Soda Tax Weighed to Pay for Health Care

[Midnight Mike]

Wow, sooner or later, you soda drinkers are going to treated just like cigarette smokers, like crap :mrgreen: $1.25 for a bottle of soda followed by $3 in taxes, isn't New York considering a tax on soda as well.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124208505896608647.html

Senate leaders are considering new federal taxes on soda and other sugary drinks to help pay for an overhaul of the nation's health-care system.

The taxes would pay for only a fraction of the cost to expand health-insurance coverage to all Americans and would face strong opposition from the beverage industry. They also could spark a backlash from consumers who would have to pay several cents more for a soft drink.

On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee is set to hear proposals from about a dozen experts about how to pay for the comprehensive health-care overhaul that President Barack Obama wants to enact this year. Early estimates put the cost of the plan at around $1.2 trillion. The administration has so far only earmarked funds for about half of that amount.

[T-Bird76]

So when this BS tax drives down the sales of soda resulting in a loss of tax revenue how is the Gov't going to pay for health care then? How about a tax on the air we breathe?

[mirrodie]

Charge the tax on SODA!

DO IT!

[Matt Molnar]

Better idea: smokers have to pay for their own health care.

[T-Bird76]

Charge the tax on SODA!

DO IT!

Better watch what you wish for they may tax the crap out your beloved wine ;)

[Mellyrose]

I do like the sound of them reducing the amount of sodium in packaged and restaurant foods. It's ridiculous how much they contain - it's almost impossible to eat healthy anywhere but home anymore.

It's a shame they can't just try to make soda healthier instead of more expensive. I guess that would deter people from buying it as well.

[Midnight Mike]

I do like the sound of them reducing the amount of sodium in packaged and restaurant foods. It's ridiculous how much they contain - it's almost impossible to eat healthy anywhere but home anymore.

It's a shame they can't just try to make soda healthier instead of more expensive. I guess that would deter people from buying it as well.

You can get healthier soda from Whole Foods or Trader Joes, but, people may not like the taste, price is slightly more expensive that Coke & Pepsi.

[cancidas]

i say do it.

[Matt Molnar]

You can get healthier soda from Whole Foods or Trader Joes, but, people may not like the taste, price is slightly more expensive that Coke & Pepsi.
I like some of those but they are a lot more expensive than the big brands. Coke and Pepsi could certainly make healthier stuff for much more reasonable prices... maybe the threat of these taxes will encourage them to do so.

[mirrodie]

Tax the wine? I dunno. Wine has various positive health effects when used in moderation whereas saod is just nore refined sugar.


In fact, coffee and wine, both in moderation, do show some positive influences on health. But soda, jsut sugar, has its direct link to increased risk of Diabetes.


If the soda tax is thought if as a 'penalty' toward one's health, then wine is a bonus.

[Midnight Mike]

Tax the wine? I dunno. Wine has various positive health effects when used in moderation whereas saod is just nore refined sugar.


In fact, coffee and wine, both in moderation, do show some positive influences on health. But soda, jsut sugar, has its direct link to increased risk of Diabetes.


If the soda tax is thought if as a 'penalty' toward one's health, then wine is a bonus.

Oh screw up, I say, tax the wine heavily :borat:

[PhilDernerJr]

I am very passionate about taxes, and this here is a good example.

Mario said how wine has various positive health effects. True, but overall that can be debated. However, as mentioned, people are assuming that this soda tax is considered to be a "penalty" for the sodas being unhealthy. I bid to you all that this is NOT the case.

they are taxing this, not because it's unhealthy and to persuade people to eat/drink healthier, but only because it's something that people buy in abundance and they want to milk (pardon the pun) money from the regular joe whenever they can.

It's just how Bloomberg said he wouldn't raise taxes. Even though income taxes may not have gone up, everything else was taxed. Property taxes, water taxes, all went up. I don't understand this though. Why do property taxes even exist? If people own their land, it's their land and that should be that. Income taxes and water bills should cover plumbing. It's just an excuse to tax.

The Whitestone Bridge was built back in the day, and people were told that the toll would exist only until the bridge was paid for. Right. Now people who need to commute over the East River pay $9-$10 a day.

Gas taxes. Why is there a tax? Is there a problem with the fact that I want to gas up my car? Why the penalty?

Sales tax. Again, why am I being penalized for something that George W says is patriotic. ;)

I am all for taxes, but they should not extend beyond income taxes and taxes on very specific items that they truly and honestly want to dissuade people from purchasing (cigarettes, alcohol, etc.).

Is it really a shock when people have no money and the economy is poor when it is literally commonplace for 40% of people's earnings go back to the government.....and they STILL can't balance the budget?

[Matt Molnar]

Tax the wine? I dunno. Wine has various positive health effects when used in moderation whereas saod is just nore refined sugar.
Alcohol is already taxed three times: Federal and State excise taxes on the production end, and then sales tax when you buy it.

