PDA

View Full Version : San Francisco wants to levy a tax on your soda!


SamReeves
18-09-09, 17:40
Remember that old phrase, "monkey see and monkey do?" After the federal government toyed with the idea of a soda tax, it appears the government at the local level wants to do the same.

The cash starving city of San Francisco is proposing a soda tax at your local convenience or grocery store. All this to fight "obesity," when in reality it's just another tax to fill their coffers. I hope it goes down in flames, or other municipalities will just follow suit, taxing your soda, chips, sandwiches, and so forth.

Read the story in the San Francisco Chronicle:

Newsom wants to charge stores that sell sodas
(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/18/MNF619OSF4.DTL)

DemiCullenx
18-09-09, 17:42
Stupid

xXhayleyroxXx
18-09-09, 17:45
thumbs down for me too, if tht came to the uk id go nuts!

soda and candy keep my going:o

Phys
18-09-09, 17:45
I'm not sure what's worse. The UK government, or the US government.

irjudd
18-09-09, 17:50
Lame! But there are already so many taxes that I disagree with on principle but can't do anything about... so what's one more?

interstellardave
18-09-09, 17:52
Lame! But there are already so many taxes that I disagree with on principle but can't do anything about... so what's one more?

True... there are innumberable taxes that already have raised the price of that soda; not to mention the money you would use to buy it has been taxed... then you're taxed just for going into the store and buying it!

Mr.Burns
18-09-09, 18:25
Boston Tea Party rings a bell somehow :) But from a personal perspective, I wouldn't be fussed since I don't drink that stuff anymore and oddly enough, I've lost some weight by doing so. :whi:

Mad Tony
18-09-09, 18:32
thumbs down for me too, if tht came to the uk id go nuts!

soda and candy keep my going:oTo be honest I'm surprised we haven't already got it here. Labour sure do love their taxes (and spending).

I'm not sure what's worse. The UK government, or the US government.Now that both have socialists running them? I'd say they're as bad as each other.

This really is pathetic. Taxing people to try and make them "go green" or "get healthier" is just ridiculous. It's the same as the argument for raising the petrol tax to get people to buy more fuel efficient cars.

stereopathic
18-09-09, 18:57
i know the tax the federal government talked about would not apply to diet drinks. is that the case for the SF one? coke drinkers could just switch to coke zero, save some money and reduce their caloric intake.

that UCLA study they refer to showed that $41 million in state funds were being spent treating obesity? holy crap!

Mad Tony
18-09-09, 19:28
i know the tax the federal government talked about would not apply to diet drinks. is that the case for the SF one? coke drinkers could just switch to coke zero, save some money and reduce their caloric intake.How about the government should just stay out of trying to force people to cut down their calorie intake? I much prefer normal coke over its over varieties. It's the consumer's choice whether or not they want to drink/eat something that isn't good for them.

stereopathic
18-09-09, 19:47
It's the consumer's choice whether or not they want to drink/eat something that isn't good for them.

for the record, i'm not saying i support the tax. i'm just saying that if it passes, there are other options. i used the coke zero example because it tastes exactly the same as coke classic.

but playing devil's advocate here, what if the taxes you pay are going toward the medical care of people that drink/eat something that isn't good for them? should those people be held responsible? it's not necessarily a case of, "they can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect me."

Mad Tony
18-09-09, 19:50
for the record, i'm not saying i support the tax. i'm just saying that if it passes, there are other options. i used the coke zero example because it tastes exactly the same as coke classic.

but playing devil's advocate here, what if the taxes you pay are going toward the medical care of people that drink/eat something that isn't good for them? should those people be held responsible? it's not necessarily a case of, "they can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect me."While Coke Zero tastes better and closer to normal coke as Diet Coke, it still doesn't taste the same. I've never actually tried Coke Zero in the US so I can't comment about your version but ours definitely doesn't. If it did, I'd be drinking that instead of ordinary coke.

What do you mean exactly?

stereopathic
18-09-09, 20:12
While Coke Zero tastes better and closer to normal coke as Diet Coke, it still doesn't taste the same. I've never actually tried Coke Zero in the US so I can't comment about your version but ours definitely doesn't. If it did, I'd be drinking that instead of ordinary coke.

What do you mean exactly?
oh man, coke zero's the shizz here. seriously identical. love it.

what i mean is this: as an example, the county hospitals here in houston are where all people without insurance can go for their cheap or sometimes even free healthcare. many are below the poverty line, and a much higher percentage of them are obese than the middle class. statistically speaking, the lower class eats more fast food than the middle class as well.

so ultimately, the middle class pays for the health problems of the uninsured poor who get morbidly obese because they eat too much fast food. would it be more fair to tax the fast food so the people who eat too much of it are held more responsible for their own health care?

