Sugary Drink Sin Tax

[AuxiliaryPie]

Tax the fuck out of it, sugar has zero health benefits..at least fats offer calorie density (GAINZ!!!!)

As far as those top 10 "unhealthy" meals, i'd just like to see all restaurants be required to put calories on their menu items..you dont need to tax something or make it illegal just because it has a shit ton of calories, just make people aware. I'm anti sugar because it might as well be poison and its all over the damn place.

I love how new vending machines have this stuff:

 

[Jack Brickman]

I don't really see it curbing sugary drink consumption, though. A few pennies doesn't mean shit especially when Pepsi is still making their money. This won't stop me from buying a Dr Pepper every once in a while.

An extra twenty cents might not stop you from buying a Dr. Pepper once in a while, but it might push you to stop drinking three a day. I think that's the goal here. There's not really any harm in having a Coke or Pepsi once in a while.

As far as those top 10 "unhealthy" meals, i'd just like to see all restaurants be required to put calories on their menu items..you dont need to tax something or make it illegal just because it has a shit ton of calories, just make people aware. I'm anti sugar because it might as well be poison and its all over the damn place.

Anecdote: Two years ago my friends and I used to go to Buffalo Wild Wings every Sunday to watch football. One Sunday we noticed that their new menus had the calories on them and, thus, we noticed just how absurdly unhealthy all their food was. We noticed that, two weeks later, they'd reverted back to the old menus. I'm guessing it's because people stopped ordering so much shit and it was affecting their profits.

 

[AuxiliaryPie]

Anecdote: Two years ago my friends and I used to go to Buffalo Wild Wings every Sunday to watch football. One Sunday we noticed that their new menus had the calories on them and, thus, we noticed just how absurdly unhealthy all their food was. We noticed that, two weeks later, they'd reverted back to the old menus. I'm guessing it's because people stopped ordering so much shit and it was affecting their profits.

lmao after a night at BW3 going to MyFitnessPal is a death sentence. "Hmm..lets see here; 4 22oz. beers, 20 wings, uhh-how many nachos?" and we all know its really more like 6 beers

 

[Jack Brickman]

lmao after a night at BW3 going to MyFitnessPal is a death sentence. "Hmm..lets see here; 4 22oz. beers, 20 wings, uhh-how many nachos?" and we all know its really more like 6 beers

I was actually pretty amazed at how terrible their wings were for you. There's like a million calories in those fuckers.

 

[AuxiliaryPie]

I was actually pretty amazed at how terrible their wings were for you. There's like a million calories in those fuckers.

Wings will fuck you up so fast, biggest disappointment in my life. At least cheese pizza is roughly 220 calories a "slice"..you can have two, maybe three and be cool. But even 10 wings and you're done

 

[Backstage]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ish8NBunrQU

 

[The Oi]

I gotta say...I don't get the appeal with soda. My biggest issue is that the meds I'm on intensify the effects of caffeine to the extent that I feel like I'm coming off of a coke binge after even a few ounces. So I personally hate soda.

But even so, it's empty calories. You're literally drinking a pound of liquid fullof sugar and caffeine that makes you feel like shit an hour later after the buzz and provides no nutritional benefit whatsoever.

Just drink coffee without a bunch of sugar added.

Soda is the fuel of the stupid.

 

[Kouki]

I have a diet or even regular soda from time to time. If I'm going to be drinking something for the hell of it (ie not for energy (coffee) or thirst quenching (water)) then I drink beer.

The thing about soda and sugar is that people aren't as aware how bad it is for you. Fat gets a bad rap, it is really only bad for you because it is so calorically dense so you eat a lot of calories...the calories are the bad guy here, not the fat itself. Sugar/soda on the other hand, not only is it a lot of empy calories, it has a pretty terrible effect on your body, and it is in everything.

This has lead to basically fear mongering. Instead of healthy 2% or whole milk, kids are drinking cartons of skim chocolate milk with 25 grams of sugar for lunch, then you wonder why they are hyperactive and have ADD and whatnot. That's the sort of shit that angers me.

As for taxing it, meh, I don't deal with legal stuff.

Also obligatory "please watch Fathead documentary".

 

[Soda]

@Deezus you can disagree with what I said, but it just makes you wrong.

Without passage of the tax, which could raise as much as $13 million a year for the next 20 years, the city and the county could be forced to cover improvement costs from their general funds.

http://www.crainscleveland.com/arti...1/if-sin-tax-fails-an-even-bigger-issue-looms

If you want to have a conversation about the viability of building stadiums/arenas with public funding, I'm all ears.

If you're going to misrepresent what the sin tax is in place for, I'm going to correct you. As someone who is "invested" in the City of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County, I don't want my general fund going towards maintenance if I can have a supplemental flow of tax dollars go towards it. And believe me, I know more about this than you.

 

[Deezus]

@Deezus you can disagree with what I said, but it just makes you wrong.



http://www.crainscleveland.com/arti...1/if-sin-tax-fails-an-even-bigger-issue-looms

If you want to have a conversation about the viability of building stadiums/arenas with public funding, I'm all ears.

If you're going to misrepresent what the sin tax is in place for, I'm going to correct you. As someone who is "invested" in the City of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County, I don't want my general fund going towards maintenance if I can have a supplemental flow of tax dollars go towards it.