[Midnight Mike]

Alcohol is already taxed three times: Federal and State excise taxes on the production end, and then sales tax when you buy it.

How about a Mario tax :mrgreen: or a married couple with 2 kids have to pay an additional tax :lol:

[Midnight Mike]

I am very passionate about taxes, and this here is a good example.
I am all for taxes, but they should not extend beyond income taxes and taxes on very specific items that they truly and honestly want to dissuade people from purchasing (cigarettes, alcohol, etc.).

Is it really a shock when people have no money and the economy is poor when it is literally commonplace for 40% of people's earnings go back to the government.....and they STILL can't balance the budget?

This one is going to piss me off, big time


People who like the tax-free status of their company health benefits could be asked to ante up. Money in the pot: more than $700 billion over 10 years.

Smokers, drinkers to carry tax burden?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22444.html

f you make big bucks — or enjoy alcohol, cigarettes and Coke — the government might hit you up to pay for fixing the nation’s health care system.

On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee peeked into vending machines and liquor stores, company payrolls and health savings accounts, looking for a mix of tax increases and spending cuts as a way to pay for a health overhaul — which could cost more than $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

Experts thought the big debate might be public plan vs. no public plan. But that may well pale in comparison to the difficulty of settling on a way to finance health care reform.

[mirrodie]

1. Mario said how wine has various positive health effects. True, but overall that can be debated. However, as mentioned, people are assuming that this soda tax is considered to be a "penalty" for the sodas being unhealthy. I bid to you all that this is NOT the case.

2. I am all for taxes, but they should not extend beyond income taxes and taxes on very specific items that they truly and honestly want to dissuade people from purchasing (cigarettes, alcohol, etc.).


On point 1, no debate. Wine in moderation has its positives. In overabundance, it has negative effects. I'm lucky if I have 2 glasses of red wine a week. If I get a 4th tax on it, no problem with me.

On 2, Phil the problem with that is that YOU think it should not extend beyond income and specific taxes. In other words, its your opinion vs someone else's.



3. Alcohol is already taxed three times: Federal and State excise taxes on the production end, and then sales tax when you buy it.

3. I thought so, which is why I am not concerned overly with add'l tax on it.





4. Smokers, drinkers to carry tax burden?

If you make big bucks — or enjoy alcohol, cigarettes and Coke — the government might hit you up to pay for fixing the nation’s health care system.



And Mike, make a case why they shouldn't. I Thank G-d I have a healthy family and we are trying to keep it that way yet our insurance rates are rising.

Why? To subsidize the costs for the other smokers, alcoholics, and generally unwell people who could give a rats ass about their health.

Over the past few years I've lost weight, changed my eating habits to being much healthier, done a lot of reading on eating healthy and am trying to do my best to keep us healthy.

But our rates are rising to pay for those others that ABUSE themselves. How many patients a day do I see and I tell to stop smoking because YES it can also be related to visial ailments. And we get laughed at, what does the doc know, right? Yet a boatload of these ailments are preventable.

Here's a news flash: Most chronic illness is preventable. Most good eyecare is preventative maintenance.
But G-d forbid patients actually take ownership of the situation. Instead, the majority of the mentality is to deal with it when it comes and that a pill will do the trick. Whats that lead to? More drugs, newer drugs at higher cost and more doctor visits.


So coming back full circle, if a tax on soda (high sugars), cigarettes, beer, or wine(all three, of which, if abused, are linked to chronic illness that is preventable) would actually go to health costs and may actually change some peoples behaviors, then so be it.

[PhilDernerJr]

On point 1, no debate. Wine in moderation has its positives. In overabundance, it has negative effects. I'm lucky if I have 2 glasses of red wine a week. If I get a 4th tax on it, no problem with me.

On 2, Phil the problem with that is that YOU think it should not extend beyond income and specific taxes. In other words, its your opinion vs someone else's.

Wine would fall into alcohol. Alcohol (beer, liquor) is used in ways that are very unhealthy, albeit very fun, hence the appeal. If wine was taxed lightly and beer and liquor heavier, then people would use wine as an alternative in that unhealthy manner. Does wine have some positive health benefits if drank in certain amounts? Yes, I don't debate that....I just don't think it's practical to tax it lightly based on that....it's still booze to me. Of course, that's my opinion and how I would build that tax.

As for taxes in general, yes it is also my opinion, but my opinion was based on the tax beliefs of our founding fathers. Taxes were a huge reason, if not the biggest motivating factor, for our fight for independence (and of course the violence/disrespect that ensued after we stood up against these taxes). We (our government, and then the people not understanding it all) have not realized what we've reverted to in terms of taxation. Much of what goes on now is exactly what we fought to NOT have when our nation was formed.

