Should We Tax Soda? A Carbonated Controversy
Published October 02, 2009 @ 08:34AM PT
Should we tax soda to fight obesity and raise money for health care reform? On the one hand, a food system that encourages us to consume foods that make us unhealthy is not sustainable. On the other, if people want cheap soda, the market should be free to give it to them.
The debate over this question is, according to the New York Times, “fizzing over.”
Forces are massing in the tax’s defense. Articles in the New England Journal of Medicine and the New York Daily News support the idea, and President Obama said it is worth considering. The food industry, predictably, is staunchly opposed.
A group of policymakers, doctors, and scientists — including Thomas Farley, New York City health commissioner, and Joseph W. Thompson, Arkansas surgeon general — have detailed the positive impacts such a tax could have on public health and the economy in the Times article and a new study in the New England Journal of Medicine.
By their estimates, a penny-an-ounce tax on sugary beverages would accrue $14.9 billion in one year, a remarkable amount to put toward health care. Not only would the policy fill public coffers, it would also decrease the soda-slurping that contributes to obesity and other health problems. The authors describe research showing that for each price-hike of 10 percent, soda consumption drops 8 to 10 percent.
But as long as health insurers operate in a system that rewards them for treating conditions like type 2 diabetes instead of preventing them, we can be sure that two Big Industry lobbies will be working to kill this idea. As Michael Pollan recently pointed out in an inspired op-ed for the Times, Big Food and Big Insurance conspire as a society-destroying cabal only when it serves them both.
These two master puppeteers only play well together if we let them team up against us. Right now we are letting them. We let the government subsidize and support the nasty products of Big Food (by funding the production of an avalanche of corn), which leads us to get fat and ill, which leads to a payday for Big Insurance.
If we transform the healthcare system into one in which insurers are rewarded for our health instead of our illness, Pollan argues, we change the equation entirely. Big Insurance would suddenly have an interest in keeping us away from corn-based sugar-bombs and steering us toward the seltzer. And with that powerful force motivated to help us avoid soda, a tax might start looking a little better to lobbyist-oriented lawmakers, as would an even bigger adjustment: the overhaul of the ridiculous subsidies that help Big Food make us fat and ill.
Could all this happen? It's worth noting that our system wasn't always this rigged, just as our soda consumption wasn't always this voracious. “As I love to point out,” nutritionist and food studies professor Marion Nestle writes in her blog, Food Politics, “it did not used to be OK for kids to drink sodas all day long. Now it is.”
Photo courtesy of Brent and MariLynn on flickr
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
World Summit on Food Security Set to Disappoint
-
Two GMO Questions, One Big Muddle
-
The Sustainable Food Movement’s Big American Problem
Comments (94)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Katherine Gustafson is a freelance writer and editor with a background in international nonprofit organizations. Her articles, essays, and stories have been published in numerous magazines, newspapers, books, and Websites.
Featured Sustainable Food Actions
-
-
-
Campbell’s Soup: Stop Poisoning Our Food!
3032 People
-
Campbell’s Soup: Stop Poisoning Our Food!
Why is this a controversy? There's no reason for the rest of us to pay for the bad habits of soda drinkers. Sugar drinks that have no nutritional value (e.g. no natural fruit content) have no social value except for personal enjoyment of the drinkers and they have a cost to teeth and dental health, to overall health in terms of empty calorie consumption and potential diabetes. Why shouldn't the people who choose the personal enjoyment pay the entire price for that enjoyment? There is no reason to distribute the costs to the rest of us.
It's time to stop rewarding bad behavior and bad choices. It's time to stop distributing the costs and consequences of bad behavior and bad choices. It's time to start using consequences and rewards to shape human behavior - it's the most effective and efficient method when outcomes can be tied to behavioral choices.
The soda companies who push incessant advertising for this junk non-stop are after the money, regardless of social responsibility or the costs to the rest of us. The health insurance companies are about the profits and only about the profits (no social responsibility anywhere in that arena) and care nothing about the costs to the rest of us. It is time for us to shut down their voices and their influences, and do the right thing for our society, our communities, and our future. It's time to shut down the loudly shouting money. It's time to make decisions based on the facts and our knowledge of human behavior.
If people want to drink sugar drinks with no nutritional value, they are welcome to do so if they are willing to pay the price. And beware, we must write the legislation to ensure that adding a few worthless vitamins in some form not readily processed by the body can't be used to get out from under the tax. Sugared soda must not be allowed to masquerade as 'fruit juice' or vitamin beverages, for the purposes of getting away from the tax. If soda makers what more sales with the tax, they can drop their prices and pay their bloated CEOs a lot, lot fewer millions instead.
Posted by Jen Werner on 10/02/2009 @ 12:58PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The same way that society pays for the bad habits of everyone. We pay for the results of promiscuity, recreational drug use, wild-eyed social experiments.
What if society refused to pay for the babies produced to women who can't afford to raise them? What if society refused to pay for illnesses gotten from direct affirmative action? You complain about paying for obesity and tobacco-induced emphazema, but will you include AIDS or drug-addiction?
Posted by j k on 11/17/2009 @ 09:22AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I drink soda and I agree. Tax it.
Posted by Matthew Swiger on 10/02/2009 @ 01:59PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
People have the right to drink soda without being subjected to another "sin tax". The government is not responsible to micromanage everyone's life. We the People need LESS government intervention into our daily existence and into our wallets. Stop taxing every "bad" habit because YOU do not approve. YOU are not my mother -- I am a responsible adult and can make my own choices -- even if YOU do agree with them.
Posted by Richard Forrest on 10/02/2009 @ 01:59PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I could care less about soda tax, but I have had an a$$-full, of self-righteous, pretentious-people, telling everyone what THEY believe the rest of us should/shouldn't do.
