Soft Drink Tax to pay for Healthcare?

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

the problem is that the funds will not go toward UHC or related.

Just like the SS, Transportation and Airport taxes; the government does not use it for the promised intent and keep them off limits for not related purposes.

That's a problem with the execution, not the concept.

If the execution is not guaranteed; the concept is worthless for the intended purpose

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Where does it all end...taxing high fat foods, alcohol, fried foods, twinkies, ice cream, candy? Or taxing people who don't exercise on a regular basis? What is it that compels civilized human beings to so strongly desire to control the minutia of other people's lives and behavior? I've met the enemy, and he is us.

When I see shit like this proposal it makes me realize the religious right and left wing liberals are the same people. Each trying to force their world view down our throats and control our lives via big govt. The best is when both play kettle to each others pot.

I don't see the similarity. Liberals aren't trying to ban smoking or soda. You can just pay for your bad habits. And I speak as someone who has drank 2 bottles of Mountain Dew today, so far. If the price went up another 25 cents or 50 cents and was put into health care, fine by me!

Now where have I seen that before...


The looney left and the radical right are only told apart by the target of their hatred.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
If you raise taxes on tobacco because it is unhealthy, logically alcohol, sugar (including CS) and fatty foods should have elevated taxes as well.

Makes perfect sense. Raising the taxes on cigarettes and alcohol was wrong in the first place because of the slippery slope of the reasoning used for it.

Then consumption goes down, tax revenue down, more things are found to tax because of "it's bad for you".

And the downward spiral has already begun, we're just in the middle of it.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
If you raise taxes on tobacco because it is unhealthy, logically alcohol, sugar (including CS) and fatty foods should have elevated taxes as well.

Makes perfect sense. Raising the taxes on cigarettes and alcohol was wrong in the first place because of the slippery slope of the reasoning used for it.

Then consumption goes down, tax revenue down, more things are found to tax because of "it's bad for you".

And the downward spiral has already begun, we're just in the middle of it.

Yup. What I really fail to understand is how anyone can be for any new tax that might hit them. Sure that extra $0.XX tax on a soda might not be a lot. But really? You WANT to pay it? WTF.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Makes perfect sense. Raising the taxes on cigarettes and alcohol was wrong in the first place because of the slippery slope of the reasoning used for it.

Then consumption goes down, tax revenue down, more things are found to tax because of "it's bad for you".

And the downward spiral has already begun, we're just in the middle of it.

WRONG! If the worst that happens is a drop in the consumption of tobacco, sugar, etc., the costs associated with their intrinsic harm is also reduced, SAVING the money that would otherwise be needed to help those harmed by them.

If tobacco companies fail, it would be an added benefit.

It's a win-win situation. :thumbsup:

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Harvey


WRONG! If the worst that happens is a drop in the consumption of tobacco, sugar, etc., the costs associated with their intrinsic harm is also reduced, SAVING the money that would otherwise be needed to help those harmed by them.

If tobacco companies fail, it would be an added benefit.

It's a win-win situation. :thumbsup:

And just where is gubment going to get all the money they lost from? And it's already been proven smokers cost much less.

You're next.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Where does it all end...taxing high fat foods, alcohol, fried foods, twinkies, ice cream, candy? Or taxing people who don't exercise on a regular basis? What is it that compels civilized human beings to so strongly desire to control the minutia of other people's lives and behavior? I've met the enemy, and he is us.

When I see shit like this proposal it makes me realize the religious right and left wing liberals are the same people. Each trying to force their world view down our throats and control our lives via big govt. The best is when both play kettle to each others pot.

I don't see the similarity. Liberals aren't trying to ban smoking or soda. You can just pay for your bad habits. And I speak as someone who has drank 2 bottles of Mountain Dew today, so far. If the price went up another 25 cents or 50 cents and was put into health care, fine by me!

Now where have I seen that before...


The looney left and the radical right are only told apart by the target of their hatred.

There are some similarities on the surface. The biggest difference is what the tax funds. The religious used their indulgence taxes to to pay for little boy harems for priests and other such nonsense. The left would spend the money on the health care system that the person with the bad habit would statistically be more likely to use.

Speaking in generalities, the righties base their sin taxes on religious mumbo jumbo whereas the left bases theirs on statistics and science.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: spidey07

And just where is gubment going to get all the money they lost from?

With any luck, from you. :laugh:

And it's already been proven smokers cost much less.[/quote]

Say what? Got proof of whatever you think you're trying to say?

You're next.

It's nothing urgent. I can wait as long you're full of all that crap you're dumping on the forums.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
If you raise taxes on tobacco because it is unhealthy, logically alcohol, sugar (including CS) and fatty foods should have elevated taxes as well.

