AtticaFlinch Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marmer Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Can I count on your vote?If you're anti-Beatles I'm voting against you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLWM8609 Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtticaFlinch Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fringe Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 If you're anti-Beatles I'm voting against you. Me to. Must be something mentally wrong with someone anti-Beatles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20thStDad Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 Hmm...On it being harmfulUnlike 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 alcoholAlcohol 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barracuda Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtticaFlinch Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trymahjong Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 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 healthcareI hope he wins. What can we do here in Houston to help him out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtticaFlinch Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trymahjong Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samagon Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 I wish hfcs was illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I wish hfcs was illegal.Amen to that. Those commercials are funny. lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20thStDad Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 If they can tax gasoline then they should tax this junk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20thStDad Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 I dont drink that junk so I say tax them all the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trymahjong Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ca7091a6-da39-11e0-bc99-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1cncUgAmrlots of people in NY talk about taxing full sugared drinks--one of them sent me this. . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trymahjong Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 a "no go" on taxing but. . . . . . . http://thewall.com/topics/29113-here-he-goes-again-bloomberg-set-to-ban-all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.