PDA

View Full Version : New York State - New Soda Tax



resolve
9th March 10, 04:55 PM
A new report blames sugary soda for the deaths of 6,000 Americans in the last decade, saying it contributes to obesity, heart disease and diabetes. The analysis from researchers at the University of California at San Francisco has renewed debate over a proposed tax on soft drinks to help reduce obesity.

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Health/abc_nwo_medmin_soda_090408_mn.jpgNew York state has considered a penny-per-ounce tax on sodas, excluding diet sodas that don't contain sugar. The plan got a big boost from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who said in his radio address that a soda tax "makes sense," because it could save lives and cut health care costs, and generate revenue for the state's schools and other programs.

Advocates who support the idea say it's similar to a tax on cigarettes and alcohol, and could improve the public's health, but not all critics are convinced the government should be making that choice for consumers.


Source: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/new-york-state-soda-tax-world-news-question-day/story?id=10040883&cid=yahoo_pitchlist

Ok, I will admit to being addicted to caffeinated sodas. I often go through heavy withdrawal symptoms when I can't at least get a soda every few days or so. I also noticed when I cut down my consumption of all things laden with high fructose corn syrup my weight started dropping from being "almost overweight" to "mostly normal" for my height/BMI index. I've drastically lowered my soda intake but I still consume sodas. I think the biggest thing was cutting out everything else that had any trace of high fructose corn syrup in it. THat means teas, coffees, fruit juices, ice creams, food mixes, chinese takeout (hell yes you read that right they put high fructose corn syrup in their foods), et cetera. Instead I always opt for the all-natural foods now or at least those that contain no high fructose corn syrups.

What I note though is that they won't tax diet sodas which contain Aspertame which has been known to give people fucking CANCER. But they will tax sugar intake for "health reasons". I think the real reason for the tax is:


The plan got a big boost from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who said in his radio address that a soda tax "makes sense," because it could save lives and cut health care costs, and generate revenue for the state's schools and other programs.

I'm not in New York State, but I can see other ailing states turning to more taxation options to help float their economies out of the mire.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
9th March 10, 05:03 PM
You can pry my Dr. Pepper out of my cold, dead hands!

Feryk
9th March 10, 05:18 PM
Welcome to the Fat Tax. Go figure that New York is the first to float that trial balloon.

And yes, I drink a lot of soda too. Damn it.

Phrost
9th March 10, 05:20 PM
Slippery sloppery slopes
You keep voting for the dopes
They take your fun
You clench your buns
Slippery sloppery slopes.

Kiko
9th March 10, 06:46 PM
Look at the crap they're shoving at us...

2sLAnBAUNp0

Someone tell me that a cent of this will help anyone who soda is hurting. It's another of Patterson's stupid attempts to transfuse money into the mess he's inherited in a really futile effort to get elected.

Sure soda isn't healthy, anymore than booze or cigarettes. Last I checked it's our choice what we eat or drink, not NY State.

HappyOldGuy
9th March 10, 07:13 PM
Sure soda isn't healthy, anymore than booze or cigarettes. Last I checked it's our choice what we eat or drink, not NY State.

Well, they do tax the fuck out of booze and cigarettes, and in the cigarette case, it's actually worked.

Personally Id rather they went after the corn syrup subsidies, but that's federal and not politically easy.

WarPhalange
9th March 10, 07:22 PM
Personally Id rather they went after the corn syrup subsidies, but that's federal and not politically easy.

This. If afterwards not much changes, then maybe do a soda tax.

No, I don't drink soda, so fuck all y'all.

Wounded Ronin
9th March 10, 08:27 PM
FUCK YEAH! This should have happened a long time ago. Sodas are incredibly bad for you and kids drink way too many of them. That particular industry definitely should be punished with taxes since they're contributing to the obesity that costs society when destitute people go to the ER with a heart attack and get Ronald Reagan's free medical treatment that we can't change because that would be socialism. People who drink too much soda probably won't cut back even with higher prices because they're ignorant, but at least the tax money can be used for public health funding.

Wounded Ronin
9th March 10, 08:28 PM
Slippery sloppery slopes
You keep voting for the dopes
They take your fun
You clench your buns
Slippery sloppery slopes.

You're making poems over a consumption tax on junk food that tastes bad?

Phrost
9th March 10, 09:34 PM
FUCK YEAH! This should have happened a long time ago. Sodas are incredibly bad for you and kids drink way too many of them. That particular industry definitely should be punished with taxes since they're contributing to the obesity that costs society when destitute people go to the ER with a heart attack and get Ronald Reagan's free medical treatment that we can't change because that would be socialism. People who drink too much soda probably won't cut back even with higher prices because they're ignorant, but at least the tax money can be used for public health funding.

