06 Jan 17
Originally posted by robbie carrobieApparently there is:
Is there any evidence that taxing soft drinks in this way leads to less obesity? that is the rationale for the tax, is it not?
But, if the price goes up on foods that are not considered necessities, such as sugary drinks, people will buy fewer of them. Economists have determined that if the price of sugary drinks goes up 10 percent, consumption will go down by about 10-12 percent. This would reduce the number of calories from sugary beverages people drink each day, and may help with weight-loss. A tax of a penny-per-ounce, which is written into most of the bills introduced in state legislatures, would raise the cost of the average sugary drink by about 15-20 percent. This would be more than enough to reduce the amount that people buy.
http://www.obesityaction.org/educational-resources/resource-articles-2/nutrition/a-soda-tax-will-it-change-anything
06 Jan 17
Originally posted by quackquackThere are rational reasons for concentrating on this type of beverage:
I didn't use the word liberal -- the liberal argument would be that people should have maximum freedoms to choose what they ingest. And I did not even say that government can't make it more expensive through reasonable taxation of certain items. But it is inconsistent to allow people to freely purchase (without tax) pounds of sugar presumable so they c ...[text shortened]... e questioned as it is more likely government using its power to curry favor with certain groups.
Sugary drinks are the single biggest source of “added” sugars in our diet today, that is, sugars that do not occur naturally in foods. For example, 100 percent fruit juice naturally contains fructose (fruit sugar), but drinks like fruitades have extra sugars (such as high fructose corn syrup) added to them. There is too much added sugar in our diets. According to the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, more than half of it comes from drinking sodas, fruit drinks, sports drinks and other sugary beverages (see graph to the right).
These drinks have very little, if any, healthy ingredients in them and now there is strong scientific evidence that they are linked to weight gain, obesity, type 2 diabetes and other chronic diseases. Scientists think people gain weight because drinking high-calorie beverages does not make them feel full (but eating something high-calorie does). This means that drinking 240 calories in a 20-ounce soda will not keep you from eating 240 fewer calories. All those extra calories, day-after-day, begin to add up and turn into weight gain.
http://www.obesityaction.org/educational-resources/resource-articles-2/nutrition/a-soda-tax-will-it-change-anything
06 Jan 17
Originally posted by no1marauderIts very interesting indeed and it may be more economically viable for producers of softdrinks to reduce the artificial levels of sugar and make their drinks more healthy. It may also in long term reduce the financial burden of treating illnesses due to overweight.
Apparently there is:
But, if the price goes up on foods that are not considered necessities, such as sugary drinks, people will buy fewer of them. [b]Economists have determined that if the price of sugary drinks goes up 10 percent, consumption will go down by about 10-12 percent. This would reduce the number of calories from sugary beverages peop ...[text shortened]... ction.org/educational-resources/resource-articles-2/nutrition/a-soda-tax-will-it-change-anything[/b]
09 Jan 17
Originally posted by JS357No, my problem isn't with the tax, it's with the government deciding one type of sugar product (soda) is bad and punishing them with a tax. But ignoring other types of sugar products (candy, sugar itself) or other additives that are more harmful (salt). The problem with this scapegoating is that it does not fix the problem and simply result in more lobbying.
Yes, we should question it. I see you are freely doing so. It seems to me that your gripe isn't about freedom, it's about not having things go your way.
15 Jan 17
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo confusion twithead. It may have gone over your head, you need to be able to think in concepts, it's a method of thought that does not really mesh well with your mental capacities (as evidenced in the money measures wealth discussion), I will explain, it's really is quite clever.
"A fine is a tax for doing bad, a tax is a fine for doing good."
Huh? A tax is a fine for doing good? In what way? You seem to be totally confused about what is going on here.
And a fine is not a tax. It is a fine.
And yes, they are both backed by force and I never ever suggested otherwise.
The purpose of the quote is to hi-light the hypocrisy of so called sin taxes. The guvamint is trying to modify a citizens behavior by increasing the price of something, recent favorites have been tobacco and alcohol.
It occurred to me when in NZ. There are laws restricting trade for certain businesses at Easter, i.e. ctrl freaks and bureaurats forcing religion on possibly irreligious citizens. Some businesses chose to open anyway and just pay the fine if it came to that. So you can see here how the line between a tax and a fine is becoming blurred. Obviously the businesses that chose to open do not see what they are doing as wrong, simply the voluntary trade of value for value. They wanted to sell stuff, people wanted to buy stuff.
