Senate Considers Federal Tax On Soda

[China]

Senate Considers Federal Tax On Soda

The Senate Finance Committee today is hearing proposals on how to pay for President Obama's proposed universal health care plan, which is expected to cost more than $1 trillion. Among the proposals, as Consumer Affairs reports: A three-cent tax on sodas as well as other sugary drinks, including energy and sports drinks like Gatorade. Diet sodas would be exempt.

"While many factors promote weight gain, soft drinks are the only food or beverage that has been shown to increase the risk of overweight and obesity, which, in turn, increase the risk of diabetes, stroke, and many other health problems," Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which is pushing the idea, said in his testimony. "Soft drinks are nutritionally worthless…[and] are directly related to weight gain, partly because beverages are more conducive to weight gain than solid foods."

According to Jacobson, "Beverage companies market more than 14 billion gallons of calorie-laden soft drinks annually. That is equivalent to about 506 12-oz. servings per year, or 1.4 servings per day, for every man, woman, and child."

He argued that each penny of tax on a 12 ounce drink would raise $1.5 billion annually and lower consumption roughly one percent, improving overall health. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a three-cent tax would generate $24 billion over the next four years.

Click on the link for the full article

[terrifNick21]

They'll do anything to make a dollar. lol.

[MattFancy]

but if overall consumption drops, wouldn't that in turn make the soda companies lose money?

[PCS]

It's not like the prices on the stuff haven't risen enough already. God forbid the folks in D.C. should actually spend the money they get already responsibly or anything. Nah. Let's just find something else to tax,(I;ve become kind of a cynic in my older years. Can ya tell? ).

[Fergasun]

This is BS. I was reading some stuff from 1990 budget debates. They were arguing about raising the debt-limit from 3.2T to 3.5T. Back at that time there was serious hand-wringing about the deficit. There were even a few Congressmen willing to shut down the government until we got spending under control. A lot of the Representatives are now Senators... and they've presided over this disaster... *yet they keep their jobs!*

Voters suck...

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

I hate having to pay more than 1.25 for soda :mad:

[Thiebear]

From Fark and i agree:

...then they came for the soda drinkers, but I did not drink soda, so I did not speak up

I agreed when they went after Cigs

I agreed when they went after Big Macs and Oreos

I agree when they go after any certain company to compell it to fail.

Either make it illegal or tax it "EXACTLY" the same as every other legal product that is not a necessity to life.

[PokerPacker]

perfect, another "sin" tax. Why does the government suck so much?

[armstrong001]

And I'm sure that tax money will only go towards health care.

Here's a thought. Perhaps people who chose to do unhealthy things could take responsibility for their own actions. Drink 5 sodas a day and get fat? Work it off yourself or face the prospect of a shorter life span. Why the government has to step in and do behavior modification is beyond me.

If sodas are truely this bad, then ban them. Taxing them only ensures that the government will keep them around, because to reduce the sales of soda will mean less tax revenue.

[twa]

I think it is a great idea and the tax ought to be ten times as high,hell expand it to all sweets.

It's for your and society's best health interest,refined sugar and corn syrup are destroying lives and resulting in higher public health costs.

If you care about America and your loved ones ,no sacrifice is too high.

signed...a smoker that drinks diet Dr Pepper

[Dictator]

but if overall consumption drops, wouldn't that in turn make the soda companies lose money?

yes. and it will also end up hurting the government as well. because they'll project $x from the taxes, but when consumption drops, so will tax revenue. then they'll find something else to tax...and so on, and so on.

[redwoody86]

perfect, another "sin" tax. Why does the government suck so much?

For the sake of argument, would you rather have a small tax on everything, or a moderately small tax on "sinful" items?

Also, I would say that government did an excellent job fighting cigarettes through a combination of public policy and sin tax. It certainly was not the best thing for individual freedom, but I don't think there are many people out there that say as whole our country is worse off.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

Has anyone else here tried the new Pepsi Throwback?

did they change to corn syrup? It tastes basically the same

[MattFancy]

yes. and it will also end up hurting the government as well. because they'll project $x from the taxes, but when consumption drops, so will tax revenue. then they'll find something else to tax...and so on, and so on.

yeah it'll be a never ending circle of taxes...perfect!

[redwoody86]

And I'm sure that tax money will only go towards health care.

They need money for health care, and they are thinking of raising it from an item which increases health care costs. This is one of the few times your taxes actually go towards what is being used.

Here's a thought. Perhaps people who chose to do unhealthy things could take responsibility for their own actions. Drink 5 sodas a day and get fat? Work it off yourself or face the prospect of a shorter life span. Why the government has to step in and do behavior modification is beyond me.

