Finally a tax i don't have to pay for but you youngins are gonna get zapped

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Tee hee

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

Soda Tax Weighed to Pay for Health Care Article
By JANET ADAMY
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.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based watchdog group that pressures food companies to make healthier products, plans to propose a federal excise tax on soda, certain fruit drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks and ready-to-drink teas. It would not include most diet beverages. Excise taxes are levied on goods and manufacturers typically pass them on to consumers.

Senior staff members for some Democratic senators at the center of the effort to craft health-care legislation are weighing the idea behind closed doors, Senate aides said.

The Congressional Budget Office, which is providing lawmakers with cost estimates for each potential change in the health overhaul, included the option in a broad report on health-system financing in December. The office estimated that adding a tax of three cents per 12-ounce serving to these types of sweetened drinks would generate $24 billion over the next four years. So far, lawmakers have not indicated how big a tax they are considering.

Proponents of the tax cite research showing that consuming sugar-sweetened drinks can lead to obesity, diabetes and other ailments. They say the tax would lower consumption, reduce health problems and save medical costs. At least a dozen states already have some type of taxes on sugary beverages, said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

"Soda is clearly one of the most harmful products in the food supply, and it's something government should discourage the consumption of," Mr. Jacobson said.

The main beverage lobby that represents Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc., Kraft Foods Inc. and other companies said such a tax would unfairly hit lower-income Americans and wouldn't deter consumption.

"Taxes are not going to teach our children how to have a healthy lifestyle," said Susan Neely, president of the American Beverage Association. Instead, the association says it's backing programs that limit sugary beverage consumption in schools.

Some recent state proposals along the same lines have met stiff opposition. New York Gov. David Paterson recently agreed to drop a proposal for an 18% tax on sugary drinks after facing an outcry from the beverage industry and New Yorkers.

The beverage-tax proposal would apply to drinks that many Americans don't consider unhealthy -- such as PepsiCo's Gatorade and Kraft's Capri Sun -- based on their calorie content.

Health advocates are floating other so-called sin tax proposals and food regulations as part of the government's health-care overhaul. Mr. Jacobson also plans to propose Tuesday that the government sharply raise taxes on alcohol, move to largely eliminate artificial trans fat from food and move to reduce the sodium content in packaged and restaurant food.

The beverage tax is just one of hundreds of ideas that lawmakers are weighing to finance the health-care plans. They're expected to narrow the list in coming weeks.

The White House, meanwhile, is pulling together private health groups to identify cost savings that will help fund the health overhaul. Mr. Obama on Monday held a White House meeting with groups that represent doctors, hospitals, insurers, pharmaceutical companies and medical-device makers. They pledged to help restrain cost increases in the health-care system in an effort to save $2 trillion over the next decade.

"When it comes to health-care spending, we are on an unsustainable course that threatens the financial stability of families, businesses and government itself," Mr. Obama told reporters.

Write to Janet Adamy at janet.adamy@wsj.com

**reds8n**

Finally a tax i don't have to pay for but you youngins are gonna get zapped

They're going to tax dress sense, style, grace,coolness and well thought out political ideology !

Taxes are not going to teach our children how to have a healthy lifestyle," said Susan Neely, president of the American Beverage Association

No, but neither are coke, pepsi and their various sponsored events either.

Hmmm.... I think something like the 18% tax they mention as having FAILED big time in New York ( would they mean the state here as opposed to the city as it was the GOv. yes ?) would be OTT, but a simple 1 cen extra wouldn't be breaking the bank now really would it ?

**Frazzled**

I see $50 per can. After all, its for the children.

**barlio**

I'm torn on this. On one hand I really like soda. I generally have one to two a day (my gut is beginning to show it). Otoh though I know that it is bad for you and agree with the stated negative effects.

If they want to address childhood obesity then take it out of the schools (up thru highschool). I've heard the argument that schools depend on the extra funding. My wife is a teacher and I know how tight school budgets are, but they can find a way to fight these costs.

If they want to argue that it's a lifestyle tax see tobacco, alcohol, etc...

As far as low-income families not being deterred. If you don't have enough money then the last thing you should be buying is soda, energy drinks, etc...

**Mango**

Since the EPA has decided that it can regulate C02 emissions, it won't be long before we all have to pay a carbon offset for the privilege of breathing.

**JD21290**

soda tax? i think ill stick to whiskey then

**Mattlov**

I think it is actually unfair to NOT tax diet sodas. I CAN'T drink diet, I am allergic to pretty much every artificial sweetener ever made.

Diet soda is STILL soda, filled with all sorts of things a person doesn't need either.

**JohnHwangDD**

IMO, they can tax *all* soda.

But they really ought to put the screws to the cigarettes, first.

Something like $10/pack would be a great start.

**JD21290**

DD, i take it you dont smoke?
there will allways be biased opinions

**JohnHwangDD**

Of course not - paying to commit suicide by cigarette is quite possibly the stupidest way I could imagine anybody spending their hard-earned money.

I mean, if cigarettes didn't cause cancer, didn't stink, didn't stain, didn't burn stuff, and were FREE, then I guess I could see some sense in the habit ...

**Mango**

I smoke because I want to help poor under privileged children have access to health care. I am doing it for the greater good of society. Or at least that was what congess said when they raised the cig tax $10 a carton a month ago.