Mad Tony
18-09-09, 20:15
I don't agree it would be fair to tax the fast food because it doesn't distinguish from those who it every so often and those who eat it every day.

stereopathic
18-09-09, 20:27
is it fair to tax wine as much as we do? in moderation, red wine can help stave off cancer, but in excess causes well-documented health issues. even people who drink it for the anti-oxidants have to pay these taxes.

(remember, this is just for the sake of discussion)

Mad Tony
18-09-09, 20:32
Nope, I don't think it's fair to tax wine either. Ultimately, levying taxes on products doesn't normally stop people from buying them. All it does is just leave the consumer with less money in their pockets and the government with more money to waste.

iamlaracroft
18-09-09, 20:42
I think $40 million in health care costs directly related to obesity is a waste.

SamReeves
18-09-09, 20:58
i know the tax the federal government talked about would not apply to diet drinks. is that the case for the SF one? coke drinkers could just switch to coke zero, save some money and reduce their caloric intake.

that UCLA study they refer to showed that $41 million in state funds were being spent treating obesity? holy crap!

From what I've read Brett, the San Francisco soda tax would make no distinction between soft drinks. Diet Coke or regular Coke, you would get taxed. :mad:

stereopathic
18-09-09, 21:00
I think $40 million in health care costs directly related to obesity is a waste.

not enough pushin' in the world to make up for that kinda cushion. :D

From what I've read Brett, the San Francisco soda tax would make no distinction between soft drinks. Diet Coke or regular Coke, you would get taxed. :mad:

that's effin' tyranny.

SamReeves
18-09-09, 21:05
that's effin' tyranny.

Exactly. So I'll never buy a soda in San Francisco. I'll just get it in Daly City instead! :D

Tombraiderx08
18-09-09, 21:41
taxes are bad D: but im not in sanfran, so thats good, well for me... but taxes on soda? thats ridonkulous! :mad:

Ward Dragon
18-09-09, 22:23
but playing devil's advocate here, what if the taxes you pay are going toward the medical care of people that drink/eat something that isn't good for them? should those people be held responsible? it's not necessarily a case of, "they can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect me."

It's the principle of the thing. Let's say the government takes over the healthcare industry and then starts passing laws to tax (or even ban) soda, fast food, etc. in order to reduce the cost of the healthcare they are providing. Essentially they've told me that I absolutely have to rely on them for healthcare so they get to make decisions about what I can put into my body. It's my body damn it! Those choices should be mine, not the government's. They don't own me.

EmeraldFields
18-09-09, 22:40
They don't own me.

flzPWWjsyPU&feature=related

:D

amiro1989
18-09-09, 22:45
Well, don't drink it... This **** is disgusting anyways. If it can take off all the crap from your pennies, and leave them clean as a new one, I wouldn't even bother shoving it down my mouth..... :ton:

Ward Dragon
18-09-09, 22:53
[youtube]

:D

Very nice :vlol: :D

Solice
18-09-09, 23:47
Remember that old phrase, "monkey see and monkey do?" After the federal government toyed with the idea of a soda tax, it appears the government at the local level wants to do the same.

The cash starving city of San Francisco is proposing a soda tax at your local convenience or grocery store. All this to fight "obesity," when in reality it's just another tax to fill their coffers. I hope it goes down in flames, or other municipalities will just follow suit, taxing your soda, chips, sandwiches, and so forth.

Read the story in the San Francisco Chronicle:

Newsom wants to charge stores that sell sodas
(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/18/MNF619OSF4.DTL)



Dump Pepsi in the bay! Oh, wait, that ones been done:D

iamlaracroft
18-09-09, 23:58
It's the principle of the thing. Let's say the government takes over the healthcare industry and then starts passing laws to tax (or even ban) soda, fast food, etc. in order to reduce the cost of the healthcare they are providing. Essentially they've told me that I absolutely have to rely on them for healthcare so they get to make decisions about what I can put into my body. It's my body damn it! Those choices should be mine, not the government's. They don't own me.

So do you have a problem with the government making the decision for you that drugs like cocaine, meth, and heroine should not be used? They are, after all, illegal... Does this mean the government owns you? Because even though there are consequences for using them, you still have the choice whether to or not.