Except for the fact that taxes are not for, and should never be used as, a means to penalize, punish, or persuade.

Taxes exist to collect revenue for the government, period. Allowing any other purpose for them opens the back door to all sorts of possible tyranny.

If sodas are truly harmful, outlaw them, instead of being manipulative bitches abusing government power to make a cash grab at the expense of private industry and the population.

You know goddamn well the money raised by this won't be used for, much less accomplish, the purpose for which it was nominally collected.

Wounded Ronin
9th March 10, 10:31 PM
Except for the fact that taxes are not for, and should never be used as, a means to penalize, punish, or persuade.

Taxes exist to collect revenue for the government, period. Allowing any other purpose for them opens the back door to all sorts of possible tyranny.

If sodas are truly harmful, outlaw them, instead of being manipulative bitches abusing government power to make a cash grab at the expense of private industry and the population.

You know goddamn well the money raised by this won't be used for, much less accomplish, the purpose for which it was nominally collected.

If that's your opinion fair enough, but I don't think you can claim that's a universal principle that everyone agrees with. Taxes are used for the purpose of penalizing, punishing, or persuading all the time. The most obvious example is trade protectionism. Another obvious example are federal income tax deductions.

Might the tax money go to some "bad" purpose unrelated to public health? I guess it very well could. But I think that's a seperate topic ("Government is inherently corrupt and inherently can't do anything right") than whether or not taxes should or should not be used to penalize, punish, or persuade.

WarPhalange
9th March 10, 10:33 PM
Except for the fact that taxes are not for, and should never be used as, a means to penalize, punish, or persuade.

What about tariffs and junk for imported goods?

Wounded Ronin
9th March 10, 10:34 PM
(disappeared due to being caps)

LOL, your quote disappeared because it was in all caps.

I've said it before and I'm saying it again. With the current system you are paying for all the fatasses who go to the emergency room and can't or won't pay. As long as the public is on the hook for these guys' medical expenses you can't simultaneously argue that the state has no right to try and discourage or penalize or create compensatory revenues from this behavior. If you want to argue we should do away with that system and let people die on the street, then we can have a logical philosophical argument. But right now you're just being myopic, saying that on the one hand the government shouldn't be allowed to do what it's doing within the context where public funds are going to pay for fatty to be stabilized.

Spade: The Real Snake
9th March 10, 11:25 PM
Personally Id rather they went after the corn syrup subsidies, but that's federal and not politically easy.
Freshman Congressman from Indiana and FarmAID founder John Cougar Mellencamp would like a word with you on behalf of the working man

Ajamil
10th March 10, 12:41 AM
Anyone who looks at this and sincerely thinks it will have a significant effect on the amount of soda drunk in NY is a terrible person. This is a blatant attempt at establishing a steady income flow in a time of need, but that will never go away. And they will use some of the funds to tell everyone that sodas are bad, drink diet and the rise of aspartame in the bodes will have some fun consequences (maybe, it'll be a fun experiment, nonetheless).

Phrost
10th March 10, 10:45 AM
What about tariffs and junk for imported goods?

I don't know. I do know that those aren't levied against private citizens.

Phrost
10th March 10, 10:52 AM
If that's your opinion fair enough, but I don't think you can claim that's a universal principle that everyone agrees with. Taxes are used for the purpose of penalizing, punishing, or persuading all the time. The most obvious example is trade protectionism. Another obvious example are federal income tax deductions.

Hey, let's point to a bunch of fucked up shit to justify other fucked up shit. After all, established precedent automatically nullifies any discussion on morality or ethics.

Great argument you've got there buddy!

HappyOldGuy
10th March 10, 11:50 AM
Hey, let's point to a bunch of fucked up shit to justify other fucked up shit. After all, established precedent automatically nullifies any discussion on morality or ethics.

Great argument you've got there buddy!

You aren't making a moral argument. You are making an a priori assumption that very few people would agree with. Why is it bad to use taxes to do more than collect revenue. Sin taxes are some of the oldest taxes in history because most people would say it makes perfect sense to punish undesirable behavior and collect revenue with the same mechanism. It's more efficient, and taxation is a relatively light smack compared to most of the ones the state has at it's disposal.

Feryk
10th March 10, 12:08 PM
We have very high alchohol and cigarette taxes in Canada. Doesn't stop usage. Not a deterrent. HOG, sorry, but it doesn't curb behavior, it just lets the government profit from it.

