Are taxes on Twinkies and Coke the answer to what ails state budgets and U.S. health care? New York Gov. David Paterson wants a 18 percent sales tax on soft drinks and other nondiet sugary beverages to help fill a hole in his state budget. On today’s Opinion pages, Nicholas Kristof endorses Paterson’s idea, not because of the revenue stream but because it “would shift some consumers, especially kids, to diet drinks or water” and help fight the obesity epidemic.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- DavidB on Health care reform would save state money
- DavidB on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
62 Comments
Damn democrats are hard to figure.
Do they want to tax sugar because it is bad for you, or is that an excuse to reach into our pockets even further?
First they came for the smokers, then they came for the overweight, who’ll care about it when they come for you?
Nicholas Kristof endorses Paterson’s idea, not because of the revenue stream but because it “would shift some consumers, especially kids, to diet drinks or water” and help fight the obesity epidemic.
Oh, this would be very wrong thinking. Do you think Coke or Pepsi are going to charge different prices for regular coke and sugar free coke if the price of sugar goes up because of taxes?
Of course they won’t!
What will happen is the price of sugar free products will go up tit for tat the same as the sugared products.
dumbasses
I presume this would double the price for Hershey bars and all foods that contain some sugar, which is most foods.
Personally I believe most people could lose weight by stopping eating bread in any form.
No, they want to tax the problem, which is increased soft drink consumption. The graph for increased soft drink consumption mirrors the graphs for obesity, diabetes, autism and increased sugar consumption in this country. Twinkies aren’t the problem; pop is the problem. Coca Cola kills more Americans in a week than all the illicit drugs used in this country do in a year.
“In the last 20 years, we have increased sugar consumption in the U.S. 26 pounds to 135 lbs. of sugar per person per year! Prior to the turn of this century (1887-1890), the average consumption was only 5 lbs. per person per year! Cardiovascular disease and cancer was virtually unknown in the early 1900’s.”
Of course they died before they got it.
“WASHINGTON – Citing new figures that show that in 1999 Americans ate more sugar than ever before, the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is urging the federal government to advise consumers to limit their sugar intake. According to new U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data, sugar consumption in 1999 was 158 pounds per person — 30 percent higher than in 1983. Consumption has risen every year but one since 1983.
“
“More adults are drinking sugar-sweetened beverages and, among those drinkers, consumption has increased,” said Sara N. Bleich, PhD, lead author of the study and assistant professor with the Bloomberg School’s Department of Health Policy and Management. “From 1988 to 2004, the percentage of sugar-sweetened beverage drinkers increased five percent. Per capita consumption of energy from sugar-sweetened beverages increased 46 kilocalories (kcal) per day, and daily sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among drinkers increased 6 ounces per day”
“Americans drink more soda pop than ever before:
These popular beverages account for more than a quarter of all drinks consumed in the United States.
More than 15 billion gallons were sold in 2000.
That works out to at least one 12-ounce can per day for every man, woman and child.
Kids are heavy consumers of soft drinks, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and they are guzzling soda pop at unprecedented rates.
Carbonated soda pop provides more added sugar in a typical 2-year-old toddler’s diet than cookies, candies and ice cream combined.
Fifty-six percent of 8-year-olds down soft drinks daily, and a third of teenage boys drink at least three cans of soda pop per day.
Not only are soft drinks widely available everywhere, from fast food restaurants to video stores, they’re now sold in 60 percent of all public and private middle schools and high schools nationwide, according to the National Soft Drink Association. A few schools are even giving away soft drinks to students who buy school lunches.”
On and on and on; we can cut our health care costs in half but cutting out pop, and make this nation competitive again. Pop makes you stupid, fat, and robs your body of needed nutrients. We never ban the right stuff.
Coke is a very good mix for whiskey.
8 straight posts in this thread beber.
Sugar high? LOL
I presume this would double the price for Hershey bars and all foods that contain some sugar, which is most foods — J Wink.
Had a couple today have we? How would taxing pop increase the price of a Hershey bar?
berber aka phantom aka ten thousand other nics is known for one post following another.
postus interruptus
To answer AmWays first post.
They want their hands in our pockets more.
