I feel there is too much discussion of big picture benefits i.e. healthcare and the like.
I feel that the government needs money because of [fill in whatever reason you like] and a soft drink tax would be a good way to garner money for the government.
I think we are talking about two different things. You are talking about general insurance and I am talking about employer sponsored health insurance.
When you get a job and they offer you coverage they have to be able to tell you that you will pay $X for your monthly coverage. They can’t base that cost on your health because that would be considered discriminatory. If you go for your own policy elsewhere no one is required to insure you so they of course go through the health questions and physical exams but when they agreed to offer coverage to your company for $X per employee they guaranteed you coverage when you got hired. Property insurance is in a similar position as an individual health policy in that they are not required to insure you so they will base the cost on your overall risk. It doesn’t really compare to an employer group when looking at cost.
Considering I am an insurance agent licensed in both property/casualty coverage and health I have a really good understanding of the industry and the products and I can promise you the point of insurance is to keep your individual costs low. It even says so at dictionary.com:
Why not just tax sugar? It’s as bad in sugar donuts and candy as in soda.
That’s a good point. A sugar tax across the board would be fair.
As a Coca-Cola stockholder, I can tell you he’s not kidding. Coca-Cola doesn’t measure its market saturation by share of the soft drink market. It measure by its share of global consumption of fluids by humans.
What do you think the uncertainty region is for the benefit of insurance for a single person? What do you think it is for risky behavior? Clearly, because of censoring at 0, more than half the people in an insurance pool will lose money in a given year - not even counting insurance company profit and overhead. The payback during a given year is not the value we get from insurance. If it was, very few people would buy life insurance. If you have term insurance, do you feel ripped off by it if you didn’t die during the year?
The only case I know of where behavior increases premiums is smoking, and I’m not sure if that is because the costs are so well known or if the insurance companies are allowed to increase premiums as part of the anti-smoking public health campaign.
I have heard of an idea whereby they raise the employee monthly payment for insurace if you are overweight, smoke whatever.
Ie your company pays 400 a month and you pay 100 but if you smoke you pay 200. Etc.
I never said it was. If you actually read what I wrote, I said the value of your insurance is the predicted payback, plus the benefit of making your expenses more reliable.
One might point out that sugar is already effectively taxed at nearly 100% of the cost. Cite.
Well I meant sugar as the group that includes glucose, fructose, and I suppose lactose, but milk rules, so we need a lactose exception; Tariffs apply to cane and beat sugar (glucose), but pop is sweetened with fructose from high fructose corn syrup.
damn it, fubared that. Table sugar is sucrose, blood sugar is glucose.
I’d like to see them try to tax blood sugar though.
THe problem with most of these feel-good emotional taxes is they never go for what the tax was allegely put into place for.
Cigarette tax to pay for healthcare? Wrong. Just goes into the pot with the rest of the tax money.
Alcohol tax to help pay for substance recovery programs? That is INcorrect!
License plate fees and gas taxes going into the road system? Nope. Into the general pile!
Park fees at national forests and parks go to fund the Forest Service? bzzzt Into the pot it goes!
Also, once a tax is put into place, it will never ever ever be removed. Ever. Letting them put a tax on soda will only increase it more and more.
It happens with everything except school funding. The one thing that could benefit from being federally funded is picked apart and downsized constantly.
So no, no more taxes for me kthx.
Some data, probably flawed. If the average American drinks 50 gallons of soft drinks each year (I read that somewhere, can’t remember where though), and if the average American family has 4.5 members (I’m going with the tradition of 2.5 children here), then the total tax paid per family per year would be $288, or €196 for what it’s worth (not much).
The version of the commercial I’ve seen features the young mother driving her (rather new) car through a neighborhood of foreclosed homes, then complaining about how this new tax will make it so expensive for her to feed her kids. 
What child needs soda or other sugary drinks as part of basic nutrition? Shouldn’t they be drinking milk? (And she’s buying the store brand soda anyway! How much more does she think she can save?)
This commercial actually makes me feel good about this tax.
(I notice on preview that the commercial has already been linked.)
It’s another regressive tax. The reason we have to consider excise taxes, or tax ourselves at the cash register to build transit systems, is because we don’t have the political will to take a real bite out of large incomes. When I see that commercial I wish I could say to the woman, “Then stop voting for representatives who consider high incomes inviolate, and who just ask high earners nicely to pay just a little extra–if they feel so inclined and it isn’t too much trouble!” This is essentially the issue explored in What’s The Matter With Kansas–people vote for politicians beholden to interests that are inimical to them.
Here’s the web site: http://www.nofoodtaxes.com/
Of course they are using the dictionary definition of the word “food” to help provide motivation for the rally against the tax. We’re all against taxing food, right? Sure, who wouldn’t be!
When most parents walk around the market looking for food to feed their family with, they aren’t looking for Snickers Bars and Mountain Dew. They have something else in mind. That’s what we’re talking about when we say that soda and juice “drinks” aren’t food.
Interestingly, the “send a message to congress” link brings up this message:
I was looking for a discussion forum so that I could try interacting with the folks who are against a sugar tax, but there doesn’t seem to be any place for that on their site. They want readers to take their viewpoints and opinions without comment or feedback.