Soda tax

[happyone]

As a former obese person and a diabetic, I don't have a problem with it in theory. As with everything the devil is in the details.

We tax or don't tax all sorts of things to either incourage or discourage behavior.

[TripletDaddy]

Are you intentionally misreading to ask me be more clear. If so, I should probably thank you.

Across the board as in the members portion of the including or applying to all categories or members definition. You know, like across-the-board pay hikes. Across-the-board application of the tax. High metabolsim teen that can eat whatever he wants without gaining weight pays the same tax on french fries as an obese person.

that would only address obesity, not heart disease.

[TripletDaddy]

But do you think it would work? Would people really stop eating fast food b/c of the tax? And like someone already said (RC?) this seems to affect poor people disproportionally. What will these people eat? Aldi saltine crackers (on 33 cents a box!)? And if fast food places start offering better foods, will the tax be lifted on those items? who's going to oversee all of this?

It all sounds like a giant mess to me.

Your post belies another massive misunderstanding here on this board. Taxes are a financial representation of the fiscal budget. Their primary (not sole) purpose is to generate revenue, not curb or incite behavior. Before some of you neophytes post a link to the homebuying credit, I am talking about TAX, not credits and deductions.

A proposed tax on fast food is not intended to discourage fast food consumption any more than a tax on gasoline is intended to discourage the purchase of gasoline. Or a tax on income is intended to discourage people from earning income. Nobody is prohibited from eating anything. Everyone can eat as much of whatever they want, but they just have to pay an extra nickel to do so. This will not curb people from eating at fast food places anymore than if McDonald's had simply raised the price of their burger by 4 cents.

The Sin tax is simply an easy way for the government to generate revenue to offset expenses created elsewhere in the budget. In this case, one expense is health care. This is why the corrolated tax is fast food....not an increased tax on maritime equipment or toll roads. Fast food has a relationship with health care costs.

This notion that the government is telling us what is good for us is laughable. The government likely doesn't care right now what is good for any of us. They need to raise revenue fast and this is one way to help stem the tide. This is a financial exercise, not a moral one.

So eat your burgers, eat your salads, eat your velveeta, eat whatever the heck you want to eat. Smoke some cigarettes. yea, drink a little. Set a trap for your neighbor. The government doesn't care, so long as you pay the appropriate tax.

[falafel]

Your post belies another massive misunderstanding here on this board. Taxes are a financial representation of the fiscal budget. Their primary (not sole) purpose is to generate revenue, not curb or incite behavior. Before some of you neophytes post a link to the homebuying credit, I am talking about TAX, not credits and deductions.

A proposed tax on fast food is not intended to discourage fast food consumption any more than a tax on gasoline is intended to discourage the purchase of gasoline. Or a tax on income is intended to discourage people from earning income. Nobody is prohibited from eating anything. Everyone can eat as much of whatever they want, but they just have to pay an extra nickel to do so. This will not curb people from eating at fast food places anymore than if McDonald's had simply raised the price of their burger by 4 cents.

The Sin tax is simply an easy way for the government to generate revenue to offset expenses created elsewhere in the budget. In this case, one expense is health care. This is why the corrolated tax is fast food....not an increased tax on maritime equipment or toll roads. Fast food has a relationship with health care costs.

This notion that the government is telling us what is good for us is laughable. The government likely doesn't care right now what is good for any of us. They need to raise revenue fast and this is one way to help stem the tide. This is a financial exercise, not a moral one.

So eat your burgers, eat your salads, eat your velveeta, eat whatever the heck you want to eat. Smoke some cigarettes. yea, drink a little. Set a trap for your neighbor. The government doesn't care, so long as you pay the appropriate tax.

Thanks for the civics lecture. I actually agree with you. I don't think government cares if people stop eating fast food. In fact, if the tax is passed, I'm sure they'd love you to eat more of it! Just more money in the coffers.

I do think that government uses the perception that it cares about people's health to its benefit. They don't mind it if people think the government is taxing unhealthy food b/c it helps people get behind the idea of an additional tax. People don't want more tax, "but hey, we are overweight. This will be good for us."

In the end, what I was really trying to imply was that people are not going to stop eating fast food unless a 100% tax is placed on it. And even then, they'll probably only eat less. Plus, the government will never place a super high tax on McD's or Coke. Those companies and their lobbyists are far too powerful to let it happen.

[Pheidippides]

In the end, what I was really trying to imply was that people are not going to stop eating fast food unless a 100% tax is placed on it. And even then, they'll probably only eat less. Plus, the government will never place a super high tax on McD's or Coke. Those companies and their lobbyists are far too powerful to let it happen.

And with this I absolutely agree. I'm not concerned with actual consumption (well, I am, but only because you successfully sidetracked me into that debate, jerk!). What I am concerned with is the externality problem: who bears the costs for their bad decisions? So long as it is not me, I don't care. I have enough of a problem bearing the costs of my own bad decisions.

[il Padrino Ute]

How do you feel about a soda tax to help fund the medical plan?

