• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CDC Chief: Soda Tax Could Combat Obesity

Absolutely.

We need cigerrette style taxes on:

Anything with HFCS in it
All red meats
All shellfish
All pastries
Any food that is fried
Any fruit juices including any additives
Anything containing alcohol
Any bread outside of 100% whole wheat
Eggs
Pork
Coffee
Actually go with any food containing additional sugar or contains any caffine.

I mean, they all are bad for you in some way shape or form. Everything that isn't a vegetable (except for potatoes, we can tax those, they're extremely high stachy that leads to obesity) or a fruit should be taxed on a similar rate to cigerettes. I mean, its for your own good

Hey man even veggies are loaded with toxic substances, I mean they produce their own chemical pesticides.

We have to tax veggies.
 
You do realize the American Revolution was started by a tax on tea right? Why would we want to go back to arbitrary and excessive taxation like that again? I say anyone in government that wants more taxes for these types of reasons should be tarred and feathered in classic fashion.

thats an intellegent way to go by this arguement. just stop the thought proscess after the word "tax" for a specific product.
 
lol, the other day I bought 'sugar free' apple juice and couldn't help but laugh at the label that said sugar... 48g

Eeven without added sugars, a lot of fruits have natural sugars - hence why "sugar free" can't always be "no sugar at all."
 
Instead of attempting all this social engineering with higher taxes on cigarettes, fast food, sodas and so on, why don't we just remove the barriers employer's, insurers, and for that matter medicare faces to actually pricing coverage based on the risks associated with ones life choices.

For example, instead of taxing sodas more, why not just allow employers to charge obese employees more for their health coverage? Right now, you can be a 300 pound smoker and pay the same rate for your healthcare through your employer as a fit employee that exercises daily. In effect, your poor life choices are simply subsidized by them. The same is true with Medicare. If your overweight or a smoker, statistically your going to cost to the system far more in the future than a non-smoker and fit individual, so why not increase their payroll taxes to pay for the costs of their lifestyle choices rather than passing them on to others that made better life choices.

It seems to me that makes a lot better sense and would be a lot more effective than all these social experiments in the form of "sin taxes" we have now are.
 
There's something not right with a fat ass surgeon general and all this obesity thing. Call me silly.
 
Soda tax could combat obesity?

Be for real. Nothing's more obese than the federal budget, and for every dollar it gets in taxes it spends two, so taxing soft drinks will balloon federal obesity.
 
What will the left want to tax next? The air we breathe?

Well, they haven't taxed boogers yet.

Nor have they taxed underwear skidmarks.

They're considering a tax on toe jam, but I beleive that's only because the geniuses in Congress think it comes in flavors like grape and strawberry.

Give'm time, they'll tax everything.
 
I drink soda daily and I'm fine with a 3 cent tax. I would disagree that it will have much of a health impact because the tax alone won't deter folks from drinking it. IMO.

Not one of those crooks wants anyone to drink one ounce less of their favorite beverage, they just want to steal money using false pretenses.
 
What I find hilarious is this irony:

The people demanding taxes on fat foods condemn the airlines for charging fat people more because they take up two or more seats.

Foods shouldn't be taxed because of some politicians eagerness to regulate dietary choices. That's not why he got elected. For some reason, the leftists think "my body, my choice" is a mantra for acceptable murder of babies, not a rule for limiting government intrusions where murder isn't part of the equation.

Airplanes should be allowed to set their own rules, and if a whale of a gal wants to fly, and she needs two seats to fit, then she should charged for two seats. It's the airlines airplane, not the government's.
 

That article didn't explain why it was "worse". I stand by what I say, an excess of anything is bad.

Water is poison to the human body.

I do like what the article said about don't drink diet soda because you think you will lose weight drinking it.

You cannot possibly lose weight, effectively, without exercising..

As I've said in the BMI thread I am against the entire BMI index as an indicator of health.

Also, I am against "weighing" as an indicator of health. I feel that health should be determined between actual performance evaluations especially endurance-heart-rate ratios.
 
That article didn't explain why it was "worse". I stand by what I say, an excess of anything is bad.
Actually it did, but you are chosing not to believe it. It was explained in a simple context without going into a detailed scientific explanation.

Water is poison to the human body.
That sounds like a bit of a strawman to me.

I do like what the article said about don't drink diet soda because you think you will lose weight drinking it.
While you might not like it, it doesn't change the fact that people could, and do, get the wrong impression that drinking diet soda will contribute to weight loss.