Anyway, how much could this tax possibly be? a few cents? a whole dollar? Is the economy really so bad that a few extra cents are going to break our banks or are some people actually consuming that much soda??? :confused:
Anyone who consumes such high volumes of soda that a minor tax would have a significant effect on their wallet is not only wasting their money but their health too.

Ward Dragon
19-09-09, 00:01
Dump Pepsi in the bay! Oh, wait, that ones been done:D

Really? I'm surprised the EPA didn't freak out about raising the acid levels in the bay and killing the fish :p

So do you have a problem with the government making the decision for you that drugs like cocaine, meth, and heroine should not be used? They are, after all, illegal... Does this mean the government owns you? Because even though there are consequences for using them, you still have the choice whether to or not.

I'm in favor of legalizing drugs as well. I think most of the drug-related crimes would disappear if drugs weren't illegal.

Mad Tony
19-09-09, 00:02
The government shouldn't interfere with people's lives too much. If some people want to drink 10 cans of coke a day until their teeth fall out then let them. No need to punish everybody else with another tax, even if it is just "a few cents".

Thorir
19-09-09, 00:24
This sounds 100% positive for me. :)

Ban bad things, tax bad things. The winner: good things. :)

Mad Tony
19-09-09, 00:25
This sounds 100% positive for me. :)

Ban bad things, tax bad things. The winner: good things. :)Why not ban video games while we're at it! :)

Thorir
19-09-09, 00:30
Why not ban video games while we're at it! :)

Because video games are good. :)
They provide thousands of jobs, and millions of people (like us) fun games to enjoy. :)

It's not the fault of video games if 00.3% of players turn out serial killers.
It's really not. There were killers before video games. :)

Azerutan
19-09-09, 00:39
Are people willing to fight just to drink soda? LOL I never got that, again, because I only drink fresh water, it's more than enough for my lifestyle and for for my living.

It's almost like smoking - in a different degree of course. Smoking in public places has been forbidden in my country and everyone got so annoyed by that and I just don't get those people - it's your choice, yes, but it's a correct one? You don't need to smoke to survive, not to mention the harm it can make against people who do not smoke.

I know it's different, people who drink soda wouldn't bother me at all, I'm just saying here, I actually find a bit nonsense having taxes for soda :vlol: honestly, if it's health issues we're talking about here, people should know better what's best for their body, I'll live up to them the decision to drink such thing...

iamlaracroft
19-09-09, 00:46
I'm in favor of legalizing drugs as well. I think most of the drug-related crimes would disappear if drugs weren't illegal.

wow. we agree on something at least :D

Azerutan
19-09-09, 00:52
Legalizing drugs = the end of illegal crimes? Such utopic people in this topic XD

LaraLuvrrr
19-09-09, 01:49
soda is gross

Ward Dragon
19-09-09, 02:15
wow. we agree on something at least :D

It would be pretty freaky if we disagreed on every single topic there was :p

Legalizing drugs = the end of illegal crimes? Such utopic people in this topic XD

No, but it would end the black market for drugs and therefore end drug smuggling and all of the associated murders and robberies. Prohibition created a niche for mobsters like Al Capone, and prohibiting other drugs is doing the same thing for modern day criminals.

Mad Tony
19-09-09, 10:35
Because video games are good. :)
They provide thousands of jobs, and millions of people (like us) fun games to enjoy. :)

It's not the fault of video games if 00.3% of players turn out serial killers.
It's really not. There were killers before video games. :)I was being sarcastic.

What's so bad about sodas? They provide thousands of jobs and give millions of people something tasty to drink. It's not the fault of soda that there are fat people. I really don't see how taxing or even banning something like soda is going to have a good outcome.

Bellacima
19-09-09, 14:17
Man these taxes are getting out of hand.

Dennis's Mom
19-09-09, 14:44
I think $40 million in health care costs directly related to obesity is a waste.

But this is a typical government response. Rather than point to the CAUSE, we're going to tax a symptom that won't solve the problem, but make us look like we are.

When I was a kid, there were not a lot of fat kids. I can't remember ONE kid in elementary school. That was the sixties. What's changed since then? Hmmm. . .well, it can't be soda. There's was no diet soda until high school when Tab came out. There was no "low fat" anything. Heck, my mom fried almost everything we ate, being the Texans that we were. No, I don't think food is the big problem.

The biggest change is screen time. There was no 24 hours TV for kids. We had 2 hours after school and Saturday morning. That was it. Beyond that, we were outside playing. We walked or rode our bikes to our friends' houses and school. We didn't get chauffered every where. We certainly didn't video games and computers providing some weird electronic socialization.

But no politician is going to tell you to get off your A$$ as go outside once and a while. It's easier to blame something you can get some money out of.

