More calls for taxes on sugar.

[nicnik]

More calls for taxes on sugar. Their argument seems to be that it's OK to compromise moral prinicipals, because that's what we've done in the anti-smoking hate campaign.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/14218771.Sugar_tax_deserves_serious_consideration/

The sugar tax is controversial for two reasons – one, because some feel it is another manifestation of the ever-officious nanny state; and two because it would affect the poor unfairly, looming larger on the food bill of a low income household than a comfortable middle class one. This is true, but is that not also the case for taxes on beer and cigarettes? There is very little controversy about those. The point of it would be to encourage people to opt for something healthier – and cheaper – so consumers would still have a choice.

As for the charge that this amounts to unacceptable encroachment by the state on people’s personal freedoms, those who opposed the ban on smoking in public places said the same thing. But now no one bats an eyelid at the notion of “taking it outside”.

They're also using that dishonest argument of cost to society, based on just one part of the picture, carefreely ignoring the numbers on the savings side.

 

[DC2]

More calls for taxes on sugar. Their argument seems to be that it's OK to compromise moral prinicipals, because that's what we've done in the anti-smoking hate campaign.

I've heard Bloomberg is thinking of running for President.

 

[Rossum]

But now no one bats an eyelid at the notion of “taking it outside”.

Uh, I've done more than "bat an eye at it" for 20+ years now. I wouldn't consider working anywhere that I couldn't smoke (or now vape) at my desk, and refuse to spend more time (or money) than absolutely necessary anywhere that smoking (or now vaping) is not permitted. Restaurants, bars, and shopping malls have lost much of my business.

 

[Rossum]

I've heard Bloomberg is thinking of running for President.

I'm biting my tongue here.

 

[Jman8]

This was running joke on the forums a couple years ago, and now they're moving in this direction?

Until it gets to be on a legislation agenda, I'll be laughing at how preposterous it is to go in this direction. Once it is on legislation dockets, I'll be hoping for failure and doing everything possible to undermine such a position.

If they just did sin taxes for each lie H tells, we'd be able to get national debt down a few trillion right there.

 

[skoony]

One of the things I try to explain to non-smokers/vapers is the proposed deeming
regulations will have a far reaching effect far beyond us vapers. If the FDA gets
everything I believe they want the legislation will be used as a model for all sorts
of future schickainery.
As a mater of fact I have been trying to explain this to some vapers too.
(insert sound of crickets here)

Regards
Mike

 

[Endor]

This doesn't surprise me in the least, and has already begun to happen, really...

Soda taxes, which are really a tax on a sugary substance, have already passed in certain areas such as Berkeley, CA where is passed with a 75% (!!!) Yes vote in 2014. The same year, San Francisco also had a soda tax but it failed to pass with the required 2/3rds majority (a requirement in California for a new tax, thank God). It's been proposed in a lot of other areas but has failed to pass.

Notably in New York, there was a move for a 1 cent soda tax in 2010 that apparently failed. According to a New York Times article from July 3, 2010: "The governor also deputized Richard F. Daines, the state health commissioner, to tour the state stumping for the tax. Dr. Daines argued that it would be good for society, especially children and teenagers who would be deterred from a lifelong soda habit. He often equated the campaign against sugary drinks to the campaign against tobacco."

Yep. Sound familiar? The same rhetoric, applied to a different substance. He even went so far as to equate it with the campaign against tobacco. If this doesn't tell you that Public Health is following the exact same playbook for other things they consider harmful from their desks in their ivory towers, nothing will.

Many of us who lived through the smoking bans know that they experienced similar headwinds early on. It wasn't until full-blown demonizing of smoking (and smokers) began that the sheep finally fell into line. The demonizing will commence on sugar, fatty foods.... just watch.

 

[AndriaD]

It wouldn't deter anyone from anything; it would just give the public hogs a new trough to get addicted to. Those public hogs are a great deal more addicted to extorting money than any of us EVER were to cigarettes.


Andria

 

[roxynoodle]

Ohio has applied sales tax to soda for as long as I can remember. There is no sales tax on food except for "carbonated drinks". So even if you go to McDonalds and buy a meal for $5.95, there will be a tax added if you get soda for your drink. If you get iced tea, lemonade, etc, no tax.

 

[nicnik]

There is no sales tax on food except for "carbonated drinks".

If you count the bubbles, the tax amounts to only about $.0000001 per bubble. Now that's value!

 

[roxynoodle]

If you count the bubbles, the tax amounts to only about $.0000001 per bubble. Now that's value!

Lol!

I believe its applied to all carbonated drinks, even diet ones.

 

[nicnik]

I believe its applied to all carbonated drinks, even diet ones.