For the question below:(I've said this before, but I'll say it again.) My state, Ca. subsidizes rice farmers. Yes,"rice farmers." We are currently in a drought; have been for years. Although this might answer your question....Subsidies are different than taxes, because people don't actually see what the Government throws their money away on. If my entire state would, "pull its heads out," maybe the money being thrown away on stupidity could go toward....I don't even give a crap, just not rice farming!
Posted by L.S. hope on 10/02/2009 @ 06:01PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You have a right to drink soda. You also have the responsibility to pay the full price for it. Most of the people whining and belly aching about taxes never pay their full share and take responsibility, they talk incessantly only of rights.
Posted by Jen Werner on 10/04/2009 @ 11:57PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
go ahead tax everything. the sooner you big government freaks collapse under your own weight the better.
Posted by dave thomas on 10/05/2009 @ 07:41PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yeah because the assministration hasn't had an issue with tax evasion... Oh wait. Seems like the people on government like taxes, just not the whole paying them part.
Posted by Seth Piepgrass on 10/20/2009 @ 11:30AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
How do you feel about subsidies to industrial corn farms? Those influence your life far more than a soda tax would.
Posted by Ross L. on 10/25/2009 @ 02:12PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Federal incentives are being given to US sugar producers in the form of import tariffs to keep out Brazilian and Thai sugar. That costs every one of us, not just soda drinkers. I say, as a parent who has seen what 'Hansen's Natural' JOLT drinks do to kids, tax them until their gums bleed!!
Posted by Chip Herman on 11/04/2009 @ 06:15PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It is already taxed. Why tax it again?
Posted by M Arnest on 11/16/2009 @ 03:26AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Taxes USED to be a simple way to get the money needed to pay for the basic services mandated by the constitution.
In modern times the government - particularly liberals - uses them to control the populace. If the don't like someone they figure out a way to tax THEM to the exclusion of those they do like.
Posted by j k on 11/16/2009 @ 10:29AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Here's a question for the peanut gallery: is taxing any different than subsidizing? Both of them represent the government interfering with the market and therefore shaping what you as a citizen can and can't afford to enjoy. But I always hear a lot of anger directed at taxes without equivalent anger going out toward subsidies. Is there a difference?
Posted by Katherine Gustafson on 10/02/2009 @ 02:04PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I definitely hate subsidies more than I hate taxes, exactly because it's easier for the government to pass them and harder to repeal them. Instead of having industry rally against them, as with taxes, industry throws a fit every time someone tries to repeal a subsidy. And it obscures the fact that, if you look at the real cost of bringing stuff to market instead of the price at the store, a lot of the cheap unhealthy foods we eat aren't actually cheaper.
I would be far more interested in getting rid of the corn subsidy (or at least significantly reducing it) than in taxing soda, which is only one of the places that unhealthy corn byproducts show up in our food.
Posted by Sam Crane on 10/17/2009 @ 12:28PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
If they went back to using actual sugar in sodas, instead of High-Fructose Corn Syrup, we'd be better of health-wise, regular sugar (sucrose) isn't nearly as bad for you as HFCS, but HFCS is both subsidized AND cheaper/easier to use when making sodas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup
Sodas haven't always been as bad for our health as they are today, they may not be particularly great for us - granted - but if we regulated/disencetived the use of HFCS in Sodas and other common cheap food (and reduced the current massive spending on corn subsidies), we be better off in general.
AND we wouldn't have people telling us what we should or should eat, nor the accompanying "Sin Taxes" that are being suggested by the often "self-righteous" folks clamoring for this new Tax on sodas, largely by those that don't drink it or are well-off enough financially to just go ahead and pay it without noticing... Not everyone has that luxury, and sodas SHOULD NOT BE a "luxury good" for goodness-sake!
Posted by Bryan Snowden on 10/18/2009 @ 01:08AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
but how could i, an average citizen, manage my own life without the input of my rulers? i need them to take care of my health, my security, my retirement, heck, everything. that way i can focus solely on producing tax revenue. thank gosh our Constitution is a "living document" and the only known legal contract that allows one half of the parties involved to reinterpret the language contained within to their liking.
Posted by dave thomas on 10/24/2009 @ 01:14AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Just pass a law outlawing all processed food whatsoever. No preservatives, no salt, no sugar, no factory manufacturing lines. All food must be bought fresh from the market from government-approved organic farms with a negative carbon footprint. Anyone found in violation will be sentenced to work on such a farm without compensation.
Posted by j k on 11/02/2009 @ 06:17PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
If anyone thinks that removing subsidies (which I think should be done for a number of foodstuffs) increases the cost of unhealthy food, wait til you see what it does to the healthy stuff.
Posted by j k on 11/09/2009 @ 11:44AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Subsidizing equals big government interference which counters "spirit and intent" of constitutionality.
Posted by M Arnest on 11/16/2009 @ 03:29AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I lost my taste for carbonization when I noticed I had quit alcohol. Tax soda.
Posted by Edward Craig on 10/02/2009 @ 03:54PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yes, tax everything YOU don't use or like.
Posted by j k on 11/16/2009 @ 10:38AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I'd like to see the government stop subsidizing unhealthy foods and most other things.
That would probably save them more money than adding a sin tax. But it wouldn't have the same feel, either as government telling us what to do, or people feeling like they're singled out. And if they stopped subsidizing unhealthy food, maybe our school lunch programs wouldn't be stuck with the surplus.
Posted by Sue G. on 10/02/2009 @ 08:03PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
We're taxed enough already, and, thanks to our overspending Washington representatives, have nothing to show for it.
No more taxes until we see some serious fiscal discipline. I know of no bread-winner that would allow their spouse to rack up the credit cards, then simply work harder to compensate.
When the debt gets back to zero, we can talk about increasing taxes. In the mean time, we have bills to pay.
