"Soda Tax Weighed to Pay for Health Care"!!!!

Archive. Enter at your own risk. Unmoderated thread.


Moderator: Super Moderators

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Re: Re: "Soda Tax Weighed to Pay for Health Care"!

Post by racehorse » 05-14-2009 12:05 AM

Capt Tuttle wrote: Racehorse -



12 per day - WOW!

That's impressive ;)


It looks like I am not alone in enjoying diet sodas. ;) :)

From 2004:

Snip:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicsel ... -eat_x.htm

"A typical day. . . for Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards . . . And lots of Diet Cokes — about 10 cans — throughout the day."

---

Former United States Senator John Edwards (D-NC) :D
Last edited by racehorse on 05-14-2009 12:12 AM, edited 1 time in total.
racehorse
Image

Shirleypal
Pirate
Posts: 45448
Joined: 03-06-2003 03:00 AM

Post by Shirleypal » 05-14-2009 09:24 PM

12 a day is a lot......I don't drink soda at all, but in the morning I drink 2 small cups of expresso, if I drank 12 cups I would so wired that I don't think I could function.

User avatar
IvyQ
Pirate
Posts: 3557
Joined: 03-22-2004 04:21 PM

Post by IvyQ » 05-15-2009 08:46 AM

Drink no soda also... just 1 cup of green tea before work and 1 cup of my apple cider vinegar concoction.

Cherry Kelly
Pirate
Posts: 12852
Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
Contact:

Post by Cherry Kelly » 05-15-2009 09:06 AM

Coffee in the morning - soda at night - but the idea of more taxes on this, then more taxes on that -- when there was this 'not quite saying no new taxes but close' was all hot air.

You can't spend all the stimulus monies without some way of collecting monies to pay for it...so expect even MORE taxes.

...and who gets hit the hardest - low and middle classes - of course...

ibme
Pirate
Posts: 649
Joined: 11-26-2006 11:42 AM

Post by ibme » 06-01-2009 02:31 PM

kaz, this is why we will never come out of this alive.
Republicans seem pre-occupied with what transpires in my bedroom, while Democrats seem pre-occupied with what I stock in my refrigerator

User avatar
joequinn
Magister Ludi
Posts: 8282
Joined: 04-25-2000 02:00 AM

Post by joequinn » 06-01-2009 03:47 PM

When you defend capitalism as a socio-economic organizing principle, this is exactly and precisely what you get. And you have nobody to blame for it but yourself...
"Fuggedah about it, Jake --- it's Chinatown!"

User avatar
Psychicwolf
Pirate
Posts: 5999
Joined: 12-31-2006 12:47 AM

Post by Psychicwolf » 06-01-2009 05:05 PM

joequinn wrote: When you defend capitalism as a socio-economic organizing principle, this is exactly and precisely what you get. And you have nobody to blame for it but yourself...


I would diagree with you on this one, on this issue. Socialists are always concerned about what's going on in people's bedrooms and particularly whether procreation is going on; not always for the same reasons. The Soviets desired more Comrades, while the Chinese tried to limit makin' babies.
And food is a tightly controlled resource in Socialist countries. Because resources such as food must be divided "equally and fairly" (ha! back in the day the worker never saw the inside of Moscow restaurants frequented by Party leaders) there is concern about the amount one eats and when and how. Even in wealthy democratic socialist countries. like the Scandinavian countries, there is an early focus on nutrition and non-wastefulness. I grew up in a primarily Scandinavian community and when friend's grandparents, aunt, uncles, etc., visited from the old country they were shocked and delighted at our grocery stores and yet appalled at our store carrying aisle after aisle of junk food and the waste of food Americans practiced.
Dance to heal the earth. Not just when you're dancing, but always. Live the dance, whenever you move, in all you do, dance to heal the earth.

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 06-01-2009 07:25 PM

Psychicwolf wrote: the Chinese tried to limit makin' babies.


They still do with their strictly enforced one child only law.
racehorse
Image

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 06-11-2009 11:18 PM

:rolleyes: :( :mad:

----

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/b ... 094679.stm

Page last updated at 08:47 GMT, Thursday, 11 June 2009 09:47 UK

Venezuela bans sale of Coke Zero

Venezuela has banned the sale of the calorie-free Coke Zero, calling it harmful to people's well-being.

"The product should be withdrawn from circulation to preserve the health of Venezuelans," said Health Minister Jesus Mantilla.

Mr Mantilla did not say what the specific problem with Coke Zero was.

Coca-Cola said it would stop production of the drink in the country, but also added that Coke Zero contained no harmful products.

Anti-US motivations?

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez is a vocal critic of the US, and is in the process of nationalising much of the economy.

He has criticised American "imperialism" repeatedly, and often castigates critics of his rule on his TV show Alo Presidente.

The government this year has seized a rice mill and pasta factory belonging to US food giant Cargill and has threatened action against pharmaceutical company Pfizer.

