Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dachmation

Taxing Full sugared Cola

Recommended Posts

I am unclear why the statistics are against me.

The commonly heard number is "20% of people who lose 10% or more of their body mass keep it off for one year." Article abstract from PubMed

That sounds to me like 80% of people put some of the weight back on within a year, and there really isn't any substantive information beyond one year. There are a few thousand people in that National Weight Control Registry who have better numbers than that, but they 1. are self-selecting and 2. present the numbers in the most favorable way possible.

I dont eat tuna every day. Just when I want some meat. I dont trust American beef enough to get past mad cow. Naw, I dont think it's too high a price. I mean it's what some must do. One must do what it takes. I remember when I was younger I would sit down and eat an entire large pizza from pizza hut. No more. I used to feel the need to have a full stomach. No more. It takes some mental conditioning to get past the need to feel full. For me at least. Now if I eat more than enough to satisfy my hunger I feel bloated. Ugh.

Perhaps they should try to imagine what it's like. It's not an entirely difficult stretch of the imagination. It just takes willpower. If one cannot then... oh well.

None of us eat anywhere close to what we could when we were kids. Most of us don't like feeling over-full. But hunger is hunger, no matter what you call it, and I'm not going to put up with it. You can call it willpower, or behavior modification, or put some other touchy-feely name on it, but it is simply living with hunger. Sure, you might feel perfectly full and satisfied after a meal. But what about three or four hours later? Do you snack? Just as an aside, I am amused that free lunch programs in schools are a response to the idea of hunger being a detriment to learning. In the same breath, though, it seems perfectly desirable to try to make the fat kids hungry!

Just dont order fast food.

I don't, usually. But sometimes, it's what you want, and sometimes, it's all there's time for.

Red meat is the worst. Don't eat it.

One has to make time for themselves just like they make time for work or for play or whatever. To do this it takes some planning and time management skills. I dont think it's unreasonable (although some others might for some reason). I get up. Drop off the kids at school. Go to work. Get off work. Run. Go home. Easy. On the weekends? Get up. Run. Go home.

Like I said, you remind me of me, fifteen years ago. I did give up red meat, and made time to run one hour every day. Rain or shine, cold or hot, wet or dry. In spite of my weight, I was actually in pretty good cardiovascular shape and the only way I could get to my target heart rate was by running. So what happened? First, the weight started coming back, even with no change in my eating or exercise. Second, I started falling asleep at the wheel while driving. Often. I never had an accident but it scared the living hell out of me and my wife several times. The time for running was coming out of my sleep time because I couldn't very well cut my work hours. Additionally, I started having constant joint and foot pain. Finally, I just missed red meat too much. Sure, there are all kinds of good reasons not to eat it, and they pale next to the memory of a good steak or hamburger. As you say, you have to make choices. I don't think constant hunger, pain, fatigue, and giving up all of the foods you have ever liked, forever, is a good choice. I don't think it's reasonable for most people. If you can make it work, so much the better for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they sent the signal yet.

You might have missed it. Are you at broadcast depth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might have missed it. Are you at broadcast depth?

I have picked up the broadcast saying that the ration books are being printed. Here is a link to the Soylent Corporation website.

Soylent Corp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose that there will be plenty of those who will say that a pop tax will disproportionately affect the poor, fat and stupid folks.

They already have high tax on booze and wine which may disproportionately affect rich, fat and smart folks.

How many of you out there can't get through a day without drinking the crap? Worse yet, how may of you out there actually give the stuff to your kids? Pop is way more harmful to children than beer and wine. Ironic isn't it.

Edited by gto250us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose that there will be plenty of those who will say that a pop tax will disproportionately affect the poor, fat and stupid folks.

They already have high tax on booze and wine which may disproportionately affect rich, fat and smart folks.

How many of you out there can't get through a day without drinking the crap? Worse yet, how may of you out there actually give the stuff to your kids? Pop is way more harmful to children than beer and wine. Ironic isn't it.

Perhaps the poor, fat, and stupid folks should not be poor, fat, or stupid. Let them tax the heck out of it. It does not matter to me. I dont drink that stuff. Ugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the poor, fat, and stupid folks should not be poor, fat, or stupid. Let them tax the heck out of it. It does not matter to me. I dont drink that stuff. Ugh.

I agree, but I would suspect that the fast food lobby and the pseudofood (high fructose corn crap) manufacturers such as ADM will lobby hard against it. They have tons of money and clout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, but I would suspect that the fast food lobby and the pseudofood (high fructose corn crap) manufacturers such as ADM will lobby hard against it. They have tons of money and clout.

Then perhaps we should contact the lawmakers, the crooked lot of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then perhaps we should contact the lawmakers, the crooked lot of them.

