Answered Conundrum Next Conundrum
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
Marked as Best!
November 04, 2009 04:04 AM
Helpful Answer?
(2)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Only if you plan to tax bacon, doughnuts, cream cheese, butter, and marshmallow fluff.
Now, once we have those heavily taxed, let's consider where to go from there.
Tanning beds? Well those cause skin cancer.
Computers and televisions? They cause inactivity (and therefore obesity) and weaken our eyesight.
Coffee? Caffeine isn't good for you.
Pasta and Bread? Carbs, carbs, carbs!
Cell phones? There are rumors about brain tumors...
Cars? Buses? Plane Tickets? They crash, leading to death, injuries, and messy clean-ups
And we can keep spiraling downward and downward, picking apart what isn't good for us, and giving the government permission to take more money out of our pockets. More money we work for. More money that could pay for health insurance, college, and groceries.
Instead, I'm an advocate for personal choices and responsibility. I drink pop regularly, I'll admit it. And if they tax me extra, I'll pay it. But guess what? I'm not obese. I'm not even overweight. I take in about 2,000 calories per day total, and I take yoga classes.
So the idea that I should pay for the bad choices of others feels a little absurd from where I'm sitting. As it is, we're all paying for lots of things in this country that we shouldn't have to--a badly planned war, outrageous governmental salaries, and the freakin' search and rescue effort for "Balloon Boy". Plus, I think we're still paying off the O.J. trial.
Do I really need to give the government more of my hard-earned money for pop?
Can't I just have a soda at the end of a hard day without being penalized?
In a country that's supposed to be free--in a country that broke away from its parent England because of excessive taxes--can't I just have a Coke for the fair market price?
That's all I'm asking.
And be forewarned:
If it's pop today,
WHAT WILL IT BE TOMORROW?
And the day after that?
AND THE DAY AFTER THAT?
At what point will YOU become outraged by taxes? Which one of your naughty little habits will they tax?
Now, once we have those heavily taxed, let's consider where to go from there.
Tanning beds? Well those cause skin cancer.
Computers and televisions? They cause inactivity (and therefore obesity) and weaken our eyesight.
Coffee? Caffeine isn't good for you.
Pasta and Bread? Carbs, carbs, carbs!
Cell phones? There are rumors about brain tumors...
Cars? Buses? Plane Tickets? They crash, leading to death, injuries, and messy clean-ups
And we can keep spiraling downward and downward, picking apart what isn't good for us, and giving the government permission to take more money out of our pockets. More money we work for. More money that could pay for health insurance, college, and groceries.
Instead, I'm an advocate for personal choices and responsibility. I drink pop regularly, I'll admit it. And if they tax me extra, I'll pay it. But guess what? I'm not obese. I'm not even overweight. I take in about 2,000 calories per day total, and I take yoga classes.
So the idea that I should pay for the bad choices of others feels a little absurd from where I'm sitting. As it is, we're all paying for lots of things in this country that we shouldn't have to--a badly planned war, outrageous governmental salaries, and the freakin' search and rescue effort for "Balloon Boy". Plus, I think we're still paying off the O.J. trial.
Do I really need to give the government more of my hard-earned money for pop?
Can't I just have a soda at the end of a hard day without being penalized?
In a country that's supposed to be free--in a country that broke away from its parent England because of excessive taxes--can't I just have a Coke for the fair market price?
That's all I'm asking.
And be forewarned:
If it's pop today,
WHAT WILL IT BE TOMORROW?
And the day after that?
AND THE DAY AFTER THAT?
At what point will YOU become outraged by taxes? Which one of your naughty little habits will they tax?
| Asker's Rating: |
(2)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
Other Answers (7)
November 03, 2009 11:55 PM
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Soda tax is a great idea. After all, it's absolute garbage to your body, just the same as cigarettes (which are also highly taxed). The only problem is that once you tax things like soda, when do you begin taxing other processed, junk foods? I support taxing all junk food. Not only will it raise money for the government, it'll also deter people from spending so much on stuff that isn't good for them.
Helpful Answer?
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
November 04, 2009 04:18 AM
Yes, but where do you (or "they") draw the line at what "isn't good"?
That's where it gets sketchy. For instance, I like cheeses, breads, honey, and salad dressings as part of my healthy diet. But technically, they aren't totally good for me. Some cheese could even be called junk food. My favorite snack, healthy plain popcorn (rich in fiber by the way, and very low cal!), could be called junk food. How do we define "junk food" anyway?
Is butter junk food?
Whole milk?
All forms of red meat?
It's a very slippery slope once you turn our government into the food police. ;)
Report
That's where it gets sketchy. For instance, I like cheeses, breads, honey, and salad dressings as part of my healthy diet. But technically, they aren't totally good for me. Some cheese could even be called junk food. My favorite snack, healthy plain popcorn (rich in fiber by the way, and very low cal!), could be called junk food. How do we define "junk food" anyway?
Is butter junk food?
Whole milk?
All forms of red meat?
