Apparently, a California Senator has determined that we need to start taxing soda to “help reduce rocketing rates of childhood obesity”. Is it me, or is this just a little too much government intervention? I’m finding the trend of “sin taxes” just a little disturbing. Is taxing soda really the answer here?
Uh, what about diet soda with a single calorie per serving? Do we tax that too?
Thoughts?
The People’s Republic of California wants more money. They want to sugar coat this want by hiding it under the guise of helping children, which makes it entirely more pallatable to soccer moms. That’s about the entirety of it.
Yes, although they aren’t the only state to consider this.
I wonder as well, how far we are from the potato chip tax, the pornography tax, and the coffee tax.
I guess I am curious as to how people feel in general about the so called “sin taxes”.
Methinks that the legislative branch of the government has lost sight of moderation; the American public is doing just fine, thank you very much.
For the record, I drink Dr. Pepper like nobody’s business and I’m 5’9", weighing in at approx. 110 lbs. I also love fast food.
Colin
Actually, the potato chip tax is, in effect, real. Back when Pete Wilson first began taxing “snack” foods, he used the health argument too. That led to the wonderfully healthful situation we have now, in which a slice of cake is taxed - because it’s a snack - and the whole cake isn’t - that’s part of a meal.
Crazy left-wingers we have here in California.
It’s all of a piece with her other stuff. Left-wing Democrat, yepperooni.
http://democrats.sen.ca.gov/senator/ortiz/
She’s running for reelection in November, having won the March primary by a score of 60,256 to 409.
http://vote2002.ss.ca.gov/Returns/stsen/0600.htm
So, yep, a tax on soda pop sounds about right. See, she’s got a mandate from the people of Sacramento County to make decisions about their health for them. :rolleyes:
Does CA have state/county sales tax on groceries?
Because WI doesn’t, and has always taxed soda for as long as I remember.
Taxing something because it’s unhealthy is ridiculous to begin with, although I support it when there’s a clear link between the unhealthy substance and public health dollars (i.e., tobacco).
Two cans of Pepsi have less caffeine than a cup of coffee (40mg * 2 vs. 100mg), and although each can has 41g of sugar (~10 tsp), that goes away if you get Diet Pepsi. Meanwhile, an apple has almost 20g of sugar, but I don’t see anyone telling us to stop eating fresh fruit!
In any case, eating healthy is about having a balanced diet, not about eliminating specific items. You can have a healthy diet that includes soda or chips just as easily as one that doesn’t.
I don’t quite see how taxing someone like me, a skinny 23 year old, for drinking soda is an appropriate way to combat childhood obesity. And in the past I would have been paying a lot of tax on my 2 liter a day Mountain Dew habit (I’ve since switched to getting more of my caffeine from coffee, and only average about one twenty ounce bottle per day).
I would suggest that the California legislature familiarize themselves with some John Sturat Mill:
According to the article, the proposed tax would increase soda prices by $0.02/can, not nearly enough to make a dent in consumption.
IMO, such exclusive sales agreements should be outlawed (if current antitrust legislation doesn’t already do that), but if kids can’t get soda in school, they’ll simply get their fix after school. And the extra money may simply mean California can spend that much less out of the other tax revenue, as is often the case when lotteries are promoted as a means of funding education.
It seems pretty obvious that SenorBeef is right - This is just another attempt to make money while pretending to do good.
Same here, I’m 5’10" drink Sprite, Cherry 7UP, root beer, obsessively every day and meal. I also eat out everyday, at Wendy’s, McDonalds, or any place else that puts raw fat on my plate. I come home watch CNN for hours then get on the computer for hours then go to sleep, then repeat the cycle. I weigh 115 lbs. My weight never changes. This tax wouldn’t fix my weight problem as it claims to but would damage it because I’m one of those rare people that are underweight. If i don’t load up on fat, sugars, carbs, proteins, my body shrivels up into a skeleton and if you see me now, you’d start to worry if i got any skinnier. These taxes will make my dieting harder. 