I just looked it up. It's a bit more complicated:

http://www.tax.ohio.gov/portals/0/sales_and_use/information_releases/st200401_archive.pdf

Soft Drinks
R.C. 5739.01(EEE)(3)(c) provides:
"Soft drinks" means nonalcoholic beverages that contain natural or
artificial sweeteners. "Soft drinks" does not include beverages that contain
milk or milk products, soy, rice, or similar milk substitutes, or that
contains greater than fifty per cent vegetable or fruit juice by volume.
It is important to note that the definition of a “soft drink” is not controlled by whether or
not the beverage is carbonated. Any sweetened nonalcoholic beverage, whether
sweetened naturally or artificially, is a soft drink unless it either contains milk products or
a milk substitute or it contains greater than fifty percent (50%) fruit or vegetable juice by
volume. Tax applies to the sale of soft drinks.
Soft drinks include traditional soda pop beverages, but also include many fruit drinks or
fruit punches that are less than fifty percent (50%) juice by volume. Bottled tea and
coffee drinks, which have been considered food items, will be considered soft drinks and
taxable if they contain sweeteners, unless they also contain milk or milk substitutes.

 

[DC2]

Soft Drinks
R.C. 5739.01(EEE)(3)(c) provides:
"Soft drinks" means nonalcoholic beverages that contain natural or
artificial sweeteners. "Soft drinks" does not include beverages that contain
milk or milk products, soy, rice, or similar milk substitutes, or that
contains greater than fifty per cent vegetable or fruit juice by volume.
It is important to note that the definition of a “soft drink” is not controlled by whether or
not the beverage is carbonated. Any sweetened nonalcoholic beverage, whether
sweetened naturally or artificially, is a soft drink unless it either contains milk products or
a milk substitute or it contains greater than fifty percent (50%) fruit or vegetable juice by
volume. Tax applies to the sale of soft drinks.
Soft drinks include traditional soda pop beverages, but also include many fruit drinks or
fruit punches that are less than fifty percent (50%) juice by volume. Bottled tea and
coffee drinks, which have been considered food items, will be considered soft drinks and
taxable if they contain sweeteners, unless they also contain milk or milk substitutes.

You hear that sound?

That's the sound of increasing bureaucracy, which only grows and grows, like a monster.
And it's also the sound of increased overhead for the retailer to ensure compliance.

And those costs for compliance are passed on straight to you.
Did the good folks of Ohio REALLY want to pay more for this particular nanny?

 

[AndriaD]

You hear that sound?

That's the sound of increasing bureaucracy, which only grows and grows, like a monster.
And it's also the sound of increased overhead for the retailer to ensure compliance.

And those costs for compliance are passed on straight to you.
Did the good folks of Ohio REALLY want to pay more for this nanny to watch over them?

Heh... which is just one reason I'm currently reading a book called "Igniting the American Revolution".... looking for pointers... But it seems to me that the gov't is doing everything possible to provoke us to a new revolution.

Just keep ignoring The People, gov't... The People will eventually get rid of you.

Andria

 

[roxynoodle]

I just looked it up. It's a bit more complicated:

http://www.tax.ohio.gov/portals/0/sales_and_use/information_releases/st200401_archive.pdf

I've never been taxed on lemonade, iced tea, Gatorage or fruit punch. Interesting.

 

[Rossum]

Heh... which is just one reason I'm currently reading a book called "Igniting the American Revolution".... looking for pointers... But it seems to me that the gov't is doing everything possible to provoke us to a new revolution.

Just keep ignoring The People, gov't... The People will eventually get rid of you.

Sadly, there is a big contingent who doesn't feel that way.

 

[AndriaD]

Sadly, there is a big contingent who doesn't feel that way.

I know. The Reign of Terror came as a complete surprise to the French aristos, too.

Andria

 

[Rossum]

I know. The Reign of Terror came as a complete surprise to the French aristos, too.

I'm not talking about the "aristocrats". I'm mean the folks who've become utterly dependent on government, whether through outright handouts or via wage or salary. Taken together as a group, they now outnumber people who work full-time for private industry, which is one of the reasons I think we're past the point where things can be fixed by voting.

 

[Endor]

Ohio has applied sales tax to soda for as long as I can remember. There is no sales tax on food except for "carbonated drinks". So even if you go to McDonalds and buy a meal for $5.95, there will be a tax added if you get soda for your drink. If you get iced tea, lemonade, etc, no tax.

It is probably due to the CO2 emissions, which contributes to climate change (think of all the millions of outgassing soft drinks!). Actually, California should include them in their greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program.... hey, I might be on to something!

Err... perhaps I should keep my mouth shut.

 

[Endor]

I'm not talking about the "aristocrats". I'm mean the folks who've become utterly dependent on government, whether through outright handouts or via wage or salary. Taken together as a group, they now outnumber people who work full-time for private industry, which is one of the reasons I think we're past the point where things can be fixed by voting.

Rossum, you nailed it.