Many of the more health-conscious people on here may already be
aware of the new idea US health officials want Congress to support,
but if you aren't, here is the article link,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090730/hl_afp/healthusobesitytaxdrink_20090730232047.
Long story short: The head of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), Thomas Frieden, proposed a
"one-penny-per-ounce tax," on any and all sodapops. And
from the way I see it, that's absurd.
Alright, I understand where he's coming from. He's looking
at it as a source of revenue and as a way to make Americans stop
drinking sodapop in large quantities. The author of the article
suggests that they want to take soda "off Americans' menu
of choice," with a similar technique as was used on cigarette
sales. Think for a minute... CIGARETTES vs. SODAPOP.
Cigarettes are know to be completely bad for people, they have a
slew of chemicals, addictive agents, tar that fills up a
person's lungs. There is nothing about them that is good. Yet
Frieden uses the statement "We reduced adult smoking by 25
percent and teen smoking by 50 percent in six years. About half of
that reduction was the result of taxation," to support his
idea for a soda pop tax high enough to reduce consumption. Lets
pause for a second.
1. Government imposed taxes to up the cost of soda so as to coerce
Americans to consume less. Reasoning: They will be better off
without it. If we can lower consupmtion we can lower obesity
rates.
Newsflash: There's still fast food and other alternative
sources of sugar and calories.
Another Newsflash: There are so many popular drinks that adults
gravitate to that are 100X worse than soda. EX: Iced Coffees.
Mochas. Lattes. But soda is an easier thing to pick on,
particularly because they can bring up the idea of protecting our
children. This brings me to...
2. Lets do a little comparison here. In eight ounces of each
sample, I will tell you what the labels told me:
Topical Twister - (a kid's juice) 120 calories and 29 g of
sugar with 10 or 20% Vitamin C
Traditional Pepsi - 100 calories and 27 g of sugar
Juicy Juice - 110 and 26 sugars with 100% Vitamin C.
There is not a major difference between other drinks and soda. Yes,
I know some sodas have higher calories and sugars then Pepsi, but
there are also at least 2 or 3 that are lower. Not to mention,
there is a thing called diet soda,* with none of
the calories or the sugar, so what's to complain about? The
main difference is in the Vitamin C. But that is not a point they
are arguing this tax idea on. So what are they going to do, tax
juices too? Because of the sugar? Almost anything you can
eat or drink can make you fat if you eat or drink too much of
it.
It is not up to the government to make things like soda hard to
obtain because they want to help the American public slim down. The
government has to teach its people portion control in a culture
that has trained its people to consume, to buy, buy, buy, both
products and food. The Coca Cola
Corporation was right when they were quoted in the Financial
Times as saying that "the consumer in this environment is not
ready for a tax on a basic staple like non-alcoholic
beverages." If the government wants to start taxing to stop
consumption as a means to reduce obesity, then they better start
taxing cakes, cookies, crackers, snack foods, frozen pizza's,
frozen not-diet foods, icecream, everything they can think of that
isn't straight off a plant. Even meats.
Obesity isn't caused by the availibility of
soda and snacks, but by people's inability to control
portion sizes. Sodas and snacks contribute, they do, I
admit that, and small taxes to help with health care costs make
sense, but I cannot and will not support something that is designed
to manipulate what I consume when I am capable to decide on my own
and decide for my children as I get older. The government does not
have the right to take that away from me. Very rarely do I want the
corporations to win in Congress, but this time I hope they do,
because the health officials are pushing to take choices out of our
hands. Think. A cent-per-ounce tax. On a 2-L bottle, that's 64
cents. On a six pack, that's 72 cents. On a 3-L, 96 cents. On a
12-pack, that's a $1.44 extra. On a 24 pack, that's $2.88
more. That's a lot more than a lot of family can spend on soda,
and its sad, if you think of times like these, even if the tax were
to pass after the economy recovered, its still too much for a lot
of people and its taking away a sad simple treat.
* and just as a side note, if you care to argue the fact that the
chemicals in diet soda are worse than in regular soda, then
petition to end the reign of flavored waters and all the
"healthy" snack foods as well, all the things that
"wouldn't count" because of artificial
sweeteners.
