CA wants to tax soda, energy drinks

[Falcon63]

Thoughts on this? I know it won't be of popular opinion, but I actually agree with this. Surely there will be people proclaiming that citizens have the right to be fat, and I agree, but, just like we do with alcohol and tobacco, I think we should place (much heavier) excise taxes on sodas and other extremely unhealthy foods/drinks. Not only a good source of income, but it encourages people to improve their health.


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/calif-eyes-per-ounce-tax-soda-fight-child-obesity-article-1.1327571

In California, big gulps could soon be taxed in a big way.A bill that would tax sweetened beverages like soda and energy drinks a penny per ounce cleared a hurdle Wednesday in the California Legislature. The state Senate Governance and Finance Committee passed SB-622 by a 5-2 vote, sending the controversial measure on for review by the Senate Health Committee.
“This is the first time this state committee has passed a bill that would place a tax on sugary drinks and the first step toward stemming the epidemic of childhood obesity,” the bill’s lead sponsor, Democratic Sen. Bill Monning said in a news release.
The bill exempts drinks that contain fewer than 25 calories, and the funds raised by the excise tax would go to the state’s newly created Children’s Health Promotion Fund, as well as programs that combat childhood obesity.
“By taxing these products we will be able to implement programs that will assist in preventing disease among children and begin to address a public health crisis whose rising health costs affect all Californians,” Monning said.
RICH PEDRONCELLI

Sen. Bill Monning (D-Monterey) says the tax on soda is "a first step toward stemming the epidemic of childhood obesity."


Not surprisingly, the idea of taxing sweetened drinks does not sit well with the soda industry, which spent millions to defeat ballot measures in two California towns — Richmond and El Monte — that had proposed similar sweetened drink taxes.
The Center for Consumer Freedom, an industry-backed group, vehemently opposes the tax-by-the-ounce idea.
“Taxes shouldn’t be a tool for social engineering or an instrument to penalize Californians for doing nothing wrong,” J. Justin Wilson, a senior research analyst at the center, told the Los Angeles Times. ”Residents of California don’t need a Ph.D. in nutrition to tell them that eating or drinking too much of anything is unhealthy. It only takes a little common sense and personal responsibility.“
Despite the recent defeats at the ballot box, a Field Poll released in February found that 68 percent of Californians said they supported the penny-per-ounce soda tax as long as the proceeds were set aside for improved school nutrition and physical activity programs.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 24 percent of California adults, and 17 percent of the state’s children, are obese.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...#ixzz2Rc9sZ9qY

[dannno]

In theory that doesn't sound too bad, the problem is who chooses what is healthy and what should be taxed? Special interests get involved, it becomes messy..

Plus, soda is mostly corn, which is subsidized by the government. Seems counter intuitive to subsidize something with tax dollars then tax it. Why not just get rid of the subsidy? I guess California can't get rid of federal corn subsidies..

So ya this honestly isn't the worst thing our government is doing today, but there are much better solutions.

[Falcon63]

In theory that doesn't sound too bad, the problem is who chooses what is healthy and what should be taxed? Special interests get involved, it becomes messy..

Plus, soda is mostly corn, which is subsidized by the government. Seems counter intuitive to subsidize something with tax dollars then tax it. Why not just get rid of the subsidy? I guess California can't get rid of federal corn subsidies..

So ya this honestly isn't the worst thing our government is doing today, but there are much better solutions.

Why not stop subsidizing it AND increase excise taxes on it? Once we eliminate the income tax, the property tax, and the estate tax, we will need our government to have SOME income.

[Keith and stuff]

CA already has a sales tax on soda plus a can/bottle deposit tax on soda of 5 to 10 cents per soda. Now a 3rd tax on soda in CA? CA is such a lost cause. The voters voted to increase sales and income taxes in November. Now it has the highest of both in the country. How could a sane person live with themselves for living in such an evil place? Where I live, there is no soda tax.

[Falcon63]

CA already has a sales tax on soda and a can deposit tax on soda. Now a 3rd tax on soda in CA? CA is such a lost cause. How could a sane person live with themselves for living in such an evil place? Where I live, there is no soda tax.

I think it's great. So many people are MORIBDLY OBESE these days. It is unhealthy. We should discourage it as much (if not more than) smoking and alcohol consumption.

[dannno]

Why not stop subsidizing it AND increase excise taxes on it? Once we eliminate the income tax, the property tax, and the estate tax, we will need our government to have SOME income.

Correct - a consumption tax on luxury goods and non-essentials is superior to an income tax or a consumption tax which taxes essential items. I'd much rather implement this tax with a compromise to reduce or eliminate the income tax.