If the ctrl freaks and busybodies are trying to dissuade people from trading at Easter, consuming alcohol and tobacco or (as per the example in this thread) sugary drinks by taxing/fining people why are they taxing/fining people for doing good things like going to work, earning a living to support a family, buying food, almost everything they do is taxed/fined.
So until the advocates of sin taxes start talking about removing taxes for when people do good things, it's just so much more hypocrisy.
That is the purpose of the quote:
"A tax is a fine for doing good, a fine is a tax for doing bad"
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
15 Jan 17
Originally posted by quackquackOh, so because taxing candy doesn't have political traction, we shouldn't work on taxing a sugary product that does have political traction7.
No, my problem isn't with the tax, it's with the government deciding one type of sugar product (soda) is bad and punishing them with a tax. But ignoring other types of sugar products (candy, sugar itself) or other additives that are more harmful (salt). The problem with this scapegoating is that it does not fix the problem and simply result in more lobbying.
That's the trouble with political idealists (which you're not).
15 Jan 17
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaThen you'll have no problem explaining it. Lets see how you do. Starting with an insult suggests you don't have much confidence.
No confusion twithead. It may have gone over your head,
you need to be able to think in concepts, it's a method of thought that does not really mesh well with your mental capacities (as evidenced in the money measures wealth discussion),
Hilarious.
It occurred to me when in NZ. There are laws restricting trade for certain businesses at Easter, i.e. ctrl freaks and bureaurats forcing religion on possibly irreligious citizens. Some businesses chose to open anyway and just pay the fine if it came to that. So you can see here how the line between a tax and a fine is becoming blurred.
No, actually, I can't. I know that they can operate in similar fashion in some cases (and always have done, this is nothing new). I disagree that 'the line is becoming blurred'.
Obviously the businesses that chose to open do not see what they are doing as wrong,
No, they see it as profitable. That doesn't mean they don't know its wrong. As with Wall Street, sometimes fines are too small to be effective. That doesn't mean they are taxes or that the people getting fined do not know they are wrong.
If the ctrl freaks and busybodies are trying to dissuade people from trading at Easter, consuming alcohol and tobacco or (as per the example in this thread) sugary drinks by taxing/fining people why are they taxing/fining people for doing good things like going to work, earning a living to support a family, buying food, almost everything they do is taxed/fined.
Taxes have two functions:
1. They support the government.
2. They can be used to affect behaviour.
Do not confuse the two purposes and try to lump 1. into 2. and pretend that 1. is somehow punishing people.
So until the advocates of sin taxes start talking about removing taxes for when people do good things, it's just so much more hypocrisy.
No, it isn't.
And you might have heard of subsidies.
That is the purpose of the quote:
"A tax is a fine for doing good, a fine is a tax for doing bad"
And it remains a stupid (and false) quote.
Interestingly nothing you said suggested that 'A tax is a fine for doing good' makes any sense whatsoever.
15 Jan 17
In case you didn't realise, I do know what you were trying to say:
1. Some people accept fines and treat them like a tax.
2. Therefore taxes are fines.
3. All taxes are fines.
4. All people pay tax even when they are doing good.
5. Taxes are fines for doing good.
Obviously the logic is unsound.
15 Jan 17
Originally posted by no1marauderIf it saves just one life!
Apparently there is:
But, if the price goes up on foods that are not considered necessities, such as sugary drinks, people will buy fewer of them. [b]Economists have determined that if the price of sugary drinks goes up 10 percent, consumption will go down by about 10-12 percent. This would reduce the number of calories from sugary beverages peop ...[text shortened]... ction.org/educational-resources/resource-articles-2/nutrition/a-soda-tax-will-it-change-anything[/b]
25 Jan 17
5 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadTo explain:" A tax is a fine for doing good, a fine is a tax for doing bad."
Then you'll have no problem explaining it. Lets see how you do. Starting with an insult suggests you don't have much confidence.
You do something bad you're facing; in one hand is the big stick of state force, the other hand...grasping for your money.
You do something good you're facing; in one hand is the big stick of state force, the other hand...grasping for your money.
Happy to expand for these for those with no imagination.
BTW I assume by 'insult' you mean the misspelling of your name. That's not lack of confidence, that's giving you an easy out, you're welcome.