San Francisco Soda Tax

"H.L." wrote in message
...


I think staying out of peoples lives and leaving them free to choose
is what's fine.

Not when the soda companies won't do that. The amount of advertising
that people are subject to is so big. Government intervention is just a
way to level the playing field. Besides, it does not seem to work that
well, does it? You can't reasonably state that American health is moving
in the right direction.


Well, HL, I hope you find someplace to move where the government where big
brother can control you and all your friends. That'd kill two birds with one
stone :-)

On Dec 26, 9:37 am, "H.L." wrote:
wrote:

On Dec 25, 10:27 am, "H.L." wrote:
wrote:

So, when I point out that your logic that it's cool for the govt to
encourage more children runs counter to saving the planet and that a
number of your other arguments, like the war on drugs make no sense,
it suddenly becomes personallty charged posts? That's a convenient
excuse. So, tell me, exactly how much hasgasconsumption decreased
in the USA as the price went from $1.20 to $3.00?

You can't ask the question in that way. Increase in the overall economy
and higher incomes has offset the effects of the tax increase. $3.00
today is not the same as $3.00 twenty years ago. The point to ask is if
the total amount ofgasconsumed would be the same if the price was
$1.20 today compared to if it is $3.00. Do you honestly believe that it
would be the case?

Hello? The move ingaspricesfrom $1.20 to $3.00 had nothing to do
with any tax increase. There was no tax increase. It was due to
the market price of a barrel of oil going from $30 to $90 a barrel in
a relatively short time span.

Hello again? How out of touch are you? One of the big bitches has
been the huge number of SUVs that consumer moregasand are on the
road today. We are talking about the USA aren't we? Where do you
live? They are a huge percentage of the traffic here in the NYC
area.

I have now checked the connection between fuel economy, gasoline price
and inflation. The inflation adjusted price forgasfrom 1979 to 2007
can be found athttp://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/adjusted.txt. It
was at its highest in 1981, fell back to about one half of it during
mid-1980's and has started rising again in the latest years. Looking at
figures for fuel economy, the average American vehicles has about 60 %
better fuel economy than what they did in the 1970's. The major
improvement occurred whengaspricesrose sharply in the 1970's. Whenpricesthen retreated, overall average fuel economy stood still (in
spite of all SUVs, it did not become notably worse) until a small rise
has been noted in 2005. As you can see, whenpricesrose as most, people
started demanding less fuel consuming cars. We are still not back to the
1981 price level when inflation has been adjusted for. My point is that
price has an influence on people's behaviour. The number mentioned is a
figure for a small raise of the price. The curves are not linear.

I'd like to see the details on that. Sure some states have sales
taxes that apply to all food or beverages. Some states have deposits
on bottles and cans. I'd like to see the states that have similar
taxes, targeted at soda with high fructose corn syrup. BTW, I live in
NJ, and there is no such tax here.

Yes, there is. Sales tax in New Jersey applies since 1966 on sweetened
soft drinks and candy, but not on other types of foods. You pay an extra
bit to the state when you buy a Coke, but not if you go with milk.
Please checkhttp://www.njpp.org/rpt_salestax.html. When was the last
time that you saw anyone drive out of state to stock up?



Hmmm, where are your scientific studies that show a tax on high
fructose soda has worked to reduce diabetes? Worked to reduce
obesity, or anything else? An example of how you interpret
"scientifc studies", is how you somehow came to the conclusion that
the rise in gasoline from $1.20 to $3.00 was the result of a tax and
by your own source, should have reducedgasconsumption 90%. Could
anyone be farther out of touch? Yet, "people like you", want to
impose what your think you know on the rest of us for our own good.
And yes, I reject big nanny govt.

I have shown that a price increase caused by a tax increase will lower
the consumption and also possibly alter the output. If you think that
soft drinks is a cause of diabetes which is also shown by several
studies, I would have to think that people can avoid diabetes and
obesity by switching to other beverages.

I find it interesting that you present nothing in terms of references
to prove your points. You just have your belief and assume that it is
right, although research and statistics show something else. Then you go
to personal attacks on my character.

Please provide your ideas on what to do about American diabetes levels.
I acknowledge that taxes are not perfect, but if they have help people
improve their health and in the end saves a few lives, it is more than
doing nothing will achieve. Perhaps you think that the current trends
are fine.



I can give you other references showing that the taxes on tobacco has
helped lower smoking rates. People smoke less now than what was the case
before the governments intervened. Few argue that it is really bad.
Again, it is an ideological issue on whether the results justify the
actions. I think that anyone who quits smoking, avoids cancer and gets a
longer life is glad that the government in different ways pushed them in
that direction.

I will give it to you on a plate. I finally managed to find a study on
the effects of the already existing taxes on soft drinks athttp://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~ntefft/research/snack_tax_draft_1.pdf. The
conclusions read "Thus, I find evidence that the two prominently
discussed goals for policy makers, namely a reduction in snack food
consumption and an increase in revenues available for nutrition
education programs, are likely achieved through a tax on soft drinks. "
I will trust a guy doing a Ph. D. in economics unless you can point to
any studies showing the opposite. Do you think that American
universities are also lying? You have yet to suggest anything to reduce
the onslaught of diabetes in America. The easiest position is to be
against all ideas.

The conclusion of this "study", states:

"The main result is that, approximating across estimates, a one
percentage point increase in the effective tax rate induces an
increase in soft drink expenditure of 0.5%."

So, if we take the sales tax on soda from 7% to 20%, that's a 13%
increase. Assuming this study is correct, (and that is a very big
assumption), that translates into a reduction in soft drink
expenditures of 6.5%. Big deal. The logical next step for "guys
like you" is to then say, well that didn't do much, so let;s raise the
tax to 50% and keep on going.

I say:

1 - Try to distill this kind of data out of the economy is like
reading tea leaves. And I'm not impressed with some PHD in
economics. Have you ever tracked any forecasts made by economists?
They can't even tell you you're in a recession until 6 mths after it's
happened.