Because video games are good. :)
They provide thousands of jobs, and millions of people (like us) fun games to enjoy. :)

Yeah, soda companies employ no one. The Wizard of Oz makes it.

Mad Tony
19-09-09, 14:47
But no politician is going to tell you to get off your A$$ as go outside once and a while. It's easier to blame something you can get some money out of.Totally agree. :tmb:

Eddie Haskell
19-09-09, 15:00
We already have that here in Chicago. I don't drink it anymore, so it doesn't effect me. It is a damn good tax to produce revenue, and as a user tax it is the best kind (if there really is such a thing... :) )

But this is a typical government response. Rather than point to the CAUSE, we're going to tax a symptom that won't solve the problem, but make us look like we are.

When I was a kid, there were not a lot of fat kids. I can't remember ONE kid in elementary school. That was the sixties. What's changed since then? Hmmm. . .well, it can't be soda. There's was no diet soda until high school when Tab came out. There was no "low fat" anything. Heck, my mom fried almost everything we ate, being the Texans that we were. No, I don't think food is the big problem.

The biggest change is screen time. There was no 24 hours TV for kids. We had 2 hours after school and Saturday morning. That was it. Beyond that, we were outside playing. We walked or rode our bikes to our friends' houses and school. We didn't get chauffered every where. We certainly didn't video games and computers providing some weird electronic socialization.

But no politician is going to tell you to get off your A$$ as go outside once and a while. It's easier to blame something you can get some money out of.

You tell 'em. I was never in the house a kid, I spent all day outside playing sports and other outdoors activities. In fact, nearly everyone did. In my eighth grade class of 100 kids there were only about 3 fat kids...what does that say for how different it is today?

SamReeves
19-09-09, 15:27
I was being sarcastic.

What's so bad about sodas? They provide thousands of jobs and give millions of people something tasty to drink. It's not the fault of soda that there are fat people. I really don't see how taxing or even banning something like soda is going to have a good outcome.

It's nanny state, which is ultimately ridiculous. Have any soda opposers here ever cleared the brush, weeds, mowed the lawn, and trimmed your trees on a Saturday? What do you want after working hard like that? A Coke of course. It leads me to believe some of you anti-soda zealots hire a gardner to do your work for you. Therefore if you sit on your ass all day, yes you'll get fat from soda. Don't force your anti-soda legislation down all our throats. It serves no purpose other than your own!

Mr.Burns
19-09-09, 15:59
Hey Sam, I'm not one for excessive taxes and you do have a point that if all people do is sit on their ass drinking that crap then yes they'll get fat. However with society firmly ingrained in this inactive lifestyle, it's going to be very hard to cure the problem. In a case like this, I can see the reasons why they are throwing a tax on soda. They know that curing the overall problem won't be possible so just tax a part of the problem to help ease the symptoms. Doesn't mean it's right, it's socialist as I see it but how else are they going to combat excessive obiesity? Health programs and adverts on tv? Not gonna work since the major companies that want kids to remain inactive (video games, TV networks, ISP's, junk food manufacturers, etc) they have grown reliant on this current lifestyle that the younger generation has adapted to and if all the sudden kids were spending more time outside and less infront of their xbox's or computers, they would lose money. A lot of it. Now in many states, California included, we're in a major budget crisis. They're probably thinking that by taxing soda, they can bring in some badly needed revenue and try and reduce a strain on the healthcare system. A lot of people I have seen that are excessive soda drinkers and are severely inactive are those that are on medicare and medicaid, government programs. See where I'm going with this?

Now on principle, I don't agree with excessive taxation. I'm just playing devil's advocate here. But we do have a serious obiesity problem, a very inactive younger generation and a lot of companies that don't want to see the status quo change since that would meen a detrimental loss of profit to them.

Gotta love greed :rolleyes:

Oh and while I don't drink soda anymore, I do have it once in a blue moon since it's supposed to be a treat, not an alternative to water.

SamReeves
19-09-09, 16:12
Ya man, because when I was a kid, I had to mow the lawn and get outside chores done. The parents of today are very lax, and much too suburban for my liking. Kids are playing XBOX the whole day.

Plus if everyone did their own yardwork thus getting a workout, we'd get rid of another problem by not hiring that gardner…no more illegal immigration. :D See you can be healthy, help out the country at the same time, and still have your Coke.

Mr.Burns
19-09-09, 16:26
You don't generally see very many overweight kids in the rural areas. Mostly suburban and urban as you noted. I'd do my own gardening if I had one. *shrugs*