**brad3104**

Im all for taxing things that are unhealthy and cause a drain on the health care system. Would also help reduce the number of fat asses. It's like some people are allergic to water or something.....

**George Spiggott**

JohnHwangDD wrote:Of course not - paying to commit suicide by cigarette is quite possibly the stupidest way I could imagine anybody spending their hard-earned money.

I mean, if cigarettes didn't cause cancer, didn't stink, didn't stain, didn't burn stuff, and were FREE, then I guess I could see some sense in the habit ...

What about those low birth weight ones?

Goverments tax cigarettes because they don't have the balls to ban them.

**Typeline**

I think it's a pretty good step in the right direction. But politicians, no matter what level, really don't care about the health of their people.

Next time you meet one of your states reps though ask him if he is against the legalization of marijuana. Tell him good, you like that he wants to preserve the health of the common American. Now ask him if he is for the illegalization of the production and sale of cigarettes. When he says no tell him it's for the health of the common American. If he says it's a choice, tell him so is smoking weed, then tell him he doesn't really care about the health of the common citizen and you won't be voting for him. And neither will anyone who hears the recording you just made.

**sexiest_hero**

The money has to come from somewhere. IF the choice is borrowing from China or baying an extra 10 cent on soda I know what I want done.

**mcfly**

Typeline wrote:I think it's a pretty good step in the right direction. But politicians, no matter what level, really don't care about the health of their people.

Next time you meet one of your states reps though ask him if he is against the legalization of marijuana. Tell him good, you like that he wants to preserve the health of the common American. Now ask him if he is for the illegalization of the production and sale of cigarettes. When he says no tell him it's for the health of the common American. If he says it's a choice, tell him so is smoking weed, then tell him he doesn't really care about the health of the common citizen and you won't be voting for him. And neither will anyone who hears the recording you just made.

That would be awesome!
And of course, pot is less dangerous than cigarettes, sooo.....

**JohnHwangDD**

George Spiggott wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:Of course not - paying to commit suicide by cigarette is quite possibly the stupidest way I could imagine anybody spending their hard-earned money.

I mean, if cigarettes didn't cause cancer, didn't stink, didn't stain, didn't burn stuff, and were FREE, then I guess I could see some sense in the habit ...

What about those low birth weight ones?

low birth weight cigarettes?

Huh?

**Railguns**

How does the saying go? Don't attribute to malice what could just as easily be attributed to stupidity? Somewhere in between, there is greed. Cigarettes aren't banned because taxing them makes very, very large amounts of money for the government. They don't ever ban things for the public good, they simply tax them, because they know that demand for vices can be fairly inelastic (especially the addictive ones) and there's a mint to be made.

**warpcrafter**

Also, banning cigarettes would be pointless and would lead to a rise in organized crime. Anybody ever heard of Prohibition? The mafia made a mint off of it.

**Typeline**

warpcrafter wrote:Also, banning cigarettes would be pointless and would lead to a rise in organized crime. Anybody ever heard of Prohibition? The mafia made a mint off of it.

If you shut the factories down, you can't make cigarettes anymore. But people could still smoke tobacco, it isn't what is feeding their addiction though. At that point most would jump ship to weed anyway.

If you'd like to use that logic though, lift bans on all prohibited substances.

**temprus**

Except in rare or specialized uses, they don't put sugar in Sodas much in the USA. They use High Fructose Corn Syrup which is similar to but processed somewhat differently by the body. I just think it they add this tax to Soda, they need to add it to "Juice" Drinks and similar too since they often can more "sugar" than most sodas. For that matter, many brands of Milk have similar levels of sugar also.

**Railguns**

But this is government we are talking about. Truth and logic have nothing to do with it.

**Frazzled**

JD21290 wrote:soda tax? i think ill stick to whiskey then

Your shiskey is already taxed, but its still a good idea to stick to it

**Frazzled**

George Spiggott wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:Of course not - paying to commit suicide by cigarette is quite possibly the stupidest way I could imagine anybody spending their hard-earned money.

I mean, if cigarettes didn't cause cancer, didn't stink, didn't stain, didn't burn stuff, and were FREE, then I guess I could see some sense in the habit ...

What about those low birth weight ones?

Goverments tax cigarettes because they don't have the balls to ban them.

Incorrect they tax cigarettes for the same reason GW thinks it can raise prices in a small depression, perceived price inelasticity. Health is just a cover, else they would indeed ban it as you say.

Edit: speaking of taxing cigarettes. Good thing I believed all that stuff about not raising taxes on the middle class...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22444.html

**George Spiggott**

Frazzled wrote:Incorrect they tax cigarettes for the same reason GW thinks it can raise prices in a small depression, perceived price inelasticity. Health is just a cover, else they would indeed ban it as you say.

Exactly, cigarettes are the goose that layed the golden eggs to the goverment, except the goose also gives you cancer, more like a radioactive goose (that lays golden eggs) really.

@ JHDD: Low birth weight cigarettes do what they say on the box, as you've already been born and can't get pregnent you're safe.

That you should avoid the ones that say they give you cancer goes without saying.

**JohnHwangDD**

Ahh... Gotcha. You guys have wierder labeling than we do.

But yeah, I guess we could mail a few packs to Farrah Fawcett and it wouldn't do her much more harm.