Sugary Drink Sin Tax

[The Human Q-Tip]

Well I am a healthy human being who hasn't been the doctor's in maybe 3 years and I pay $250 a month in health insurance, so if people had to pay more for making my premium as high as it is, I don't think I'd have a problem with it.

But seriously, sugar is horrible for you and you should do all you can to avoid it. I've been making a conscious effort for the past month and a half to avoid sugar as much as possible and I have had a noticeable improvement in lifestyle. Clearer skin, teeth aren't rotting (13 fillings is a nice wake up call), improved energy, and not to mention better gains in the gym.

Sure, sugar is not good for you. Gave it up myself about 6 months ago, and feel a lot better. But, I absolutely believe that isn't a choice I should be trying to press on other people. The truth is that sugar tastes good, and the pleasure/enjoyment from a great dessert, or a delicious but unhealthful meal, etc., are all a part of life. Is watching most TV or playing video games really "good" for you in terms of health, etc.? Of course, not, but it is enjoyable, and getting enjoyment out of things in life is a huge part of living.

What bothers me the most about arguments for limiting other peoples' choices is that they ignore differences between people. Our bodies are all different, and things taste different to different people. We all react differently to physical exertion as well. We're all raised differently, in different environments, and have learned to enjoy (and dislike) different things.

So when people say "well, this worked great for me and I'm much better off, therefore it is good if other people do this as well", it's just incredibly self-absorbed. It's like telling other people which music to like, or that they really shouldn't watch sports anymore because they're stupid, and some other form of entertainment is "better".

I've got no problem with trying to convince people that your way of life is better. I have a real problem with so casually using the coercive power of the state to tell people what they should and shouldn't enjoy.

 

[Soda]

- City's obligation to upkeep of 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.

The pomposity comes from you dragging me into this conversation. We both know your intent or you wouldn't have mentioned me. The issue for me is that you're misrepresenting what the sin-tax goes towards currently. Seemingly, blatantly. Also, you seem to be ignoring that the City must maintain the properties, regardless where the money for it comes. If you throw the sin-tax at another cause, money from the general fund goes to the stadium. Removing the sin-tax doesn't remove the burden.

What you proposed in the quoted piece is a good idea, in my opinion. IMO, however, the idea of a surcharge on tickets needs to be discussed, structured and ready to go well before the debate over voting yay or nay on sin-tax begins. You can't ax the sin-tax with a theory, which was exactly what was happening last year.

Now, did Haslam announce his $100 million investment into the stadium strategically before the vote to gain support? I'd say it's likely.

 

[Soda]

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

I'd be interested in discussing/looking into this.

 

[gourimoko]

Sure, sugar is not good for you. Gave it up myself about 6 months ago, and feel a lot better. But, I absolutely believe that isn't a choice I should be trying to press on other people. The truth is that sugar tastes good, and the pleasure/enjoyment from a great dessert, or a delicious but unhealthful meal, etc., are all a part of life. Is watching most TV or playing video games really "good" for you in terms of health, etc.? Of course, not, but it is enjoyable, and getting enjoyment out of things in life is a huge part of living.

What bothers me the most about arguments for limiting other peoples' choices is that they ignore differences between people. Our bodies are all different, and things taste different to different people. We all react differently to physical exertion as well. We're all raised differently, in different environments, and have learned to enjoy (and dislike) different things.

So when people say "well, this worked great for me and I'm much better off, therefore it is good if other people do this as well", it's just incredibly self-absorbed. It's like telling other people which music to like, or that they really shouldn't watch sports anymore because they're stupid, and some other form of entertainment is "better".

I've got no problem with trying to convince people that your way of life is better. I have a real problem with so casually using the coercive power of the state to tell people what they should and shouldn't enjoy.

Q-Tip, not sure if I understand you correctly, but are you saying that sugary sodas are physiologically good for some and not others?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Q-Tip, not sure if I understand you correctly, but are you saying that sugary sodas are physiologically good for some and not others?

No, they're "not good" for anyone.

What I'm talking about is the positive side -- the pleasure some people get from eating sweet things. There are a lot of pleasurable things people do that aren't good for them in some sense or other. As I said, you can run down a whole bunch of foods, activities, etc., that are either affirmatively unhealthful, or wastes of time that preclude you from doing things that are "better" for you. And I don't like the idea of people making judgments about what other people enjoy.

Would the people who are saying "yeah, let's tax the hell out of sugar because it's not good for you" be equally enthusiastic when it is their ox being gored? I think not. We've all got our own guilty pleasures, and I don't like one group of people dictating to others this casually.

