Do we need a 'sugar tax?'

[preslove]

The HFCS prices are only a small part of the total cost of soda and sugary foods. Even doubling HFCS prices won't really affect their price.

There are thousands of activities that have negative effects and this logic is fail.

If their societal costs are anywhere near as high as sugar, then they're either already banned or regulated.

Driving causes thousands of deaths a year, MANY critical injuries, and that's not even considering environmental impact.

Yes, and that's while knowledgeable non-idiots support public transportation and walkable/bikeable communities.

Does moderate to low sugar consumption cause type 2 diabetes?

People who consume low or moderate amounts of sugar would not be negatively affected by the tax.

I'm not even taking this logic to extremes here.

You can't take logic anywhere.

 

[busydude]

Sure the diabetes epidemic in this country is cause by shitty lifestyles but some people are screwed by genetics and develop it despite not being sedentary gluttons.

I am pretty sure they are statistically insignificant. 95% can easily share the burden of the rest, but what if that 5% becomes 40%?

 

[Modelworks]

We need the gov controlling everything, why stop at sugar, lets add salt too and why stop even there, we need the gov approving every plate of food a person eats because people are too stupid to think about what they eat. While we are at it lets appoint government feeders, that could add jobs, people who monitor every bite you consume and even handle the fork for you !

 

[Kantastic]

I am pretty sure they are statistically insignificant. 95% can easily share the burden of the rest, but what if that 5% becomes 40%?

The treatment for the new 40% would still cost the same as 5% of the original 100%, so yeah, statistically insignificant is right.

 

[Modelworks]

Sure the diabetes epidemic in this country is cause by shitty lifestyles but some people are screwed by genetics and develop it despite not being sedentary gluttons.

I have extremely high bad cholesterol but so does everyone in my family because it is genetic, everyone in my family and relatives while having high cholesterol live long lives and no heart attacks anywhere in the family tree. I think genetics play a larger role than they talk about.

 

[busydude]

The treatment for the new 40% would still cost the same as 5% of the original 100%, so yeah, statistically insignificant is right.

That does not even make any sense.

 

[IAteYourMother]

There are thousands of activities that have negative effects and this logic is fail.

Driving causes thousands of deaths a year, MANY critical injuries, and that's not even considering environmental impact.

Does moderate to low sugar consumption cause type 2 diabetes?

I'm not even taking this logic to extremes here.

We give tickets for excessive speeding and reckless driving, so the general idea of trying to limit excess is there.

 

[SSSnail]

They're just trying to out do the loonies at Berkley in the lunacy department. "Hey guise, we haven't done jack shit notable in a while, let's stir up some crazy shits so we're relevant again".

I might take a ride to UCSF later and kick this person in the nuts so she doesn't procreate and dilute the gene pool.

 

[JulesMaximus]

It really doesn't make much sense that a glass of orange juice costs twice as much as a soda or that a piece of fruit is two or three times more expensive than a mcd's cheeseburger.

Then again, this really amounts to a poor tax since these are the people eating this crap for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

 

[Bateluer]

Hell no. Let Darwin sort through the population after treating type 2 diabetes becomes a 100% personal expense.

Perfect solution IMO.

Becoming a fat, diabetic, lard ass smoker is entirely a personal choice. They should be made to pay all medical expenses related to it.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Perfect solution IMO.

Becoming a fat, diabetic, lard ass smoker is entirely a personal choice. They should be made to pay all medical expenses related to it.

If you forget to wear sunscreen and burn you should be made to pay all medical expenses related to your skin cancer should you develop it.

Fuck everyone!

My Father died in 2010 from complications due to diabetes. He had no money to pay for his medical expenses but he died in a hospice with the best treatment the state of NY would allow.

It amuses me how everyone here is so cold and heartless when it comes to these cases. It is so cut and dry but if it comes to someone you actually care about, assuming any of you really care about anyone other than youselves, it is a different story. Maybe some of you will figure this out as you get older.

 

[surfsatwerk]

If you forget to wear sunscreen and burn you should be made to pay all medical expenses related to your skin cancer should you develop it.

Fuck everyone!

My Father died in 2010 from complications due to diabetes. He had no money to pay for his medical expenses but he died in a hospice with the best treatment the state of NY would allow.

It amuses me how everyone here is so cold and heartless when it comes to these cases. It is so cut and dry but if it comes to someone you actually care about, assuming any of you really care about anyone other than youselves, it is a different story. Maybe some of you will figure this out as you get older.