Oh come on, Soda. We already had this argument. The previous sin tax agreement WAS NOT UP YET. Why simply renew the old one without taking more time to explore viable alternatives? The idea that we'd have to use the general fund is nonsense. Viable alternatives exist, as proven in Pittsburgh. Again, we've gone through all of this. You had no rebuttal other than "its irrelevant for the next 15 years."

Here you go, if you want to actually read my posts again:

http://realcavsfans.com/community/index.php?threads/cuyahoga-county-sin-tax.43914/page-10

http://realcavsfans.com/community/index.php?threads/cuyahoga-county-sin-tax.43914/page-11

And believe me, I know more about this than you.

Do you? Explain to me why you think a tax on the public that has proven to be a net negative on the surrounding economy through economic studies should be renewed, before it "had" to be without the exploration of alternatives proven to be viable in nearby cities? The local leaders of Cleveland failed to stand up for the population at large.

...and again, for anyone reading this that didn't read the Sin Tax thread: I'm all for a "Sin Tax". I just think the proceeds should be going into making Cuyahoga County communities better, not into helping billionaire sports owners earn more revenue. If we added a small surcharge on tickets, like Pittsburgh, the stadium renovations would still be funded and we could use Sin Tax money to go towards treatment of those addicted to the substances being taxed... or towards one of the worst public education systems in the country. (Source: http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/12/cleveland_schools_do_worse_tha.html)

It was lazy governing. Plain and simple.

 

[Soda]

...and again, for anyone reading this that didn't read the Sin Tax thread: I'm all for a "Sin Tax". I just think the proceeds should be going into making Cuyahoga County communities better, not into helping billionaire sports owners earn more revenue.

This lazy statement is exactly why I know more than you. If you knew what the money is dedicated for and how it actually helps the function of the City who owns all three venues in this City, then I'd spend more time with you on it. Since you push a headline, it's just not worth it for me to try too hard.

No, it's not economically viable for a municipality to own a stadium. Yes, this money goes towards keeping the venues up to federal regulations (i.e. not revenue generating avenues). Yes, the City bears the responsibility to maintain the facilities and yes, the City of Cleveland got bent over with the team friendly leases signed decades ago. Yes, teams have the discretion to be able to up and walk away if the Cities neglect the properties and yes, this is bullshit and we pay for it.

This sin tax goes to the stadiums because the City bears a responsibility to maintain them. If there was no sin-tax doing this, the money that does currently go to helping addicts and education would go towards maintaining the fucking properties.

 

[gourimoko]

Not to dredge up the Sin Tax thread argument, but I never understood the argument that muncipalities are incapable of owning a sports franchise and a stadium. It seems like this conclusion isn't really supported all that well by the facts.

Also, AFAIK Green Bay municipality seems to do okay, and they, again AFAIK, own the team and the stadium do they not?

 

[Soda]

Not to dredge up the Sin Tax thread argument, but I never understood the argument that muncipalities are incapable of owning a sports franchise and a stadium. It seems like this conclusion isn't really supported all that well by the facts.

Also, AFAIK Green Bay municipality seems to do okay, and they, again AFAIK, own the team and the stadium do they not?

And it's been clear that this isn't happening again, at least in the NFL..

NFL
Per league rules, each club needs to be owned by a single person or a small group. Apparently, at least one owner needs to own 1/3 stake in the team. This seems designed to prevent corporate ownership. Reference here:
buffalorumblings.com
NFL ownership rules for Buffalo Bills fans to keep in mind

One exception here is The Green Bay Packers, which are owned by Green Bay Packers Inc., which is a publicly owned nonprofit. This happened before the NFL instituted the above rule. Right now the Packers have 352,427 shareholders and are run by the Green Bay Packers Board of Directors. I don't believe shares in the Packers are traded on any exchange but they are public and most recently had a share offering ending in February 2012. There is more information here: Packers.com | Shareholders

There are some examples of publicly traded organizations owning franchises in other sports, but I don't think that's what you mean. It's not impossible in just about any other sport other than football.

 

[Deezus]

This sin tax goes to the stadiums because the City bears a responsibility to maintain them. If there was no sin-tax doing this, the money that does currently go to helping addicts and education would go towards maintaining the fucking properties.

I'm going try to ignore the pomposity and try one last time. This isn't that hard. I'll try to explain it more simply so you can understand.

- Stadium renovations get funded by ticket surcharges after City leaders fight for tax payers (imagine that), like in Pittsburgh: http://www.crainscleveland.com/arti...stadium-deal-is-one-more-reason-for-cleveland

- City's obligation to upkeep stadiums is met. Teams stay.

- Current "Sin Tax" goes bye-bye after it expires.

- New Sin Tax is voted upon, with all proceeds to go into education, infrastructure, and addiction treatment. Presumably, it passes.

- General fund of Cleveland is untouched.

- Cleveland becomes a better place.

Even if things didn't work as I propose above, the fact that lawmakers didn't at least attempt to fight for a better deal is disturbing.

 

[gourimoko]

And it's been clear that this isn't happening again, at least in the NFL..

There are some examples of publicly traded organizations owning franchises in other sports, but I don't think that's what you mean. It's not impossible in just about any other sport other than football.

But that's what I mean, the conclusion that municipalities are incapable of owning and supporting sports franchises is not supported by the premise.. Just because the NFL bylaws ban the practice doesn't mean municipalities are financially incapable of ownership. I think Green Bay, being the smallest market in the NFL speaks to this point.

I don't see a reason, from a financial standpoint, as to why many cities could not own their teams and their stadiums.