[Mellyrose]

Over the past few years I've lost weight, changed my eating habits to being much healthier, done a lot of reading on eating healthy and am trying to do my best to keep us healthy.

But our rates are rising to pay for those others that ABUSE themselves. How many patients a day do I see and I tell to stop smoking because YES it can also be related to visial ailments. And we get laughed at, what does the doc know, right? Yet a boatload of these ailments are preventable.

Here's a news flash: Most chronic illness is preventable. Most good eyecare is preventative maintenance.
But G-d forbid patients actually take ownership of the situation. Instead, the majority of the mentality is to deal with it when it comes and that a pill will do the trick. Whats that lead to? More drugs, newer drugs at higher cost and more doctor visits.


So coming back full circle, if a tax on soda (high sugars), cigarettes, beer, or wine(all three, of which, if abused, are linked to chronic illness that is preventable) would actually go to health costs and may actually change some peoples behaviors, then so be it.

If there were a Facebook-esque "like" button to push for this post, I would push it. :borat:

[Matt Molnar]

Keep in mind this is just one of the many BARRELS of worms a debate over a national healthcare system will open. This isn't even the hardest one. Just wait until the debates like...

Do we pay for abortions?
Do we pay for birth control?
Do we pay for Viagra?
Do we pay for gay guys to take Viagra?
When do we stop trying to cure a terminally ill person and let them die on their own?
Which politician is going to admit to the nation that under such a system, your sick grandma will probably have to die more quickly and painfully? The US spends more on end of life care than any other country.

[Tom_Turner]

Sorry for the "me too" post, but this is perfect.

TT


I am very passionate about taxes, and this here is a good example.

Mario said how wine has various positive health effects. True, but overall that can be debated. However, as mentioned, people are assuming that this soda tax is considered to be a "penalty" for the sodas being unhealthy. I bid to you all that this is NOT the case.

they are taxing this, not because it's unhealthy and to persuade people to eat/drink healthier, but only because it's something that people buy in abundance and they want to milk (pardon the pun) money from the regular joe whenever they can.

It's just how Bloomberg said he wouldn't raise taxes. Even though income taxes may not have gone up, everything else was taxed. Property taxes, water taxes, all went up. I don't understand this though. Why do property taxes even exist? If people own their land, it's their land and that should be that. Income taxes and water bills should cover plumbing. It's just an excuse to tax.

The Whitestone Bridge was built back in the day, and people were told that the toll would exist only until the bridge was paid for. Right. Now people who need to commute over the East River pay $9-$10 a day.

Gas taxes. Why is there a tax? Is there a problem with the fact that I want to gas up my car? Why the penalty?

Sales tax. Again, why am I being penalized for something that George W says is patriotic. ;)

I am all for taxes, but they should not extend beyond income taxes and taxes on very specific items that they truly and honestly want to dissuade people from purchasing (cigarettes, alcohol, etc.).

Is it really a shock when people have no money and the economy is poor when it is literally commonplace for 40% of people's earnings go back to the government.....and they STILL can't balance the budget?

[Tom_Turner]

Well, I won't (can't) deny there is a certain logic to taxing the drinkers and smokers..and nor can I really justify my smoking cigarettes. Its a terrible habit, even if I enjoy it to an extent, and I really ought to stop.

But at the same time there is a bit of unfair scapegoating going on. How about if those of you "need" to speed up and down the highway just get a $4000 ticket every time you do that? Wouldn't that make some sense and help subsidize the cost of all the collateral damage you might someday cause down the road in terms of emergency rooms, rehabilitation, funeral costs and everything else?

Should those that practice "unsafe" sex pay for their AIDS health care problems themselves?

Why, really, should I have to support the Teachers Union and the phony "educational" system taking place across the country? Might I be able to pay for my health care if others would pay the full price of their kids' public "education"?

Tom

[mirrodie]

Tom, $4000 a ticket vs how much of an increase on the sale of cigs, soda or wine? A bit of a stretch?

My vice is a clear road and good music. Today, I was in my office in 15 minutes. Let's Get it On, Sweet Child of Mine and Runaway came on the radio. (Three GREAT songs) Needless to say the music got louder and on a clear stretch, I was flying down the road.

Can't say I do much speeding these days and I still cant' see myself in a torqueless hybrid, but I use judgement when execising my need to speed.

If judgement were used in things such as wine, beer soda consumption, then the tax would not be a big dent.

Unsafe sex, yes you should pay.

I agree on your other points. A novel concept, no taxes, how about everyone pay for their own stuff? :wink:

[Matt Molnar]

How about if those of you "need" to speed up and down the highway just get a $4000 ticket every time you do that?
In Finland, speeding tickets are calculated based on your income. A few years ago the CEO of Nokia was pulled over for speeding on his Harley. They fined him 14 days' pay, which based on his $12 million salary, added up to over $100,000.