It's a very slippery slope once you turn our government into the food police. ;)
November 04, 2009 12:10 AM
too many previous questions to rehash sources Helpful Answer? (1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Yes. It has been recommended by major health and medical groups. No downside has been offered.
Some soft drink fans (we are talking about sugar and corn syrup sweetened drinks by the way) will pay extra, helping fund public health programs. Others will switch to alternate beverages.
Studies have shown that small changes in taxes do affect sales. Furthermore, the reaction of the soda companies shows that they expect the tax to be effective. Otherwise they wouldn't care.
Source(s):
Some soft drink fans (we are talking about sugar and corn syrup sweetened drinks by the way) will pay extra, helping fund public health programs. Others will switch to alternate beverages.
Studies have shown that small changes in taxes do affect sales. Furthermore, the reaction of the soda companies shows that they expect the tax to be effective. Otherwise they wouldn't care.
too many previous questions to rehash sources Helpful Answer?
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
November 04, 2009 04:07 AM
So people can't afford pop? You're right. Maybe they'll stop buying it.
Then what else will they buy? They'll just find something else sugary. Do we keep taxing that too? And what about after that?
People will always find a way to eat and drink whatever they want, in whatever destructive way they want to. That's how American's have been raised!
This tax solution is barking up the wrong tree. We need to look at the health care system and our sense of personal responsibility for choices.
Report
Then what else will they buy? They'll just find something else sugary. Do we keep taxing that too? And what about after that?
People will always find a way to eat and drink whatever they want, in whatever destructive way they want to. That's how American's have been raised!
This tax solution is barking up the wrong tree. We need to look at the health care system and our sense of personal responsibility for choices.
November 04, 2009 04:18 AM
(Gaaa, sorry for the bad spelling/punctuation. Wish I could edit these!)
;)
Report
;)
November 06, 2009 09:57 AM
They will be able to afford soda. But diet soda will be a few cents cheaper and a statistically significant number will pinch pennies by buying it. And that will result in a statistically significant increase in the health of the population. When thinking about national policies like taxes, you have to think about overall effects on the average as well as individual effects.
Report
November 04, 2009 01:01 AM
I've worked in a grocery store for 15 years in the past.
I've dealt with government programs such as WIC and foodstamps.
I have been on food stamps in the past. Helpful Answer? (2)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
I would dish out the extra money. The day the government puts taxes on sodas is the day I'll move for such craziness. Did adding taxes to alcohol or ciggs cause anyone who wanted them to quit? No. I mean I pay up to 2.50 for a coke when eating out already... so does millions of other people.
It would make more since to not allow people to buy sodas with food stamps. Obesity is more common among lower income people. Of course I believe that food stamps should be monitored like the WIC program. This meaning that people shouldn't be allowed to buy HUGE amounts of overpriced junkfood, and will have to buy things that are healthy. Not to mention that they can have stores just for food stamps that is full of comodity surplus products that the government bought from hard working American farmers.
Source(s):
It would make more since to not allow people to buy sodas with food stamps. Obesity is more common among lower income people. Of course I believe that food stamps should be monitored like the WIC program. This meaning that people shouldn't be allowed to buy HUGE amounts of overpriced junkfood, and will have to buy things that are healthy. Not to mention that they can have stores just for food stamps that is full of comodity surplus products that the government bought from hard working American farmers.
I've worked in a grocery store for 15 years in the past.
I've dealt with government programs such as WIC and foodstamps.
I have been on food stamps in the past. Helpful Answer?
(2)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
November 04, 2009 02:16 AM
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
I think people would spend the extra money the same way smokers spend extra money for cigarettes. It may deter some people from buying soft drinks, but it won't stop people from buying them all together. In fact, soft drinks alone are not the only thing that contributes to obesity. This is wrong because there are millions of people who purchase soft drinks and aren't obese in any way! If the government really wants to curb obesity, they should reduce the price of organic foods and raise the prices of the processed foods that ARE actually killing us all. Foods that are manufactured and processed with chemicals and additives should cost more than the foods that are grown naturally and don't have any additives. Right now, I think the pricing structures are backwards.
Additionally, the government should put money into health programs that encourage participation and teach proper eating habits to help people change their lifestyles will curb obesity. Not taxing certain foods and drinks.
Helpful Answer?
Additionally, the government should put money into health programs that encourage participation and teach proper eating habits to help people change their lifestyles will curb obesity. Not taxing certain foods and drinks.
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
November 04, 2009 05:39 AM
(2)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Most people view a tax on sugary foods and sodas as part of a noble health crusade, for which there is only upside to the health and well being of citizens. What most fail to see is that this shouldn't be seen as a health issue, this is simply another way in which personal responsibility is being eroded from the fiber of society and tough personal decisions are being handed over to legislators.
Because one person sees a risk in something it does not mean that another person has too. Likewise, if a person is irresponsible with his health or diet and then suffers consequences later in life, the first person is not responsible for paying for the other's health bill.
If we simply choose a path where we all hand off tough decisions to government, to allow them to guide our decisions through selective taxation, or all encompassing master social plans, we are sacrificing personal responsibility, which is the greatest impulse that humanity has for freedom.
