A tax on soda passed!

[Alto101]

I am not surprised to read that it was in California....and it passed with 75% of the vote. Absolutely disgusting that this was actually approved.

Voters approve soda tax in Berkeley that costs about 68 cents per two liter bottle - Nov. 5, 2014

 

[TLS01]

Little Debbie's/junk food are next, just watch.

 

[BuGlen]

Q: How is a local tax on something that passed with an overwhelming majority (75%) as a ballot initiative during an election a problem?

It's pretty apparent that the local population wanted this tax, and it's only a local tax that will affect the voters and visitors to their municipality. It wasn't enacted by unelected officials, and it wasn't a case of taxation without representations, it was a ballot initiative. I just don't see the issue here.

 

[Alto101]

Q: How is a local tax on something that passed with an overwhelming majority (75%) as a ballot initiative during an election a problem?

It's pretty apparent that the local population wanted this tax, and it's only a local tax that will affect the voters and visitors to their municipality. It wasn't enacted by unelected officials, and it wasn't a case of taxation without representations, it was a ballot initiative. I just don't see the issue here.

Would you agree that a 50 cent per ml tax on e-liquid is okay if it was approved by 75% of the voters in your city and state?

This tax on soda is another step down the slippery slope. They imposed a "sin" tax on a product that can be consumed as part of a healthy diet. Obviously, soda if consumed in excess can cause issues but so can pretty much everything. What will they come for next? Perhaps a five cent per french fry tax?

 

[westhc]

A similar measure did not pass in San Francisco.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/04/bay-area-soda-tax_n_6104000.html

 

[BuGlen]

Would you agree that a 50 cent per ml tax on e-liquid is okay if it was approved by 75% of the voters in your city and state?

This tax on soda is another step down the slippery slope. They imposed a "sin" tax on a product that can be consumed as part of a healthy diet. Obviously, soda if consumed in excess can cause issues but so can pretty much everything. What will they come for next? Perhaps a five cent per french fry tax?

Would I agree with it? No, I don't agree with 'sin' tax of any type, so absolutely not. However, there are a lot of variables here that I'm considering, not the least of which is the ability of people to govern themselves. First of all, this was a ballot initiative, not a committee of elected officials or a committee of un-elected (appointed) officials. Second , this is a local township initiative (not state or federal), and if the people of a township want to impose a tax on themselves through a ballot measure, that is the will of the people. Finally, this ballot initiative passed with an overwhelming majority with 75% of the vote, and if it had just passed with 51% of the vote, I would have a problem with it.

Please remember that one of the issues that caused the colonies to rebel against Great Britain was taxation without representation, and that is clearly not the case here. If I were a citizen of Berkeley, I would probably be planning to lobby toward repealing this tax, and that would be a hard fought battle, but it's how our system works.

 

[Alto101]

Would I agree with it? No, I don't agree with 'sin' tax of any type, so absolutely not. However, there are a lot of variables here that I'm considering, not the least of which is the ability of people to govern themselves. First of all, this was a ballot initiative, not a committee of elected officials or a committee of un-elected (appointed) officials. Second , this is a local township initiative (not state or federal), and if the people of a township want to impose a tax on themselves through a ballot measure, that is the will of the people. Finally, this ballot initiative passed with an overwhelming majority with 75% of the vote, and if it had just passed with 51% of the vote, I would have a problem with it.

Please remember that one of the issues that caused the colonies to rebel against Great Britain was taxation without representation, and that is clearly not the case here. If I were a citizen of Berkeley, I would probably be planning to lobby toward repealing this tax, and that would be a hard fought battle, but it's how our system works.

I agree with you about the validity of a ballot initiative in general although there are abuses of this as demonstrated in recent history concerning the gay marriage ban votes which were ruled unconstitutional. Obviously, a tax on sugar containing drinks doesn't rise to the same level of importance.

It just makes me embarrassed that a vote like this happened in the U.S. Although, I have long had a feeling that California really isn't part of the rest of the country, instead they operate as a separate country.

 

[BuGlen]

I agree with you about the validity of a ballot initiative in general although there are abuses of this as demonstrated in recent history concerning the gay marriage ban votes which were ruled unconstitutional. Obviously, a tax on sugar containing drinks doesn't rise to the same level of importance.

It just makes me embarrassed that a vote like this happened in the U.S. Although, I have long had a feeling that California really isn't part of the rest of the country, instead they operate as a separate country.

I think we can both agree that there have been instances of ballot initiatives that have been abuses of the system (Prop 8, as your example and I agree), and I think we both agree that a 'sin' tax is probably not the best use for one. I guess my only outstanding point is that we sometimes have to endure the bad use of a system to protect the good use of that same system. Like Prop 8, this ballot initiative can be challenged in a court of law, which can be both a good and bad use of the judicial system. Checks and balances, and all that.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Democracy in action and the reason this country was started as a Constitutional Republic.

 

[k702]

Q: How is a local tax on something that passed with an overwhelming majority (75%) as a ballot initiative during an election a problem?