Are you talking about Obamacare?

[RobinFinderson]

Damn liberals. All my kids are going to BYU-I.

Wow! I figured you were against the right of single people to adopt. I'm impressed.

[JohnnyLingo]

Wow! I figured you were against the right of single people to adopt. I'm impressed.

[TripletDaddy]

I do think that government uses the perception that it cares about people's health to its benefit. They don't mind it if people think the government is taxing unhealthy food b/c it helps people get behind the idea of an additional tax. People don't want more tax, "but hey, we are overweight. This will be good for us."

I was not suggesting that the government is totally unconcerned. I am simply saying that in the arena of tax, the government is not trying to send a message of care or approbation. Tax is simply a monetary expression of the current fiscal budget.

Taxing at 100% wouldn't curb consumption of fast food. People would still eat it.

A good tax example of government neutrality is the codification of tax on the proceeds from the sale of illegal drugs. From Sec 61 to Sec 5331, the Government has shown that it understands that the public will engage in illicit behavior. Guess what.....you have to pay taxes on it.

Fast food/soda is the next frontier in the Sin Tax arena. If I had to make an argument for an "across the board" tax on fast food (thereby penalizing healthy folks that sometimes eat unhealthy food), it would simply be that my occasional dollars still help keep the Master in business. Therefore, I will be taxed, but only occasionally. Admittedly, not a great argument.

You over-estimate McD's pull in this area. Do you have any idea how many millions McDs had to spend in R&D to develop tasting kitchens for their switch from fatty oil to the reduced/non-trans fat method? Sure, some of it wound up being eligible for a credit, but it was money the fast food industry as a whole would rather not spend. McD's does not want to have to report its nutrition content, either. These fast food companies are like lite versions of tobacco companies.....lots of money and clout, but as the tide of public perception continues to turn them into pariahs, less and less ability to hide.

[SteelBlue]

But do you think it would work? Would people really stop eating fast food b/c of the tax? And like someone already said (RC?) this seems to affect poor people disproportionally. What will these people eat? Aldi saltine crackers (on 33 cents a box!)? And if fast food places start offering better foods, will the tax be lifted on those items? who's going to oversee all of this?

A few years back an article appeared in our local paper talking about the difficulties the poor had accessing healthy food. The article appeared with a photo of an obese woman sitting on her bed with a giant pizza that she'd paid for with food stamps. A co-worker of mine found the whole premise absurd and infuriating and so he set out to live on a food budget of 0.50 cents/day. He lives about as simply as any man I've ever met and so he was perfect for the experiment. He ate almost exclusively from the grain bins at Winco and FoodMax. He got his protein from the legumes and his carbs from wheat, rice, barley etc... By the time the month ended he calculated that he'd eaten on 0.39 cents per day and that he'd probably eaten more healthily than the majority of Americans the entire month.

[il Padrino Ute]

Do you have any idea how many millions McDs had to spend in R&D to develop tasting kitchens for their switch from fatty oil to the reduced/non-trans fat method?

McDonalds obviously doesn't spend enough. Their food tastes awful.

[TripletDaddy]

McDonalds obviously doesn't spend enough. Their food tastes awful.

ha.....that was my conclusion, too. shh. dont tell them.

they are obsessive about their fries. making the switch in the oil was a HUGE deal.

I have had some interesting experiences with R&D in this area. Tasting kitchens are interesting.

[il Padrino Ute]

ha.....that was my conclusion, too. shh. dont tell them.

they are obsessive about their fries. making the switch in the oil was a HUGE deal.

I have had some interesting experiences with R&D in this area. Tasting kitchens are interesting.

You were in the tasting kitchen?

I don't think I would ever want to do that if it's for a fast food place, but I'd volunteer to participate if Ruth's Chris does that.

[falafel]

A few years back an article appeared in our local paper talking about the difficulties the poor had accessing healthy food. The article appeared with a photo of an obese woman sitting on her bed with a giant pizza that she'd paid for with food stamps. A co-worker of mine found the whole premise absurd and infuriating and so he set out to live on a food budget of 0.50 cents/day. He lives about as simply as any man I've ever met and so he was perfect for the experiment. He ate almost exclusively from the grain bins at Winco and FoodMax. He got his protein from the legumes and his carbs from wheat, rice, barley etc... By the time the month ended he calculated that he'd eaten on 0.39 cents per day and that he'd probably eaten more healthily than the majority of Americans the entire month.

Interesting. I have no doubt that it can be done. I only doubt that it will be done. Theory vs. practical application. There's no way poor people are going to suddenly start eating out of the grain bins at Winco, whatever that is. These are the same people who are likely too uneducated to understand why fast food is bad for them, and what they should be eating in the first place.

[TripletDaddy]

You were in the tasting kitchen?

I don't think I would ever want to do that if it's for a fast food place, but I'd volunteer to participate if Ruth's Chris does that.

I would be very willing to do a nice prime rib tasting kitchen. In fact, I will go ahead and offer my services right now if anybody is interested.