Makes perfect sense. Raising the taxes on cigarettes and alcohol was wrong in the first place because of the slippery slope of the reasoning used for it.

Then consumption goes down, tax revenue down, more things are found to tax because of "it's bad for you".

And the downward spiral has already begun, we're just in the middle of it.

Yup. What I really fail to understand is how anyone can be for any new tax that might hit them. Sure that extra $0.XX tax on a soda might not be a lot. But really? You WANT to pay it? WTF.

For a chance to get health insurance that doesn't deny me because of "pre-existing conditions"? Yep.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
So true. The left is so quick to condemn the right as a bunch of "old, rich white guys", yet, the two richest members of the Congress are in fact Democrats (Senator John Kerry and House Representative Jane Harman).

Both of whom either: (a) married into money or (b) their spouse earned 99.9% of the money.

Real great point there.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
If you raise taxes on tobacco because it is unhealthy, logically alcohol, sugar (including CS) and fatty foods should have elevated taxes as well.

Makes perfect sense. Raising the taxes on cigarettes and alcohol was wrong in the first place because of the slippery slope of the reasoning used for it.

Then consumption goes down, tax revenue down, more things are found to tax because of "it's bad for you".

And the downward spiral has already begun, we're just in the middle of it.

Yup. What I really fail to understand is how anyone can be for any new tax that might hit them. Sure that extra $0.XX tax on a soda might not be a lot. But really? You WANT to pay it? WTF.

For a chance to get health insurance that doesn't deny me because of "pre-existing conditions"? Yep.

Where does it stop? Are you 100% sure that 100% of these taxes are going to go towards a UHC that will help you personally? You trust the government that much?

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: SammyJr
I believe that representative Government ought to be a check against Big Money. I would like to see corporate lobbying and donations eliminated. Every person should be limited to making $2000/year campaign contributions to each candidate/politician. Government should represent the people equally.

The Republican answer is simply to cut out the middle man and let the corporations and Big Money run it all.

Democrats aren't the best answer, but better than the alternative.

This is very well stated, and I agree 100%.

In addition to what's stated above, I also think that eliminating Corporations' ability to lobby / donate to political campaigns would be an EXCELLENT check against the whole "corporation is a person" philosophy currently in practice.

The corporation should retain SOME of the rights of individuals, but should have NONE of the political power/influence. If the Corporations don't like the laws passed by officials that are HONESTLY ELECTED by the people (and therefore only beholden to the people), the Corporations can go ahead and challenge said laws in court.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Say what? Got proof of whatever you think you're trying to say?

Google does. Try it out

www.google.com then copy/paste "do non smokers cost less than smokers?" into the search bar

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: spidey07
And the downward spiral has already begun, we're just in the middle of it.

Why stick to physical addictions? This logic can be expanded to unhealthy habits that cause psychological additions like gambling, television, etc.

For example, if we have a way to monitor how much time people spend doing unhealthy things, like watching too much (non-educational) TV, we can increase the tax on their cable bill based on usage above a set limit. Also, if we can track gamblers, we can make them pay double their loss by forcing them to pay that much extra in income taxes (standard income tax + amount lost to gambling).

This would lead to a more productive society by getting people off the couch and stopping them from throwing so much money down the drain.

 

[lupi]

great, guess those making less than $250,000 will be getting vouchers so they don't have to pay this tax.







:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[Corn]

Well, I applaud the Democrats' push for this very regressive tax, another prime example to the poor shlubs who are the Democrat's tax base that the party allegedly looking for their best interests is instead futher shackling them to poverty. Silly liberals.

 

[Possessed Freak]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
This would lead to a more productive society by getting people off the couch and stopping them from throwing so much money down the drain.

What I do with my personal time and money should not be the government's concern. Jesus, it is like I am arguing for marijuana reform or something.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: spidey07
And the downward spiral has already begun, we're just in the middle of it.

Why stick to physical addictions? This logic can be expanded to unhealthy habits that cause psychological additions like gambling, television, etc.

For example, if we have a way to monitor how much time people spend doing unhealthy things, like watching too much (non-educational) TV, we can increase the tax on their cable bill based on usage above a set limit. Also, if we can track gamblers, we can make them pay double their loss by forcing them to pay that much extra in income taxes (standard income tax + amount lost to gambling).

This would lead to a more productive society by getting people off the couch and stopping them from throwing so much money down the drain.

Then apply this to the lotteries and bingo parlors as well

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
This would lead to a more productive society by getting people off the couch and stopping them from throwing so much money down the drain.

What I do with my personal time and money should not be the government's concern. Jesus, it is like I am arguing for marijuana reform or something.

His tongue was firmly planted in his cheek. He's just taking this kind of thinking to it's logical conclusion.