I think you should run for congress on the anti-soda, anti-fat, anti-poor, anti-stupid and anti-Beatles platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose that there will be plenty of those who will say that a pop tax will disproportionately affect the poor, fat and stupid folks.

They already have high tax on booze and wine which may disproportionately affect rich, fat and smart folks.

We should be revenue neutral on this...if we add a tax to soda then we should drop the tax on alcohol. :lol:

Edited by august948

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you should run for congress on the anti-soda, anti-fat, anti-poor, anti-stupid and anti-Beatles platform.

Can I count on your vote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many of you out there can't get through a day without drinking the crap?

Me. Coffee is a different story, though. :) But I never drink sugar sodas and rarely diet ones.

Worse yet, how may of you out there actually give the stuff to your kids? Pop is way more harmful to children than beer and wine. Ironic isn't it.

On a per serving basis I have trouble believing that is really true. Beer and wine have a lot of empty carbohydrates, plus the alcohol which will affect children disproportionally according to body weight.

I know red wine has some health benefits in moderation but I don't know how those apply to children. Of course if you're drinking four or five sugary sodas a day that's probably worse than one beer. As I said before, the tooth decay is probably a more immediate medical issue from soda than obesity.

Another amusing thing about the tax issue is that soda is typically marked up dramatically in restaurants and bars. Way, way, way over cost. People still buy it, don't they?

Edited by marmer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose that there will be plenty of those who will say that a pop tax will disproportionately affect the poor, fat and stupid folks.

They already have high tax on booze and wine which may disproportionately affect rich, fat and smart folks.

How many of you out there can't get through a day without drinking the crap? Worse yet, how may of you out there actually give the stuff to your kids? Pop is way more harmful to children than beer and wine. Ironic isn't it.

Pop? Sorry to stray off topic, but I've only heard one other person use that term and they're not a native Houstonian. Where are you from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pop? Sorry to stray off topic, but I've only heard one other person use that term and they're not a native Houstonian. Where are you from?

Pop is a northern term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I count on your vote?

If you're anti-Beatles I'm voting against you.

I'm going to have to go with August on this one. If but for that one quality, LTAWACS, you'd be my first choice.

Me. Coffee is a different story, though. smile.gif But I never drink sugar sodas and rarely diet ones.

I can tear through half a pot of coffee on an average morning. I may drink one or two sodas a month, but they're never diets. I'm pretty consistent with my drinking habits. Coffee in the morning, water from noon to about 5 or 6 and then beer or box wine till I hit the sack.

Pop? Sorry to stray off topic, but I've only heard one other person use that term and they're not a native Houstonian. Where are you from?

It's a midwestern thing. I'm guessing gto250us is from Ohio or Indiana. Maybe Michigan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can tear through half a pot of coffee on an average morning. I may drink one or two sodas a month, but they're never diets. I'm pretty consistent with my drinking habits. Coffee in the morning, water from noon to about 5 or 6 and then beer or box wine till I hit the sack.

Same here.

It's a midwestern thing. I'm guessing gto250us is from Ohio or Indiana. Maybe Michigan.

I bet she's from Michigan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're anti-Beatles I'm voting against you.

Me to. Must be something mentally wrong with someone anti-Beatles.  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, but I would suspect that the fast food lobby and the pseudofood (high fructose corn crap) manufacturers such as ADM will lobby hard against it. They have tons of money and clout.

What's the pseudo part exactly? It comes from corn. As much is done to barley to make scotch as is done to corn to make HFCS, and everyone knows that scotch is awesome. It's bad because of how it's used and that it's nothing but calories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm...

On it being harmful

Unlike cigarettes, which can cause harm to others, soda only causes harm to oneself. And unlike cigarettes, sodas are not necessarily addictive or universally unhealthy.

Comparing it with alcohol

Alcohol is taxed significantly higher than soft drinks. I'm not endorsing or rejecting the idea (alcohol is a regressive tax in many ways) but let's face it, alcohol causes problems. If we taxed sodas up to alcohol, people would choose alcohol, which, unfortunately, does cause problems--science has proven that more violence does occur near liquor stores and bars--and if we got rid of the tax on alcohol, the poor who are already addicted to alcohol would buy more thus staying poor.

But that's another argument in itself.

But would you do it?

The basis argument for all taxes is "would you be willing to pay it?". It's easy to create taxes for other people. I don't drink alcohol (regularly) or smoke. Therefore, it would be unfair for me to decide if those items were to be taxed higher. Interesting how the biggest pro-soda tax people on here do not enjoy soft drinks.

More arguments I want to address

- Don't delude yourself into thinking the "government knows best". No one says that unless the political party of their choice is in office or they're in a dictatorship that has brainwashed their followers.