In and of itself, I don't really have a problem with this. There is a social cost to drinking, smoking, drugs, and sure throw in soda too. If these taxes help offset the costs of knowingly engaging in toxic behavior, I don't really object.

But it does nothing to stop people from engaging in the activity.

HappyOldGuy
10th March 10, 12:18 PM
We have very high alchohol and cigarette taxes in Canada. Doesn't stop usage. Not a deterrent. HOG, sorry, but it doesn't curb behavior, it just lets the government profit from it.

In and of itself, I don't really have a problem with this. There is a social cost to drinking, smoking, drugs, and sure throw in soda too. If these taxes help offset the costs of knowingly engaging in toxic behavior, I don't really object.

But it does nothing to stop people from engaging in the activity.

Oh, I dunno. (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/tobac-tabac/research-recherche/stat/ctums-esutc_prevalence-eng.php)
Looks like it's working to me. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_dai_smo-health-daily-smokers)

Feryk
10th March 10, 12:28 PM
While I personally am very glad to see those statistics, they are not due to taxation, which has been around in Canada for 30 years or so (granted, it's risen ALOT in the last 10). A number of other factors have created that scenario, such as.

1.) Banning of advertising of tobacco products. No more sponsorships, no ads, no nothing in Canada. No 'Joe Camel' or the Marlboro man.

2.) A VERY aggressive anti smoking lobby (granted, funded by tax dollars because we are idiots who pay lobbyists with government money). These guys pressure the politicians to make it difficult for smokers.

3.) New laws, such as:

- No smoking in public buildings, or now, within 5 meters of a public building. Makes it very tough to smoke, particularly in the winter.

- VERY harsh penalties for selling smokes to minors. Used to be a slap on the wrist, now they'll take your arm off. Teenage smokers need someone to bootleg for them now.

- No smoking in lounges or restaurants. If you can't smoke while you are hanging out, then you do it less.

Also, I've noticed a real cultural change. Kids used to smoke because it was 'cool'. Now, the cool kids think it's disgusting. They'd rather smoke weed, which we are okay with in Canada.

HappyOldGuy
10th March 10, 01:06 PM
I didn't say it was just related to taxation, but if raising the price on a consumer product doesn't lower demand at least a little, then alot of people are wasting their time studying economics.

Feryk
10th March 10, 01:13 PM
Sorry, had to edit this.

Demand usually does reduce as price rises - but not always. If someone REQUIRES the product, regardless of price, demand will be static.

Taxation has risen, but it hasn't been catastrophic. It doesn't cost $300 for a pack of smokes, it costs $10. As a result, people just make do with less discretionary income because they have an addiction to support, and they can continue to afford to.

Robot Jesus
10th March 10, 01:47 PM
if they tax booze and smokes, why not this?

and which has a bigger effect on your life; a booze tax, or a pop tax?

Spade: The Real Snake
10th March 10, 01:54 PM
if they tax booze and smokes, why not this?

and which has a bigger effect on your life; a booze tax, or a pop tax?
Because one is for sale to all and the other two aren't.

I don't know how much of a factor it would be, however with booze and cigarettes, you must be an adult to purchase them, hence an adult making an adult decision. Soda is aimed, marketed and often sold to children. There is also specific rules regarding the advertising and marketing of alcohol and tobacco products, limiting or eliminating certain manners of print or broadcast advertisements.

If they are going to begin restricting the sales and advertising of "corn syrup based" food and beverage in conjunction with the additional sin tax, I wouldn't have a problem with both. However, right now, alcohol and tobacco is heavily sub-taxed and can only legally be sold and consumed by adults, so to institute the one and ignore the other seems disingenuous.

And I blame Michelle Obama and her childhood obesity fetish.

Kiko
10th March 10, 02:23 PM
They're gonna lose their deposit nickels if this works... Hmmm.

IF.. and it's very unlikely that it would happen... all the proceeds from this tax were used to combat things like juvenile diabetes, or similar illnesses, I'd be thrilled. However, if they're just gonna air ads telling kids about the food pyramid (wait, I'm dating myself with that one) or stuff that is part of school health classes and COMMON SENSE, then forget it.

Sure, go after HFCS. Put real sugar back into soda!
Btw, Pepsi is HQ'd in Purchase, NY. Do you think they're gonna stay if this goes through? Isn't that tax revenue out the window? Patterson is a moron, despite the possible good intentions of this tax. Arjuna has teh correct.

kracker
10th March 10, 04:10 PM
Now I personally don't like soda unless rum/whisky/vodka is mixed in. However this is really dumb for the following reasons.