It always happens like this, small piece by small piece, year over year, decade over decade, until one day one looks and finds that the initial concept that one had of a country is no longer there.
Legislatures have but one purpose, to serve YOU in the capacity of making laws for the purpose of maintaining the structure and functioning of a system of government that is subordinate to the people and the freedom of individuals. They are not there to legislate good intention or social behavior.
American government is suppose to exist for the purpose of allowing individuals the freedom to make their own decisions and reap the rewards for good decisions and pay the consequences for bad ones.
Helpful Answer?
Because one person sees a risk in something it does not mean that another person has too. Likewise, if a person is irresponsible with his health or diet and then suffers consequences later in life, the first person is not responsible for paying for the other's health bill.
If we simply choose a path where we all hand off tough decisions to government, to allow them to guide our decisions through selective taxation, or all encompassing master social plans, we are sacrificing personal responsibility, which is the greatest impulse that humanity has for freedom.
It always happens like this, small piece by small piece, year over year, decade over decade, until one day one looks and finds that the initial concept that one had of a country is no longer there.
Legislatures have but one purpose, to serve YOU in the capacity of making laws for the purpose of maintaining the structure and functioning of a system of government that is subordinate to the people and the freedom of individuals. They are not there to legislate good intention or social behavior.
American government is suppose to exist for the purpose of allowing individuals the freedom to make their own decisions and reap the rewards for good decisions and pay the consequences for bad ones.
(2)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
November 04, 2009 03:08 PM
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2282/2037424648_5a7cc484f2.jpg
How about only tax soft drinks if you are obese! They could weigh you in the check out aisle at the store. Better yet, the more overweight you are, the higher your tax would be, not just on soda, but on all food, because you obviously don't need all the food you are eating, and your weight is causing us all to pay more for health care.
On the other end of the scale, obese people should get tax free gym memberships until they are normal weight, while normal weight people should pay a tax for their gym memberships, as they are obviously using more than their fair share of time on the stair-master and besides, normal weight people wouldn't be paying any food or soda tax, so they could afford the gym tax. As the obese people begin losing weight, their soda/food tax would go down, and their gym tax would go up.
Don't get me started on dental tax for people who fail to brush or floss, or miss a visit to the dentist. And don't forget people who read in dim light, causing their eyesight to fail and creating unnecessary eye care expenses, or those who go outside without a hat and catch cold. Tax, tax, tax, and tax.
If we could just pass enough taxes, I'm almost certain we could solve every problem in the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM
Helpful Answer?
(2)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
How about only tax soft drinks if you are obese! They could weigh you in the check out aisle at the store. Better yet, the more overweight you are, the higher your tax would be, not just on soda, but on all food, because you obviously don't need all the food you are eating, and your weight is causing us all to pay more for health care.
On the other end of the scale, obese people should get tax free gym memberships until they are normal weight, while normal weight people should pay a tax for their gym memberships, as they are obviously using more than their fair share of time on the stair-master and besides, normal weight people wouldn't be paying any food or soda tax, so they could afford the gym tax. As the obese people begin losing weight, their soda/food tax would go down, and their gym tax would go up.
Don't get me started on dental tax for people who fail to brush or floss, or miss a visit to the dentist. And don't forget people who read in dim light, causing their eyesight to fail and creating unnecessary eye care expenses, or those who go outside without a hat and catch cold. Tax, tax, tax, and tax.
If we could just pass enough taxes, I'm almost certain we could solve every problem in the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM
(2)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
November 06, 2009 07:49 AM
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
I think taxing soda is not a particularly wise idea. First, I don't think it's going to change behavior. Second, if it does change behavior, I'd question whether it should. It's really inexpensive, and taxing it won't change that. If it was three to five times as expensive as it is now, I'd still buy it. You have to wonder what kind of person would let the government change their behavior for what probably amounts to a few cents per day. Sorry, I know I haven't touched on obesity at all, but I thought it might be worth attacking this from a different angle.
Helpful Answer?
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
Answer this Question
View All Shopping QuestionsAsk a Conundrum
Please visit these retailers to purchase Conundrum or find the wine at these fine restaurants:
-
1991 St Helena Hwy
-
699 St Helena Hwy
-
1115 Main St
-
1321 Main St
-
@ninasfeet @davidcook i see you a cakebread and raise you a caymus http://bit.ly/aA5O9s
10 a.m. March 19th, 2010 -
Caymus Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley ... http://bit.ly/cP95OV
8:43 a.m. March 19th, 2010 -
Dinner @ Bandera with an '07 bottle of Caymus w/my baybay xxx
11:27 p.m. March 18th, 2010 -
RT @ToriMarriner: We have a few spots left for Caymus Duckhorn dinner the 24th- To salivate over the menu : www.victoriagastropub.com
10:54 a.m. March 18th, 2010 -
We have a few spots left for Caymus Duckhorn dinner the 24th- To salivate over the menu : www.victoriagastropub.com
9:41 a.m. March 18th, 2010