 calgov2002: for old calgov2002 articles. calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register |
Posted on 04/16/2002 7:08:20 PM PDT by socal_parrot
"I think you guys can afford 2 cents a can". This arrogant quote is from California State Senator Deborah Ortiz, author of the proposed "Soda Tax" bill (SB 1520). It was stated on the John and Ken talk radio show in L.A. after the hosts complained about Ms. Ortiz's plan to further tax the people of California through a tax on soda and sweetened fruit drinks. With Californians facing an almost $20 billion budget shortfall due to Gray Davis' handling of last year's power crunch, the last thing we need is another $369 million nanny tax.
The bill has passed the Senate Health and Human Services Committee and now moves to the Revenue and Taxation Committee before going to the full Senate. The Revenue and Taxation Committee has four Democrats and two Repulbicans. The Republican Senators are staunchly against the bill. Swaying one of the Democrats would kill the bill. Two of the Democrat Senators on the Committee are up for re-election this fall.
I heard about the website Repeal the Soda Tax on today's John and Ken show. The site has the text of the bill as well as links to the Senators on the Rev. and Tax Committee.
Californians already pay 9.9 cents out of every dollar earned in taxes to the state. We don't need anymore.
They won't, diet sodas and drinks are free from this tax. I'm not sure the vending machines will charge 5 cents more for sugar soda, the vendors may just average the costs nullifying that diet sodas are exempt.
Supermarkets, yes, restaurants and small markets generally no. For lunch my only choice is usually Diet Coke which gets old. This tax *may* improve the choices. Maybe the the law could be written to expire in 2 years requiring renewal in case the benefits don't materialize.
A huge benefit to cancer causing diet soda...ok maybe nutrasweet doesn't cause cancer, but only chemist could explain it's real name: aspartame. I am that sure diet soda really keeps every one healthy when both coke and pepsi have been around for over a century and haven't cause any major health problems. I am very against this soda tax especially because Grayout Davis wants us to pay for his mistakes.
Fight them every step of the way!
If it's that big an issue, may I respectfully suggest you take lunch somewhere else, then? There are ways to address problems like that.
"This tax *may* improve the choices."
How? Taxes tend to work the other way, reducing choices.
"Maybe the the law could be written to expire in 2 years requiring renewal in case the benefits don't materialize."
The "benefits", as defined by legislators and bureaucrats, is an increment of power. Whether it is over your choice of soft drinks, or over your life, it still means they win, you lose.
I think Simon has a pretty good chance. But the dems are alread putting a pro-abortion bill through so Davis can say he signed a bill in favor of a women's right to choose. Davis also trying to spin that at least he kept the lights on and he's trying to borrow from the tobacco settlement to lessen his exposure to criticism on the deficit by delaying the true pain until he's out of office. Plus, he'll offer a bunch of free stuff to the poor and minorities. It's going to be a squeaker.
Bologna!...there's many diet sodas out thar!...BTW, do you eat Reeses Pieces Reeses?
TAXES SUCK AND THIS ONE REALLY SUCKS...
TAX THIS ( . ) !!!!
FMCDH!
sheesh....don't take control over your own life or your childrens'...let another tax take care of it for you...sheesh....never mind, thanks for supporting more gov/control on how I have to spend my money...weakling.
FMCDH!
Still I don't like the idea of one more tax!
This scheme probably comes out of the Governor''s office!
|
calgov2002: for old calgov2002 articles. calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register |
A sad commentary if ever i heard one. Note to self: stop laughing, no one could possibly be this retentative.
This bill would impose a surtax upon every distributor, manufacturer, or wholesale dealer at a rate of $2 per gallon of soft drink syrup or simple syrup and $0.21 per gallon of bottled soft drinks, and $0.21 per gallon of soft drink that may be produced from powder, that is sold in this state. The revenues collected from the surtax would be deposited in the California Child Health and Achievement Fund, which the bill would create, for appropriation by the Legislature to diminish the human and economic costs of obesity in this state.How do they define the "soft drinks" to be taxed?
(m) "Soft drink" means any nonalcoholic, sweetened (excluding artificially), beverage sold for human consumption including, but not limited to, the following: sweetened soda water, ginger ale, all drinks commonly referred to as cola, lime, lemon, lemon-lime, and other flavored drinks, including any fruit or vegetable drink containingHowever, there are exceptions including the following:1050 percent or less natural fruit or natural vegetable juice, and all other drinks and beverages commonly referred to as "soda," "soda pop," and "soft drinks."
(d) Any frozen concentrate or freeze-dried concentrate to which only water is added to produce a soft drink containing more than 10 percent natural fruit juice or natural vegetable juice.
(e) Any soft drink containing more than 10 percent natural fruit juice or natural vegetable juice.
I really don't like this bill (or any new taxes). But, if it were to pass, the bill doesn't specify how the surtax revenue would be spent -- the legislature could spend it on anything for the children.
The bill frequently compares milk to the soft drinks. Why not subsidize California milk, instead of creating a "Health and Achievement" fund? Milk costs me at least $2.69 per gallon, but store-brand soda/cola is around $1.20 per gallon (I estimate, for two 2-liter bottles). A 21 cent surtax on the soda still keeps its price below that of milk. If our legislators are so interested in social engineering, why don't they equalize the price of milk and soda?
I'm uneasy about this entire bill and prefer no new taxes. Otherwise, it seems that taxes can always be applied to a selective minority, one at a time, until everything is taxed more.
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.