1) Fatasses don't care about their own health. Do you think they're going to care about paying an extra tax on their noms?
2) Industrious fatasses can make their own soda.
3) Fatasses die faster than herculean athletic types such as myself so in the long run they don't cost the health establishment any more because they aren't around to receive medicare as long.

Ajamil
10th March 10, 04:40 PM
Number three is way off. Fatties are the second largest drain on healthcare, after geezers.

kracker
10th March 10, 04:59 PM
Number three is way off. Fatties are the second largest drain on healthcare, after geezers.

Fatties die of fatassititis before becoming geezers, hence one more fatty is one less geezer down the road.

Feryk
10th March 10, 05:02 PM
Actually, idiots, puffers are the most expensive group. THEN fatties, THEN geezers.

bob
10th March 10, 05:10 PM
Much as the collective suffering of smokers and soda drinkers fills me with mirth it is a truism in most Western countries that the revenue raised by taxation of smoking far outweighs the health costs of smoking.

Kiko
11th March 10, 02:12 PM
NY is turning stupider by the moment!

Brooklyn Dem Felix Ortiz wants to ban use of salt in New York restaurants (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/03/11/2010-03-11_assault_on_salt_an_insult_chefs.html)

If State Assemblyman Felix Ortiz has his way, the only salt added to your meal will come from the chef's tears.

The Brooklyn Democrat has introduced a bill that would ban the use of salt in New York restaurants - and violators would be smacked with a $1,000 fine for every salty dish.

"No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food," the bill reads.

Some of Manhattan's top cooks blasted the idea, saying the legislation lacks a certain je ne sais quoi.

"New York City is considered the restaurant capital of the world. If they banned salt, nobody would come here anymore," said Tom Colicchio, star of "Top Chef" and owner of Craft.

"Anybody who wants to taste food with no salt, go to a hospital and taste that," he said.

Ortiz says his bill is designed to save lives, just like laws that ban the use of trans fats and require chain restaurants to post nutrition information.

"It's time for us to take a giant step," Ortiz said yesterday. "We need to talk about two ingredients of salt: health care costs and deaths."

He claims billions of dollars and thousands of lives would be saved if salt was taken off the menu altogether.

There's little argument that too much salt causes high blood pressure, which can lead to heart attacks - but even hardcore salt haters say banning it outright is a pinch too much.

"You can live with salt in your diet. The problem in our society is excess salt," said Sonia Angell, director of the cardiovascular disease and prevention program for the Health Department.

Angell is behind the city's new push to get food producers and restaurants to cut sodium content by 25% over the next five years. That includes prepared foods like canned soups and frozen dinners, as well as fast-food meals that can have twice the recommended amount of salt for an entire day.

"Fast food is loaded with sodium, but in a kitchen that's doing fine dining, the use of salt is moderate," said John DeLucie, chef at The Waverly Inn and the soon-to-be opened Lion.

"There's a ridiculous amount of salt in processed foods, but what I use is not a salt bomb like that. It's to taste."

"I have zero problems with blood pressure, zero problems with my health, and I have eaten salt all my life," said Eric Ripert, chef at world-famous Manhattan restaurant Le Bernardin.

"Cooked food tastes good with salt and it's bland without it," said Ripert. "I believe very much that processed food is not good for you. But salt - salt is different. There are zero dishes I prepare that have no salt at all.

"[Ortiz] does not have my vote," Ripert said.

************
Amazing!

Robot Jesus
11th March 10, 02:20 PM
the trans fat thing made some sense, unless you made an issue of it you wouldn't be able to get rid of it. now people are just running with it.


completely unrelated

http://patrickmccoy.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c6e6853ef0105352812df970b-pi

kracker
11th March 10, 02:26 PM
NY is turning stupider by the moment!

Brooklyn Dem Felix Ortiz wants to ban use of salt in New York restaurants (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/03/11/2010-03-11_assault_on_salt_an_insult_chefs.html)

If State Assemblyman Felix Ortiz has his way, the only salt added to your meal will come from the chef's tears.

The Brooklyn Democrat has introduced a bill that would ban the use of salt in New York restaurants - and violators would be smacked with a $1,000 fine for every salty dish.

"No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food," the bill reads.

Some of Manhattan's top cooks blasted the idea, saying the legislation lacks a certain je ne sais quoi.

"New York City is considered the restaurant capital of the world. If they banned salt, nobody would come here anymore," said Tom Colicchio, star of "Top Chef" and owner of Craft.