2 - People are smarter than you think and will figure out ways around
your tax. And some of those ways may lead to even worse effects.
You stated you didn't think people would go outside SF to buy soft
drinks. That's laughable. Many people will just stop along 101 and
buy it there when they are down that way at Costco or Sams club Or
go across the GG bridge and buy it there. They'll load up on cases at
a time. So, do you think cases of soda sitting in the house just
might lead to MORE consumption?
Or they mix up a big old pitcher of kool aid with good old sugar in
it, because it's now cheaper. Want to tax that too? Or they shove
another Big Mac into their mouth, and are as fat as ever.

3 - Leave people free to choose.

I work retail cashier at supercenters of high traffic in NC, and only
recently started noticing the increased sales tax on all drinks and
foods. Reference: I ring up people every night, 5 nights a wk, full
time.
People who work are cutting down what they buy, cutting out things
they like, to now get by. Guess thats healthier.
However, occasionally Ill see 2-3 buggies full of groceries, junk, and
know they aren't gonna pay with cash. EBT is the governments program/
solution to feeding families in need. Only now families are using this
to make up for the taxes imposed on whatever they target for whatever
reason.
I sit back and have cut all my grocery expenses to great value prices.
What am I eating today, Nutrition bars. Yep healthy for me. There goes
all my luxuries of good USA solutions. When do I drive, only to work
and back, thats been my life now since this gas increase and I drive a
supposed fuel economic civic. I drive only 3 miles a day round trip.
For a cashier, I earn about 3bucks over min wage and its hard for me
to get by. I pay half the rent cause I have a roommate, and have no
other bills but basic food and rent. Its scary to think how people of
min wage are getting by.
Another govt solution has been increasing wages, as taxes are
increased. Is this a trick. Raise taxes to deter purchases of tobacco
products and then raise wages to allow them to purchase it again. Only
taxes have increased much higher than the wage increase. Poor get
poorer and rich well, become mid class. Poor cant go out no more, and
rich continue to do as they please. Less people on the streets, more
to just vegetate their new healthy lives.
Maybe my mind is all over the place. I was never into politics, until
I started working and thought, man, I should get on welfare. I hear
young girls shopping discussing to boyfriends about having a child
just so they can feed themselves. No longer thinking of the childs
education. Maybe they are, but Ive even been flirted with about this
topic and I wasnt comfortable with where are system is leading
America.
Not saying solution is lower taxes, just saying all these increases
are taking away freedoms. Freedom for food.
Do you like Krispy Cremes, they no longer in CA, because of health
issues. I grew up there, and never ate much then cause I came from
lower brackets of income, but now, its not an option anymore. Im not
overweight as I stated Nutrition bars, but thats going a bit far.
Ever watch that movie, "equilibrium". Yep Cause is a bit better than
total govt monopoly.

On Dec 26, 11:25 pm, "H.L." wrote:
Along the way, did you figure out that the rise in the cost of gas
from $1.20 to $3.00 had nothing to do with taxes, as you previously
posted? And this proves exactly what? People are still driving
SUV's that get lower mileage. The price of gas has tripled and it's
done little to reduce consumption. We import more oil today than ever
before.

I did not originally post that the rice was due to taxes. It was a
quote from another poster.

Below is my post and your reply where you referred to the rise in
price of gas being due to a tax. And it's the only reference I'm
aware of that says the rise in gas prices was due to a tax, which of
course it was not:

So, when I point out that your logic that it's cool for the govt to
encourage more children runs counter to saving the planet and that a
number of your other arguments, like the war on drugs make no sense,
it suddenly becomes personallty charged posts? That's a convenient
excuse. So, tell me, exactly how much has gas consumption decreased
in the USA as the price went from $1.20 to $3.00?

" You can't ask the question in that way. Increase in the overall
economy
and higher incomes has offset the effects of the tax increase."





It is not really relevant what causes the
price increase anyway. Please feel free to checkhttp://www.marke****ch.com/news/story/whats-happened-cheap-gasoline/s...
for a story on how the use of gasoline is much lower in countries with
higher taxes and prices and that consumption in the U.S. also will fall
with time with a price at current levels. I expect you to again say that
a professional consultant with 30 years of experience is wrong. You have
already ridiculed a study published at about.com and assumed that a
person doing a Ph. D. in economics at a major American could not get it
right. Please provide any references or statistics proving that your
points are more true.



You keep referring to that cherished study as if it were the rosetta
stone. And you're overly impressed by credentials of some guy you
don't know with a PHD who did one little paper. What do you think
the late patriot Milton Friedman who was a Nobel laureate would think
of the soda tax? Or Arthur Laffer?

Let's see what the guy who wrote it actually says in the paper itself:

" Empirical Strategy
I use a reduced form estimation approach to calculate the effects of
snack tax rates on household per capita expenditure. There are two
reasons for this. First, there is not enough data available to
estimate a structural model. Usually, a structural approach entails
solving a utility maximization problem and estimating the equations
thus derived. However, since the solution to the utility maximization
problem (and the more common price elasticity of demand calculation)
are expressed in terms of prices and quantities, I cannot use this
strategy. This is because, first, the Consumer Expenditure Diary
Survey (CEDS) does not record quantities and, second, an appropriate
price index for soft drinks is not available.1 As a result, a reduced
form linear approximation of the relationship between expenditure and
tax rate with covariates is the most convenient approach available."


So, like much of economics, it's a big fat estimation. If you take
some economics courses, you'll find that economists are very good at
writing partial differential equations that relate a whole bunch of
variables in the economy. The only problem is that neither they nor
anyone else can tell you if the coefficient in front of variable X, Y,
or Z should be .1 or .4

There are a couple of other things to note in your reference though:

"Second, a reduced form approach is in some sense more appropriate a
measure from a policy perspective. For policy makers who are
interested only in raising revenues through implementation of a snack
tax, the appropriate measure is indeed the tax elasticity of
expenditure. Indeed, Jacobson and Brownell (2000) reiterate the common
belief that taxes will not have a large effect on consumption, so they
claim that the major concern for policy makers is the revenues raised
from such a tax."

