The Newest Sin Tax: A Soda Tax

This isn't going to impact obesity (0.00 / 0)

If the point of this tax is a sort of fundraiser based on taxing frivolous food that wastes your money, I'm all for it.  But if it is program intended to help people lose weight, it's foolish.  My family doesn't drink soda, and we try to avoid HFCS, but soda is not the reason people are fat.  Lots of people who are not fat, but are in terrible health nonetheless, also drink soda. So do healthy people that occasionally drink it.

Obesity is a complex condition related only partly to diet and exercise.  Approaching obesity with the assumption that people are fat simply because they eat badly is a guarantee of failure. The assumption that thin people are healthy is also dangerous. Did you know that a National Institutes of Health study showed that 73% of first-time heart disease patients had a BMI under 30? 31% under 25 BMI?  Wow - that's a lot of not-fat people with cardiac disease.

It's different than cigarettes.  Smoking, in and of itself, causes disease. Stopping smoking is an undeniable health benefit for everyone, that doesn't require any other action to improve health.  There is no clear cause-and-effect action that will lead to weight lose in large numbers of people, with the possible exception of simply starving to death.  

Wouldn't it be likely that with the HUGE number of people spending money on diet food, clubs, exercise equipment, fat camp, elective bariatric surgery, workout videos, pills, purges, etc - that if spending money cured obesity, we would already see more thin people? The richest woman in the country, Oprah, has already tried EVERY thing there is to try, and is fat again. We vilify and humiliate fat people in our culture, and elevate terribly unhealthy thin women to idol status. Doesn't anyone think that if is were simply a matter of not drinking soda, that more of the population would be losing weight?

Taxing soda just impacts the sale of carbonated beverages. Will it affect diet soda, too, which causes people to ingest large amounts of artificial sweeteners that are increasingly thought to have negative impacts on metabolism?  What about fruit punch with no carbonation?  Tang?  Ice Tea?  Coffee with too much sugar in it?

I would be more impressed if the soda tax income were used to increase funding of hunger programs, support family farming, subsidize small urban food retailers, and start other programs that put decent local food on people's plates.

I have to wonder if this is a good trend to encourage though, the creation of categories of good and bad food.  Who decides?  Elected officials that have been compromised by big-food contributions?  We already see the effects of that.  I don't trust politicians to make those lists.

---

by: Matriarchy @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 04:42:37 AM UTC

I was kind of thinking that the funds (0.00 / 0)

generated from it could be used to pay the obesity-related health care costs in NY. There was a recent report on what obesity costs the state and it's a lot of $$.  

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 06:39:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good luck with that. (4.00 / 2)

I once wrote a diary on the causes of obesity and got severely attacked at my suggestion of taxing the junk food producers, retail outlets and empires like MacDonald & all....my point was that the monies raised, as Matriarchy rightly pointed out above, should go to a fund that would address hunger and properly advises consumers of the dangers of eating junk food among other things. I guess it will have to be addressed one day but it may be too little and too late. This is a contentious subject.  

Sic Transit Gloria Locavore!

---

by: Asinus Asinum Fricat @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 16:32:09 PM UTC

yeah this won't be popular (4.00 / 1)

I don't think it would ever pass in NY... it's shocking that Paterson even brought it up in my opinion.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 19:49:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sadly Jill (4.00 / 1)

As a native New Yorker who has witnessed this man turn from a progressive to a full blown Republican since entering office I'm thinking that soda tax is all about transforming Coke and Pepsi into active campaign contributors.

He started to lose me when he endorsed Bloomberg overturning a twice voted referendum on therm limitations. I mean I have trouble getting behind someone in office who has no interest in the voice of the people but at least that was just politics.  

The idea that Mr. Bloomberg may be seeking a way to serve another term has set off intense chatter among the city's leading politicians. Asked by reporters on Friday, Gov. David A. Paterson enthusiastically endorsed it, saying the mayor had expertly handled the city's economic challenges.

"So Mayor Bloomberg, if he wants to run for mayor a third time I think it's a great idea," said Mr. Paterson, a Harlem Democrat.

Of course, if the mayor decided to run again, it would eliminate him as a potential challenger to Mr. Paterson for governor in 2010.

Now he completely lost me when he said he would not raise tax on the rich "Because they would move away." And he keeps saying that over and over no matter how many New Yorkers tell him he is mistaken.

They would move away? Why would they move away? I watch my community channel everyday and the one thing all rich people have in common is strong ties to the community. I hear their lawyer say "My client has strong ties to the community" at rich people's arraignments almost everyday.  

Really I never heard such bullshit in my life. At least not from a Democrat. The progressive proposal that is a few hundred, perhaps a thousand bucks to each individual fat cat represents $6.8 billion for the state but "They will move away." Of course if he said "I won't raise rich peoples' taxes because they won't contribute to my campaign" then I would understand because this is one of the millions of examples that points out that this country is going nowhere until public campaign financing becomes law.

But "because they will move away" oh please. Millionaires will scour Conn. and New Jersey for a place to start a new life, then after picking the town they will go out endlessly with brokers until they find the right place. Once they find a place they will negotiate and then they will pay lawyers for a title search, then closing fees and paying all those moving expenses.

Of course they will never be able to sell their own New York homes because of the mass millionaire exodus but that won't stop rich people from moving away over a few extra hundred bucks in tax a year. And assuming that many of them got rich working in New York and will continue working here, just to save a few bucks a year, just to show us, the rich will waste much of their valuable time commuting and spending more money traveling back and forth to work that the tax hike.

I heard a very similar argument rage on for years here in New York. Of course the Democrats had no say in this argument. That would have called for defending the poor who are not very dependable when it comes to campaign contributions. That argument that came from Republicans and the media was "If we raise the minimum wage above $5.15 per hour all of the minimum wage jobs would be shipped out to New Jersey and Connecticut."

