This is in my top three favorites.
Posted on 06/24/2018 12:33:12 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Time and again we hear politicians from different parts of the country profess the virtues of a soda tax. Their reasoning ranges from wanting to improve the public health, by cutting back consumption of unhealthy drinks, to talking about how much revenue it will bring in.
This proclivity of nanny statists to push policies to change people’s behavior hues quite closely to Einstein’s definition of insanity: Trying the same thing over and over, expecting different results. Policy makers of all stripes need to abandon their affinity for soda taxes.
Put simply, soda taxes just don’t work. Take Berkeley, California, as an example. The city implemented a one cent-per-ounce tax in 2014, which could increase costs by almost 75 percent. A study conducted at Duke University showed that the tax has had little to no effect on obesity, and other related health issues. Another study showed that caloric intake from taxed beverages only went down six calories per day. It turns out the government cannot tax people into good health.
The story remains the same in Philadelphia, a city that implemented its own soda tax of one-and-a-half cents-per-ounce last year. Instead of taking in increased revenues from consumers, Oxford Economics found that instead the tax drove consumers out of the city. Beverage sales decreased in Philadelphia by 24 percent. Sales increased by 14 percent in the surrounding area. The soda tax, like most all taxes, hurts small businesses in the process. In this case, it also failed to produce the revenue it sought.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
the article goes on to make the case how the tax in Philly has been a disaster. BUT ... in Philly they made no bones about it: this has nothing to do with fake concerns about public health. They admitted it was about revenue, period. The assumed it would fund all sorts of free pre-school. Instead it's putting groceries out of business. Thanks government.
Exactly!
If you go to the next county, the soda people dont care cuz they are still selling soda. Drink water instead and the soda companies will come down on the govt like a ton of bricks.
Its the “twinkie” defense, you incentivize some one bigger than you to fight for what you want.
You want an end to the tax
You stop buying soda
Now the soda companies want an end to the tax, too.
Why should we care about what liberal politicians do to those who voted for them in a liberal city we don’t live in nor visit.
If it is successful, it will spread, including a national version if the progs get back in control. Better to kill it in its infancy.
Whether it “works” is far less important than the ethics of government as nanny state. Shaping our behavior is far outside the proper role of government. At the federal level, it’s outside the enumerated powers, which should (but doesn’t) end the discussion. Even at the state or local level though, a government that will influence our actions in a good cause will see mission creep - the growth of their areas of influence - until they are trying to control every aspect of our lives. No, thank you.
So when do we start banning caffeine,which is bad for you in large quantities, then cookies? Pies? Ice cream? And honey isn’t really any better than for you than sugar.
Buy a Soda Stream. Carbonate your
own beverages while limiting
sugar consumption. We’ve got one.
It works OK.
They know exactly what it does to business.
They feign ignorance and surprise that the resuts are not as predicted.
>So when do we start banning caffeine,which is bad for you in large quantities,
There’s some question to wither sugar is good for you in any quantity. Caffeine on the other hand had has many beneficial properties.
America’s “sin taxes” aren’t intended to ‘work’; they’re intended to give Leftists a case of the warm fuzzies as they persecute any behavior of which they do not approve.
I’m not sure what taxes are in East TN (apart from general sales taxes), but 2 liters can range anywhere from $1.00 to $1.79. I might not want to pay an extra 34-51 cents, but I usually don’t want to go to the trouble of going to another store just for soda. If it’s $1.34 at the $1.00 place, I’d probably pay it. If it’s $2.30 at the $1.79 place, I’d skip.
On the other hand, 12-18 cents more for a 12 ounce can or 20-30 cents more for a 20 ounce bottle (say at a gas station, where they’re already almost as much as a 2 liter in a supermarket), I would probably choose to not buy.
I expect in a decade that some law will pass cutting 50-percent of the sugar content in sodas...basically ruining the taste we expect, but finally correcting the health issue.
I can remember as a kid, the short-glass bottle (six-ounce I guess) being the normal sized Coke that I might consume (as a treat). Today? The same kid might consume 30 ounces per day.
>I can remember as a kid, the short-glass bottle (six-ounce I guess) being the normal sized Coke that I might consume (as a treat). Today? The same kid might consume 30 ounces per day.
Even back in the 40s sugar was causing major health problems. They had to reject between 20-30% of young men from the US draft because their teeth were rotted out from drinking cokes and eating candy as kids. This was less of an issue by the next set of wars due to campaigns to get people to brush, but we continue to trade short term enjoyment from sugar for a host of long term problems. Those problems are getting more costly to deal with every year.
Today we can’t field enough troops because they’re all obese, another problem that tracks really well with increased sugar consumption.
Even back in the 40s sugar was causing major health problems. They had to reject between 20-30% of young men from the US draft because their teeth were rotted out from drinking cokes and eating candy as kids.
I'd be interested in reading more about that. Where would I look?
And since they are going there anyway.....
There is only two ways for this kind of tax to work, you either restrict where people can buy things or you make it nation wide.
I strongly suggest that they not try these ways but hey, their funeral.
I am in favor of banning you little liberal.
Sugar is not a drug. It is not bad for you. And other people's food choices are none of your business.
Now go take a long walk off a short pier.
Sugar is a a preservative———and you want to ban it?
.
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.