San Francisco Soda Tax

This is just the beginning. Mark my words!

http://tinyurl.com/3dfts5

On Dec 22, 4:51*am, "em" wrote:
This is just the beginning. Mark my words!

http://tinyurl.com/3dfts5

I thought the beginning was sticking it to smokers with huge tax
increases on cigarettes. Here in NJ, they've been a convenient target
to try to raise more tax revenue for the state to waste. Funny
thing though, it hasn't raised nearly as much as they expected,
because smokers are finding ways to get smokes from places with lower
taxes.

I saw the SF proposed soda tax on the news too and thought it was
pretty stupid. Did anyone notice if it applies to diet soda too?

"em" writes:

This is just the beginning. Mark my words!

So, we'll be taxing people for eating sweets, while spending tax money
to subsidize sugar farmers. I think that's called the Circle of Life.



--
Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

em wrote in message ...
This is just the beginning. Mark my words!

http://tinyurl.com/3dfts5

I've been saying that for years. :-)

Cheri

wrote in message ...
On Dec 22, 4:51 am, "em" wrote:
This is just the beginning. Mark my words!

http://tinyurl.com/3dfts5

I thought the beginning was sticking it to smokers with huge tax
increases on cigarettes. Here in NJ, they've been a convenient target
to try to raise more tax revenue for the state to waste. Funny
thing though, it hasn't raised nearly as much as they expected,
because smokers are finding ways to get smokes from places with lower
taxes.

I saw the SF proposed soda tax on the news too and thought it was
pretty stupid. Did anyone notice if it applies to diet soda too?


Yes, they're going with a $2.00 per pack tax in CA to partially fund
universal health care in CA, which they said 2/3 of the voters were
for, however, when they suggested raising the sales tax one cent, so
everyone could help fund it, there was no support for that. Why am I
not surprised. Soon to be a complete ex-smoker. :-)

Cheri

I thought the beginning was sticking it to smokers with huge tax
increases on cigarettes. Here in NJ, they've been a convenient target
to try to raise more tax revenue for the state to waste. Funny
thing though, it hasn't raised nearly as much as they expected,
because smokers are finding ways to get smokes from places with lower
taxes.

I saw the SF proposed soda tax on the news too and thought it was
pretty stupid. Did anyone notice if it applies to diet soda too?

Actually, I think that doing these things are the right way to go.
Beyond the obvious wish to steer consumption towards more healthy
beverages, there is something which is called to internalise external
costs. What it means is that products such as soda will add costs to the
healthcare system because of all sugar related diseases that they incur
on drinkers thereof. Unless there is a specific value added tax, this
burden is shared by all tax payers alike. It is more right that those
who choose to risk their health by consuming proven unhealthy items pay
extra for the increased costs of medical care caused by them.

"H.L" wrote in message ...

I thought the beginning was sticking it to smokers with huge tax
increases on cigarettes. Here in NJ, they've been a convenient target
to try to raise more tax revenue for the state to waste. Funny
thing though, it hasn't raised nearly as much as they expected,
because smokers are finding ways to get smokes from places with lower
taxes.

I saw the SF proposed soda tax on the news too and thought it was
pretty stupid. Did anyone notice if it applies to diet soda too?

Actually, I think that doing these things are the right way to go.

That's a very liberal way of thinking.

Beyond the obvious wish to steer consumption towards more healthy
beverages, there is something which is called to internalise external
costs.

It is a means of control. I should be able to eat and drink what I want. I
don't need big government watching over my shoulder, telling me what to do,
and taxing me when I am "bad".

What it means is that products such as soda will add costs to the
healthcare system because of all sugar related diseases that they incur
on drinkers thereof.

Sorry, but that's a crock. That cannot be proven in any reasonable way.
People will get the same amount of sugar elsewhere.

Unless there is a specific value added tax, this
burden is shared by all tax payers alike.

Taxing soda won't bring down healthcare costs, its just more control and
another tax. What we need is smaller government, less interference by the
government in people's lives and lower taxes.

It is more right that those
who choose to risk their health by consuming proven unhealthy items pay
extra for the increased costs of medical care caused by them.

That's a nice thing to say, but you can't back that up. Sure, obesity is a
major cost to society. What is needed, perhaps, is better education.

Furthermore, as I understand, this whole thing started with somebody saying
that kids drink too much soda. What the hell, a tax?! Where the hell are the
parents of these kids, and if soda is so bad, why do their parents let them
drink it? That's the -real- problem, and it won't/can't be addressed by
government control and taxes.