Or, the guy next to me is drinking 5 sodas a day and MY taxes have to go up to pay for his health care. If you read Obama's most recent health care plan, you would see that one of the key issues is to reduce costs.

[Kilmer17]

I have NO problem with it.

I LOVE consumption taxes.

[PokerPacker]

For the sake of argument, would you rather have a small tax on everything, or a moderately small tax on "sinful" items?

Also, I would say that government did an excellent job fighting cigarettes through a combination of public policy and sin tax. It certainly was not the best thing for individual freedom, but I don't think there are many people out there that say as whole our country is worse off.

For sake of argument, I'd rather a small government that doesn't stick its damn nose where it doesn't belong. If I wanna drink a sports drink during a hockey game, that's my own damn business.

[armstrong001]

For the sake of argument, would you rather have a small tax on everything, or a moderately small tax on "sinful" items?

Also, I would say that government did an excellent job fighting cigarettes through a combination of public policy and sin tax. It certainly was not the best thing for individual freedom, but I don't think there are many people out there that say as whole our country is worse off.

The government did an excellent job on cigarettes, punishing manufacturers and consumers of a legal product that some people don't like. That's all well and good until they tax something you like. Don't like cigarettes? Don't buy them. Hell, try to pass a law banning them. But don't keep them legal and then put huge taxes on them because they are "bad".

<-Non smoker

[armstrong001]

They need money for health care, and they are thinking of raising it from an item which increases health care costs. This is one of the few times your taxes actually go towards what is being used.

I pay for my own damn health care, thank you very much. I don't need the government taking from me to give me "benefits" that I don't want or need.

Or, the guy next to me is drinking 5 sodas a day and MY taxes have to go up to pay for his health care. If you read Obama's most recent health care plan, you would see that one of the key issues is to reduce costs.

Here's a thought. Let him eat and drink himself to death. Why should you or I be responsible for his health? How did I become indebted to him? You chose to screw up your body, you pay the consequences. Not me.

ETA: Preventative medecine doesn't decrease costs. It increases it.

[twa]

They need money for health care, and they are thinking of raising it from an item which increases health care costs. This is one of the few times your taxes actually go towards what is being used.

Or, the guy next to me is drinking 5 sodas a day and MY taxes have to go up to pay for his health care. If you read Obama's most recent health care plan, you would see that one of the key issues is to reduce costs.

Amen brother...preach it.:allhail:

You selfish pigs are dragging down America and it's productivity.

[Cooked Crack]

Has anyone else here tried the new Pepsi Throwback?

did they change to corn syrup? It tastes basically the same

I don't drink soda but I've been meaning to try that. Sounds like I might just pass. Anyone else feel the same way?

[artmonkforHOF]

well the money has to come from somewhere. either this or raise income tax, or cut back on military spending to fund healthcare.

If you guys are serious about universal health care, you need to regulate health care costs. I read an article a few months ago where UCLA medical center charges on average $50k to take care of a person for the last 6 months of their life, where the Mayo clinic charges about $25k, yet there is no difference in the quality of care provided. There is no way you can have a universal health care system pay free market rates, the system will be abused by both the care givers and the administrators. the way it is handled in Canada, anything considered essential medical service is covered and paid for, and unessential things, like plastic surgery, are not and those doctors essentially operate in a free market system.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

I don't drink soda but I've been meaning to try that. Sounds like I might just pass. Anyone else feel the same way?

I thought it was good...it just didnt taste much different.

I think I would enjoy it better if it was Coke that did this since I drink Coke more.

I was meaning to get my Jewish friend to bring me some Passover Coke since its basically the same thing

[redwoody86]

I pay for my own damn health care, thank you very much. I don't need the government taking from me to give me "benefits" that I don't want or need.

Here's a thought. Let him eat and drink himself to death. Why should you or I be responsible for his health? How did I become indebted to him? You chose to screw up your body, you pay the consequences. Not me.

Sorry, I thought it was clear my comments were preceded by 'If/once universal health care happens'. Then, everyone's cost and care is everyone else's. That is why you are "responsible" for his health -- if your neighbor is unhealthy, your taxes are higher.

No one is saying universal health care if a perfect system. But for the sake of this discussion, assume it happens and we do have to pay for it. Doesn't it make more sense to tax items and activities which lead to rising health care costs? It makes more sense to discourage certain things (NOT outright ban them, that is even more of an attack on civil liberties), then to raise income taxes.

[artmonkforHOF]

for consumption tax to fund health care, should they not tax healthy foods like flax seeds, since people who eat them live longer and will require more health care the longer they live? The soda drinkers are going to die prematurely anyway, so you essentially have a tax base that is always reducing, whereas if healthy foods are taxed, people might be around a longer time to keep paying the tax and fund the health care system. Just a though.