If Americans changed their habits, it would hurt the revenue created.
Not bad fibulus, still stinging? Have a coke; it rhymes with stroke.
How about a50% tax on video games to go with it? Exercise more than your thumbs!
No just trying to save lives, Mr. Diarrhea. Why are Americans so resistant to learning the truth?
But you are right. I am on a blueberry pie high.
That would help too, Jed; I think we’re about to experience a reverse tax. Declining incomes in effect make video games more expensive.
beber
Posted December 19, 2008 at 2:20 pm | Permalink
No just trying to save lives, Mr. Diarrhea. Why are Americans so resistant to learning the truth?
—————————————————-
What that Sugar is bad for you when over consumed?
Are you going to tell me Santa Claus is not real next?
Be berry berry quiet. Shhhhh!
Don’t repeat this anywhere. It’s extremely top secret.
Two words:
Toilet paper.
Bring in the money honey!
I’m also wondering when we will stop this stupid trade embargo with Cuba. We literally have an island of Sugar just 90 miles from US.
Of course, that would put a little damper on the US Sugar cartel, price supports, etc…..
Hate to see the consumer pay what’s a fair price for a product.
It rhymes with stoke.
“Summary: Adults who drink one or more diet or regular soft drinks a day were 44 percent more likely to develop metabolic syndrome than those who do not. Metabolic syndrome is a set of symptoms that, taken together, increase the risk of heart disease.”
Not over consumption, Mr. Diarrhea; any consumption.
#
American_Way
Posted December 19, 2008 at 2:29 pm | Permalink
Be berry berry quiet. Shhhhh!
Don’t repeat this anywhere. It’s extremely top secret.
Two words:
Toilet paper.
Bring in the money honey!
——————
Next thing you know, they’ll wanting to be taxing the air!
er…never mind…
Moderation is a wonderful thing.
Imagine the money government could make!
Tax by layers (ply)?
Or tax by sheets?
Tax by the roll?
Business could make HUGE profits putting UPC symbols on each SHEET! And the toilet paper dispenser with that electronic eye to count how
much you use.
“Let’s see there Mr. Regular, that thar was a purty big STINKER you just took. That be 15 sheets double ply sheets you just used of high quality Charmin AND the scented lubricated blue. That sir will cost you $14.92 cents!”
…
..
.
Dang me! Dang me! They oughta take rope and hang me!
So is marketing, Mr. Diarrhea. It’s convinced us that what amounts to a profound systemic poison is “American.” In a way, what Coke and Pepsi have done to our children is wonderful anology of how the market forces you worship really operate.
Americans Pay: It’s called a sales tax. In Europe, it’s a value added tax.
Always the evil empire that is the United States isn’t it bevis?
Pay no attention to the likes of China for instance where the same products are readily available and yet the citizens do not have the resources to educate themselves as to potential harms.
this is an attempt to match the revenue in to the costs going out.
Poor health, which in many cases in directly attributable to diet, is a large and increasing cost to our country (like it or not). Taxing items that are directly linked to poor health is a way to shift a larger share of the burden of paying for poor health to the products that cause the poor health.
I think fiscal conservatives would love this. It is a consumption tax that links the revenue to the expense, rather than spreading the expense to everybody.
So you think Coke and Pepsi are America, Mr. Diarrhea? The evil empire is the one which kills kids or compromises their health with their products. Read what the invasion of soft drinks has done to the health of children in other countries.
Told. You. So.
There isn’t any “nice” way to end this robbery. I am soo looking forward to a revolution. I am very much fed up with with everyone else thinking for and policing everyone else.
I wonder when folks will be strapped enough to actually, for once, say “no”? We aren’t “headed” towards a police/fascist state, it is here now. And incrementally, we are introduced to “how things are gonna be”. Relegated to serfdom, asking permission and getting permits and being taxed for basic human rights. Not me.
It will be a good day when folks start hanging.
It ain’t beber’s call what I can or can’t or should or should not do. You can’t stop people from being stupid and NO ONE should be obligated into providing said stupid person healthcare either for being fat, dumb and lazy. Tough luck.
Where the fuck did that tobacco settlement go? No fucking where. Where’s the bankster money?