Food
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
User post: Government Manipulation of People via Soda Tax... that should make you think WTF.
user
- Let’s talk: Comment (11) | Blog
- Email to a Friend
- Print this Page
Syndication:
From the Community…
-
Posted by Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:04am PDT
Report AbuseI agree with you on most everything except for the taxation on meats... because that would mean taxing even the leanest of meats and those that are good for you and have vital nutrition, such as the Omega-3's in fish and the Iron in beef... Yes, I realize you can get the same minerals and fats from plant based products but what if you have a food allergy to nuts and then you can only get your Omega-3's from fish.
But I do agree with you, it's absured that they are demonizing soda's when even percieved healthy foods can have just as much if not more sugars (not even fiber but straight sugars) and calories as their junkfood counter parts.... It's yet one more sin tax that will only push people to get the cheaper and lower quality items that just might be worse for them than the original offender... I know I have seen this with my parents and cigarettes, they have been smoking all my life and as the taxes go up the quality of their cigarettes goes down because they are not able to buy the more expensive ones... Now, don't get me wrong, I think all cigarettes are horrid and I don't want them in my house... but the cheaper the cigarettes are the more additives there are to make them cheaper, thus making them worse for you than the more expensive brands. At least this is my opinion on the matter.
-
Posted by Fri Jul 31, 2009 11:14am PDT
Report AbuseWait if thats what they want why dont they lobby for soft drink makers reduce the amount of sweetners by 15% instead of taxing us again.In fact all sweets that are artificially sweetened like twinkies ,juices,candy bars ,sodas etc.....you could on and on and on and all it amounts to is more money for the man!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Posted by Fri Jul 31, 2009 5:31pm PDT
Report AbuseAh, do any of these people actually live in the real world and not the little space between their ears? THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE PLAYING BIG BROTHER IN TERMS OF FOOD! when they stop lining their pockets with the drug companies and everyone else then I'll take their advice, until then i will stick to my own diet that hasn't done much harm to me yet.
-
Posted by Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:21pm PDT
Report AbuseDamm tired of the Goverment sticking their nose in peoples privates lives.
What we need are term limits and very very very small Goverment .Also need congress to live like we do,no yearly automatic raises,no special health care program,no more perks ,no free trips on the tax payer. Make them live as we do. And lastly stay the hell out of our lives as they work for us not the other way around.
-
Posted by Sat Aug 1, 2009 8:53am PDT
Report AbuseI am so against the government taxing us for ANYTHING in this crappy economy. That being said, healthy sugars, and the sugar in sodas (high fructose corn syrup) are completely different things. Soda has more HFCS than any other products on the market that are consumed on a daily basis. It's one of the worst things you can put into your body. And some people drink them at every meal, supersize them at fast food restaurants, etc. Tha'ts why they are such a huge contributor to obesity. Still, taxing sodas is typical of our liberal government sticking their nose even further up our butts. Parents need to take responsibility of what their children are consuming, and teach them healthy habits!
-
Posted by Sat Aug 1, 2009 11:23am PDT
Report AbuseThat's all it is, and honestly, I'd say the same about smoking.
If people want to smoke, let them, just make sure it isn't the taxpayers problem when they get sick.
I mean come on.. if people want to drink soda, let them. Don't try to force people to stop by taxing it. That's bull.
-
Posted by Sun Aug 2, 2009 2:04am PDT
Report AbuseIt's just another way that govt can control us, and steal our money. Yes, STEAL. They use this "obesity issue" as a cover-up excuse and REASON to take our hard earned money away from us.
-
Posted by Sun Aug 2, 2009 9:25pm PDT
Report AbuseOnce you allow special taxation on certain products you open up pandoras box. Congratulations to those of you who wanted special taxes on cigs and alcahol, this belongs to you too.
-
Posted by Mon Aug 3, 2009 12:12pm PDT
Report AbuseI agree w/ JoKTM:
"Once you allow special taxation on certain products you open up pandoras box. Congratulations to those of you who wanted special taxes on cigs and alcahol, this belongs to you too."
-
Posted by Mon Aug 3, 2009 10:55pm PDT
Report AbuseThis will never happen. Lobbyists from the major soda companies will have a chokehold on Congress. Don't even waste your time getting wound up about it.
leave your comment
You must sign in to post a comment