Posted on 12/17/2008 5:40:01 PM PST by Eric Blair 2084
Governor Paterson says he can raise $404 million in state revenues with a 15% tax on soft drinks (but not diet sodas, juices, milk, or water).
The relevant section of the statute reads:
"Create Sales Tax on Soft Drinks. Imposes an additional 18 percent rate of sales and compensating use taxes on fruit drinks that contain less than seventy percent of natural fruit juice and non-dietetic soft drinks, sodas and beverages. By increasing the price, it will discourage individuals, especially children and teenagers, from excessive consumption of these beverages. Revenues will be directed for health care initiatives."
And here’s the American Beverage Association’s predictable response: hurts the middle class, nobody wants it, no science or logic behind it.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. For example, the maker of a carbonated juice drink wrote me to complain that her product, which is 50% juice and taxable, contains under 70 calories per 8-ounces in comparison to non-taxed 100% fruit juice at 110 calories/8 ounces. Obesity is about calories, no? Or is it really about the kinds of products people habitually drink?
I’m curious to know what you think of this idea. Please weigh in.
I’m not really sure what we know about hunger and satiation. One of the articles did mention that there seemed to be no difference in satiation effects between the two sugars. But the carbonyls existing in one and not the other, raises a big doubt in my mind about just how similar they are. What is a carbonyl and why would it exist in the drink with unbound fructose and not the one that is bound. Is it something about fructose being bound, or is the carbonyls in the HFCS, and if so are there other differences as well?
As far as the artificial sugars, I keep going back to the Texas study that showed people who drank artificial drinks gains more than those who didn’t. I don’t know how strong the control study was, and it may be that the people turning to artificial drinks already had weight issues. But if so, then why did the Rat study show the same thing? You would think the rat study removes the causation argument, as presumably the rats were assigned randomly and could not choose.
We may not end up like Cuba or the old USSR, but I think it's quite likely we could end up with the kind of prohibitive taxation and behavior modification policies you disagree with.
That's how these movements work. Baby steps. *You* are able to draw a line between making people pay for the costs they impose vs. making people change what they eat. A lot of voters don't see this distinction, and a lot of politicians will gladly ignore it.
Look at the anti-smoking movement. It started with smoking bans on government property, bans on airplanes, and separate sections in restaurants. Now, we have ridiculous taxation, complete bans in all "public" places (which in some jurisdictions can include private clubs), and even bans on smoking in outdoor parks.
But all taxes will always be political footballs, kicked back and forth between conservatives and libs. If I could set all these taxes, I’d lower some of the higher taxes on alcohol and tobacco, and add about a 10% tax to high sugar products.
Unfortunately, as we both know it won't be you or I setting the tax rates. It will be the same geniuses who gave us the tobacco and alcohol taxes we have now. Even if the rates start small all it will take is a (manufactured) budget crisis, or an effective lobbying campaign, or even just slow gradual change before we have 60-70% taxes. Voters will get used to it, conservative politicians will have bigger fish to fry, and then we have a government that is not just trying to make us pay for the costs of what we eat, but rather is trying to make us have the "correct" diet.
Granted, even that is not quite a 1984 scenario. But I'd rather pay a few more bucks out of each paycheck than have the government poke and prod me into living the "approved" lifestyle.
Idiots !!
My kids think that if it costs more then it must taste better.
“Granted, even that is not quite a 1984 scenario. But I’d rather pay a few more bucks out of each paycheck than have the government poke and prod me into living the “approved” lifestyle.”
There are different philosophies that can be applied to any form of taxation, and it will most always be different on the left and right. Some might see taxes on alcohol, tobacco and sugar as sin taxes that should be punitively high so as to discourage behavior, and probably also maximize revenue. That’s a leftist approach.
A conservative approach would tax those addictive and harmful to many products at a reasonable level and use the proceeds go to offset the social and health costs associated with the product’s use, shifting some of the costs to the cost causers, or users of the products. And diabetes is becoming almost epidemic if reports are correct. No secret what behaviors often lead to Type II.
The valid points you make also apply to all taxes, and especially the income tax. It’ll always be a tug-of-war between the taxing philosophies of the left and right. But neither is advocating zero taxes, so...
I agree and I also find it sad that many WANT to equate private insurance with government entitlements. They desire that transition and will twist any political ideology to accomplish that goal.
What is forgotten, is that when private insurance becomes a government entitlement, then the state will have a reason to control our physical being.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.