So, the author himself seems to acknowledge that politicians are only
interested in raising revenue.

"One source of concern is that individuals who have a consistently
high intake of sugar, saturated/trans fats, and (or) calories are more
commonly at risk for diet-related diseases."

Note that your PHD has sat fat right there on his list with sugar as
targets of opportunity. But of course, you say, when they come to
put the tax on steak, you "hope" logic will prevail, which is
incredibly naive.





Smoking has gone down from 44 % of he population in 1964 to 23 % in
1997. Do you think that government intervention aided by taxes could
have anything to do with that? The experts seem to think that they
actually do. I quotehttp://no-smoking.org/sept02/09-16-02-2.htmlas "In
general, price increases are the most cost-effective anti-smoking
intervention" from a university professor andhttp://www.tobaccofreekids.org/Script/DisplayPressRelease.php3?Displa...
for another study . I acknowledge that they admit that take the money to
cover deficits. Nevertheless, it works on s state level in the U.S. .
Soda can't really be that different.

We all know that raising the price of something reduces consumption.
It's economics 101. The questions are, how much do you have to raise
it before there is any real effect? How will people avoid it? (In
the case of the SF soda, tax it's obviously very easy avoidable.
People can load up at Costco outside the city) And is it the govts
role to force people into eating what the govt says they should? What
unintended effects may it have?

In the case of cigarettes, most of the alleged reduction in smoking is
calculated in the usually flawed way. They look at the cig tax
revenue collected in a state before the tax was raised and after.
They assume everyone is too stupid to figure out how to load up on
cartons of cigarettes while in a neighboring state. Or how to buy
them from an Indian reservation. Or order them over the internet.
Or buy them on the black market. So, the state cig tax revenue went
down and they count that as a reduction, when many people, especially
the high volume smokers, are just buying them somewhere else.

In NJ, the tax on cigarettes is now around $3 a pack and they go for
over $5 a pack. Has that discouraged some smoking? Sure. Did
the govt use the money to provide free stop smoking seminars, free
nicotine patches? No, it went right into the general revenue to fund
more big govt.

So, is this what you're advocating? A can of Coke is now 40 cents at
the grocery store. How much do guys like you think it should be?
$2, $5?







Wrong again. It was in 2005 that the general sales tax, which already
applied to most things bought in this state, was extended to some
additional items, that included soft drinks.

You did not answer my previous question. When is the last time that
anyone that you know drove out of New Jersey to stock up on soft drinks?
I agree with you about the difficulty of drawing the line.

As far as demanding answers to every question, you seem very selective
in choosing what you want to respond to. I've answered a whole lot
more of your questions than you have of mine.

To answer this one, I suspect few people are driving anywhere to avoid
the 7% sales tax on soft drinks, which already applies to most
everything we buy. At the same time, I doubt it has had any affect
on soft drink sales either. And I can guarantee you there are just as
many fat people, and just as many people with diabetes in NJ as there
was before the tax. You'd have to make it draconian and have it
apply to all similar products. It's laughable that in the NJ tax
code it specifically talks about which products are still exempt from
the sales tax and lists Kool Aid with sugar as an example that is
exempt. Good example of sound public policy, right?

And you don't agree with me about the difficulty in drawing the
line. I wouldn't have to draw the line, because I'd leave people
free to choose, instead of trying to scam them with a tax like this
period.






Yes, I'm sure when those folks in SF switch to Kool Aid powder and
drink it instead of a Coke it's going to cure diabetes. And when
they load the house up with 6 cases of soft drinks at a time, bought
at Costco or a supermarket just outside the city, I'm sure that will
do a lot to cut their consumption too. If anything, it may increase
it, because now they have 6 cases of soda sitting around to look at.

Are you in New Jersey doing all these things?

Again, with a 7% tax that already applies to most everything else,
no. But then no one I know is drinking any less soft drinks
either. In the case of raising a tax to draconian levels, like
cigarettes, yes, of course smokers are doing exactly that.


That's where you just don't get it. You think the world is static
and if you tax something it will solve problems and have the intended
result. In reality, people are a lot smarter than you think they are
and will quickly figure out ways around your petty little taxes. And
you also think that every time you see something that isn't quite
right in the world, the answer is govt can take some action, raise a
tax, create a new program, and fix it.

Please provide anything proving that this will actually happen.



Here's a good website, where they talk about getting around the tax
and sell cigarettes online:

http://www.discountcigarettesbox.com...rettes107.html

And here's a newspaper article about the effects of the cigarette tax
in CA:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...12fleenor.html

Here's an excerpt:

"The answer, of course, is taxes. Federal and state cigarette tax
hikes have turned a pack of cigarettes into a gold mine for criminals,
spawning a massive black market that makes it easy for thieves to
quickly unload stolen cigarettes for cash.

The San Diego group's luck ran out with an arrest in April 2001, but
similar gangs across California and smugglers all over the world are
eagerly awaiting a Yes on Proposition 86, which would double, triple
or quadruple their profit margins.

In addition to encouraging theft, high cigarette taxes have led to
staggering levels of cigarette smuggling into the state and casual tax
evasion by consumers. The Board of Equalization has the tough
assignment of enforcing cigarette taxes, and it admits that about 300
million untaxed packs are sold in California each year despite
requiring elaborately printed tax stamps to be affixed to each pack.

When deciding whether to vote Yes on Proposition 86 to raise the
state's cigarette tax from 87 cents to $3.47, the nation's highest
rate, Californians should weigh the severe law enforcement problems
that come with being the preferred destination of cigarette
smugglers.