Venezuela, the world's ninth largest oil producer, has nationalised much of its oil and gas sector since Mr Chavez came to power, and recently took over its third largest bank, Banco de Venezuela.

In February he won a referendum that allowed him to keep running for new terms in office.

Coke Zero was launched in Venezuela in April. It launched the beverage in Europe in 2007.

In 2005, Venezuela's tax authorities ordered a 48-hour closure of Coca Cola's bottling plants for allegedly not following tax rules.

---
racehorse
Image

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 06-12-2009 07:07 PM

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/06/ ... -flat.html

USA Today

debate

Our view on paying for health reform: Soda tax falls flat

Thirsty for revenue, Congress eyes pop — and that’s just the start.


Providing health care coverage to millions more Americans is going to cost money, and lots of it, so perhaps it's not surprising that some in Congress want people with unhealthy diets to foot part of the bill. But where would the concept stop?

Congress is eyeing a menu of "lifestyle tax proposals," most prominently a new federal tax on soda and other sugary drinks.

Pop, as it's known in parts of the USA, is a ripe target for revenue-thirsty lawmakers. Soft drinks have been linked to obesity and adult-onset diabetes, which drive up medical costs. And like the federal tax on cigarettes, an excise tax on soda could improve health while generating billions in revenue. But closer inspection reveals several reasons why things go better without a soda tax:

Unlike soft drinks, tobacco is addictive and deadly even when used as intended. Everyone needs to drink fluids and consume calories. No one needs to smoke. So the soda tax breaks entirely new ground.

A soda tax would hit hardest the low- and middle-income families who spend a larger share of their income on beverages and other groceries. Didn't President Obama promise not to raise taxes for these folks?

Why single out soft drinks? Twinkies, chips, ice cream, fettuccine Alfredo and all manner of other fattening foods contribute to obesity and other health problems. Once Congress starts down this road, there is no logical end. How about a per-calorie tax on groceries and restaurant meals?

Under the proposal being promoted by the food police and weighed by the Senate Finance Committee, a tax would be levied on every 12 ounces of carbonated and non-carbonated drinks containing sugar, high-fructose corn syrup and other similar sweeteners. The tax would not apply to diet drinks, although several studies have shown that no-calorie soft drinks do little to curb obesity, perhaps because consumers think diet soda gives them license to wash down an extra slice of cheesecake or somehow cancels out the extra calories.

Information, not nanny-state intervention, is the best weapon against unhealthful eating habits. In fact, the tide is already turning against soda. Soft drink sales fell in 2008 for the fourth straight year, as increasing numbers of health-conscious consumers switched to bottled water and energy drinks.

Using "sin taxes" to induce more virtuous behavior has a long and checkered history, and often leads to overreach by cash-strapped governments. In America's early days, a tax on hard liquor led to the Whiskey Rebellion. Dubbing the levies "lifestyle tax proposals" doesn't make them any more popular. At the state level, voters in Maine defeated a soda tax in November, and New York Gov. David Paterson dropped a proposed soft-drink tax earlier this year.

The proposed federal tax on sugary beverages would raise perhaps $50 billion over 10 years, or about 3% of the $1.5 trillion needed to pay for health care reform. By comparison, limiting the tax exemption for medical insurance benefits could bring in $500 billion, and making Medicare and Medicaid more efficient could save as much as $600 billion. The soda tax deserves to be a fizzle.
racehorse
Image

OMG
Pirate
Posts: 2596
Joined: 04-17-2006 02:02 AM

Post by OMG » 06-13-2009 11:34 AM

I always found people reaction to money and taxes to be in a way very funny. A company can mark up a price 500% on the product and nobody blinks an eye. Someone can sell you a cup full of ice with a tad of soft drink in it and people will pay in full and it's totally accepted. But heaven forbid you put a nickle of tax on it, then all hell breaks loose :p

That might actaully be a fun human nature experiment. Have a couple of cups of soft drinks, same size and same brand and same price for a dollar a cup. You take a cup and fill it half with ice and half with the drink, the other cup it's up to the person who wants the drink to determain and control how much soft drink to ice ratio they want (which I assume will be more drink than the first cup) but then you say there's a nickle of tax in the "make it yourself cup" I would bet a lot would say "What! A Tax!. How dare you, give me the first cup" which of course is fifty cents less valuable than the second "taxed cup" :cool:

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 07-28-2009 11:09 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/27 ... 2172.shtml

CDC Chief: Soda Tax Could Combat Obesity

by Stephanie Condon

(AP)

While Democrats await the results of bipartisan negotiations over health care reform in the Senate Finance Committee, one of the proposals put before the committee received a nod of approval from health officials today: taxing soda.

The committee -- the last congressional panel expected to produce its own recommendations for health care reform -- listened to arguments earlier this year both for and against imposing a three-cent tax on sodas as well as other sugary drinks, including energy and sports drinks like Gatorade.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a three-cent tax would generate $24 billion over the next four years, and proponents of the tax argued before the committee that it would lower consumption of sugary drinks and improve Americans' overall health.