Now we have a Democratic Governor who is claiming that if the rich get a little raise in taxes they will just move out of state. I can't tell you how much it sucked watching my Democratic so called representatives sit on their hands for years and not call the newspapers and repugs on their bullshit so now it really stings to see a man I once respected turn into a Republican overnight.

Hey you know what else they won't do until Patterson get elected? After a pledge from New York Democratic leaders that their party would legalize same-sex marriage if they won control of the State Senate, they decided to put that off just because the gov may lose a few votes.  

You know when you get as old as I am and hear excuses all your life that the Democrats won't do anything because of the upcoming election, you finally realize the New York Democrats will never do a thing Democratic. But Govoner David Patterson introduced a new budget that would do Pataki proud. Maybe that's why Republicans keep getting elected to the highest offices in this state. Voters can't tell the difference.

You know when you think about it since so many New Yorkers are in finance they a responsible not just for the meltdown in New York but a global financial crisis but just like everything else the rich get special treatment. Take a look at who pays;

No more sales tax break on clothes and shoes worth $110 or less, except during two weeks a year.




Eliminates more than $600 million in general purpose aid over the next two years to New York City.




A 4% "iPod tax" for "digitally delivered entertainment services."




Hiking the cost of "personal" services - including haircuts, manicures, pedicures, massages and gym memberships - by 4 percent.




Tax on car rentals would rise to 6 percent from 5 percent.




Lifting the limit on how much state tax can be charged for gasoline. The state's tax was limited to 8 cents per gallon.




A 4 percent entertainment tax on tickets to movies, concerts and sporting events. That would add nearly 50 cents to a $12 movie ticket or $1.80 to the cheapest $44.50 seat at a Knicks game.




A 4 percent tax on cable TV and satellite services, raising a $100 bill by $4.




16 fee increases for owning & operating a car. The cost of a driver's license goes from $50 to $62.50, and car registrations from $44 to $55. Also, issuing new "reflectorized" license plates, that drivers would be required to get, at $25 a pop.




Loosened restrictions on gambling would allow more retailers to sell Quick Draw tickets, expand hours at gambling facilities across the state, and authorizes video slot machines for the Belmont Park race track, which Paterson says would generate a franchise payment of at least $370 million in 2010-11.




A 50 cent tax on cigars. The current tax is equal to 37% of the wholesale price, or 34 cents a cigar.




Almost doubling the taxes on wine, beer and flavored malt beverages.




More than a billion in health care spending cuts, including cuts to Nursing homes, that would shoulder $256 million of the deficit reduction plan burden, while hospitals and clinics take the largest hit this year and next totaling $590 million. The largest savings comes from an assessment on hospital inpatient revenues, saving $316.4 million next year. Other recommendations include reducing grant funding for hospital recruitment and retention; eliminating HCRA funding for subsidies and worker retraining; and reductions in unspent funding for graduate medical education by 20 percent.




An actual cut of $700 million in state education aid in the next fiscal year, not just a reduction in projected spending growth. Increased aid for operating expenses and pre-kindergarten, which had been expected as part of a settlement in a long-running lawsuit, would be delayed by four years under the plan.




Tuition increases at SUNY and CUNY, $620 and $600 a year respectively.

I mean did you ever see a more obvious list of excise taxes in a state already filled with excise taxes. Wouldn't the rich who have the means be more likely to move away because of being nickeled and dimed  to death and watching their childrens' education go down the toilet that a little deduction in their take home pay. Won't the middle class and poor feel some serious pain from this budget.

Forgive me for being cynical about a soda tax but it is just part of Patterson's grand scheme to bleed his people dry. It probably won't happen and as a life long New Yorker I guarantee if it does it will have nothing to do with public health.

Or how about this question? Governor Paterson, Have You Lost Your Moral Compass?

Gov. David A. Paterson on Tuesday proposed a steep rollback of some of the generous pension benefits that have been an alluring feature of government work for decades, initiating a contentious reckoning with public employee unions.

The governor is proposing to reduce benefits for newly hired state and municipal workers, including those in New York City, by placing them in a new pension category. The New York City portion of the plan was developed by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.

"We've made too many promises and asked for too few sacrifices," the governor said during an address to the Legislature. "We're going to have to change our culture as we know it."

The pension proposal was part of an austerity budget unveiled by Mr. Paterson.

Everyone know what needs to be done in New York. There are just too many people in government but nobody has the political will to admit it. Governor Patterson is willing to cut back on the large block of government employees actually making a living but not make the government solvent. How Republican is that?

But Patterson our did the Republicans because he stood in front of a microphone and said that our cops and firemen have been "asked for too few sacrifices." even Republicans have more moral fiber than that.

Sorry the man is not addressing your issue. He has no idea what the issues are other than getting elected. It is really sad because I saw so much good in this man but ever since he made the dubious move of giving up the the possibility of becoming Senate Majority Leader to become Eliot Spritzer's running mate he has been sliding downhill.

Now after that budget I have to say that he is rotten to the core. Sorry for the rant but we had a real governor and just because he liked prostitutes this state is going to be screwed.

And after all that crap the only way I will ever vote for him is if RUDY runs against him because I'd rather vote for someone who spouts policies I detest than someone who is as full of shit as David Patterson.  

   

---

by: Eddie C @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 18:55:12 PM UTC

whoa, he thinks the rich would move away? (4.00 / 1)

that's nuts. Seriously nuts. The rich are already willing to pay out their asses to live in NYC... why would an extra tax be the straw that breaks the camel's back?

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 19:50:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]