- Yes, alcohol is healthier than soda in only certain cases! A glass of red wine is quite healthy, but don't gorge yourself on cheap beer. Similarly, a Dr Pepper is a refreshing pick-me-up, several cans is just plain gross.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we taxed sodas up to alcohol, people would choose alcohol, which, unfortunately, does cause problems--science has proven that more violence does occur near liquor stores and bars--and if we got rid of the tax on alcohol, the poor who are already addicted to alcohol would buy more thus staying poor.

Instead of taxing soda, we should implement a tax on exceeding the logical-fallacies-allowed-per-internet-post limit.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we taxed sodas up to alcohol, people would choose alcohol, which, unfortunately, does cause problems--science has proven that more violence does occur near liquor stores and bars--and if we got rid of the tax on alcohol, the poor who are already addicted to alcohol would buy more thus staying poor.

And all the obese schoolchildren will demand that their schools vending machines be restocked with cheap alcoholic drinks. It's a slippery slope.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was either going to do a point by point refutation or blow my brains out, but then I read these two posts and now I have to do none of the above. Thanks, Crunch and Barracuda, you guys really saved my time/life!

Instead of taxing soda, we should implement a tax on exceeding the logical-fallacies-allowed-per-internet-post limit.

And all the obese schoolchildren will demand that their schools vending machines be restocked with cheap alcoholic drinks. It's a slippery slope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in NYC and guess what was a lead story on morning local news? the Gov of NY wants to tax full sugar soda and cigarettes packs-- to help pay for healthcare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in NYC and guess what was a lead story on morning local news? the Gov of NY wants to tax full sugar soda and cigarettes packs-- to help pay for healthcare

I hope he wins. What can we do here in Houston to help him out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope he wins. What can we do here in Houston to help him out?

1) Start a corporation.

2) Buy ad space.

3) Fill that ad space with your political views.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sunday's Chronicle has article by Patricia Kilday Hart---State Senator Eddie Lucio has a soda tax proposal that could raise as much as $2 billion. . . . . . . apparently it got a "sour" reception-

tried to find link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remind me the primary reason they want to tax full sugared soft drinks again: something that can be taxed to feed starving budgets, or a heavy-handed government attempt to lead healthier lifestyles? Either way, it seems like grasping at straws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a dumb idea. They should tax diet sodas, those are the real abomination. They don't make you thinner, they just fill you with unnatural chemicals and screw up your taste buds. Volume, way more than content, is what makes most americans fat. Put a governor in everyone's esophagus, problem solved.

Edited by 20thStDad
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Volume, way more than content, is what makes most americans fat.

That, and... Ahem... Aversion to physical activity. There, I said it.

As a matter of policy, I think that positively reinforcing calorie-burning behavior is preferable to socially engineering consumers' dietary preferences. And with mobile devices, we have the technological capability to do exactly that.

Edited by TheNiche
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That, and... Ahem... Aversion to physical activity. There, I said it.

As a matter of policy, I think that positively reinforcing calorie-burning behavior is preferable to socially engineering consumers' dietary preferences. And with mobile devices, we have the technological capability to do exactly that.

Amen to that. Some people's sloth knows no bound, and it's probably a hard pit to climb out of once you dig yourself in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That, and... Ahem... Aversion to physical activity. There, I said it.

As a matter of policy, I think that positively reinforcing calorie-burning behavior is preferable to socially engineering consumers' dietary preferences. And with mobile devices, we have the technological capability to do exactly that.

Let's geocache all sodas! Want one? You've got to use your gps (or, God-forbid, a compass) and scrounge around til you find it.:lol:

Since I weened myself off sodas a long time ago, I don't care if they tax them or not. As long as I can still sit my fat ass on a bar stool somewhere and have a Shiner, it's all good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gross, hell no. Diet sodas and artificial sweeteners in general are nasty. I can do the real sugar and I'm nowhere near fat. It's call moderation and getting off of your ass on a regular basis. This would be as idiotic as the gulf oyster ban. How about people take responsibility for themselves and their kids?

Potatoes, namely french fries, are far more responsible for the fatness of America than soft drinks.

It's funny you say this since we talked about this at our compnay lunch & learn yesterday (the speaker was a nutrionist) but to keep it simple her main point was that the less something is processed the better it's for you (buy more at the perimeters of the grocery store where the natural, raw food is found) and read the labels carefully. Labels can be sneaky since they are resorting to splitting up the salts and sugars so they hope you think it's healthy since "sugar" and "salt" are not listed.

So going back to your point - moderation and education are the key and the potatoe itself is great but NOT good when fried in low quality oil and salt. Unless you are diabetic I would also stay away from diet, light or other products with artificial sweetners since the jury is still out on how bad they are. This is like the butter-margine battle where hydrogenated fat/trans fat was prematureley being promoted as better than butter (till 1990s). Some of the sweetners were derived by accident and one was suppose to be weed killer! :o

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny you say this since we talked about this at our compnay lunch & learn yesterday (the speaker was a nutrionist) but to keep it simple her main point was that the less something is processed the better it's for you (buy more at the perimeters of the grocery store where the natural, raw food is found) and read the labels carefully. Labels can be sneaky since they are resorting to splitting up the salts and sugars so they hope you think it's healthy since "sugar" and "salt" are not listed.

