Fighting Fat by Taxing Soft Drinks

FrankRep

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
28,885
More U.S. health experts have added their voices to the chorus calling for a tax on soft drinks designed to discourage consumption, Reuters reported on September 16. By Steven J. DuBord


Fighting Fat by Taxing Soft Drinks


Steven J. DuBord | The New American
18 September 2009


More U.S. health experts have added their voices to the chorus calling for a tax on soft drinks designed to discourage consumption, Reuters reported on September 16.

New York City health commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley, nutritionist Dr. Walter Willett of the Harvard School of Public Health, obesity expert Kelly Brownell from Yale University in Connecticut, and others made their proposal in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“We propose an excise tax of one percent per ounce for any beverages that have any added caloric sweetener,” they wrote. “Much as taxes on tobacco products are routine at both state and federal levels because they generate revenue and they confer a public health benefit with respect to smoking rates, we believe that taxes on beverages that help drive the obesity epidemic should and will become routine.”

The group of experts estimates that “a tax of one cent per ounce of beverage would increase the cost of a 20-ounce soft drink by 15 to 20 percent.” They believe this would be enough disincentive that consumption would drop by 10 percent, and that this would affect an individual’s weight. “A consumer who drinks a conventional soft drink (20 ounces or 591 millilitres) every day and switches to a beverage below this threshold would consume approximately 174 fewer calories each day.”

The experts note that "currently, 33 states have sales taxes on soft drinks (mean tax rate 5.2 percent), but the taxes are too small to affect consumption and the revenues are not earmarked for programs related to health.” Significant amounts of money could be obtained by allocating the tax revenue to health programs. The Congressional Budget Office calculated in December 2008 that a three-cent tax on a 12-ounce can of soda could generate $50 billion over 10 years.

Americans Against Food Taxes — a coalition of Welch’s, PepsiCo Inc., McDonald’s Corp., Burger King Holdings, the American Beverage Association, and the Corn Refiners Association — is opposed to the soft drink tax. While this industry group may be in opposition because it doesn’t want to lose profits, it would be able to make a point that soft drinks shouldn’t be singled out. If a soft drink tax is instituted, then a doughnut tax, a candy bar tax, an ice cream tax, and a chewing gum tax should also be put into place.

Susan Neely, president and chief executive officer for the American Beverage Association, declared in a statement: “We agree that obesity is a serious public health issue, but the solution put forth by these researchers simply won’t work. Reducing obesity will only be addressed through comprehensive solutions.”

“Importantly, taxes will not teach our children how to live a healthy lifestyle,” Neely said. But the experts who so blithely recommend taxes “for our own good” do have a lesson they want to teach, and it’s not about healthy living. These experts, whether they realize it or not, see government as the nanny who should benignly watch over us, making sure that we take care of ourselves for the good of society.

The lesson these so-called health experts want us to learn is to depend on government to solve our problems. Are too many citizens making the free choice to overeat and become overweight? Then they see it as being government’s job to take away some of our freedom to make sure we aren’t abusing it.

Our Founding Fathers, some of whom probably enjoyed the occasional pint of Sam Adam’s finest, knew that government’s only proper function was to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens. Government ought to intervene in personal affairs only when one citizen does direct harm to another.

A view of government as the babysitter of its citizens was anathema to the Founders, who knew how easily the surrender of liberty to government can forge shackles of dependence. The citizen is quickly reduced to begging for his very sustenance from the hand of his master, be that master King George or Uncle Sam.

The last draught here should be left to Samuel Adams, whose words, though they have a strong taste, are the proper stinging rebuke to those who prefer comforting servitude to government over the risks of personal liberty, who willingly lick the hand of government and say thank you for the privilege, and who would so gladly tax us to death for the sake of our health:


If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.​


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/1915-fighting-fat-by-taxing-soft-drinks
 
Absolutely absurd. They should ban TGI Friday's while they're at it, because they serve lots of crappy food that's bad for you.
 
Absolutely absurd. They should ban TGI Friday's while they're at it, because they serve lots of crappy food that's bad for you.

A 20% tax on McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's? Actually, tax them 200%, the CBO should love the revenue that'll bring in.
 
A 20% tax on McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's? Actually, tax them 200%, the CBO should love the revenue that'll bring in.

What about KFC!
They are the unhealthiest place ever.
They still make good food though.
 
I think a additional 20% tax on everyone should keep people from getting fat. No-one will be able to afford food!
 
Why dont we regulate the food industry so that all they can make is a nutritive paste and outlaw all private production of food? We also have to make the paste taste like shit otherwise people will eat a lot of it and get fat. Booyah! Obesity problem solved!
 
Why dont we regulate the food industry so that all they can make is a nutritive paste and outlaw all private production of food? We also have to make the paste taste like shit otherwise people will eat a lot of it and get fat. Booyah! Obesity problem solved!

I'd much prefer the what we saw in Wall-e where we are SOOOO fat we can't walk and use floating motorized chairs to take us everywhere while we slurp ALL of our food out of a straw.

Did you see the commercial for the soda tax? I thought it was really well done. What amounts to pennies for Congress and their huge salaries amounts to TONS of money for us. Keep your grubby hands off my soda!
 
Last edited:
The funny (or not so funny) thing is they've already taxed us on soda with corn subsidies. They take our money to pay farmers to grow corn and this floods the market with high fructose corn syrup which now replaces sugar and contributes greatly to the health problems caused by soda (obesity). So now they want to tax us again to decrease consumption. It's unreal. It's the exact same thing as the health care problem, they caused the problem with taxes and market interference and now they want to tax us again to "fix" it.
 
The nice thing about 12 ounce soda cans is they make great projectiles for throwing or launching from and air cannon. Not bad out of a water balloon launcher either.
And if he gets that 500% ammo tax we'll need something for weaponry.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand why he doesn't appoint a diet czar. We need someone to tell us what to eat for the day.
 
We had this debate at lunch the other day. I said it was bullshit, and a young liberal thought it was great. She thought it would decrease the amount of soda that peopole drink and help health issues. I said the only thing it will do is take more money out of the hands of lower income people because a 20% increase on a bottle of soda isn't going to make anyone blink, but the habitual drinkers on low budgets will feel that loss of money and have less to pay on other things, which will lead to dependance on more social programs, etc..... She said that she thought it would make a lot of people eat more healthy and be more aware of caloric intake, and that she likes to assume the best about people. Oh to be young againl.
 
We had this debate at lunch the other day. I said it was bullshit, and a young liberal thought it was great. She thought it would decrease the amount of soda that peopole drink and help health issues. I said the only thing it will do is take more money out of the hands of lower income people because a 20% increase on a bottle of soda isn't going to make anyone blink, but the habitual drinkers on low budgets will feel that loss of money and have less to pay on other things, which will lead to dependance on more social programs, etc..... She said that she thought it would make a lot of people eat more healthy and be more aware of caloric intake, and that she likes to assume the best about people. Oh to be young againl.

Exactly! Soda drinkers are not going to drink any less soda. They will just have less money for other things.

I think we should just throw everybody who is 100 pounds overweight or more in jail. That'll teach them not to eat so much. :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top