In addition, the people most likely to be affected by this government-directed limitation of choices are poorer people. Wealthier people won't care -- they can afford the extra money from the sin tax, or a sugar tax, or whatever. It's unlikely to affect their choices. The people you are really aiming at with this kind of thing are poorer people, and I'll be damned if I think the government should be trying to discourage some poor or working class family from enjoying a piece of pie on their night out.

 

[gourimoko]

No, they're "not good" for anyone.

What I'm talking about is the positive side -- the pleasure some people get from eating sweet things. There are a lot of pleasurable things people do that aren't good for them in some sense or other. As I said, you can run down a whole bunch of foods, activities, etc., that are either affirmatively unhealthful, or wastes of time that preclude you from doing things that are "better" for you. And I don't like the idea of people making judgments about what other people enjoy.

Would the people who are saying "yeah, let's tax the hell out of sugar because it's not good for you" be equally enthusiastic when it is their ox being gored? I think not. We've all got our own guilty pleasures, and I don't like one group of people dictating to others this casually.

In addition, the people most likely to be affected by this government-directed limitation of choices are poorer people. Wealthier people won't care -- they can afford the extra money from the sin tax, or a sugar tax, or whatever. It's unlikely to affect their choices. The people you are really aiming at with this kind of thing are poorer people, and I'll be damned if I think the government should be trying to discourage some poor or working class family from enjoying a piece of pie on their night out.

Q-Tip could you make a more concise argument here? This is, as usual, to arbitrary. I get what you're saying, but I don't think it's applicable, specifically, to what's being discussed.

As far as I can tell, you're saying, sugar is bad for people; and that you agree it has adverse health issues associated with it's consumption. The argument being made is that should local governments tax processed foods, that are artificially highly sweetened, to compensate for the rising costs of health care?

The argument I see in your post is that people aren't rationally/objectively looking at this issue; but I can't agree with that at all. I like sugar, and I like fattening foods. I love to cook, and enjoy a great meal at a restaurant. So, I don't think you can invalidate these arguments by saying those making the argument are somehow not taking all the facts into consideration.

 

[Kyrieville]

At least cheese pizza is roughly 220 calories a "slice".

If you make your own and do not soak the crust in oil. More like 330 calories per slice at any normal pizza place. A Briar Hill pizza is probably closer to the 220 calorie mark, because they sprinkle romano on top in place of mozzarella.

 

[Randolphkeys]

I will never stop being entertained by RCF members reading about a new tax and immediately - without taking a moment to read who is being taxed or to what extent - assume the sky will fall down upon them and end all joy in life if taxes are somehow increased. Guess what: Taxation has been around for thousands of years. Taxation exists in every civilized culture. The small villages which did not have a system that collects taxes were wiped out by tax-funded armies before Jesus Christ was born. Taxation, in some form, is a necessity.

It is convenient to ignore that taxes have been in a freeze for over a decade. It is convenient to ignore that during this time, inflation has actually decreased funding for all programs that run on tax dollars. Here is an info graphic on public school spending changes with inflation factored in:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/29/nces-school-spending-data_n_6565878.html

So funding has only increased for public schools in 6 states while it has decreased in 44 states. This is a measure that seeks to increase funding for health education in one municipality, which the data shows needs a boost in funding. They are doing it through a tax that targets the behavior they are trying to correct: drinking sugary beverages. Now what I'm not crazy about is the targeting of lower income and in many cases Latino/African American families who are disproportionately buying the sugary beverages. But, this in no way bans the purchasing of sweet beverages. There is a huge difference in a tax and the banning of a product, and its odd that adults keep making the switch in this discussion.

 

[gourimoko]

All calories are not equal. The problem with pizza isn't the number of calories, it's where you're getting them from.

 

[gourimoko]

@Randolphkeys , it's not odd at all... shit it happens on RCF all the time, it's one of the reasons I just said 'fuck it' in a lot of threads. The arguments become purely ideological, non-fact based, and circular.

 

[The Oi]

I will never stop being entertained by RCF members reading about a new tax and immediately - without taking a moment to read who is being taxed or to what extent - assume the sky will fall down upon them and end all joy in life if taxes are somehow increased. Guess what: Taxation has been around for thousands of years. Taxation exists in every civilized culture. The small villages which did not have a system that collects taxes were wiped out by tax-funded armies before Jesus Christ was born. Taxation, in some form, is a necessity.