It's pretty apparent that the local population wanted this tax, and it's only a local tax that will affect the voters and visitors to their municipality. It wasn't enacted by unelected officials, and it wasn't a case of taxation without representations, it was a ballot initiative. I just don't see the issue here.

The tax code should not be used to regulate, impede, or suggest moral choices. Voters are stupid. Very few have any idea what it is they are voting on now, they just do it because they're told they must to be American. Voters in California.... HA!

 

[stevegmu]

The people voted. So be it. What would be shocking is if ballot measures weren't allowed...

 

[Mogar]

A few things that people tend to forget...
- There are times that people vote on something not knowing what it contains or is worded to confuse. (Are you for or against Woman's Sufferage? If you are for it, that means you are for giving women the right to vote.)
- When one place does something then other area's can say "because XYZ did this by such a majority, we can do this as well!"

It is the responsibility of the citizens to know what they are voting for or against, because those who bring up the ballots are professionals and know how to sneak around or twist words to get what they want. Most citizens will not take the 30 seconds it takes to find out what they are really voting for.

 

[DrMA]

How natural - Berkley, CA passes some absurd nanny statist measure to impose progressive morality on everybody. They're no better than the creationists in the South who would vote by overwhelming majority to scrap teaching the Law of Evolution and replace it wholesale with Creationism. That's why it's absurd to even put measures like this to a popular vote.

See this also, as it really was a world-first move against sugar: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...748-thus-starts-first-move-against-sugar.html

 

[stevegmu]

Nearly all non diet sodas in the US contain corn syrup, not sugar. These types of measures are generally fought by the corn lobbies...

 

[DoubleEwe]

Does this vote just not demonstrate that Berkeley is an area where less of the inhabitants are daily soda drinkers? (than other parts of the US)

I mean you are not going to oppose a tax on something that you don't consume on a regular basis as it does not really affect you. Plus you can see the benefits of extra funds for worthwhile causes being created by the tax.

I know that I would vote to massively tax broccoli if the situation ever arose...

(obviously though, broccoli has not been linked to obesity or cancer or anything... yet)

 

[bigdancehawk]

Does this vote just not demonstrate that Berkeley is an area where less of the inhabitants are daily soda drinkers? (than other parts of the US)

I mean you are not going to oppose a tax on something that you don't consume on a regular basis as it does not really affect you. Plus you can see the benefits of extra funds for worthwhile causes being created by the tax.

I know that I would vote to massively tax broccoli if the situation ever arose...

(obviously though, broccoli has not been linked to obesity or cancer or anything... yet)

Now you've gone to far! I love broccoli. Provided, of course, that it's slathered with cheese and bacon.

 

[DrMA]

Does this vote just not demonstrate that Berkeley is an area where less of the inhabitants are daily soda drinkers? (than other parts of the US)

I mean you are not going to oppose a tax on something that you don't consume on a regular basis as it does not really affect you. Plus you can see the benefits of extra funds for worthwhile causes being created by the tax.

I know that I would vote to massively tax broccoli if the situation ever arose...

(obviously though, broccoli has not been linked to obesity or cancer or anything... yet)

of course the enlightened people of Berkley don't drink evil liquids manufactured by Big Soda. They're only drink purified bottled water from the Himalayas and 100% organic/shade-grown/sustainable/fair-trade/Rain-forest-alliance-certified Goji berry fruit nectar from non-evil, non-corporate, yet almost-as-big-as-Monsanto, Whole Foods.

 

[Nate760]

of course the enlightened people of Berkley don't drink evil liquids manufactured by Big Soda. They're only drink purified bottled water from the Himalayas and 100% organic/shade-grown/sustainable/fair-trade/Rain-forest-alliance-certified Goji berry fruit nectar from non-evil, non-corporate, yet almost-as-big-as-Monsanto, Whole Foods.

There's nothing more screamingly hypocritical than self-styled "environmentalists" drinking bottled water. Because what better way to show how much you sparkly heart Mother Earth than consuming your water out of non-biodegradable single-use containers that are made of hydrocarbon products and constitute the world's #1 source of garbage.

 

[pamdis]

There's nothing more screamingly hypocritical than self-styled "environmentalists" drinking bottled water. Because what better way to show how much you sparkly heart Mother Earth than consuming your water out of non-biodegradable single-use containers that are made of hydrocarbon products and constitute the world's #1 source of garbage.

Not to mention the energy used/pollution created to get the water from it's source and into the bottles, then transported on over to the resulting sales outlet - which probably stores it in refrigerators so you can buy it cold.

 

[k702]

Does this vote just not demonstrate that Berkeley is an area where less of the inhabitants are daily soda drinkers? (than other parts of the US)

I mean you are not going to oppose a tax on something that you don't consume on a regular basis as it does not really affect you. Plus you can see the benefits of extra funds for worthwhile causes being created by the tax.

I know that I would vote to massively tax broccoli if the situation ever arose...

(obviously though, broccoli has not been linked to obesity or cancer or anything... yet)

not sure if you meant to but you just pointed out the absolute absurdity of this style of tax law. You find something that a minority of people do and get the majority that doesn't to tell them they need to give up money to be able to do what it is they like to do... not really for any reason other than they aren't in a majority.