Although you might think that you will lose a whole lot of weight through drinking diet soda, the truth is that you could end up feeling as though you are losing less weight with regular soda because of the amount of water weight that you could end up gaining from diet soda.
Sounds reasonable to me. A high sodium intake isn't healthy.

This is a good point also.

Diet soda contains Aspartame, which is highly unhealthy for your body- in more ways than one. If you did not already know, ten percent of Aspartame consists of methanol, also known as wood alcohol, which is an extremely deadly poison


You cannot possibly lose weight, effectively, without exercising..
You can if you manage your calorie intake correctly.
 
First we heard about the talk of taxes on elective plastic surgery and Botox and now something I predicted many years ago it coming to light. Taxing soda to ostensibly combat obesity. I don't believe it for one minute. I believe there is an all out push to gain more, and more control over the daily lives of Americans and use any means available to achieve that end.

It's the government engaging in social engineering. It doesn't surprise me.
 
You can if you manage your calorie intake correctly.



That's absolutely true, but as soon as you slip up for one second all that weight is coming back. You need to lose the weight and rebuild it into muscle.
 
No, that was taxation without representation issues. In other words, those people could not elect the people that passed the tea tax.
Leading to excessive taxation, such as a specific tax on tea, what part of that don't you understand?
 
I hope so cuz those are worse.

So let me get this straight. Although Diet Sodas do not contribute to the Obesity problem (You know, the subject of the thread and the reason for the extra taxation), you are for taxing it simply because it is bad in large amounts? Almost ANYTHING is bad in excess amounts. You can actually die from drinking to much water.

I agree with the premise of most, that the government is not actually interested in getting people to lose weight, rather they are wanting to cash in on what fat people are going to drink anyway.

How is that helping Obesity? Answer: It isn't.
 
Diet sodas are usually lodaded with aspartame which has not been tested for longterm effects on the body, though many advise against ingesting it. Your body stores it for years. Sugar is bad but I don't drink diet-anything.

How hard is it to buy a juicer and make your own drinks. Fruit has sugar but they are natural, simply sugars which your body, in nature, is designed to breakdown. It's cheaper to make your own drinks too.

Oh right... people are lazy.
 
For once I'll have to agree with SouthernDemocrat. His point mirrors one Celtic Lord has made, regarding the pricing of health insurance as it applies to employer "group" health benefits. People would likely excercise more personal responsibility if they saw their rates go up with their body fat%, because they would be judged on their individual health. This argument applies equally, if not better, against UHC.
 
Instead of attempting all this social engineering with higher taxes on cigarettes, fast food, sodas and so on, why don't we just remove the barriers employer's, insurers, and for that matter medicare faces to actually pricing coverage based on the risks associated with ones life choices.

For example, instead of taxing sodas more, why not just allow employers to charge obese employees more for their health coverage? Right now, you can be a 300 pound smoker and pay the same rate for your healthcare through your employer as a fit employee that exercises daily. In effect, your poor life choices are simply subsidized by them. The same is true with Medicare. If your overweight or a smoker, statistically your going to cost to the system far more in the future than a non-smoker and fit individual, so why not increase their payroll taxes to pay for the costs of their lifestyle choices rather than passing them on to others that made better life choices.

It seems to me that makes a lot better sense and would be a lot more effective than all these social experiments in the form of "sin taxes" we have now are.

Those people who like to bash people who are being labeled as detrimental to society for being over weight are he scape goats of the day. And being used to promote higher taxes that have nothing what ever to do with wanting to help anyone or anything but tax ans spend coffers and control over daily life. There is clear evidence that being too thin is also a hazard to your health they just haven't brought it up as a weapon yet.
And employers are not now nor have they ever been charged more for heavy employees than those who are too skinny. many however these days do ask if you smoke. But just about never how much do you weigh. A;so remember that being obese allows you to be covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Poverty also contributes to being over weight because contrary to the lies many love to promote it does cost more to eat "right" than it does to to put affordable food on the table.
Once again many are allowing themselves to be drawn away from the central issue which is to me using taxation as a weapon to attack freedom and cement more control by the NANNY state and would be Socialist government. There are sensible answers to all of the problems that we as a society and letting the government dictate your daily choices for you is not among them.
 
