Food lobby mobilizes as soda tax bubbles up

eskimoe,

That type of thinking will not be tolerated when liberals are in control. Liberals feel you need government coddling from the cradle to the grave. You are not free to make your own choices, nor are you free to make your own choices in your life.

Sad sad state of affairs.

But what if ones eating and drinking habits have a very poor effect on their health, and then when they are older or on medicare they cost the system more money because they are less healthy? Is that fair, that because someone is less educated or cares less about their health they become a burden to the rest of us?

Yes and we can pay for healthcare with the proceeds. Just like many states did with tobacco.

This thread had nothing to do with the public option so I see no point in your irrelevant deflection.

When Americans are fed lies about a bill they will clearly support it. eg. The Patriot Act

LibertyForAll, once again you fail to see the importance of such a tax. If your product causes disease then you should be taxed.

kennymotown,

Once again you don't seem to understand how freedom actually works. Freedom isn't calling for the government to tax everything you oppose. Freedom is having the ability to make a conscious decision on whether or not you consume a product.

Thankfully, I know there aren't many statists like yourself. Current just seems to be filled with them.

I know how freedom works for most people and I know how it isn't working for many that are slaves to big untaxed corporations who have been benefiting from Reaganomics for decades. The government is us and it is high time the free ride much of your hero's have had for the decades needs to come to an end and the pieces of the pie more evenly distributed.

kennymotown,

Unfortunately it is quite clear you have no idea how freedom works. It's not your fault, clearly you haven't taken the time to educate yourself on the concept.

Who are "my heros?" I know it is easier to engage in hyperbole and platitudes rather than engaging in honest discussion but I am neither a Republican nor a conservative. Never have I been a fan of Reagan or his policies.

By the way, those big untaxed (which is about as big of a lie as you can get) corporations employ millions of workers across the United States. It is also clear you don't possess a single ounce of intelligence on basic economics.

Once again you show your ignorance Libertyforall. I have a very good grasp of economics at a level you are probably unaware of. Always with the snide remarks and insults that will get you nowhere in any discussion that you claim you want to have. What a pompous individual you must be in real life.

Although your freedom is important, that doesn't mean that the government shouldn't set up a system that is conducive to making the path of least resistance better for the average person. To pretend that providing tax incentives to chose better products is an infringement on personal liberty is a joke.

Your complaint about taxes is a falsehood, too. The taxes in this country compared to other developed nations are miniscule, the highest effective income tax rate anyone ends up paying in the bottom 95% is about 25%, including FICA/medicare.

If they pulled up the average effective tax rate to 30 or 35 (like you anti tax people always pretend the rate is) then the casualties of capitalism would be easily eliminated: no homelessness, no starvation in our streets, and healthcare for all.

Unfortunately, you think the government is stealing your money, all the while the government provided you with a job in the first place.

Creditfigaro,

Actually it does mean the government shouldn't set up a system that unfairly taxes the choices of citizens. The government has no right to make my decision on what I put into my body, nor charge me extra for the things I put into my body.

The problem with your theory, and socialists in general, is that you always run out of other peoples' money. Your marxist utopia you speak of does not exist in any country in the world. Keep putting your idealistic fantasy out there though.

Your health or, lack thereof does effect other people through higher insurance premiums. Your thinking that you are an individual whose actions have no effect on the greater society, but your actions do have an effect. So unless you live of the land somewhere and heal yourself through your own means, then your health does effect me. We pay for the bad health choices that people make, if you want to be an individualist, which I can understand, you better pull out of the system completely.

This is a good point, I eat a healthy diet and exercise regularly and it would be nice if there was more positive reinforcement for living in healthy manner.

I wonder if that might be more productive than the negative reinforcement of taxation.

'cause water doesn't taste delicious! ;P

Might want to check your math, there, chief.

agreed! love the irony you just pointed out. Oh, America the great.

First, this isn't about children knowing how to read what's nutritious for them. No child is aware of or probably cares about their health before the age of ten, and they shouldn't have to. Parents should take responsibility at least before that age, and the educational system is already overburdened and underfunded almost beyond repair.
Besides, as a child, were you yourself attracted to unadvertised healthy beverages and snacks, or the sugar treats that are associated with fun colorful cartoon characters that were inescapable between every TV commercial break? If they won't get it from their family, they'll seek it out by their own means. I surely did.
This mostly targets those who depend on soft drinks are primary beverages because of their offensive affordability compared to actually nutritious beverages, like milk or juice, as bc_f states. People see the short-term benefit in saving money by purchasing cheaper but nutritionally defunct foodstuffs now, but pay for it later in medical bills and health complications.
Promoting informational campaigns is a hell of a lot more expensive than taking away incentives to cut corners.

taxing cigarettes made quite a few people quit.

You both bring up good points, but as a kid I didn't drink what was advertised I drank what my parents told me to drink. Milk. I didn't start drinking soda until my teen years and I will admit I drank around a 12 pack a day because it was so damn good. But that is my point, drinking soda is a personal or family choice, don't tax people who still want to drink soda. However, if this has to be taxed, atleast realize the extent of the taxation....."which among other things would include sodas, juice drinks and chocolate milk." So all things with excessive sugar, including juice boxes and chocolate milk. Soda is one thing but taxing all of the beverages with a couple grams of added sugar isn't right.

you'll be happy to know that recently, when i went to publix, a child brought a Monster drink to his mother, asking for her to buy it, and she absolutely refused, saying it was bad for him. there are responsible parents out there.