I am ready for blood. Dig?
“Pleefer
Posted December 19, 2008 at 3:45 pm | Permalink
…Relegated to serfdom, asking permission and getting permits and being taxed for basic human rights. Not me….”
So soda pop is a basic human right for you Pleefer?
You going to lead the Atlanta Coke Party and dump their syrup into the storm drains while dressed as as Indian?
beber
Posted December 19, 2008 at 3:17 pm | Permalink
So you think Coke and Pepsi are America, Mr. Diarrhea? The evil empire is the one which kills kids or compromises their health with their products. Read what the invasion of soft drinks has done to the health of children in other countries.
—————————————————-
I’m sure it has. You seem to be blaiming Capitalism or the Free Market is that correct?
I am blamely the lack of freedom of information for people to educate themselves on what is good and bad for them and the choice they make from there.
“I think fiscal conservatives would love this.”
You think wrong. We want lower taxes. Higher taxes kills jobs. Why do you people hate the working man?
“So soda pop is a basic human right for you Pleefer?”
If I say it is, it is.
Dumbass.
IN this country, retard, you have freedom and rights. But it seems you, like many others on here are too stupid to understand individual rights.
So you can along with those others, take your self-righteous ass and shove something up it…shit!sorry, your heads are already occupying those spaces.
“Pleefer
Posted December 19, 2008 at 3:56 pm | Permalink”
Oh somewon is a wittle angry…
is it time for your nappy wappy?
Or maybe you are wet again
pobrecita
“fleettwood
Posted December 19, 2008 at 3:52 pm | Permalink
You think wrong. We want lower taxes. Higher taxes kills jobs. Why do you people hate the working man?”
‘You people’ eh? What are you, some kind of bigot? ‘You people’?
I bet you get a lot of mileage out of that one at parties…. ‘you people’.
#
brian_nuevo
Posted December 19, 2008 at 2:54 pm | Permalink
this is an attempt to match the revenue in to the costs going out.
Poor health, which in many cases in directly attributable to diet, is a large and increasing cost to our country (like it or not). Taxing items that are directly linked to poor health is a way to shift a larger share of the burden of paying for poor health to the products that cause the poor health.
I think fiscal conservatives would love this. It is a consumption tax that links the revenue to the expense, rather than spreading the expense to everybody.
————————
Except for the fact that companies that make sugared products make other products. The cost will be redistributed to products that have no sugar and there will be a price hike on everything.
stupid
“Regular
Posted December 19, 2008 at 4:16 pm | Permalink
…Except for the fact that companies that make sugared products make other products. The cost will be redistributed to products that have no sugar and there will be a price hike on everything.
stupid”
It is stupid to assume the tax would be levied on the companies that make those products. The easiest way to do it would be at point of purchase, collected from the purchasing consumer and remitted to the state, just like the sales tax collection process.
This is already done in taxing jurisdictions that have separate taxes for different classes of goods sold (alcohol tax on top of regular sales tax at restaurants is an example.)
“brian_nuevo
Posted December 19, 2008 at 4:19 pm | Permalink
“Regular
Posted December 19, 2008 at 4:16 pm | Permalink
…Except for the fact that companies that make sugared products make other products. The cost will be redistributed to products that have no sugar and there will be a price hike on everything.
stupid”
It is stupid to assume the tax would be levied on the companies that make those products. The easiest way to do it would be at point of purchase, collected from the purchasing consumer and remitted to the state, just like the sales tax collection process.
This is already done in taxing jurisdictions that have separate taxes for different classes of goods sold (alcohol tax on top of regular sales tax at restaurants is an example.)”
Regular, I accept your apology in advance.
Awwwww . . . what a sweet thread.
Who owns Frito Lay? Taco Bell?
Soft drinks are not just in a can. They are at fountains and sold in vending machines.
Pass the tax and increased off onto the distributor and prices on all products will increase. No seller in their right mind are going to be priced out of the market by a tax on just one category.
stupid
“Regular
Posted December 19, 2008 at 4:29 pm | Permalink”
OK, go back and read my 4:19 post without your preconceived ideas of how a sugar tax would work.
Obviously you don’t understand it.