New York City is currently that destination, with a tax of $3, and
cigarette bootleggers work the streets just like drug dealers.

Before his murder in November 2003, teenager Cody Knox usually sold
bootleg cigarettes on the corner of Fulton and Nevins streets in
Brooklyn. Naively acting as if he were in a legitimate business, he
cut his price and expanded his territory. Nearby street dealers showed
Knox where price cutting can lead in a black market - they stabbed him
to death. Prosecutor Anna-Sigga Nicolazzi stated the obvious at the
trial of one of his murderers, "Obviously he wasn't happy about (the
competition)."


That's what your cigarette tax gets you along with reduced
consumption.





I didn't attack your character. You seem to be ashamed of who you
are. If someone said to me, you're a conservative who believes in
limiting the size of govt, limiting govt spending, and leaving people
free to choose, I'd say, "Right!".

As far as references, see the example of what transpired in NJ.
Despite more tax revenue than ever, the govt is still broke, spending
is out of control, people are still eating whatever they like,
diabetes is the same and the politicians are looking for the next easy
tax target.

You don't know about the effects on the sales of soft drinks or
diabetes. Perhaps there was a small change, which still may have been
important for some sufferers. How come it has worked with cigarettes?

It's had some success with cigarettes because they raised the tax to
$3 to $4 a pack. Is that what you're proposing people should pay for
a soda?

It's astonishing at your low level of justification for govt intrusion
into people's freedom. Your bar apparently is any control is cool as
long as "perhaps there was a small change, which may have been
important for some sufferers."
'






I think staying out of peoples lives and leaving them free to choose
is what's fine.

Not when the soda companies won't do that. The amount of advertising
that people are subject to is so big. Government intervention is just a
way to level the playing field. Besides, it does not seem to work that
well, does it? You can't reasonably state that American health is moving
in the right direction.

Your condescending attitude toward the average American is typical.
They are so stupid that they are just manipulated pawns. They should
lead their lives and eat what you think is right and be coerced into
it by nanny govt.

Also, you look at everything as all bad. In fact, 100 years ago, the
average lifespan was 30 years less than it is today. Sure, people
could be eating healthier. They would live even longer and have less
disease. But I don't see it as the govts role to force it's citizens
to eat what they say they should/

BTW, you demanded an answer to one your questions that you didn't
think I answered. I gave it. Now, I'd like to hear your answer to
what you think about the examples I gave you of what govt previously
told us to eat. In the 70's, they said to switch to margarine
instead of butter, because sat fat was bad for you. So, it turns out
people started eating margarine made from transfat.

More recently, the govt conveyed the message that fat was bad and
people should eat cereal, potatoes, pasta, rice, etc, so they loaded
up on carbs and got fatter then ever. Neither of these was done with
a tax, but today, it's not to far fetched to see that it could easily
be advocated by guys like you and passed into law

So, how can you advocate having the govt coerce people into eating
what the govt says is good for you? Does the govt say LC is good?
Why not tax that too?




They could spend money on more advertising outlining the dangers of
eating too much sugar. They could do more education of school
kids.

I would be all for that idea. Where do you get the money from? The
revenue from a soda tax would be one way to raise them.

How about getting it from some other govt program? If I had one law
I could pass, it would be a constitutional amendment to put an
absolute limit on the total amount of taxes that could be generated by
govts at all levels, calculated as some metric of GDP, personal
income, etc. It's the one big hole in our freedoms that the founding
fathers missed. Every year govt grows bigger and tax more of our
freedoms through taxes. I'm sure you've seen the yearly estimates of
how long each year the average American must work to pay taxes. I
think it's currently out to somewhere in May.

Below is my post and your reply where you referred to the rise in
price of gas being due to a tax. *And it's the only reference I'm
aware of that says the rise in gas prices was due to a tax, which of
course it was not:

So, when I point out that your logic that it's cool for the govt to
encourage more children runs counter to saving the planet and that a
number of your other arguments, like the war on drugs make no sense,
it suddenly becomes personallty charged posts? * That's a convenient
excuse. * So, tell me, exactly how much has gas consumption decreased
in the USA as the price went from $1.20 to $3.00?

" You can't ask the question in that way. Increase in the overall
economy
and higher incomes has offset the effects of the tax increase."

Taxes are a part of the price of gasoline. Again, it is not really
important to a consumer if the price rise is caused by a tax increase
or
another factor. I assumed that the rise was at least partly because of
a tax rise. I was wrong. On the other hand, I was right about cars
having become more
fuel efficient from the 1970's with enormous price increases as a
response to consumer demand going down. In spite of all the SUVs, it
has stood still largely since 1981. Remember that gas is still
relatively cheap compared to household incomes and to other countries.
It is not even back to 1981 levels in inflation adjusted numbers. I
expect demand to start falling if the prices rise even more.

Note that your PHD has sat fat right there on his list with sugar as
targets of opportunity. * But of course, you say, when they come to
put the tax on steak, you "hope" logic will prevail, which is
incredibly naive.

Perhaps. I think that sugar is more clearly established as a factor
in diseases these days than fat. The Atkins books are after all
bestsellers.

We all know that raising the price of something reduces consumption.
It's economics 101. *The questions are, how much do you have to raise
it before there is any real effect? * How will people avoid it? *(In
the case of the SF soda, tax it's obviously very easy avoidable.
People can load up at Costco outside the city) * * And is it the govts
role to force people into eating what the govt says they should? *What
unintended effects may it have?

This is a political debate rather than a discussion concerning health
and probably belongs in an alt.politics group. I think that the
government should do somehting when levels of an illness levels run
rampage. I see it as stopping some companies from "poisoning" people
by promoting, marketing and selling unhealthy
products without worrying about the consequences.