Posted by Chuck Reynolds on 10/03/2009 @ 12:30PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Obesity is a major public health challenge leading to diabetes, heart disease and other diseases. The argument that soda causes obesity is essentially a flawed statement. The notion now is that if we tax soda, we won’t be obese. West Virginia and Arkansas have taxed soda for many years, but in actuality, they are two of the most obese states in the nation. The consumption of sugar sweetened soda has declined, while obesity has increased. According to the National Cancer Institute drinks including soda and beyond accounts for 5% of our daily calories – we cannot pin the obesity epidemic on this.
The main solution is education; getting people to understand the balance between the calories you take in and the calories you expend is the first step to thwarting this problem. I invite you to view the following podcast for more information: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4tr0QeMvpQ&feature=channel_page
Posted by Dr. Elizabeth Whelan on 10/05/2009 @ 10:33AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
americans are to be fat, lazy and uneducated by design. the last two or three elections should be more than ample evidence.
Posted by dave thomas on 10/05/2009 @ 07:43PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
ESPECIALLY the last one. Never have so many campaign promises been broken so quickly in our nation's history.
Posted by j k on 11/02/2009 @ 06:19PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Obesity is a problem. There is no doubt about that. I have the same feeling that this blog shows: http://www.bestquickweightlossdiets.com/general-weight-loss/government-overweight . This opinion basically says that having a one cent sugary beverage tax is not going to stop soda lovers from drinking soda. Also, I agree with the fact that the government cannot motivate people to lose weight if poor living standards and even the threat of death doesn't motivate them.
Posted by Jeremy Glennon on 10/06/2009 @ 02:06PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
If Fed government matched a reduction in the sugar import tariff which subsidizes US sugar production, with a national sugar tax on carbonated beverages, then theoretically at least, consumers would see no impact, government could raise a few billion pennies, and Florida's sugar cane workers would just have to work a little harder....everything has consequences. At least having a Fed tax stamp on sodas would make it possible to measure how much soda is coming in from outside the country where there is no FDA, although, in truth, foreign sugar soda is probably healthier than HFCS US soda, which is semi-toxic.
Posted by Chip Herman on 11/04/2009 @ 06:39PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Obesity is a problem. There is no doubt about that. I have the same feeling that this blog shows: http://www.bestquickweightlossdiets.com/general-weight-loss/government-overweight . This opinion basically says that having a one cent sugary beverage tax is not going to stop soda lovers from drinking soda. Also, I agree with the fact that the government cannot motivate people to lose weight if poor living standards and even the threat of death doesn't motivate them.
Posted by Jeremy Glennon on 10/06/2009 @ 02:08PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
If you really want to improve things, tax people who drive cars. I am tired of these discriminating taxes that only tax a portion of the population. This is America, land of equality, tax everyone equally!!!!
Posted by Dee Jones on 10/16/2009 @ 02:54PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
When you drive a car you pay taxes to multiple state agencies. On top of that you are mandated to have insurance in most states (a portion of which goes to taxes), Fill up your tank, another cut to Uncle Sam. We used to be the land of opprotunity...
Posted by Seth Piepgrass on 10/20/2009 @ 11:39AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
If you take the time and take a good honest look around at your fellow man, woman, and children, you will find that the obese ones are heavy soda drinkers, diet or regular. Maybe it's the sodium in it. Also the acid causes cavities. If people want to drink these things, that is up to them. But they should be charged a little more tax to pay for the health problems they are creating for themselves.
Posted by Barbara Kantola on 10/17/2009 @ 09:06AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
... and in so doing punish everyone who enjoys soda as a treat and not as a main source of liquid on ones diet. Oh maybe we should start a fat tax! I think we're on to something here. OH they wear mu-mu's too, we can tax those. Let's make everyone who is not in the ideal BMI (because there is nothing flawed about a system normed on a small population with one body style) pay a tax for being heavier than "normal".
Forgive the satire but let's not avoid the obvious, people who take in anything in excess are going to do bad things to themselves and the best thing to make things "fair" is to just let them pay for their health care, believe me many pay far more than you want to know...
Here is the thing trying to "make people better" through legislation has been tried and social engineering has a VERY dark past. Taxing things because they aren't good for you is no different in it's intent.
Posted by Seth Piepgrass on 10/24/2009 @ 11:16PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
How about finding ways of making healthy choices more affordable for low income families instead of making less healthy drink choices more expensive via tax?
In my weekly shopper for a local grocery store this week I can purchase 4, 12 packs of soda for $12.00. That makes a liter of soda equal to $.25 each.
Orange juice, on the other hand, at 2.5 liters for $4.99 equals a cost of $2.00 a liter.
Orange juice cost more WAY more than soda...even with both items being on sale this week. Maybe this isn't that important to those who aren't struggling but most families are struggling in this economy.
I don't see any warning labels on soda and I am thinking that not having anything to drink would be worse than having soda to drink. If you want to vilify food then get laws past that back that vilification up, otherwise you're just taxing for the sake of taxing.
We could always cause this a selfish tax. Then we need to ask how many selfish taxes we should we put out there and who are these selfish taxes truly going to hurt? You want a list of luxuries that you can purchase without tax that I think are extras? Where do we stop? You know how many extras there are out there that you don't need?
And while we're at it...New Jersey needs to STOP taxing maxi pads and tampons. If that's not a necessity, I don't know what is.
Posted by Michele Rodriguez on 10/17/2009 @ 12:16PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
First off, orange juice is FILLED with sugar and is not good for you. But...whatever happened to WATER???? Kids can even drink...OMG! Kool-ade, iced tea, lemonade, etc. Make it at home and it's darned cheaper then buying pre-made junk. While you're at it, get some refillable drinking containers and quit putting soda bottles in the landfills!
I use Coke for cleaning the limescale out of my toilets! Yeah, really good to be drinking, I think.
