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.
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)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Walmart shows a 24ct case of .5 liter water for $3.48 online.
or from, you know, the tap, for almost nothing. (I realize it's not free, but even living in a drought-ridden state I am paying well under $10/1000gal which means a gallon of water is under $0.01)
In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
There is a ton of pseudo-science going around related to autism (thanks to Andrew Wakefield and his stripper buddy). I've never heard this claim before - do you have a source that involves actual science?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
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
... 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
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.
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"