The tax would be paid by the consumer (a consumer is the person who purchases the product, not the one that receives money for the product)
#
brian_nuevo
Posted December 19, 2008 at 4:34 pm | Permalink
“Regular
Posted December 19, 2008 at 4:29 pm | Permalink”
OK, go back and read my 4:19 post without your preconceived ideas of how a sugar tax would work.
Obviously you don’t understand it.
The tax would be paid by the consumer (a consumer is the person who purchases the product, not the one that receives money for the product)
———————————-
18 cent tax on a vending machine sugared drink eh?
How you going to manage that?
I know how. The distributor will have to raise the price 20 cents per can and charge the consumer to collect the tax.
Not wanting their main product to be shunned from purchase because of higher price, the company will jack up the price on the other soft drinks 20 cents as well.
Or are you ignorantly suggesting the consumer is going to deposit 18 pennies in a vending machine in a special tax box?
Stupid
Informing themselves is exactly what people do, Mr. Diarrhea; by watching ads on television, especially the ones aimed at children.
“Paterson’s idea, not because of the revenue stream but because it “would shift some consumers, especially kids, to diet drinks or water” and help fight the obesity epidemic”
Very adult logic and there is the fault with the thought. Kids do not look at the world or use the same logic as an adult. Raising the price will not effect their desire to have the product. Once I ask a Middle School-er what the going price for a pack of cigarettes is.
He told me $5.00 a pack, the price at the store was at the time $2.50 a pack. It is not the price that is the deciding factor for them. Because they do not have the concept of the value of money. Their only concern is to have the amount to get what they want. Not whether they can afford it or is it worth it. This is nothing more than the old bug-a-boo of taxing sin.
I doubt that a tax on soda pop will work or would ever be enacted, but it sure as hell is time to have a discussion on the real cause of our health costs and problems, which is our diet. What we are doing is starving amid plenty aided by stupidity and marketing. If the dicussion ever gets serious, I’d dump Coca Cola stock.
We all knew the obesity tax was coming, it’s just a question of who was going first. May not be NY, I think some politician in TX brought up this way to get more taxes. There is no way we as private individuals will have a way to make our own choices with out others to do it for us. I’m going to have another soft drink, naw make it hot tea. I use honey in my oatmeal, will that get taxed, of course. Will there be a black market on soda pop? I’m not happy with the politicians acting like they own us.
If I can’t have my Dr Pepper, life won’t be worth living. We all have a right to our addictions. I’ll pay whatever it cost to get my sugar and caffeine fix..I don’t care.
BTW, sugar is sugar…no matter if it’s refined or raw sugar, honey, orange jusice, etc. In excess it’s all bad.
I think a good start would to block Soda and junk food from government food stamp programs and schools. and maybe have health insurance more like auto insurance bad drivers pay higher premiums, make smokers, alcoholics and the obese pay higher premiums
another thought maybe if sugar and corn weren’t subsidized it wouldn’t be snuck in our food.
I agree with blocking junk food and soda from food stamp programs and from the schools. We have to bring down the cost of health care, and dealing with the underlying causes to most of the health problems is a start. I know that insurance companies charge more for health and life insurance for smokers, it should be the same for obesity. People have the right to smoke and overeat, but they need to pay more than those who choose healthier lifestyles. The cost of treating all the problems that come from being obese is insane.
Tax the fat pigs, not the normal people!
Taxes on fat & sugar products should be based on body fat composition.
If you are in the normal range for body fat, the government should issue a tax exemption card for you to buy whatever food products you want.
Now you fat folk, y’all should pay a 100% tax on your Whoppers & Big Macs & French Fries & Snack Foods!
Tax the Pigs, not the People!
I’m so glad we have Nanny Government taking more control of our lives.
Who gives a rip about Freedom anyway?
Actually, it’s FAT that causes obesity more than sugar, but I like the idea.
People who drink sugar pop are just nuts. They deserve to be taxed.
As was stated above, government should end the subsidies for sugar before putting taxes on it.
There is a government solution for you. Give someone money to ‘make the price go down’ and then place a tax on the consumer so they can pay more. It’s more Progressive Logic. Out my purse and in their wallet.