Posted by Adrienne Acoba on 11/09/2009 @ 07:59AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Well, low income people could eat less processed food and save money that way. Beans, flour, rice and sugar can be used to make a wide array of inexpensive food staples. People have forgotten how to cook/bake.
But I wonder if people read labels. It seems Adrienne is buying orange DRINK, if she thinks juice has processed sweetening added.
Posted by j k on 11/09/2009 @ 09:11AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
No, I am NOT buying orange anything. And I never said orange juice had any sugar ADDED to it. It has lots of sugar in it naturally. 8 oz. of orange juice has 24 grams of sugar in it. That's a LOT.
You can go here to check out how much sugar is in the stuff you consume:
www.sugarstacks.com
Posted by Adrienne Acoba on 11/09/2009 @ 09:35AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Indeed, food should be processed to remove all naturally occurring sugars and salts. Eating natural food is as dangerous as mainstream commercial food products. Living on water is the best way.
Posted by j k on 11/09/2009 @ 09:48AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Now you're just being a jerk.
Posted by Adrienne Acoba on 11/09/2009 @ 10:08AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
can't we stop subsidizing corn first? wouldn't it make more sense to do that instead of spending millions of dollars to make corn syrup cheap and then taxing it on the other end?
Also, I will point out that for me at least, sugary soda is more healthy than aspartame. I have severe sugar crashes at various points during the day and soda is one of the things I sometimes use to get a quick blood sugar boost (which I then supplement with actual, healthy food). So sugary soda has food value to some people, which is more than diet soda can say for itself. I may find it less unfair if people also taxed aspartame to pay for the health conditions it causes, but I don't see people suggesting that.
Posted by Sam Crane on 10/17/2009 @ 12:24PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I agree. Aspartame is very unhealthy; so is corn syrup (see Bryan's comment). We should not tax sodas. It will not solve anything and just anger people who drink soda, who sometimes do so because, as Michelle states, is a lot cheaper than juices. What we need to do is encourage manufacturers to put less sugar overall in their soft drinks.This can be done with little effect on taste. And get rid of the additives! I personally hate sodas. My drink of choice is carbonated water. However, taxing foods because they are not very healthy for you is just punishing the consumer. We should tax the manufacturer for creating unhealthy food to begin with.
Posted by Barbara McNamara on 10/29/2009 @ 09:12AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Hell Yea! Tax soda. Why are there petitions sponsored by Coke, etc. and no petitions in favor of the tax? Another example of business buying government.
Posted by scott schreiber on 10/18/2009 @ 10:59AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Archer Daniels Midland, Conagra, Monsanto, Dow Chemical, High fructose corn syrup, C4 carbon produced by these chemical giants and force fed to the uninformed public. Subsidized industrial agribusiness squashing competition, the family farm all but a thing of the past. Things are not trending well for the continued existence of the human animal. The food supply is tainted, water has become a marketable commodity, denied to the poor. What's next? Hydrocarbons made into food products? Oh yeah, that's already happening.
Posted by scott schreiber on 10/20/2009 @ 07:28AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
'Oh yeah, that's already happening'
Can you document that with legitimate citations?
Posted by Chip Herman on 11/04/2009 @ 06:41PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
They can tax soda, when we get Health Care, and they STOP taxing Feminine Hygiene Products Jeeze!
Posted by Rachel Russell on 10/21/2009 @ 09:29PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
If we "get" health care (we have health care now, just needs some meaning full reform... not the crap that is being rammed down the public throat) you can be sure that we will be paying a LOT more than a few cents on the dollar for soda. If we were going to expand the existing programs to cover every citizen in the states a 2 litre of coke is gunna run you about $5000.
The truth of the matter is that government loves taxes, and why wouldn't they, it's not their money, its ours. No matter what excuse is used it all comes down to the fact that it's money in their pockets they didn't earn.
Posted by Seth Piepgrass on 10/24/2009 @ 10:27PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
All I hear is "tax it because the sugary stuff is unhealthy". We'll I am diabetic and drink the sugar-free stuff. If they are taxing sugared, I am sure they will be taxing sugar-free as well. As far as I am concerned, if they tax soda (diet/reg), they should be taxing coffee, tea and how about bottled water whose containers are filling up the land fills.
I agree with prior comments--the government should not be micromanaging what we can/can't do. They need to focus on what is really important and not this petty crap.
Posted by Susan Chylek on 10/23/2009 @ 11:58AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Taxing soda is a "sin tax" -- nothing more, nothing less
Where in the Constitution is that covered?
I'm a coffee drinker, black no sugar, so I (jokingly) say "tax the hell out of it, I could use the subsidy!" But that'd be wrong.
So in truth I say "DO NOT TAX SODA!"
-----
Now, there is a system that I do support that would allow for the taxation of *all* consumption. It's called the FairTax and as a ***replacement*** for the Income tax, and the Social Security tax and the Medicare tax system we're forced to slave under I heartily endorse it.
Support the FairTax!
Posted by CTYankee Aeon on 10/25/2009 @ 10:15AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Where in the Constitution is that covered?
I'd say Article I, Section 8, cl. 1.
Posted by Sam Crane on 10/25/2009 @ 03:30PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I don't think Social engineering is covered in giving congress the power to levy taxes. In fact the language of the constitution gives congress the power to tax citizens to pay debts, pay for the military, and to ensure the "common welfare". In the language of the time that meant to provide for the civil defence of peoples in the United states, not the modern definition of welfare. Nowhere in the constitution does it allow for taxation for the purpose of manipulating public behavior.