So going back to your point - moderation and education are the key and the potatoe itself is great but NOT good when fried in low quality oil and salt. Unless you are diabetic I would also stay away from diet, light or other products with artificial sweetners since the jury is still out on how bad they are. This is like the butter-margine battle where hydrogenated fat/trans fat was prematureley being promoted as better than butter (till 1990s). Some of the sweetners were derived by accident and one was suppose to be weed killer! :o

I'm an avid advocate of the caveman diet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KHOU did a piece at 10pm  on a San Antonio lawmaker putting forth a one cent per ounce tax on full sugared sodas.

 

This link tells about the legislation http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/01/31/54438.htm

 

this bill is better than what they did in NYC, it doesn't ignore coffee based sugar sponges (starbucks) and it doesn't ignore two 12 oz sodas because at least they're not one 16oz soda.

 

still terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the public just needs to be educated on what's healthy: fresh foods, particularly unprocessed. I went to seabrook a few times with my dad in the last year and got a fresh fish from one of the fresh markets. It tasted so different. Same with the fresh pasta from Fabio's, fresh cheese from houston dairy maids, etc.It's so simple but advertising goes towards fast foods and sodas and such.

That being said it takes hard work to stay in. Before I started boxing I was 179.5 pounds. Now I rarely stray over 160 but if I stopped going to the gym I would probably balloon back up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the public just needs to be educated on what's healthy: fresh foods, particularly unprocessed. I went to seabrook a few times with my dad in the last year and got a fresh fish from one of the fresh markets. It tasted so different. Same with the fresh pasta from Fabio's, fresh cheese from houston dairy maids, etc.It's so simple but advertising goes towards fast foods and sodas and such.

That being said it takes hard work to stay in. Before I started boxing I was 179.5 pounds. Now I rarely stray over 160 but if I stopped going to the gym I would probably balloon back up.

 

I recall in public school there was quite a concerted effort to teach healthy food. It worked on me, cause I still remember it.

 

Personally, I think the government should go a step farther, do PSA a-la the old 'this is your brain on drugs' thingy, but for apples, or peaches, or just healthy food.

 

Make fast food companies and junk food companies pay for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all of those who believe just a little education will solve all of our health problems, I have a little story for you...

 

In April, I was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. Needless to say, I considered it quite a wake up call. I have now quit smoking (6 months), no longer drink cokes or use flavored coffee creamer, no longer eat sweets, potato chips or french fries, or bread, and test my blood sugar in order to monitor what foods cause sugar spikes and which foods are OK. This change of diet had amazing results. My blood sugar dropped into "normal" range, my cholesterol dropped from 322 to 171, and my blood pressure is now normal. My doctors were stunned at how quickly my numbers got back to normal, and told me to continue my diet and exercise. I asked them why they were so surprised that I changed my diet and lifestyle. The reason? Because almost no one does. 90% of the patients continue the same bad diet and sedentary lifestyle that gave them diabetes in the first place.

 

Now, don't get me wrong. I believe that we should educate the public. But, don't get your hopes up. There are several reasons. One is that people are lazy, ignorant, or both. Even though you tell them, they do not listen. I smoked for 30 years despite knowing the risks (although I did not understand the cardiovascular risk). Two, the food lobby is strong...very strong. Back in the 1970s, the grain farmers lobbied to get the food pyramid to include grains (Bread, pasta, etc.), even though there was already evidence that too much bread was not good for us. The result? Record levels of obesity. The Cola Wars helped increase waistlines and diabetes, too. Even good processed food is full of bad ingredients.

 

While I am not a fan of taxing to alter behavior, we have already set precedent with tobacco taxes. I see no reason not to tax colas a penny an ounce, with the proceeds going to health education and programs. In fact, fruit juice and coffee creamers that load up on HFCS should be included. Perhaps candy and potato chips could be included. The money could help fund Obamacare. However, the tax food industry should be disincentivized from making crappy food, too.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all need to take better control of our diets, because inattention means you'll pump yourself full of crap.

But, I think more blame needs to be put at the feet of the healthcare 'industry.' People don't change their behaviors, in part,  because in our culture medicine is geared toward curing a disease, not preventing it. More pills, more invasive treatments. And after bankrupting ourselves to pay for all our cures, we often insist on 'fighting' death until the last, painful, pointless, unaffordable moment.  Call me simplistic, but modern western medicine is lacking in some key areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...