It is convenient to ignore that taxes have been in a freeze for over a decade. It is convenient to ignore that during this time, inflation has actually decreased funding for all programs that run on tax dollars. Here is an info graphic on public school spending changes with inflation factored in:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/29/nces-school-spending-data_n_6565878.html

So funding has only increased for public schools in 6 states while it has decreased in 44 states. This is a measure that seeks to increase funding for health education in one municipality, which the data shows needs a boost in funding. They are doing it through a tax that targets the behavior they are trying to correct: drinking sugary beverages. Now what I'm not crazy about is the targeting of lower income and in many cases Latino/African American families who are disproportionately buying the sugary beverages. But, this in no way bans the purchasing of sweet beverages. There is a huge difference in a tax and the banning of a product, and its odd that adults keep making the switch in this discussion.

It's principle. I think the large majority of people are (rightly) sick of looking at their paychecks and seeing that the government is taking a large bulk of their money away from them and aren't giving us a product/service that we are satisfied with. So it's a hot point for people any time they're told they have to give up even more money to live their lives the way they want to live them.

I'm not saying that when you look at the greater implications, there aren't obvious arguments to be made that the government needs our money. But I'm telling you why we're all sick of money being taken away from us and react negatively when one more way is found to take more of it.

 

[Sumac13]

Screw addressing the issue at the community level. Or even state. Overhaul the nation's farm subsidies. If subsidies are to be given, make it for growing healthier food, not unhealthy cheap. This is why corporate (or special interests groups, left or right) shouldn't be allowed to make campaign contributions. The interests of ADM are overriding the public health interests of the country. It is egregious. But, hey, I suppose a multibillion global foods and commodities-trading corporation is a 'person', too; and it has the rights of the average schmuck off of the street, and no greater ability to have its interests represented.

• For a Healthier Country, Overhaul the Farm System

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fresh-fruit-hold-the-insulin/

"… The current bill gives some $4.9 billion a year in automatic payments to growers of such commodity crops, thus driving down prices for corn, corn-based products and corn-fed meats. Cows that are raised on corn, rather than grass, make meat that is higher in calories and contains more omega-6 fatty acids and fewer omega-3 fatty acids—a dangerous ratio that has been linked to heart disease.

Cheap corn has also become a staple in highly processed foods, from sweetened breakfast cereals to soft drinks, that have been linked to an increase in the rate of type 2 diabetes, a condition that currently affects more than one in 12 American adults. Between 1985 and 2010 the price of beverages sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup dropped 24 percent, and by 2006 American children consumed an extra 130 calories a day from these beverages. Over the same period the price of fresh fruits and vegetables rose 39 percent. For families on a budget, the price difference can be decisive in their food choices."​

Some different takes on the matter, arguing that stopping corn subsidies wouldn't necessarily make bad food cheaper. But, also arguing that subsidies should be redirected nonetheless to make healthier food more affordable/sustainable to grow for the farmer:

• The Fat of the Land: Do Agricultural Subsidies Foster Poor Health?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1247588/​

• Tufts study: Corn Subsidies are a Sop to HFCS industry, but don't alone make for bad food cheap

http://grist.org/article/farm-subsidies-bitter-and-sweet/​

• Farm bill: Why don't taxpayers subsidize the foods that are better for us?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...642a3c-9434-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html​

• Government Subsidies Not So Sweet for Health

http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2012/12/05/government-subsidies-not-so-sweet-health​

 

[MRMsix6]

I 100% agree with Gouri on this part: "I'd have voted "No" on the issue; as I don't think it's the place of the state to use the mechanism of taxation towards social engineering goals"

Coercing behavior through taxation is fundamentally wrong to me. I don't believe that should be the role of government.

Keys, as for taxes being in a freeze for over a decade, what taxes? Because just at the national level, the top income rates and capital gains rates went up in 2013. I'm sure there are a number of state and local taxes that have changed around the country as well. So I'm confused by what you mean.

 

[gourimoko]

It's principle. I think the large majority of people are (rightly) sick of looking at their paychecks and seeing that the government is taking a large bulk of their money away from them and aren't giving us a product/service that we are satisfied with. So it's a hot point for people any time they're told they have to give up even more money to live their lives the way they want to live them.

I'm not saying that when you look at the greater implications, there aren't obvious arguments to be made that the government needs our money. But I'm telling you why we're all sick of money being taken away from us and react negatively when one more way is found to take more of it.

But then these same people vote for the same assholes doing the same things...

 

[OptimusPrime]

The small villages which did not have a system that collects taxes were wiped out by tax-funded armies before Jesus Christ was born. Taxation, in some form, is a necessity.

This doesn't at all prove that taxation is a "necessity". It does however support the point I have made numerous times that governments in general are responsible for the deaths of more humans than anything else in our history.