Children, and people with the mentality of children, are often careless with cruel words.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

There are thousands of activities that have negative effects and this logic is fail.

Driving causes thousands of deaths a year, MANY critical injuries, and that's not even considering environmental impact.

Does moderate to low sugar consumption cause type 2 diabetes?

I'm not even taking this logic to extremes here.

if your definition of moderate is what the government has been promoting as moderate for the last 40 years then maybe yes it does.

 

[Malfeas]

Just stop subsidizing agribusiness, so the price of HFCS will go up.

This is all you need to do.

 

[lord_emperor]

I agree in concept, but I don't trust any government to actually use said revenue to fund health care and reduce costs to everybody else.

 

[Bateluer]

If you forget to wear sunscreen and burn you should be made to pay all medical expenses related to your skin cancer should you develop it.

Logic failure.

Live on McDonalds and Dunkin' Donuts, smoke a pack a day, or don't exercise at all, and you'll be an amorphous blob of a human and have a complicated medical history, at best.

Sorry about your father, but if he had the lifestyle to give himself diabetes, then its not society's problem. Its his and his alone. Self inflicted problems do not and should not be paid for by others.

 

[Miramonti]

Our taxes are already paying the growers in the form of subsidies to keep prices down, and now we should pay more taxes to consume it? I don't think so, lol.

Agreed on the point of 86'ing the subsidies.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Completely agreed, get rid of the stupid corn subsidies first.

But would someone think of the farmers!

 

[Phoenix86]

If their societal costs are anywhere near as high as sugar, then they're either already banned or regulated.

You have so little ground to stand on with that statement. I mean, I can't believe you honestly think that's true. I mean, I gave you an example with autos...

Yes, and that's while knowledgeable non-idiots support public transportation and walkable/bikeable communities.

Now this is logical. Supporting alternatives to taxation by you know... actually trying to solve the issue. Why not apply this logic to the "sugar problem"?

People who consume low or moderate amounts of sugar would not be negatively affected by the tax.

It would take some creative structuring to allow this, and come on.. Smart taxes?

You can't take logic anywhere.

Can I at least buy it a drink or make a creepy pass at it? :hmm:

 

[Griffinhart]

I don't need or want government to protect me from myself.

At least with the dumb anti-smoking laws they can at least point out the potential dangers of second hand smoke and can make the argument that smokers may be causing harm to others. But an activity that doesn't harm others... No thanks.

 

[Phoenix86]

We give tickets for excessive speeding and reckless driving, so the general idea of trying to limit excess is there.

Because you only get into accidents when you speed? How does that address the environmental impact? No one directly taxes driving usage. Are you suggesting we give tickets for excessive sugar consumption?

 

[Phoenix86]

if your definition of moderate is what the government has been promoting as moderate for the last 40 years then maybe yes it does.

Maybe we need to moderate moderation, or legislate it!

 

[DrPizza]

"End corn subsidies" - that might fix a few things, but I highly doubt it would make one iota of difference in the amount of soda that's consumed.

Reasoning: a case of pepsi (cans), on sale, is around $6. So, roughly 25 cents per can. Each 12 oz can costs contains about 41 grams of sugar. It was hard to find a current wholesale price for HFCS, but I found that for HFCS-55, it's around 25-30 cents per pound. Taking it at the high side, 30 cents per 454 grams, those 41 grams of sweetener in your can of pepsi cost about 3 cents.

If you DOUBLE the cost of HFCS, you'll add 3 cents to the manufacturing cost per can. That adds on 72 cents per case of soda. Do you really think that having to pay an extra 72 cents for a case of soda is going to make a difference? On a related note, around here (NY), they raised the tax on cigarettes incredibly high (highest in the nation at over $4 per pack, and nearly $6 per pack in NYC.) Those I know who smoke haven't decreased their smoking at all. They just drive to the reservation and buy cigarettes there. Now that NY has forced the reservations to collect taxes on name brand cigarettes sold there (but can NOT collect taxes on Native American brands of cigarettes), the people who have a hard time affording $10 for a pack of cigarettes have simply switched over to Native American brands. Like 3 cents per can of soda is going to make a difference??

 

[DrPizza]

Oh, and for what it's worth, ending corn subsidies would result in feed prices for meat to go up.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I think it's retarded that they want to start controlling what we eat. It should be up to the individual to decide.

Now if they want to regulate how much sugar can go into manufactured foods then go for it. On the other hand, it will just be replaced with something worse, like aspartame. Let companies put what they want, just make sure they HAVE to display it properly. aka nutritional information section. It's up to the consumer to control their intake.