuals "greater good". Health and personal well being are intrinsically at the whim of an individual, and trying to control that is ridiculous. I mean, look, heroin shouldn't be legal, but, if some dude wants to drink 10 cokes a day, which some other person drinks 10 coke waters (disani?), how is it right to tax the coke drinker more. Because they choose to drink something that contains a lot of sugar? Really? I'll take a happy meal in a plastic bag please, add a mega-sized mountain dew, and finish it up with a cigarette: all while you suck my balls San Fran.
The other day at the gorcery store I actually noticed that some of the bread proudly proclaimed that it was HFCS free. I don't usually buy bread at the grocery store but I needed bread crumbs for something I was going to make so I had to journey down that isle. It seems that this is becoming a selling point as I have seen more products advertising that.
Time to offend someone
Libertarians (at least on paper) won't like Costa Rica - they have one of the highly-ranked universal health care systems in the world, and their gas prices are set by the government (same price in every station in the country).
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
Old news. West Virginia has had a tax on carbonated soft drinks since the 1960's. Purpose: to help fund the WVU Health Center.
1. Costa Rica is not a libertarian paradise, although they have abolished their army.
2. Costa Rica really is very very nice if not quite a paradise
Before the election, when they went anywhere public they were wearing clear safety glasses over their eyes, even the kids! They were afraid of some left lunatic throwing something at them.
All good things in life are immoral or illegal or highly taxed.
So toxic, yet it can also be used medicinally. Nature is strange.
Maybe its the lack of exercise they get instead of what they eat/drink...
State's schools found skimping on PE classes
Less than 20 minutes a day at majority of districts reviewed
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
since most smokers start when they are young, stupid and haven't yet figured out that they are mortal. If you can stop them from getting addicted then, the odds are they won't start smoking later.
does not mean that the grownups have to. My young children had temper tantrums when we made them do things that they don't want to also. that doesn't mean that they were right, or that we let them get away with anything though.
as soon as you fork over the extra money we'll probably have to pay out for your self-induced illnesses. If we were fortunate enough to have junkies like you kick the bucket quickly, they you might have a point.
take a look at where the poverty level is and where the cap is. They are nowhere near each other. Maybe once you start working for a living you'll figure that out.
*SIGH* Need more caffeine before posting on /.
Yeah, a nice cold can of Mountain Dew sounds refreshing right about now :-)
http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
Adam Smith - An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of The Wealth of Nations
My country has free health care (well, you pay something, max $350 a year, but only if you can afford it and beyond that it's free)
No you most certainly don't, any more than any nation has free roads or free public education. What you have is tax-funded health care. You may not pay when you visit a clinic, but unless your health care system runs on slave labor you are all certainly paying.
makes it sound like one of the sugar sodas that they are thinking of taxing IS cigarettes,lol
For a moment, I thought the title of TFS was "California City May Make Sugary Drinks Taste Like Cigarettes," and my mind nearly exploded at the thought of the concept.
Kid-proof tablet..
You didn't look hard enough. My household doesn't buy bread with more than a few ingredients, and I've never shopped in a grocery store where I couldn't find a loaf to buy. But, yes, they put a lot of shit in a lot of breads.
She was seen eating a big cheesburger, oh no she's a hypocrite telling everybody to eat healthy while she enjoys a fat cheeseburger herself!
Uh, no. If you generally eat healthy and exercise, a cheeseburger once in a while is not a bad thing. Damn, people, let the lady enjoy a cheeseburger.
First they came for the smokers, but I did not smoke. I did nothing. Then they came for the HFCS soda drinkers, but I was diabetic. I did nothing. Then they came for the diet soda drinkers, artificial sweeteners supposedly cause cancer, I did nothing. Then they came for the delicious but makes to too fat foods, I enjoyed salads, I did nothing. Then they came for the fish eaters, with stories of mercury,
Tonight's dinner: Bread and Water. (And they are looking at the bread suspiciously)
Each food taken, is liberty taken. When they decide for us, we are made children who can not decide for ourselves.
Until the neighboring cities see what a great success this is and institute their own tax.
Have you ever been hungry and poor? I'll explain for those of you, particularly the good doctor, who haven't had the enlightening experience. You count your change to see if you have enough to buy a soda.
(||) Nehmo (||)
Yes, of course. Because, while the human body is simply unprepared for this unnaturally refined corn sugar, it is totally primed for unnaturally refined cane sugar.
Do the people who rail against HFCS and for sugar have any freaking clue what the actual difference between them is?
Here's the details on HFCS from, where else, wikipedia.
Meanwhile, granulated white sugar is 100% sucrose. What's the difference? Your body has an enzyme (sucrase) that breaks sucrose into fructose and glucose. So, HFCS can be absorbed modestly more quickly, but otherwise they are just the same. Another fun fact. Honey, which everyone knows is a much healthier option (it's made by busy bees after all) is 50% fructose, 44% glucose, which makes it almost identical to HFCS.
The real problem with these sugars is that we evolved to eat our sugars in a package with fiber and vitamins as well. Apples are high in fructose, glucose, and sucrose, but you're much healthier eating an apple than a spoon full of HFCS with white sugar mixed in.
First I've heard that bit of science. Good to know.
So if a drink is sweetened with sucrose is there no tax then?
How about those "sweetened" with artificial sweeteners?
My children used to think that they could distract the adults with irrelevancies also. they grew out of it. What's your excuse.
If it pleases humans, take it away by making it illegal or tax it. *
"Nobody is saying they don't have that right as long as it ends at the city limits"
Actually, I've never seen a tax libertarians have liked. Jurisdiction doesn't matter.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Soft-Core Fascism isn't advanced via swinging batons or unjust arrests, it pilfers our liberties and property rights one little nibble and sip at a time, with occasional big gulps. Just as the Supreme Court will toss out Obamacare for lack of a limiting principle, the social engineering bans and taxes on our food should be tossed. If government is allowed to ban or tax food choices to coerce or discourage behavior, what stops them from taking that same logic and forcing mandatory yoga in the town square? How about a national bedtime? How about a minimum required amount of broccoli with each meal? Sound absurd? Well, so did the transfat ban in NYC. So does the 16 OZ. drink size limit being contemplated in NYC. Funny how liberals and progressives get excited about the fact that tax incentives and disincentives matter - when their agenda demands it, yet.....when we speak of keeping tax rates lower to raise revenue, they become mathematically challenged. The Laffer curve is real, whether we're talking about discouraging smoking or encouraging economic activity, investment, and jobs growth.
Cigarette taxes don't go entirely to smoking reduction programs. They also go to increasing the funding of "State Children's Health Insurance Program". The point is not to eliminate smoking but to fund programs that have nothing to do with them. If all smokers stopped buying cigarettes the poor children will DIE ! Taxes only go to fund more and more government BLOAT !
Imagine if all sugary drinks sold had to be above 80 ounces. Who would buy them, except quasi suicidal fatties?