CDC Chief: Soda Tax Could Combat Obesity - Political Hotsheet - CBS News


To paraphrase Betti Davis In All About Eve a (1950) movie. "Fasten your seatbelts it's going to be a bumpy ride."
First we heard about the talk of taxes on elective plastic surgery and Botox and now something I predicted many years ago it coming to light. Taxing soda to ostensibly combat obesity. I don't believe it for one minute. I believe there is an all out push to gain more, and more control over the daily lives of
Americans and use any means available to achieve that end.
This will continue and reach into the grocery store and attempt to control through taxes at first your purchases of any item determined by the NANNY state mentality to be detrimental to your health. Fatty foods, those that contain nitrates such as Bacon & Wieners which re under attack already are going to serve as the tip of the iceberg.
I can't tell you everything I believe or I run the risk of having this topic hidden as a conspiracy theory. All I am doing is reporting to the readers herein that taxes being used for more than just raising funds is a reality and is expanding for your own good because you cannot make intelligent decisions on your own.
By paying attention to this expansion we only remain vigilante as we were told we must. As Sgt. Friday would say: Just the facts Ma'am.

The idea that this soda tax will be used to curb obesity is laughable. All they want is extra tax payer money to fund their socialist medicine program. Charging an extra couple of cents per soda isn't going to deter anyone from buying soda because I do not know anyone who goes" Aw man if only I had two more cent I could have bought me this soda", If price is really that much an issue then they switch to generic brands just like poor people do on a regular basis.
 
My country is going down the ****ter.


Absolutely.

We need cigerrette style taxes on:

Anything with HFCS in it
All red meats
All shellfish
All pastries
Any food that is fried
Any fruit juices including any additives
Anything containing alcohol
Any bread outside of 100% whole wheat
Eggs
Pork
Coffee
Actually go with any food containing additional sugar or contains any caffine.

I mean, they all are bad for you in some way shape or form. Everything that isn't a vegetable (except for potatoes, we can tax those, they're extremely high stachy that leads to obesity) or a fruit should be taxed on a similar rate to cigerettes. I mean, its for your own good

Don't forget some other fruits and veges too! Too many oranges are bad for you, and avocados are highly fattening. Corn is loaded with sugar too and too many hot peppers can cause gastro-intestinal problems. We'd also have to tax just plain sugar, flour, etc, because those things could be used to make fattening food, and god knows we can't have that. Whole milk is pretty fattening too, and butter, and cream. Ice cream would definitely have to be heavily taxed, as would all cheeses.

Wow, you know, pretty much everything would have to be included in this ****ed up sin tax bull****. Which is, I'm sure, what they're vying for anyway. More taxes, more taxes, more taxes. Gotta love those ****ers!
 
I fully support the tax.

Of course you do. You so called "liberals" love to boast about how much you value everyone's rights, but the fact of the matter is you just want to control everyone and force them to live the way you think they should. You're no better than the extreme conservatives.
 
Instead of attempting all this social engineering with higher taxes on cigarettes, fast food, sodas and so on, why don't we just remove the barriers employer's, insurers, and for that matter medicare faces to actually pricing coverage based on the risks associated with ones life choices.

For example, instead of taxing sodas more, why not just allow employers to charge obese employees more for their health coverage? Right now, you can be a 300 pound smoker and pay the same rate for your healthcare through your employer as a fit employee that exercises daily. In effect, your poor life choices are simply subsidized by them. The same is true with Medicare. If your overweight or a smoker, statistically your going to cost to the system far more in the future than a non-smoker and fit individual, so why not increase their payroll taxes to pay for the costs of their lifestyle choices rather than passing them on to others that made better life choices.

It seems to me that makes a lot better sense and would be a lot more effective than all these social experiments in the form of "sin taxes" we have now are.

Your post only answers most of the problems if we didn't have government substized healthcare, as we have now. So... you are leaving out HUGE innefiencies in how since government healthcare is free, the unhealthy can not be penalized for their habbits without taxes if the government is supplying their healthcare.

If we wanted a completely free market, then taxes to influence people's lives would make less sense, and you would be right.



But you are not bring up how cigarettes need extra taxes in all situations because second hand smoke harms people who do not buy the product.

There should only not be extra taxes on cigarettes if they couldn't harm others, but thats only if smoking was only legal inside of someone's own house away from others.
 
Will sugar free soda be taxed as well?
It seems rather contradictory to tax a product with zero calories in order to "combat obesity".
Hey, maybe diet soda will get cheaper, while the cost of regular soda goes up!
If it's really about "combating obesity", that would be a great incentive program.
Save me some money at the grocery store, too.
 
Back
Top Bottom