In the case of cigarettes, most of the alleged reduction in smoking is
calculated in the usually flawed way. * They look at the cig tax
revenue collected in a state before the tax was raised and after.
They assume everyone is too stupid to figure out how to load up on
cartons of cigarettes while in a neighboring state. * Or how to buy
them from an Indian reservation. * Or order them over the internet.
Or buy them on the black market. *So, the state cig tax revenue went
down and they count that as a reduction, when many people, especially
the high volume smokers, are just buying them somewhere else.

Smoking across the board has been halved in about thirty years, not
counted as revenue, but in percentage of
people who smoke. Is that an alleged reduction calculated in a flawed
way? I could find it at several sources.
What figures do you have on American smoking rates? I would be glad to
see them.

In NJ, the tax on cigarettes is now around $3 a pack and they go for
over $5 a pack. * *Has that discouraged some smoking? * Sure. *

Yes, it did.


So, is this what you're advocating? * A can of Coke is now 40 cents at
the grocery store. * How much do guys like you think it should be?
$2, $5?


It is hard to say. I think that the levels where you and most other
states have the tax at would make
it at $0.45 to $0.50 . It would at least mean that some switched to
unsweetened beverages. Again, other actions will also be necessary.
This is still a step towards better health for some.


To answer this one, I suspect few people are driving anywhere to avoid
the 7% sales tax on soft drinks, which already applies to most
everything we buy. * At the same time, I doubt it has had any affect
on soft drink sales either. *And I can guarantee you there are just as
many fat people, and just as many people with diabetes in NJ as there
was before the tax. * You'd have to make it draconian and have it
apply to all similar products. * It's laughable that in the NJ tax
code it specifically talks about which products are still exempt from
the sales tax and lists Kool Aid with sugar as an example that is
exempt. Good example of sound public policy, right?

That's a bad example. I don't agree with that way of setting it up. It
does not destroy the entire idea.


Again, with a 7% tax that already applies to most everything else,
no. * But then no one I know is drinking any less soft drinks
either. * In the case of raising a tax to draconian levels, like
cigarettes, yes, of course smokers are doing exactly that.


Did you read the above post from a cashier?




That's what your cigarette tax gets you along with reduced
consumption.

It does not say anywhere in there that overall consumption has not
dropped. It has, and I can give you many official figures for it.
Please provide some statistics to the opposite.



It's had some success with cigarettes because they raised the tax to
$3 to $4 a pack. * Is that what you're proposing people should pay for
a soda?

Even if I have met many points before, let me also state that soda is
very different from both gasoline and cigarrettes.
In the two other cases, people don't have much of an option if they
want to drive and/or smoke. In the case of soft drinks, they can
choose
between lots of things to drink. This means that the price increase on
some of them will serve to make many choose those without the applied
tax.


BTW, you demanded an answer to one your questions that you didn't
think I answered. *I gave it. *Now, I'd like to hear your answer to
what you think about the examples I gave you of what govt previously
told us to eat. * In the 70's, they said to switch to margarine
instead of butter, because sat fat was bad for you. * So, it turns out
people started eating margarine made from transfat.


That was wrong. However, I think that we along with the rest of the
group
are both pretty sure that sugar is a bad thing. There is a lot of
science supporting low carb.

More recently, the govt conveyed the message that fat was bad and
people should eat cereal, potatoes, pasta, rice, etc, so they loaded
up on carbs and got fatter then ever. *Neither of these was done with
a tax, but today, it's not to far fetched to see that it could easily
be advocated by guys like you and passed into law

So, how can you advocate having the govt coerce people into eating
what the govt says is good for you? * *Does the govt say LC is good?
Why not tax that too?


Would you have preferred that 44% still smokes as they did in 1964?
When something is very well
established, I think that they need to act. You can't just sit back
and do nothing while a disease spreads,
the world is threatened from pollution or some other problem can be
traced to a fairly well defined source. Of course,
not all scientists will agree on everything and many have a vested
interest in arguing for the opposite. You still have to
make decisions at some point.



How about getting it from some other govt program? * If I had one law
I could pass, it would be a constitutional amendment to put an
absolute limit on the total amount of taxes that could be generated by
govts at all levels, calculated as some metric of GDP, personal
income, etc. * It's the one big hole in our freedoms that the founding
fathers missed. * Every year govt grows bigger and tax more of our
freedoms through taxes. * I'm sure you've seen the yearly estimates of
how long each year the average American must work to pay taxes. * I
think it's currently out to somewhere in May.

We have different political ideologies. I really respect yours, but I
don't agree with it.
Thank you for sharing it.

On Dec 27, 10:39*am, "H.L" wrote:
Below is my post and your reply where you referred to the rise in
price of gas being due to a tax. *And it's the only reference I'm
aware of that says the rise in gas prices was due to a tax, which of
course it was not:

So, when I point out that your logic that it's cool for the govt to
encourage more children runs counter to saving the planet and that a
number of your other arguments, like the war on drugs make no sense,
it suddenly becomes personallty charged posts? * That's a convenient
excuse. * So, tell me, exactly how much has gas consumption decreased
in the USA as the price went from $1.20 to $3.00?

" You can't ask the question in that way. Increase in the overall
economy
and higher incomes has offset the effects of the tax increase."

*Taxes are a part of the price of gasoline. Again, it is not really
important to a consumer if the price rise is caused by a tax increase
or
another factor.

It's important to this consumer, because I like to see govt have less
money, not more.


I assumed that the rise was at least partly because of
a tax rise. I was wrong. On the other hand, I was right about cars
having become more
fuel efficient from the 1970's with enormous price increases as a
response to consumer demand going down. In spite of all the SUVs, it
has stood still largely since 1981. Remember that gas is still
relatively cheap compared to household incomes and to other countries.
It is not even back to 1981 levels in inflation adjusted numbers. I
expect demand to start falling if the prices rise even more.

Note that your PHD has sat fat right there on his list with sugar as
targets of opportunity. * But of course, you say, when they come to
put the tax on steak, you "hope" logic will prevail, which is
incredibly naive.