[Keith and stuff]

Why not stop subsidizing it AND increase excise taxes on it? Once we eliminate the income tax, the property tax, and the estate tax, we will need our government to have SOME income.

Eliminate? CA has the highest income and sales taxes in the US and the voters voted for them. It also has high property taxes in the parts of the state near the coast. Now a 3rd tax on soda, which no doubt, voters support would support if given the option...

[Dr.3D]

Why not just reduce the size of government, thus reducing costs and then reduce taxes in the process?

[Falcon63]

Why not just reduce the size of government, thus reducing costs and then reduce taxes in the process?

Why would we want to reduce costs of soda? More excise taxes on things like soda, alcohol, tobacco, gas, etc., and less on income, estate, and property.

[sailingaway]

No, it is a tax. Also govt has no jurisdiction to try to govern people's private behavior, period.

If you drive a car
I'll tax the street
If you try to sit
I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold
I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk
I'll tax your feet




Read more: BEATLES - TAXMAN LYRICS

[dannno]

Why would we want to reduce costs of soda? More excise taxes on things like soda, alcohol, tobacco, gas, etc., and less on income, estate, and property.

I think the only thing you'll get agreement on is if you have a corresponding tax cut, increase taxes in this other area instead.. but adding a tax to an already over-taxed system you will probably not get agreement on.

[Falcon63]

No, it is a tax. Also govt has no jurisdiction to try to govern people's private behavior, period.

If you drive a car
I'll tax the street
If you try to sit
I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold
I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk
I'll tax your feet




Read more: BEATLES - TAXMAN LYRICS

So we should not tax drugs (if they were legalized), tobacco, or alcohol either, since they are taxes? The government needs SOME revenue...

And people still have the right to be fat, it will just be more expensive. Why not encourage people to be healthier? I am anti-income tax, but I am definitely not anti-tax. That's just ridiculous.

[Keith and stuff]

Why would we want to reduce costs of soda? More excise taxes on things like soda, alcohol, tobacco, gas, etc., and less on income, estate, and property.

I know CA increases the gas tax every year. This year it was 3.5 cents. However, it is a tax on everything. Trucks deliver most things. They use gas. Most workers drive to work. They use gas. It increases the business costs for everything. The costs for buses. The costs for commuting. The gas/diesel tax is not a user fee. Don't believe the statists. It increases the cost of everything. It's similar to a corporate tax that cannot be avoided. And also a tax on individuals with cars.

[Falcon63]

I know CA increases the gas tax every year. This year it was 3.5 cents. However, it is a tax on everything. Trucks deliver most things. They use gas. Most workers drive to work. They use gas. It increases the business costs for everything. The costs for buses. The costs for commuting. The gas/diesel tax is not a user fee. Don't believe the statists. It increases the cost of everything. It's similar to a corporate tax that cannot be avoided. And also a tax on individuals with cars.

You're not forced to drive cars, especially ones that use lots of gas. As a consumer, it is your decision to get a car.

The chemicals hurt the environment (which, in turn, harms peoples' health), so it should also be discouraged (to an extent).

I believe everyone should highly consider alternative energy sources.

[mad cow]

And energy drinks?!?

What,Mayor Bloomberg too libertarian for your taste?

[Origanalist]

I think it's great. So many people are MORIBDLY OBESE these days. It is unhealthy. We should discourage it as much (if not more than) smoking and alcohol consumption.

You would get along fine with this guy.

[Keith and stuff]

You're not forced to drive cars, especially ones that use lots of gas. As a consumer, it is your decision to get a car.

In CA it is very common for people to drive cars. Millions of people commute to work. Look it up. I guess people could ride the horrible government train, bus or subwy systems. Is your solution more government and higher taxes?

[Dr.3D]

So we should not tax drugs (if they were legalized), tobacco, or alcohol either, since they are taxes? The government needs SOME revenue...

And people still have the right to be fat, it will just be more expensive. Why not encourage people to be healthier? I am anti-income tax, but I am definitely not anti-tax. That's just ridiculous.

It could get by on 50% less taxes if it was 50% smaller.

[dannno]

You're not forced to drive cars, especially ones that use lots of gas. As a consumer, it is your decision to get a car.

The chemicals hurt the environment (which, in turn, harms peoples' health), so it should also be discouraged (to an extent).

I believe everyone should highly consider alternative energy sources.

Our right to travel freely was restricted with the institution of the government road system, which we have been forced to finance. So we are essentially forced to drive government licensed cars if we want to travel. So it really isn't much of a choice.

I mean, sure, go ahead and argue that you can take public transportation, but that really isn't any better of a choice, especially with all of the government mandated security measures.