In summary you may tax for three reasons,
1. National Defence
2. Pay off debts
3. Civil defence
Posted by Seth Piepgrass on 10/25/2009 @ 10:51PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Seth, read some history before you start commenting on stuff like this. The United States rather clearly taxed things to manipulate public behavior - for example, it was known to impose tariffs on imported goods in order to protect domestic goods. In fact, tariffs used to be the United States' primary source of revenue, from the founding right up until the 20th century. Trade protectionism was the explicit goal of these tariffs starting in the early 1800s; before then, it was clearly a welcome side effect. There is simply no constitutional problem with the United States choosing undesirable activities to tax so that they can change social behavior in addition to raising revenue.
In addition, since almost all of the aforementioned soda travels in interstate commerce, it would also be within Congress' authority under the interstate commerce clause.
This is not a radical interpretation of the Constitution - the most conservative justices currently on the Supreme Court would agree with me here because, having read a lot more history than either of us, they've also decided that the founders would have no problem with this kind of taxation.
Posted by Sam Crane on 10/26/2009 @ 11:59AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
OK, pardon my knee-jerk reaction to the Imperial Federal Gummint taking too much from the citizens.
Go ahead and tax soda at 25% -- heck 50%! For the amount I drink I couldn't care less. That's why I only drink top shelf liquor :^)
Please by all means, let the gummint tax every sweet, tasty, refreshing drop! I can only benefit, kinda like lottery tickets -- a tax on people that are bad at math.
Posted by CTYankee Aeon on 10/26/2009 @ 02:21PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Sam you are talking apples to oranges here. Taxes to influence economic systems does not equate to taxes to regulate individual behavior. It is also worth noting that we have taxes that are voluntary (like income tax). These taxes are unconstitutional and as such you can choose to opt out of them. Most people don't know this but it is because not everyone reads history past their government-issued history text book...
Posted by Seth Piepgrass on 10/27/2009 @ 06:00AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Seth - I generally stop trying to discuss issues with people when it becomes clear that they're not too well connected to reality. Clearly, no amount of rational argument is going to get through to you.
You know, thanks to the First Amendment, anyone can write a book that's 100% fiction and claim that it's true, but that doesn't mean that you have to believe it. Especially on an issue that's empirically verifiable, like whether a tax is voluntary or not: if you opt out of it, get your day in court and argue that the tax is unconstitutional, appeal it as far up as you can, and still end up in jail for tax evasion, it probably wasn't "voluntary." I encourage you to go ahead and try it.
Posted by Sam Crane on 10/27/2009 @ 07:41AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Sam, it's not like you just stop paying taxes. It takes a long time and a lot of court dates but because income tax was a "temporary government tax" (you know the saying about that) enacted during WWII. If you fight it in court you can win, I know people who have. It takes time and quite a few court dates but the truth is that we aren't paying for WWII or it's reparations any more. You can also give up your social security card and forfeit the benefits. There are consequences but at the end of the day if you know your law and history the unconstitutionality of these taxes is indefensible in court. To opt out of Social Security there is a form (IRS form 4029). Social Security is much easier no doubt but both are possible.
Posted by Seth Piepgrass on 10/27/2009 @ 03:04PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Seth - you're right about social security (although you have to have a conscientious objection to receiving benefits), but dead wrong about income taxes. If you know people who've gotten away with it, it's because either they had no taxable income (according to conventional accounting practices, not "income tax is unconstitutional" bs), because their employer withheld enough from their paycheck that they didn't owe any further taxes (and they didn't realize that such withholdings WERE, IN FACT, THEIR TAX MONEY), or because the IRS got confused or decided to not bother with them.
World War II has nothing to do, constitutionally OR statutorily, with the validity of the income tax. The Sixteenth Amendment authorized the income tax in 1913. Since then, the only relevant legal changes have been statutory, not constitutional. And the income tax was never abolished after WWII as you seem to suggest. See also, generally, http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html#_Toc224375579 (yes, that is "what the government says," but here in the real world, if the IRS says something about how the tax system works, it's generally because it's true. It would, in fact be illegal for the IRS to publish mislreading information on its site; moreover, under the Supreme Court's decision in Chevron, where there's any legal ambiguity, courts are required to presume that the IRS' interpretation of federal tax codes is the correct one).
A lot of the people who have attempted to claim that they didn't owe income taxes have, in fact, lost. And, while nonpayment of taxes isn't a criminal offense if you have a good-faith belief that you don't owe them, people have been sentenced to jail time when their beliefs appeared unreasonable to a jury. Plus, failure to pay a tax judgment can land you in jail regardless of your subjective beliefs. Benson, for example, is in jail right now.
Posted by Sam Crane on 10/27/2009 @ 05:08PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Tax it Yes, because it is harmful to ones health and increase diabetes risk thereby costint the system in health care
Unless we take the tax off cigarettes and Liquor we migh as well have it on soda
joe
Posted by Joe Ligeri on 10/25/2009 @ 12:58PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Let's not forget fruit smoothies too... they have more calories and sugar. Then again the smoothie giant's dont have the deep pockets that the soda companies do, makes one think, or at least it should, what is congress after? If you want to think it's because they want what is best ofr us then I'll tell you have fun and go play in your happy make-believe land where unicorns crap rainbows and everone can wish themselves thin. Back in unhappy have-to-work-for-things land (or as I like to call it reality) people need to read lables and not rely on congess to tell them what they should or shouldn't eat, drink, or smoke (think isn't too far behind methinks...).
Sorry if I came down too hard but good ideas don't come from Washington, they come from people in the real world working and making better lives for themselves, not from waiting for that golden ticket from the government. All Wasington knows how to do is tax and spend, this is just another example.
Posted by Seth Piepgrass on 10/27/2009 @ 05:38AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
no new taxes. no higher taxes. i mean, wheres this end? a tax on every frickin thing we can think of. just say no.
Posted by Zack R on 10/26/2009 @ 12:55AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Unfortunately the only way that Congress and the president can pay for all their pet projects is to raise taxes. never mind that the country is in the middle of a recession we can tax our way out of that right? Oh wait people out of work don't have much to pay taxes with and businesses that close their doors don't pay taxes at all... Oh well, I'm sure our unemployed masses won't mind another tax. Maybe they should make an unemployment tax, I mean if we just taxed unemployment people would find jobs right?