*Perhaps. I think that sugar is more clearly established as a factor
in diseases these days than fat. The Atkins books are after all
bestsellers.

The Atkins books were best sellers in the 70s too. So, what?



We all know that raising the price of something reduces consumption.
It's economics 101. *The questions are, how much do you have to raise
it before there is any real effect? * How will people avoid it? *(In
the case of the SF soda, tax it's obviously very easy avoidable.
People can load up at Costco outside the city) * * And is it the govts
role to force people into eating what the govt says they should? *What
unintended effects may it have?

*This is a political debate rather than a discussion concerning health
and probably belongs in an alt.politics group. I think that the
government should do somehting when levels of an illness levels run
rampage. I see it as stopping some companies from "poisoning" people
by promoting, marketing and selling unhealthy
products without worrying about the consequences.

I could make the exact same case for products containing too much
fat.



In the case of cigarettes, most of the alleged reduction in smoking is
calculated in the usually flawed way. * They look at the cig tax
revenue collected in a state before the tax was raised and after.
They assume everyone is too stupid to figure out how to load up on
cartons of cigarettes while in a neighboring state. * Or how to buy
them from an Indian reservation. * Or order them over the internet.
Or buy them on the black market. *So, the state cig tax revenue went
down and they count that as a reduction, when many people, especially
the high volume smokers, are just buying them somewhere else.

*Smoking across the board has been halved in about thirty years, not
counted as revenue, but in percentage of
people who smoke. Is that an alleged reduction calculated in a flawed
way?

No, but it sure doesn't mean that the reduction was due to a rise in
any tax, does it? The long term trend has been downward for over 4
decades, since the information linking smoking to cancer became well
known in the 60's. At that time about 40% of people smoked. Today
it's about half that. Govt didn't get the idea of jacking cigarette
taxes until the last decade or so, when they became convenient targets
for quick money. So, the notion that the tax is what's having the
major impact is unfounded.



I could find it at several sources.
What figures do you have on American smoking rates? I would be glad to
see them.

In NJ, the tax on cigarettes is now around $3 a pack and they go for
over $5 a pack. * *Has that discouraged some smoking? * Sure. *

*Yes, it did.



So, is this what you're advocating? * A can of Coke is now 40 cents at
the grocery store. * How much do guys like you think it should be?
$2, $5?

*It is hard to say. I think that the levels where you and most other
states have the tax at would make
it at $0.45 to $0.50 . *It would at least mean that some switched to
unsweetened beverages. Again, other actions will also be necessary.
This is still a step towards better health for some.

This is just plain silly. First, NJ doesn't have a tax that makes a
40 cent soda cost 45 or 50 cents. We have a general sales tax that
applies to almost everything that is bought, with exceptions for most
food. So, that soda has a sales tax on it of 3 cents. You''re
trying to tell us that 3 cents is gonna make someone do exactly
what? Drink water? Even if you did make it 50 cents, big deal,
folks will still drink about as much and you won't cure diabetes.
But this is what does get me annoyed though, you can't even do the
basic math behind your whacky ideas, but you know what is right for
everyone else. And you like to make it sound like it's just a few
pennies, when in fact you'd have to jack the price to the sky to have
any real effect. But, the first step is to get the tax in place,
isn't it? Then the next is to jack it up, because it's not working.







To answer this one, I suspect few people are driving anywhere to avoid
the 7% sales tax on soft drinks, which already applies to most
everything we buy. * At the same time, I doubt it has had any affect
on soft drink sales either. *And I can guarantee you there are just as
many fat people, and just as many people with diabetes in NJ as there
was before the tax. * You'd have to make it draconian and have it
apply to all similar products. * It's laughable that in the NJ tax
code it specifically talks about which products are still exempt from
the sales tax and lists Kool Aid with sugar as an example that is
exempt. Good example of sound public policy, right?

That's a bad example. I don't agree with that way of setting it up. It
does not destroy the entire idea.

It's not a bad example. It's just as stupid as the propsed tax in
San Francisco that the mayor wants. They are talking about a tax on
soft drinks containing high fructose corn syrup. That doesn't sound
like a tax on similar products that contain cane sugar. It doesn't
sound like a tax on powdered Kool Aid, packed with sugar.

And you completely ignore that a little tax of a few percent isn't
going to do anything. You'd have to jack soft drinks up by a huge
amount, like the $4 a pack tax on cigarettes. If a tax works so well
at discouraging consumption, why is the cig tax at $4 and 20% of
people still smoke? And why is it that most of the decline from 40%
smoking in the 60's to 20% now, occurred BEFORE they jacked up the
draconian tax?





Again, with a 7% tax that already applies to most everything else,
no. * But then no one I know is drinking any less soft drinks
either. * In the case of raising a tax to draconian levels, like
cigarettes, yes, of course smokers are doing exactly that.

*Did you read the above post from a cashier?



That's what your cigarette tax gets you along with reduced
consumption.



And again, you just completely ignore the excellent links I gave you.
Links you asked for that showed people are in fact circumventing the
high taxes on cigarettes. And how bootlegging, crime, highjacking
and yes even murder has come with it. You just cut it out and don't
even respond to it.



*It does not say anywhere in there that overall consumption has not
dropped. It has, and I can give you many official figures for it.
Please provide some statistics to the opposite.



See the above comments. The delince in smoking was well under way
before any tax was increased. But you sure do like to attribute
everything positive to a tax.




It's had some success with cigarettes because they raised the tax to
$3 to $4 a pack. * Is that what you're proposing people should pay for
a soda?

Even if I have met many points before, let me also state that soda is
very different from both gasoline and cigarrettes.
In the two other cases, people don't have much of an option if they
want to drive and/or smoke. In the case of soft drinks, they can
choose
between lots of things to drink. This means that the price increase on
some of them will serve to make many choose those without the applied
tax.