 

[Fear No Evil]

We should just tax old people more. Being old is clearly a health risk. Of course people like Red Dawn may be paying millions if we did this.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
If you raise taxes on tobacco because it is unhealthy, logically alcohol, sugar (including CS) and fatty foods should have elevated taxes as well.

Makes perfect sense. Raising the taxes on cigarettes and alcohol was wrong in the first place because of the slippery slope of the reasoning used for it.

Then consumption goes down, tax revenue down, more things are found to tax because of "it's bad for you".

And the downward spiral has already begun, we're just in the middle of it.

Yup. What I really fail to understand is how anyone can be for any new tax that might hit them. Sure that extra $0.XX tax on a soda might not be a lot. But really? You WANT to pay it? WTF.

For a chance to get health insurance that doesn't deny me because of "pre-existing conditions"? Yep.

Where does it stop? Are you 100% sure that 100% of these taxes are going to go towards a UHC that will help you personally? You trust the government that much?

I trust them more than for profit insurance companies whose job is to deny and exempt benefits, killing people on their way to profit.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Harvey


And it's already been proven smokers cost much less.

That may be true for smoking, but it isn't as established with a 'fat tax'.

Article.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
If you raise taxes on tobacco because it is unhealthy, logically alcohol, sugar (including CS) and fatty foods should have elevated taxes as well.

Makes perfect sense. Raising the taxes on cigarettes and alcohol was wrong in the first place because of the slippery slope of the reasoning used for it.

Then consumption goes down, tax revenue down, more things are found to tax because of "it's bad for you".

And the downward spiral has already begun, we're just in the middle of it.

Yup. What I really fail to understand is how anyone can be for any new tax that might hit them. Sure that extra $0.XX tax on a soda might not be a lot. But really? You WANT to pay it? WTF.

For a chance to get health insurance that doesn't deny me because of "pre-existing conditions"? Yep.

Where does it stop? Are you 100% sure that 100% of these taxes are going to go towards a UHC that will help you personally? You trust the government that much?

I trust them more than for profit insurance companies whose job is to deny and exempt benefits, killing people on their way to profit.

And government is different? I guess you missed the year 2003, eh?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Where does it all end...taxing high fat foods, alcohol, fried foods, twinkies, ice cream, candy? Or taxing people who don't exercise on a regular basis? What is it that compels civilized human beings to so strongly desire to control the minutia of other people's lives and behavior? I've met the enemy, and he is us.

When I see shit like this proposal it makes me realize the religious right and left wing liberals are the same people. Each trying to force their world view down our throats and control our lives via big govt. The best is when both play kettle to each others pot.

I don't see the similarity. Liberals aren't trying to ban smoking or soda. You can just pay for your bad habits. And I speak as someone who has drank 2 bottles of Mountain Dew today, so far. If the price went up another 25 cents or 50 cents and was put into health care, fine by me!

You are forcing your personal worldview of how others should live their lives via govt. Outright banning or taxing it to the point people cant afford the product. Is there really a difference? Isnt the point to get people to stop using the substance?

Just like the religious right who want you to sing a prayer in school you want people to stop consuming products that are deemed "harmful".

As for smoking, really? Where can one smoke today anyways? Inside an enclosed bunker under your house? They dont want to outright ban smoking but will tax the shit out of it while banning where you can actually consume the product. It is like the DC gun ban for smokers. Dont outright ban it, just make it nearly impossible to consume it.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Where does it all end...taxing high fat foods, alcohol, fried foods, twinkies, ice cream, candy? Or taxing people who don't exercise on a regular basis? What is it that compels civilized human beings to so strongly desire to control the minutia of other people's lives and behavior? I've met the enemy, and he is us.

When I see shit like this proposal it makes me realize the religious right and left wing liberals are the same people. Each trying to force their world view down our throats and control our lives via big govt. The best is when both play kettle to each others pot.

I don't see the similarity. Liberals aren't trying to ban smoking or soda. You can just pay for your bad habits. And I speak as someone who has drank 2 bottles of Mountain Dew today, so far. If the price went up another 25 cents or 50 cents and was put into health care, fine by me!

You are forcing your personal worldview of how others should live their lives via govt. Outright banning or taxing it to the point people cant afford the product. Is there really a difference? Isnt the point to get people to stop using the substance?

Just like the religious right who want you to sing a prayer in school you want people to stop consuming products that are deemed "harmful".

As for smoking, really? Where can one smoke today anyways? Inside an enclosed bunker under your house? They dont want to outright ban smoking but will tax the shit out of it while banning where you can actually consume the product. It is like the DC gun ban for smokers. Dont outright ban it, just make it nearly impossible to consume it.

Science vs. religion. There's the difference. Its not a personal worldview, its a scientific worldview. Show me good science that shows that consuming large amounts of soft drinks is good for one's health.