[luctor-et-emergo]

No thanks, the government has no business and no influence on what I eat.
I will eat whatever I want to eat regardless of the price, within certain limits off course.
I happen to have a high metabolism, I lose weight just sitting around.
Why should I pay extra to be healthy because other people eat too much (regardless of taxes).

[Falcon63]

In CA it is very common for people to drive cars. Millions of people commute to work. Look it up. I guess people could ride the horrible government train, bus or subwy systems. Is your solution more government and higher taxes?

Did you even read what I've wrote in this thread? I'm for eliminating income taxes, property taxes, and estate taxes, so I am definitely NOT for more taxation overall. However, I AM for increase excise taxes on certain products, and increased non-protectionist tariffs.

[Falcon63]

It could get by on 50% less taxes if it was 50% smaller.

Where do you get the idea I want more government?

No thanks, the government has no business and no influence on what I eat.
I will eat whatever I want to eat regardless of the price, within certain limits off course.
I happen to have a high metabolism, I lose weight just sitting around.
Why should I pay extra to be healthy because other people eat too much (regardless of taxes).

You can still eat whatever you want, but soda would just cost more. And how would you be paying extra to be healthy? Are you suggesting soda is healthy?

[Dr.3D]

Where do you get the idea I want more government?

You endorse more taxes, and those feed the beast. It keeps getting fatter and fatter. We need to put it on a diet.

[Falcon63]

You endorse more taxes

Where do you get that idea? Read post #21. The increased taxes I'm encouraging would not even make up for 1/100 of the income tax, which I want to eliminate.

[Keith and stuff]

Did you even read what I've wrote in this thread? I'm for eliminating income taxes, property taxes, and estate taxes, so I am definitely NOT for more taxation overall. However, I AM for increase excise taxes on certain products, and increased non-protectionist tariffs.

Here is the thing, though. Voters in CA love income and sales taxes and already voted this in. They aren't going away. You are talking about creating a new tax in addition to those other taxes. The new tax won't get rid of the old taxes.

NJ used to have the highest property taxes in the US. Politicians created a general sales tax and personal income tax, promising to reduce property taxes. Today, CA still has the highest proper taxes in the US. Whatever it is you are thinking, it likely won't work. It will just make things worse. Supporting this is saying you want bigger government and higher taxes.

[Falcon63]

Here is the thing, though. Voters in CA love income and sales taxes and already voted this in. They aren't going away. You are talking about creating a new tax in addition to those other taxes. The new tax won't get rid of the old taxes.

NJ used to have the highest property taxes in the US. Politicians created a general sales tax and personal income tax, promising to reduce property taxes. Today, CA still has the highest proper taxes in the US. Whatever it is you are thinking, it likely won't work. It will just make things worse. Supporting this is saying you want bigger government and higher taxes.

Well, no, I want them to do the right thing and eliminate income, property, and estate taxes.

As an individual excise tax, I support this. CA just needs to do the right thing and lower other taxes.

[Keith and stuff]

Well, no, I want them to do the right thing and eliminate income, property, and estate taxes.

As an individual excise tax, I support this. CA just needs to do the right thing and lower other taxes.

Obviously CA should lower other taxes. However, the voters just voted for the highest sales and income taxes in the US and for the Internet tax. They aren't going to change their minds and vote to reduce taxes. Hello

[CCTelander]

Jesus Christ!

What the hell has happened to this site and the "liberty movement" in general? Now we've got "liberty advocates" arguing FOR sin taxes and in favor of using violence by proxy of government to "help" people overcome obesity?

I'm at a loss for words.

[Falcon63]

Jesus Christ!

What the hell has happened to this site and the "liberty movement" in general? Now we've got "liberty advocates" arguing FOR sin taxes and in favor of using violence by proxy of government to "help" people overcome obesity?

I'm at a loss for words.

Okay, so, since you're part of the liberty movement, I'm assuming you want to rid the same taxes that I mentioned above, correct?

What would be the government's source of income? You appear to be against any taxation of any kind. So tell me, how can we fund the military, the courts, the police, and the infrastructure without SOME taxes?

Also, what is the problem with "sin taxes"? You're not forced to buy those items. If you don't want to pay taxes on them, don't buy them. You really can't see why we should discourage alcohol, tobacco, and drug use?

[heavenlyboy34]

So we should not tax drugs (if they were legalized), tobacco, or alcohol either, since they are taxes? The government needs SOME revenue...

And people still have the right to be fat, it will just be more expensive. Why not encourage people to be healthier? I am anti-income tax, but I am definitely not anti-tax. That's just ridiculous.

The gov'ment should survive by donations. If people really want government things, they'll voluntarily pay for them.