Are you in favor of a sugar tax in your city?

Nilly said:

Sin taxes say nothing about the morality of consuming sugar or smoking or w/e. They just de-incentivize certain behaviours. Just like other taxes/breaks/subsidies/etc that incentivize starting a business or making a charitable donation etc etc etc.

Click to expand...

Morals: a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

It is exactly what I said it was by definition. You can however write Webster and argue about it if you like? So yes it is again exactly the same thing people on the far right do. Welcome to the moral police.

Nilly said:

Taxation is a perfectly viable solution to tackle some issues when legislation would be absurd.

Click to expand...

Taxation for the purpose again, of doing an end run around unacceptable law is tyranny, plain and simple.

Lutherf said:

If obesity is the problem then tax people by weight or BMI or something.

Click to expand...

Doesn't really work - weight and BMI are pretty ****ty indicators of health (most NFL players are obese according to weight/BMI) and there can be genuine health reasons why someone is obese. To actually figure out if someone is 'unhealthy' or not takes a lot of time or money it would be a massive money sink. Better to go to one of the major sources of 'unhealthiness'. Much like cigarettes.

HowardBThiname said:

You honestly feel people are too stupid to make their own food decisions?

Click to expand...

Marketing, psychology and advertising is at such a crazy level these days that it's honestly not 'stupid' to make bad food decisions. Companies routinely mislabel their food (and are allowed too - for example, juice 'not from concentrate' only has to be 51% not from actual concentrate). Also, companies just play psychological tricks like make up false food accreditation agencies and put big green ticks on their packaging. Does your average parent have time to research each and every green tick on the food packaging they buy on the shopping run? No. But they may well pay attention to the $9 bump in price.

Black Dog said:

Morals: a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

It is exactly what I said it was by definition. You can however write Webster and argue about it if you like? So yes it is again exactly the same thing people on the far right do. Welcome to the moral police.

Click to expand...

A tax doesn't make it acceptable or unacceptable for someone to do something though does it really, it just makes it more expensive. There is a massive tax on cigarettes and I still smoke and don't consider it morally wrong to do so. Nor do I think anyone else (govt included) thinks I'm doing anything morally wrong. Rather, the tax just means I have a tougher decision when deciding if the pack of cigarettes is worth it or not.

Black Dog said:

Taxation for the purpose again, of doing an end run around unacceptable law is tyranny, plain and simple.

Click to expand...

Why?

Is a higher tax more tyrannical? Is a tax on gasoline tyrannical? Food is already taxed anyway, is it already tyrannical? Or are all taxes just tyrannical? What makes this tax specifically tyrannical?

ttwtt78640 said:

If the aim was to tax obesity then simply do so. It is not hard to measure and driving into another jurisdiction to feed at the AYCE trough won't help to avoid (evade?) the tax.

Click to expand...

Progressives would consider that "body shaming." It's better to be oblique about your motive.

Ahlevah said:

Progressives would consider that "body shaming." It's better to be oblique about your motive.

Click to expand...

They are being oblique in their motive - the motive is simply to gain tax revenue in a very regressive fashion while pretending that this is about reducing obesity.

Josie said:

Seattle's Sugar Tax kicked in on New Years Day.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...-sugary-drinks-kicks-new-years-day/984673001/

Prices of sugared drinks skyrocketed:

View attachment 67226848

Are you in favor of a Sugar Tax in your city? Why or why not?

Click to expand...

Like all liberal ideas, this one is not thought through. I wouldn't be totally against some form of obesity tax where the taxes collected were then used to fight obesity. But, the tax apparently is not on diet drinks and many studies have shown that diet drinks actually make you hungry and want to eat more so the tax on sugary drinks is a little misguided. Then, when you think about all the fat content of many foods you buy from not only restaurants but the grocery store as well, sugary drinks are but a drop in the bucket. In any event, any taxes collected via this method should be 100% spent on fighting obesity, not funding liberal programs. If you are serious about fighting obesity then prove it by using the taxes collected to fight obesity.

American diet is not healthy ,maybe that would lead to a healthier one

Cook County (Chicago metro area) passed a sugar (drink) tax law. The [stated] purpose was to plug a $1.8bn hole in the county budget.

It came into effect on 2 August 2017, was repealed on 11 October 2017, and ceased to exist on 2 December 2017.