I'm rather ****ed about this whole thing. Next they'll be taxing fat and
pushing high-carb diets.

Cheri wrote:
wrote in message ...
On Dec 22, 4:51 am, "em" wrote:
This is just the beginning. Mark my words!

http://tinyurl.com/3dfts5

I thought the beginning was sticking it to smokers with huge tax
increases on cigarettes. Here in NJ, they've been a convenient target
to try to raise more tax revenue for the state to waste. Funny
thing though, it hasn't raised nearly as much as they expected,
because smokers are finding ways to get smokes from places with lower
taxes.

I saw the SF proposed soda tax on the news too and thought it was
pretty stupid. Did anyone notice if it applies to diet soda too?


Yes, they're going with a $2.00 per pack tax in CA to partially fund
universal health care in CA, which they said 2/3 of the voters were
for, however, when they suggested raising the sales tax one cent, so
everyone could help fund it, there was no support for that. Why am I
not surprised. Soon to be a complete ex-smoker. :-)

Cheri



Cheri, good wishes on becoming a complete ex-smoker. I did it almost 20
years ago after over 30 years of often heavy smoking. Encouragement helps.

If you remember, the big Tobacco Lawsuit Settlement was intended to
distribute the Tobacco Industry penalty payments to the individual
States. The idea was that the States would use the money for health care
issues, including the damages caused to their smoking population. These
penalty payments were obtained by the Tobacco companies raising the
prices of the cigarettes.

In actuality, in almost all States, the Tobacco Industry penalty money
is just thrown into the general fund and spent on general running of the
State.

So, in general we have the States previously spending their Cigarette
Tax money on general budget items and then throwing the Tobacco Industry
Penalty lawsuit money into the general fund, and then looking to tax
smokers to pay for health care of non-smokers (and smokers).

We can hold our heads high that we have some pretty low minded leaders
in State offices. That is a good balance with the abuncance of low
minded leaders in Federal offices.

Jim

That's a very liberal way of thinking.

I would take that as a compliment.



It is a means of control. I should be able to eat and drink what I want. I
don't need big government watching over my shoulder, telling me what to do,
and taxing me when I am "bad".

Not when you are adding costs to your society.

What it means is that products such as soda will add costs to the
healthcare system because of all sugar related diseases that they incur
on drinkers thereof.

Sorry, but that's a crock. That cannot be proven in any reasonable way.
People will get the same amount of sugar elsewhere.

That is a defeatist attitude. If they do that, then put the tax on all
consumable sugar products. It is not like the American consumption level
of sugar is a basic human need.


Taxing soda won't bring down healthcare costs, its just more control and
another tax. What we need is smaller government, less interference by the
government in people's lives and lower taxes.

Do you think that the overall health of the American population is
moving in the right direction? Please check the diabetes statistics.
They are horrifying.



That's a nice thing to say, but you can't back that up. Sure, obesity is a
major cost to society. What is needed, perhaps, is better education.

They could well use the income from the tax to finance education for
parents or school programs for better health.

Furthermore, as I understand, this whole thing started with somebody saying
that kids drink too much soda. What the hell, a tax?! Where the hell are the
parents of these kids, and if soda is so bad, why do their parents let them
drink it? That's the -real- problem, and it won't/can't be addressed by
government control and taxes.

Another important measure is to control advertising. European policy
makers recently prohibited commercials aimed at children and many
nations have restricted tobacco ads severely. Completely free capitalism
does not lead to improved health.

H.L wrote:

Furthermore, as I understand, this whole thing started with somebody saying
that kids drink too much soda. What the hell, a tax?! Where the hell are the
parents of these kids, and if soda is so bad, why do their parents let them
drink it? That's the -real- problem, and it won't/can't be addressed by
government control and taxes.

Another important measure is to control advertising. European policy
makers recently prohibited commercials aimed at children and many
nations have restricted tobacco ads severely. Completely free capitalism
does not lead to improved health.

Completely free capitalism isn't really a great idea.

There is nothing about being a capitalist that promotes things such as
honesty, truthfulness, openness, .......

COMMON CRIMINAL

An old definition of a "Common Criminal" is a man too dumb or too poor
to afford to own his own corporation.

You can shield a lot of criminality and legal liability with a
corporation. Not all, but a lot.