Posted by Seth Piepgrass on 10/26/2009 @ 04:18AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I love an ice cold soda. Sweet, cool & fizzy. I have an Aunt that retired from a Coca Cola bottler. I used to mow her lawn for all the Coke I could drink. Sure wish I knew then what I know today about how CO2 leaches calcium from your bones (really bad for females) and how the high-fructose corn syrups upsets the balance in your bodies own ability to create sugar.
Posted by Brian Smith on 10/26/2009 @ 04:32AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
CO2 leaches Calcium from bone??? That's a new one! http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/
And how does HFCS interfere with... aminals[sic] don't create sugar... I'm sooo confused!
Pseudo-science always makes my head hurt.
Between you and me, I don't like HFCS, I don't care for the taste or the texture, but when I eat some, I'm really not thinking that it is going to mess with my liver. Then again I consume very little HFCS -- because I'm not addicted to SODA.
Coke & family aligiences aside, have you tried Pepsi Throwback? Real sugar - yummm. Prior to that, I only bought Kosher for Passover Coke. again real sugar, but a very short window of opportunity through the year 1.5 weeks perhaps.
"Who is John Galt?"
Posted by CTYankee Aeon on 10/27/2009 @ 09:57AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Dr Peper also has a real sugar version as well... far superior to the HFCS in my opinion.
Posted by Seth Piepgrass on 10/28/2009 @ 05:42AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/the-calcium-myth.html
Posted by Brian Smith on 11/01/2009 @ 02:52PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I'm against any taxes on sodas or carbonated beverages. People should be free to make their own choices about what they put into their own bodies without getting the government involved.
Just because someone drinks soda doesn't mean they're fat either.
Posted by Jason Martin on 10/26/2009 @ 10:46PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
what was that about render onto Caesar...?
I don't print it so I can't say I own it; it just circulates through me. "money is like manure; doesn't do any good unless you spread it around"*
Taxes subsidies government spending: this will always be a juggling act to create what a majority think is fair. Spare me the conspiracy talk.
If it would work, tax soda (Grandmother Ruby gave us coke in little glass bottles!).
*from Hello Dolly
Posted by Pat Sommer on 10/26/2009 @ 11:41PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yeah, I have fond memories of those little Coke bottles too.
Didn't Caesar die in act III -- about halfway through the play?
I think Presbo will be politically 'mort' by the 2010 elections is things keep up. The Dems are going to lose a truckload of seats when the dollar collapses and the costs of the bailouts and stimulus start to hit home.
Can ya picture Joe Biden standing over the corpse of Presbo giving the "Ambition" solilloquy? He certainly talks enough ;^)
Attn: Secret Service Personnel, It's a joke! A humorous expression of fiction, not a conspiracy plot against POTUS. :^)
Support the FairTax!
Posted by CTYankee Aeon on 10/27/2009 @ 10:07AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This is a sham...
In New York, Gov Paterson says he wants to tax soda 'as a deterrent, and to encourage a healthier lifestyle' - and then in the next sentence says he wants to tax memberships at HEALTH CLUBS...
Posted by Bobby Steele on 10/27/2009 @ 01:58PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Actually - almost all sodas, except for JOLT and some of the boutique sodas, have ZERO SUGAR, and are sweetened with Corn Syrup.
Sugar is fuel. In Europe, they don't say 'calorie', they use 'Energy', because that's what it is. Sugar - REAL sugar - gives you the energy to burn off fat. It only goes to fat if you don't make use of it. I get the feeling that the corn syrup, and other CANCEROUS sweeteners - that our taxers don't seem concerned about don't provide energy, and that's why soda makes kids obese.
Posted by Bobby Steele on 10/27/2009 @ 02:03PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Carbonized water is a luxury, a treat. It is no necessity. We ought to tax it at least as agressively as we tax alcohol or tobacco.
Posted by Edward Craig on 10/28/2009 @ 01:56AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
are you kidding??? why is it that the only solution is to charge us tax on something else? this is stupid and the people who are ready to allow this are naive and probably let their whole lives be dictated by government and television. Its time to wake up America. The only solution to a problem is taxation,, i don't think so!!!!!
Posted by daniel thompson on 10/30/2009 @ 04:11PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
are you kidding??? why is it that the only solution is to charge us tax on something else? this is stupid and the people who are ready to allow this are naive and probably let their whole lives be dictated by government and television. Its time to wake up America. The only solution to a problem is taxation,, i don't think so!!!!!
Posted by daniel thompson on 10/30/2009 @ 04:11PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The thing that annoys me the most is the commercial of the family (mom and kids, with no father present), and the mother pleads for no tax on soda and juice. I felt, at that moment, that being stupid must be a prerequisite for those who have the money to generate ads for this subject. If this is the corporate talent pools best approach; I would not be surprised if we saw a "Willy Horton didn't drink Soda and Juice" campaign. No conscious human could truly be feeling depravity and anger by a nonessential unhealthy product becoming harder to attain. I doubt the tax would be near high enough to truly lower the sales, and in addition promote good healthy decision making. If the tax did accomplish this, and people were making better decisions, we should consider high taxes on lard, butter, McFood, and listening to Rush L. It feels good to vent.
Posted by Robert Hodgson on 10/30/2009 @ 10:05PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You go Boy. Let it all out. How do you think we can better help people make the right decisions about diet?
Posted by Brian Smith on 11/01/2009 @ 02:08PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I'll try to explain it in one word - a word that the Left despises the most...
FREEDOM
Posted by Bobby Steele on 11/03/2009 @ 11:45AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
First, Brian, I think you pose the correct question, and one that deserves a lot of attention. Bobby, right below you, offers the answer I expect from a right side thinker. No consideration to our reality, and absolutely correct in theory.