Nilly said:

Doesn't really work - weight and BMI are pretty ****ty indicators of health (most NFL players are obese according to weight/BMI) and there can be genuine health reasons why someone is obese. To actually figure out if someone is 'unhealthy' or not takes a lot of time or money it would be a massive money sink. Better to go to one of the major sources of 'unhealthiness'. Much like cigarettes.

Click to expand...

Well there you go. Simple solution. First, you mandate health care for everyone and raise taxes on the wealthy enough to cover that cost. Then, once the plan is implemented you can track everyone through their medical records or, better yet, just chip them so they can't get around visits. If they commit unhealthy acts then you can send them to "wellness spas" where they get instruction on lifestyle, diet, etc. You could eliminate a lot of harm by incarcerating people based on their choice to own forearms, drink alcohol, engage in risky behavior, eat fatty foods, etc. Heck, you could mandate that employers provide wellness services to their employees. That would save tons of money....unless you're an employer.

Are you in favor of a Sugar Tax in your city?

Click to expand...

as i said in the other thread, no. i don't support regressive sin taxes.

Nilly said:

Taxation is a perfectly viable solution to tackle some issues when legislation would be absurd.

Click to expand...

If legislation governing a behavior would be absurd, what makes trying to control it through taxation any less absurd?

Either way, you're trying to control behavior, using the power of government to do it.

Josie said:

Seattle's Sugar Tax kicked in on New Years Day.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...-sugary-drinks-kicks-new-years-day/984673001/

Prices of sugared drinks skyrocketed:

View attachment 67226848

Are you in favor of a Sugar Tax in your city? Why or why not?

Click to expand...

Not sure why soda is being singled out. Why not muffins or all bakery goods. If you are against eating sugar, then tax anything that has sugar content over a certain limit.

Also this is a regressive tax. If a city controlled by republicans had passed such a tax, i am sure CNN and MSNBC would be pointing this out. How it attacks the people who can least afford it, especially people of color. So I guess you could call this tax racist as well.

Lutherf said:

Well there you go. Simple solution. First, you mandate health care for everyone and raise taxes on the wealthy enough to cover that cost. Then, once the plan is implemented you can track everyone through their medical records or, better yet, just chip them so they can't get around visits. If they commit unhealthy acts then you can send them to "wellness spas" where they get instruction on lifestyle, diet, etc. You could eliminate a lot of harm by incarcerating people based on their choice to own forearms, drink alcohol, engage in risky behavior, eat fatty foods, etc. Heck, you could mandate that employers provide wellness services to their employees. That would save tons of money....unless you're an employer.

Click to expand...

If you rearrange the letters in 'sin tax' it actually spells communism!!!!!

Harshaw said:

If legislation governing a behavior would be absurd, what makes trying to control it through taxation any less absurd?

Click to expand...

Because banning something (which is what I assumed was meant by 'legislation') is a far more of an extreme step then economically dis-incentivizing it.

In certain cases, legislation makes sense. In the case of sugary drinks - it doesn't. World isn't black and white.

Harshaw said:

Either way, you're trying to control behavior, using the power of government to do it.

Click to expand...

So what? So do speed limits.

Nilly said:

If you rearrange the letters in 'sin tax' it actually spells communism!!!!!

Click to expand...

It's funny how liberals are against regulation of "sin" such as homosexuality or recreational drug use but are just fine with regulating "sins" such as personal choice in diet or health maintenance. It's almost as if you want your tofu cake and the right to eat it as well.

Nilly said:

Because banning something (which is what I assumed was meant by 'legislation') is a far more of an extreme step then economically dis-incentivizing it.

Click to expand...

You don't have to "ban" something to limit or regulate its use. If it's absurd to govern the behavior honestly, why isn't it absurd to do it on the sly?

So what? So do speed limits.

Click to expand...

Speed limits have nothing to do with it. You said one form of government controlling a particular behavior would be "absurd," but another form of controlling it would be "viable."

Josie said:

Seattle's Sugar Tax kicked in on New Years Day.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...-sugary-drinks-kicks-new-years-day/984673001/

Prices of sugared drinks skyrocketed:

View attachment 67226848

Are you in favor of a Sugar Tax in your city? Why or why not?

Click to expand...

Absolutely I would!

What people don't get is that this not only would help with the tax revenue of the city, but it would also decrease intake of sugary drinks (it works for tobacco, remember)...and that would decrease at least to some extent the obesity and diabetes that are endemic in America today...and THAT in and of itself would save taxpayers money in the long run.