Yeah, I'm sure soda sales haved dropped drastically here in NJ, now
that one costs 43 cents instead of 40 cents.





BTW, you demanded an answer to one your questions that you didn't
think I answered. *I gave it. *Now, I'd like to hear your answer to
what you think about the examples I gave you of what govt previously
told us to eat. * In the 70's, they said to switch to margarine
instead of butter, because sat fat was bad for you. * So, it turns out
people started eating margarine made from transfat.

*That was wrong.

And that's all you have to say? So, it's OK for the govt to be
wrong, even if they coerce people into eating stuff and then it turns
out to be more harmful? The exact same tax and force mentality
could have been applied then to get people to eat margarine with trans
fat. But you don't see the obvious danger in having govt force us
to eat what they think is right?



However, I think that we along with the rest of the
group
are both pretty sure that sugar is a bad thing.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure. But I'm even more sure that I'm not going to
impose what I'm "pretty sure of" onto other people with a tax.


There is a lot of science supporting low carb.

Oh please. The mainstream scientific and medical establishment
continue to bash it and the mountain of official thinking that fat is
bad could very easily be used to justify a similar tax on products
like cream, cheese, and steak. In other words, YOU could be next.



More recently, the govt conveyed the message that fat was bad and
people should eat cereal, potatoes, pasta, rice, etc, so they loaded
up on carbs and got fatter then ever. *Neither of these was done with
a tax, but today, it's not to far fetched to see that it could easily
be advocated by guys like you and passed into law

So, how can you advocate having the govt coerce people into eating
what the govt says is good for you? * *Does the govt say LC is good?
Why not tax that too?

*Would you have preferred that 44% still smokes as they did in 1964?

No, but as pointed out previously, most of that trend occurred BEFORE
the politicians jacked the tax on cigarettes to the sky. And, if a
tax was so effective, then the rate of smoking should have been driven
down very drastically by increasing the tax several hundred percent,
but instead the downward trend hasn't changed much.



When something is very well
established, I think that they need to act. You can't just sit back
and do nothing while a disease spreads,
the world is threatened from pollution or some other problem can be
traced to a fairly well defined source. Of course,
not all scientists will agree on everything and many have a vested
interest in arguing for the opposite. You still have to
make decisions at some point.



How about leaving people free to choose and allowing them to excercise
some personal responsibility instead of having govt be their nanny?



How about getting it from some other govt program? * If I had one law
I could pass, it would be a constitutional amendment to put an
absolute limit on the total amount of taxes that could be generated by
govts at all levels, calculated as some metric of GDP, personal
income, etc. * It's the one big hole in our freedoms that the founding
fathers missed. * Every year govt grows bigger and tax more of our
freedoms through taxes. * I'm sure you've seen the yearly estimates of
how long each year the average American must work to pay taxes. * I
think it's currently out to somewhere in May.

We have different political ideologies. I really respect yours, but I
don't agree with it.
Thank you for sharing it.-


I'm not surprised you had no comment that with every new tax, people
lose more of their liberty and are working longer each year for the
government. That's what your taxes get you.

First of all, the absence is due to a vacation without Internet
access.


�Taxes are a part of the price of gasoline. Again, it is not really
important to a consumer if the price rise is caused by a tax increase
or
another factor.

It's important to this consumer, because I like to see govt have less
money, not more.


This is a subjective difference of opinion.

I assumed that the rise was at least partly because of
a tax rise. I was wrong. On the other hand, I was right about cars
having become more
fuel efficient from the 1970's with enormous price increases as a
response to consumer demand going down. In spite of all the SUVs, it
has stood still largely since 1981. Remember that gas is still
relatively cheap compared to household incomes and to other countries.
It is not even back to 1981 levels in inflation adjusted numbers. I
expect demand to start falling if the prices rise even more.

Note that your PHD has sat fat right there on his list with sugar as
targets of opportunity. � But of course, you say, when they come to
put the tax on steak, you "hope" logic will prevail, which is
incredibly naive.

�Perhaps. I think that sugar is more clearly established as a factor
in diseases these days than fat. The Atkins books are after all
bestsellers.

The Atkins books were best sellers in the 70s too. So, what?

This and other low GI diets are the most popular alternative to the
SAD. My point is that sugar is much more established as the root to
diabetes and obesity. You need to make your
decisions above some threshold. I think that there is enough science
to be sure that sugar is bad, but not fat. In comparison, they acted
even though some claimed that smoking is
not bad for your health.





In the case of cigarettes, most of the alleged reduction in smoking is
calculated in the usually flawed way. � They look at the cig tax
revenue collected in a state before the tax was raised and after.
They assume everyone is too stupid to figure out how to load up on
cartons of cigarettes while in a neighboring state. � Or how to buy
them from an Indian reservation. � Or order them over the internet.
Or buy them on the black market. �So, the state cig tax revenue went
down and they count that as a reduction, when many people, especially
the high volume smokers, are just buying them somewhere else.

�Smoking across the board has been halved in about thirty years, not
counted as revenue, but in percentage of
people who smoke. Is that an alleged reduction calculated in a flawed
way?

No, but it sure doesn't mean that the reduction was due to a rise in
any tax, does it? The long term trend has been downward for over 4
decades, since the information linking smoking to cancer became well
known in the 60's. At that time about 40% of people smoked. Today
it's about half that. Govt didn't get the idea of jacking cigarette
taxes until the last decade or so, when they became convenient targets
for quick money. So, the notion that the tax is what's having the
major impact is unfounded.



The number of smokers went down after the taxes were introduced.
Thus, it is not unreasonable to conclude that taxes served to further
decrease smoking rates. You are once more arguing from your own
assumptions. For example, it is estimated that 21,000 in West Virginia
stopped smoking after a tax increase there in 2003 (http://no-
smoking.org/june04/06-24-04-3.html). Another comment from a university
professor
states that ""In general, price increases are the most cost-effective
anti-smoking intervention". Do you think that everyone other than
Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek and
Jeffrey Sachs are just lying? Please also note that the decline comes
from a number
of government interventions of the type that you loathe repeatedly.
Advertising bans, information on packages et.c. has helped many people
avoid cancer.