The discussion of this page is focused on the soda and juice tax, and of course this subject brings with it ideas of health and restrained freedoms.
People that side more to the right, I find, tend to concentrate on money, and logic without awareness. Not all, mind you, this is only from my opinion of the experiences I have had. There is no denying that I am on the left, and Americans frustrated with my ideas like to describe my thinking as socialism. Which intern reflects a certain amount of logic going on without the true awareness of what they said.
I will attempt to provide a logical approach (for the right wingers) to this human issue, and hopefully address Bobby's response as well as Brian's question. Take into mind that logic is like a dangerous weapon; those who appeal to it, will parish by it. Regardless I will attempt to provide logic to this simple issue that has been complicated by human thinking.
1. Would you like to live in an environment were the food readily/easily available and affordable was upheld to a standard that guaranteed a certain criteria of nutrition was instituted?
2. Would you like that criteria of nutrition to be stringent enough that harmful chemicals, high salt, high fat, high sugar, low nutrient (protein, vitamins, minerals) products would be excluded?
3. If one answers yes to the above two statements; one is saying that the most affordable, heavily advertised and promoted, easily accessible food would be healthy and a standard for restaurants, super markets, grocery, fast food, vending machines, and other popular outlets for attaining a meal or snack. Details below:
a. The term "healthy" in statement "3" would be purely perceptual and be dictated by the known and current most research supporting what is healthy. The group or committee charged with ensuring the health standard is current and successful would obviously be under scrutiny. When bringing in a theory of reward or monetary payment for their service it would have to depend on the result of their efforts. Decisions made by this committee, group, administration, clinic, etc., that improve or maintain a communities' health to a level which is considered, by all respected local and international recourses, as healthy would result in extreme reward or payment. The reward or payment individuals would receive for providing this service would be far beyond that which could be offered by those generating and producing the products evaluated.
b. Now for the sake of keeping this as brief as I possibly can I will negate speaking about the "respected sources" supplying the information to the ones determining health regulations. Please note that all research, if I were to describe it, would operate under the same guise as the regulators. The process has to eliminate the influence of product producers from the process of determining what is healthy.
c. At no point would a producer of food be prevented from making unhealthy products and offering them to the known community. Some products, if considered extremely harmful, would need to carry a warning, and be subject to an additional value increase for obtaining them. Harmful products would also be subject to a higher advertising cost, distribution cost, import cost, and be subject to only being viewed in smaller out of the way displays, as well as, placement within stores and community that would easily draw attention to them.
4. All members of this hypothetical community would always have the freedom to choose what they wish.
Now, Bobby, you made the quick and easily defendable statement "Freedom", leaving me to believe you lack identification to our current reality in the land known as the USA. Given prior comments you have made on various other subjects I believe you have great intelligence and ability to debate quite well. I was left a little surprised by your "Freedom" statement.
1. When asking: do we have the ability to freely choose products for consumption right now? The answer is: We have the freedom to choose any products, that some power that be, decided we could choose from.
a. When you go to a store the illusion of choice is provided by the store allowing you to choose from the choices they decided you can choose from.
2. Currently in USA the FDA is heavily influenced by producers of consumable products. In addition advertising companies, store inventory, real estate, and many other aspects of community provide or receive benefits by either party obtaining quantity. To add even more to this, the chemicals and other additives proven to be harmful in excess, or provide little to no health benefit are much cheaper than healthier alternatives.
3. Now you say "Freedom", and you are correct in saying so. I think freedom is a great thing. Just consider what you are saying you want "Freedom" to exactly?
To me you (Bobby) are saying: I want the freedom to choose from any food product available in a community that allows the least health beneficial products to be the most heavily advertised easily accessible, most affordable, business promoted, products in my community. I believe the public can easily determine what is best for them although brand names and products most ingrained in their minds are not healthy. Intern, you are also promoting the current circumstance of healthier products having less shelf space, little advertising, high cost, out of the way store placement, and specialty store oriented existence in our community.
I would hands down agree that we need the freedom of choice. Although we will, in court, defend that a song or movie cannot make one use drugs, or other perceived negative activities. Businesses do buy an advertising company's services with the belief that persuasion exists in jingles or commercials. Who is right? Could a song promoting the use of guns to resolve community conflict, when listened to in certain neighborhoods, be equal to shouting "Fire!" in a movie theater? I do not know. I have sneaking position that if healthy product manufactures received, or had a greater than or equal to advertising/marketing budget, thing in the US would be a little different. I also completely believe that difference would have me agreeing implicitly with your response. I would say soda tax is not necessary and not worth our effort of taxing it. We would be making it harder to obtain a product that is already not heavily consumed in our community.
That is all I have to say about that - Forrest Gump
Posted by Robert Hodgson on 11/08/2009 @ 10:31AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Just stop subsidizing corn syrup and sugar and budget that money into health education. Stop subsidizing tobacco and budget that money into health education.
It's politically easier to stop that than adding taxes to things that are subsidized.
Why waste money on layers of beaucracy subsidizing things that are unhealthy?
Posted by j k on 11/02/2009 @ 06:07PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
No one seems to have a problem taxing tabacco users several dollars a pack to pay for SCHIP, but they're screaming about a one cent per ounce tax on soda? We had a snack tax (candy, chips, etc.) in California for a while and it raised a lot of revenue for the state. When it expired, the people were in favor of continuing it. The state government decided "no" for some unfathomable reason. Go figure.
Posted by Esther LeSieur on 11/02/2009 @ 11:41PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This thread is getting silly; see-ya-bye.
Posted by CTYankee Aeon on 11/03/2009 @ 07:04AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Would it be any more unfair than the high taxes that I have to pay on my Marlboro Lights ?