Lutherf said:

It's funny how liberals are against regulation of "sin" such as homosexuality or recreational drug use but are just fine with regulating "sins" such as personal choice in diet or health maintenance. It's almost as if you want your tofu cake and the right to eat it as well.

Click to expand...

Heh.

Lutherf said:

It's funny how liberals are against regulation of "sin" such as homosexuality or recreational drug use but are just fine with regulating "sins" such as personal choice in diet or health maintenance. It's almost as if you want your tofu cake and the right to eat it as well.

Click to expand...

This post doesn't make any sense. To me, recreational drug use is the same as 'health maintenance' so I wouldn't treat them differently.

Harshaw said:

You don't have to "ban" something to limit or regulate its use

Click to expand...

Right.. you can tax it....

For now to simplify things I'm simply considering banning vs taxing as 2 things govt can do to disincentivize a behaviour. Otherwise we'd get lost in a maze of potential what-ifs.

Harshaw said:

If it's absurd to govern the behavior honestly, why isn't it absurd to do it on the sly?

Click to expand...

Why is taxing something 'on the sly' but outlawing it not? I support both being done honestly in the right case.

Harshaw said:

You said one form of government controlling a particular behavior would be "absurd," but another form of controlling it would be "viable."

Click to expand...

Err yeah - I don't see what's wrong with that. Proportionate response depending on the behaviour.

One measure to try to control cigarette purchases is to put warnings on the packaging. That is an appropriate level of control/disincentive. It would not be an appropriate measure to regulate the sale of sarin gas.

Nilly said:

This post doesn't make any sense. To me, recreational drug use is the same as 'health maintenance' so I wouldn't treat them differently.



Right.. you can tax it....

For now to simplify things I'm simply considering banning vs taxing as 2 things govt can do to disincentivize a behaviour. Otherwise we'd get lost in a maze of potential what-ifs.



Why is taxing something 'on the sly' but outlawing it not? I support both being done honestly in the right case.



Err yeah - I don't see what's wrong with that. Proportionate response depending on the behaviour.

One measure to try to control cigarette purchases is to put warnings on the packaging. That is an appropriate level of control/disincentive. It would not be an appropriate measure to regulate the sale of sarin gas.

Click to expand...

Because taxation isn't something meant to govern behavior. It's meant to fund the government, and that is the ONLY justifiable purpose for taxation.

Using taxation because you can't get it done with straight legislation is simply doing an end-run around the democratic process. That's underhanded, and a way to claim power you otherwise couldn't.

Hawkeye10 said:

OH it does but you did not understand it, because I gave you too much credit obviously.......if we are going to tax the grams of sugar then every product has to have its own tax, which is much more difficult to administer than having a flat tax per ounce, too much for 2018 America to manage, because we have become the CANT DO NATION.

Now that I know I will leave you more breadcrumbs if I should ever make the attempt with you.

Click to expand...

Sorry, that was too incoherent to unpack. Please try again.

Why not just tax overweight people instead? I mean, isn't that the real problem?

Harshaw said:

Because taxation isn't something meant to govern behavior. It's meant to fund the government, and that is the ONLY justifiable purpose for taxation.

Click to expand...

And this is according to...?

Is it in the constitution somewhere?

Harshaw said:

Using taxation because you can't get it done with straight legislation is simply doing an end-run around the democratic process. That's underhanded, and a way to claim power you otherwise couldn't.

Click to expand...

Why? Taxation is simply a tool that govt has at it's disposal. I don't know the process for implementing taxes at a local/state level, is it under less scrutiny than other legislation? What, specifically, makes taxation underhanded?

Why tax sugar?

Nilly said:

And this is according to...?

Is it in the constitution somewhere?



Why? Taxation is simply a tool that govt has at it's disposal. I don't know the process for implementing taxes at a local/state level, is it under less scrutiny than other legislation? What, specifically, makes taxation underhanded?

Click to expand...

Be more direct, then. Don't tax the cause, tax the result. Implement an obesity and a diabetes tax. All day and diabetic people a pay specified fine for their condition until it improves.

KevinKohler said:

Be more direct, then. Don't tax the cause, tax the result. Implement an obesity and a diabetes tax. All day and diabetic people a pay specified fine for their condition until it improves.

Click to expand...

I mean, aside from being impossible to implement (#52) this also seems pretty unethical (and I think you're suggesting it as a joke - sarcasm not coming across too well). There are multiple involuntary reasons someone might become obese/diabetic. There aren't many involuntary reasons why someone's chugging a mountain dew a day.