"Anybody who wants to taste food with no salt, go to a hospital and taste that," he said.

Ortiz says his bill is designed to save lives, just like laws that ban the use of trans fats and require chain restaurants to post nutrition information.

"It's time for us to take a giant step," Ortiz said yesterday. "We need to talk about two ingredients of salt: health care costs and deaths."

He claims billions of dollars and thousands of lives would be saved if salt was taken off the menu altogether.

There's little argument that too much salt causes high blood pressure, which can lead to heart attacks - but even hardcore salt haters say banning it outright is a pinch too much.

"You can live with salt in your diet. The problem in our society is excess salt," said Sonia Angell, director of the cardiovascular disease and prevention program for the Health Department.

Angell is behind the city's new push to get food producers and restaurants to cut sodium content by 25% over the next five years. That includes prepared foods like canned soups and frozen dinners, as well as fast-food meals that can have twice the recommended amount of salt for an entire day.

"Fast food is loaded with sodium, but in a kitchen that's doing fine dining, the use of salt is moderate," said John DeLucie, chef at The Waverly Inn and the soon-to-be opened Lion.

"There's a ridiculous amount of salt in processed foods, but what I use is not a salt bomb like that. It's to taste."

"I have zero problems with blood pressure, zero problems with my health, and I have eaten salt all my life," said Eric Ripert, chef at world-famous Manhattan restaurant Le Bernardin.

"Cooked food tastes good with salt and it's bland without it," said Ripert. "I believe very much that processed food is not good for you. But salt - salt is different. There are zero dishes I prepare that have no salt at all.

"[Ortiz] does not have my vote," Ripert said.

************
Amazing!

Apparently NY Dems took up the torch from Giulianni and are taking NY even further down the road to tyranny. Giant douche or sodium-free turd sandwich anyone?

Kiko
11th March 10, 02:27 PM
Also semi-unrelated:

http://www.geekstir.com/img/zombiefoodpyramid.jpg

There ARE other types of healthier fats, which should be used sparingly. Salt on the other hand is necessary for health as well as palatable food and for some recipes to even work properly.

THINK OF THE PRETZEL VENDORS!!!

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/features/health/theskinny/blog/pretzel.jpg

Ajamil
11th March 10, 03:05 PM
I think the Dem should completely remove all salt from his diet. Then in a few years we won't have to worry about him anymore.

You know eating food without salt is one of the recurring phrases used in the Vedas to describe great hardships or sacrifice in life.

HappyOldGuy
11th March 10, 03:30 PM
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:MBkSt82yU-i99M:http://wendyusuallywanders.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/goiter.jpg

That is all.

Robot Jesus
11th March 10, 04:03 PM
technically that's from lack of iodine.

I wonder if my use of kosher salt means I'm susceptible to that.

alton brown is actually an evil villain, it all makes sense now.

HappyOldGuy
11th March 10, 04:05 PM
Depends on whether you can get enough from other sources. It doesn't take much, but that is why they started putting iodine in salt.

Cullion
11th March 10, 04:32 PM
New York wants more revenue. I don't know how much room they have to cut spending. Better a tax on sodas than a hike in income or employment-related tax, for a given overall tax burden.

I doubt if an extra cent will change how much soda anybody drinks enough to postively impact their health. There's a measurable thing called 'price elasticity', and this is a straightforward test of it.

Kiko
11th March 10, 06:47 PM
Removing salt isn't going to add any revenue, is it?

Btw, don't only eat rabbit...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_starvation

Here's a more amusing account, but I don't know if we can embed Videosift

http://www.videosift.com/video/QI-What-happens-if-you-eat-nothing-but-rabbit

Wounded Ronin
13th March 10, 10:13 AM
New York wants more revenue. I don't know how much room they have to cut spending. Better a tax on sodas than a hike in income or employment-related tax, for a given overall tax burden.

I doubt if an extra cent will change how much soda anybody drinks enough to postively impact their health. There's a measurable thing called 'price elasticity', and this is a straightforward test of it.

New York State is in a lot of trouble with their finances, and I felt it went without saying that the biggest reason that this tax is occuring now is an effort to try and protect the state infrastructure. That being said I still feel there are positive aspects to a soda tax which I stated earlier. Also, I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing to protect civil or social service infrastructure at a time when the economy in the garbage and there is a greater need for these things.

Doritosaurus Chex
13th March 10, 11:10 AM
http://taobaofieldguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/taobao-partners-with-chinese-fda.jpg

Ajamil
13th March 10, 04:57 PM
But hasn't that got what plants crave?