Posted by marisela Ibarra on 11/03/2009 @ 07:36PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Really? Why is this even an issue? They tax cigarettes and alcohol.. they should tax soda as well. There is absolutely no nutritional value to the stuff and there is really no need for it in life period. lol.
Soda is terrible for you, it reduces muscle tone and it makes you fat. Maybe with the taxes less people will drink it and Americe will be come less fat?
.. Only time will tell.
Posted by Tarah Leigh on 11/04/2009 @ 08:24PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yeah, because the taxes on Alcohol and cigarettes have made less drunks and chain smokers... oh wait. In fact all raising taxes does little but give the poor less money. Great Job government!
Posted by Seth Piepgrass on 11/08/2009 @ 07:26AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
" because the taxes on Alcohol and cigarettes have made less drunks and chain smokers...In fact all raising taxes does little but give the poor less money."
Oh waaaah! If they can't afford all that crap, maybe they should stop using it!
Posted by Adrienne Acoba on 11/09/2009 @ 10:05AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Tax ALL sodas. Why leave out diet soda that has aspartame, more damaging than sugar, in it. Aspartame signals the body to eat/drink more sweetened food/drink. Diet drinks deserve equal taxation, if not more so than plain diet soda.
Posted by Patricia Abbott on 11/05/2009 @ 02:28PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
PS. Include Crystal Light - that too has aspartame.
Posted by Patricia Abbott on 11/05/2009 @ 02:30PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The only answer is for the government to issue a list of approved drinks and foods and anything not on the list is taxed at 200%.
Posted by j k on 11/05/2009 @ 06:02PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I think taxing soda is a great idea. Food is rightfully not taxed because it is a necessity. Soda is in no way a necessity. If the tax encourages people to make better nutritional choices that is an added benefit.
Posted by Joanne Malley on 11/07/2009 @ 04:19PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Fatty food is not a necessity. Tax it into oblivion.
Starchy food is not a necessity. Tax it into oblivion.
Sugary food is not a necessity. Tax it into oblivion.
Processed food is not a necessity. Tax it into oblivion.
Cooked food is not a necessity. Tax it into oblivion.
Meat is not a necessity. Tax it into oblivion.
Preservatives are not a necessity. Tax them into oblivion.
Or just pass a law outlawing all processed food whatsoever. No preservatives, no salt, no sugar, no factory manufacturing lines. All food must be bought fresh from the market from government-approved organic farms with a negative carbon footprint. Anyone found in violation will be sentenced to work on such a farm without compensation.
Posted by j k on 11/07/2009 @ 10:47PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I generally take 'slippery slope' type of arguments with a grain of salt. I would prefer to concentrate on the specific issue at hand. I don't think the taxation of soda is very much of a burdon. It is not a staple item in ones diet (at least in theory), so I don't see the harm paying a little extra if it would bring society some extra badly needed revenue.
Posted by Joanne Malley on 11/08/2009 @ 09:52AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Why tax soda alone? Remove the subsidies for corn syrup (which all lefties say is the main demon) as a first step. If that's not enough then tax corn syrup.
Posted by j k on 11/09/2009 @ 09:04AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yes, there should be a soda tax, a fast food tax, an everything tax on stuff that makes you die faster, considering a high intake of it. It just makes sense. We don't sell guns to just anyone, cigarettes are just slightly more regulated and no one complains. But when it comes to food! Lord no! Don't tax that, I need my butt to get higher because this type two diabetes isn't bad as it can be yet, and I still have 3 more limbs to get rid of!
It seems America is like a big baby that can't take care of itself sometimes.
But don't fail to look at why people use fast options instead of drinking healthy water or eating fresh food. The water in Dallas, TX doesn't taste horrible, but in all the suburbs where I lived it really did! It tastes pretty bad in most places, coming right from the tap. One strike against water, because soda is delicious!
Besides! Maybe people would stop buying soda so freaking much! Hello, it's a bad economy? Save your money on already overpriced and environmentally UN friendly canned drinks. And if you're rich enough for that to not be an issue, you're probably a republican and should be on the Fox news forum right now or something, so shush.
Posted by Genevieve Jochetz on 11/17/2009 @ 01:12AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"It seems America is like a big baby that can't take care of itself sometimes."
No, it seems that America has become a land of babies that want Congress and Uncle Obama to tell them the right way to live, since they dont seem to have a mind of their own.
Posted by John Layman on 11/17/2009 @ 05:11PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The problem with this tax along with every other "Sin tax" is the idea that they simply don't work for anything other than revenue generation. We tax tobacco, people still smoke. We tax alcohol, people still drink. The lie here is that it is for "the good of society". What it is really about is another revenue stream for a government that has no idea what fiscal responsibility is.
Point is call a spade a spade here. Taxing things does little to dissuade people. All this is is another revenue stream and the gateway to more "Sin taxes" that do nothing to address the underlying causes of the nations obesity, only allows the government to profiteer from it.
Posted by Seth Piepgrass on 11/18/2009 @ 12:52PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Is this a joke? Are the people who have responded to this NOT awake? Who, in their right mind, would agree to more taxation, by a government that lies about where the money goes in the first place. Even if money was generated in this way, who's to say it would go to health care? We dont have a tried and true health care system yet, so where would the money go until we do? Which would you rather have, the puppeteers feeding you sugar, or the puppeteers telling you whats go for you and whats not? Remember, these are the same puppeteers who told you to drink eight glasses of water a day for years and have now, changed their minds. If they change their minds down the road, the tax stays in place and we seem to forget about it. like the gas price that goes up when oil is high and never comes back down, even though oil has. Why don't we just refuse to be puppets for anyone and take the responsibility that goes with freedom of choice and being an adult! NO NEW TAXES TO FUND THE WEALTHY!!!!!!!
Posted by daniel thompson on 11/20/2009 @ 08:58AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.