�It is hard to say. I think that the levels where you and most other
states have the tax at would make
it at $0.45 to $0.50 . �It would at least mean that some switched to
unsweetened beverages. Again, other actions will also be necessary.
This is still a step towards better health for some.

This is just plain silly. First, NJ doesn't have a tax that makes a
40 cent soda cost 45 or 50 cents. We have a general sales tax that
applies to almost everything that is bought, with exceptions for most
food. So, that soda has a sales tax on it of 3 cents. You''re
trying to tell us that 3 cents is gonna make someone do exactly
what? Drink water? Even if you did make it 50 cents, big deal,
folks will still drink about as much and you won't cure diabetes.
But this is what does get me annoyed though, you can't even do the
basic math behind your whacky ideas, but you know what is right for
everyone else. And you like to make it sound like it's just a few
pennies, when in fact you'd have to jack the price to the sky to have
any real effect. But, the first step is to get the tax in place,
isn't it? Then the next is to jack it up, because it's not working.



I refrain from answering unnecessary personal comments. I stated what
I thought should be the level and not what is the current level in New
Jersey. The point is still that prices
influence consumer choices. If the price of sweetened soda is .50 and
soft drinks without sugar are 40 cents, don't you think that it would
sway some people to choose the one without added sugar? It also serves
to drive suppliers to promote more alternatives on the exempt
side of the tax.








That's a bad example. I don't agree with that way of setting it up. It
does not destroy the entire idea.

It's not a bad example. It's just as stupid as the propsed tax in
San Francisco that the mayor wants. They are talking about a tax on
soft drinks containing high fructose corn syrup. That doesn't sound
like a tax on similar products that contain cane sugar. It doesn't
sound like a tax on powdered Kool Aid, packed with sugar.


I would have put the tax on all drinks containing sugar.

And you completely ignore that a little tax of a few percent isn't
going to do anything. You'd have to jack soft drinks up by a huge
amount, like the $4 a pack tax on cigarettes. If a tax works so well
at discouraging consumption, why is the cig tax at $4 and 20% of
people still smoke? And why is it that most of the decline from 40%
smoking in the 60's to 20% now, occurred BEFORE they jacked up the
draconian tax?


I quote Wikipedia, the leading Internet encyclopedia: "
Substantial scientific evidence shows that higher cigarette prices
result in lower overall cigarette consumption. Most studies indicate
that a 10% increase in price will
reduce overall cigarette consumption by 3% to 5%. Youth, minorities,
and low-income smokers are two to three times more likely to quit or
smoke less than other
smokers in response to price increases.[88][89] Smoking is often cited
as an example of an inelastic good, however, i.e. a large rise in
price will only result in a small
decrease in consumption."




And again, you just completely ignore the excellent links I gave you.
Links you asked for that showed people are in fact circumventing the
high taxes on cigarettes. And how bootlegging, crime, highjacking
and yes even murder has come with it. You just cut it out and don't
even respond to it.



This is an absurd argument. Extend this argument to other things and
you'll find
yourself arguing for the legalisation of quite a lot. What about
narcotics, illegal immigration and prostitution? Perhaps they should
be allowed because so many
people break the law to do it. Noone is forced to smuggle any
ciggarrettes.


�It does not say anywhere in there that overall consumption has not
dropped. It has, and I can give you many official figures for it.
Please provide some statistics to the opposite.



See the above comments. The delince in smoking was well under way
before any tax was increased. But you sure do like to attribute
everything positive to a tax.


Post answered previously. Also note that every pack of ciggarettes is
estimated
to cost the economy more than $7 in health costs. Do you still think
that it would have been
better for the government not to do any of all intervening measures?









�That was wrong.

And that's all you have to say? So, it's OK for the govt to be
wrong, even if they coerce people into eating stuff and then it turns
out to be more harmful? The exact same tax and force mentality
could have been applied then to get people to eat margarine with trans
fat. But you don't see the obvious danger in having govt force us
to eat what they think is right?


Should they have left smoking up at 44 % on the other hand? Doing
wrong at one point
should not deter them from doing right another time. I tend to believe
that the suffering
caused by that recommendation pales compared to the damage caused by
tobacco, soda and snack
companies. Perhaps they should be taxable for the costs caused by the
products that they sell. Not only are we talking about medicare, but
workforce loss of productivity and disablement.







When something is very well
established, I think that they need to act. You can't just sit back
and do nothing while a disease spreads,
the world is threatened from pollution or some other problem can be
traced to a fairly well defined source. Of course,
not all scientists will agree on everything and many have a vested
interest in arguing for the opposite. You still have to
make decisions at some point.



How about leaving people free to choose and allowing them to excercise
some personal responsibility instead of having govt be their nanny?


I agree that people should take more personal responsibility.
However, I also
acknowledge the power that advertising and other types of market
activities have on
consumer behaviours. The trend of diabetes is not encouraging. That's
why I think
that various types of government intervention is necessary to avoid
disproportionately
high costs to society as a whole caused by certain types of
consumption. I again refer
to the rationale for reducing smoking advertising, banning smoking in
many places and
levying high taces on ciggarrettes.




We have different political ideologies. I really respect yours, but I
don't agree with it.
Thank you for sharing it.-


I'm not surprised you had no comment that with every new tax, people
lose more of their liberty and are working longer each year for the
government. That's what your taxes get you.

Kind of weird that people are turning against the unregulated free
market if it is such a tremendous blessing. Look at what is happening
in South America, where people are choosing leftist governments eager
to regulate the economy or the result of Congress elections in 2006.
Don't people know what's best for them?