At the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's "Weight of the Nation" conference today, CDC chief Dr. Thomas Freiden said increasing the price of unhealthy foods "would be effective" at combating the nation's obesity problem, reports CBS News chief political consultant Marc Ambinder.

Freiden said he was not endorsing the tax as a member of the administration but was "just presenting the science," according to Ambinder. He also said policies that would reduce the cost of healthy foods would effectively bring down obesity rates.

Obesity-related health spending reaches $147 billion a year, double what it was nearly a decade ago, according to a study published Monday by the journal Health Affairs.

Given that evidence, the argument goes, a soda tax could plausibly pay for health care reform both by raising revenues and bringing down the medical expenses associated with obesity.

"It is extremely difficult in reality to make such a snapshot estimate of something so complicated as obesity," Ambinder notes. "This is one reason why researchers in the field tend to focus on suffering and disparities within populations, rather than aggregate cost."

Even though the growth rates of American obesity are leveling off overall, he points out, the rate is not slowing among African American women, Hispanics, Native Americans, or among poorer Americans.

Those opposed to the soda tax, however, are also emphasizing the impact it could have on poor Americans. The American Beverage Association, which strongly opposes the tax, told the Wall Street Journal the tax would hit poor Americans the hardest.

The association announced this month it has formed a coalition called Americans Against Food Taxes to oppose the soda tax, the Hill newspaper reported. Made up of 110 organizations opposed to raising taxes on food and beverages to pay for health reform, the group is running an advertisement that shows a family enjoying soda on a camping trip.

Given the current state of the economy, the ad says, "this is no time for Congress to be adding taxes on the simple pleasures we all enjoy."
racehorse
Image

Bobbi Snow
Pirate
Posts: 2366
Joined: 01-20-2008 01:57 PM

Post by Bobbi Snow » 07-29-2009 01:33 AM

I'm EXTREMELY allergic to ALL drinks made with suger substitutes. I'm 84 pounds, for God's sake... I can't afford,medically, to eat things that don't keep weight on me.
ImageIf you're still breathing, it's not too late!

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 10-21-2009 12:51 PM

http://tiny.cc/RAfip

Paterson pushes soda tax, again

By BRENDAN SCOTT

Last Updated: 4:37 PM, October 20, 2009

Posted: 2:25 PM, October 20, 2009

ALBANY – That didn't take long!

Less than week after calling on lawmakers to address New York's budget crisis without raising taxes, Gov. Paterson fizzled out and suggested he would take another pop at passing a state soda tax.

"I promise I will put (the soda tax) back in my budget address and give the Legislature another chance to do it," Paterson said during an interview on WNYC. "But you can’t keep voting down the ways to create revenues and then saying you don’t want to make cuts."

The governor's testy remark came after he heard an audio clip of Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries (D-Brooklyn) advocating a soda tax and an hike to out-of-state tuition as ways to help close the state's $3 billion budget gap.

Earlier this year, the Legislature rejected a Paterson proposal to raise more than $500 million annually with an 18 percent levy on sugary soft drinks in favor of a massive tax hike on the wealthy.

A similar tax has since gained favor with Democrats on the federal level as President Obama looks for ways to fund his health care reform plan.

While Paterson said he would open to another soda tax proposal next year, he rejected Jeffries' claim that such new taxes could help close the $3 billion gap in the state's current budget.

"He's right about different ways we can enhance revenues if the Legislature will agree to it," Paterson said. "But he's totally wrong because I'm talking about payments that must be met by Dec. 15."

"I don’t know how many times I’m going to have to say this before people understand and are persuaded that we have to act now," the governor continued.

The governor in another interview also moved back to Oct. 28 the date he expects lawmakers to return to Albany to considering his gap-closing proposal. He had previously selected Oct. 27 for the special session, but Senate Democrats announced they planned to hold a public hearing on the budget proposal that day.
Last edited by racehorse on 10-21-2009 12:53 PM, edited 1 time in total.
racehorse
Image

Cherry Kelly
Pirate
Posts: 12852
Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
Contact:

Post by Cherry Kelly » 10-21-2009 02:54 PM

--- and use taxes for utilities have been silently added in many areas. Pennies yes, but you take as many millions of people who are now paying in an extra forty or fifty cents in taxes to go to the federal government...this silently passed tax adds up. The excuse - costs more, because people are using less. (electric spokesman stated on local morning radio show)

And take a good long look at gasoline prices going up again, not by a nickle or even a dime, but quarters. WHY - all on speculation as reserves are full - but somewhere along the line they will need more, and with winter fuel going to be needed - watch those prices skyrocket soon. Got a need to fill do so now before you can't afford to do so.

Oh ya and beer drinkers - your beer is going to be getting more taxes as well. The push is on to add taxes there, because oops too many people quit or cut back on smoking so they gotta get the monies from somewhere - aha beer drinkers.

Post Reply

Return to “Politics and Government 2004-2009”