tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37886248.post416494828253458939..comments2024-03-22T00:35:19.082-07:00Comments on Casual Kitchen: Death of a Soda TaxDanielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02388302796031288076noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37886248.post-76271175497542963722010-07-11T17:47:44.513-07:002010-07-11T17:47:44.513-07:00Chris, is it really just about soda?
DKChris, is it really just about soda?<br /><br />DKDanielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02388302796031288076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37886248.post-50230641551183770272010-07-08T08:04:01.634-07:002010-07-08T08:04:01.634-07:00I think you take the "personal liberties aspe...I think you take the "personal liberties aspect" a little too seriously. It's SODA. So it costs a few cents more. So what? <br /><br />In our state the money was earmarked for disease and disability caused by smoking, rather than anti-smoking campaigns. Tax it, campaign against it - people will still smoke. <br /><br />I know a woman who pays $8.00 a pack for her cigs, is ridiculed and/or pressured to quit from colleagues, has to go out of the building in freezing weather to light up, pays a premium for life and health insurance due to her habit, but SHE STILL SMOKES.<br /><br />Also, regarding the tax on HCFS, yes it's federal, but you pay federal taxes in NY, don't you? Tobacco was subsidized for a long time, too, and isn't anymore. Everyone knows if you reduce the corn subsidy, prices for all the junk (think McDonalds) will go up; is that taking away "personal liberties" too?<br /><br />And you may be "horrified" at what actually happens to the money, but I am sure you'd happily loan that allowance kid some dough at 7%.Chrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37886248.post-15511890381281575762010-07-07T16:05:47.627-07:002010-07-07T16:05:47.627-07:00Jeff D, a soda tax does not equal nanny government...Jeff D, a soda tax does not equal nanny government. No one's telling you you can't drink soda. They're just telling you it'll cost a little more. :-)<br /><br />Milehimama, with you 100%. Let's cut the corn (and sugar) subsidies first.<br /><br />But then I have no problem with taxing soda. It would be an excise tax like that on other non-food items that are bad for you, like cigarettes and liquor. Soda is not a food, so it's fair game like Janet C says!<br /><br />And I don't think it much matters where the money goes. People drive less when gas prices go up, they smoke less when tobacco prices go up, and they drink less when liquor prices go up. Ultimately reducing these habits through higher excise taxes means lower costs to society. In the meantime, plug holes with the money.chacha1http://www.ombailamos.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37886248.post-78203340938241703292010-07-07T09:09:49.976-07:002010-07-07T09:09:49.976-07:00Janet, some great insights. Thank you.
This nex...Janet, some great insights. Thank you. <br /><br />This next comment gets a bit off topic and veers into finance-speak, so feel free to skip it: <br /><br />But what's so disturbing to me about the cigarette situation (and what makes me worry about whether we're just being "enablers" again by taxing soda) is the fact that most states spent <em>years</em> of the settlement revenues up front (by borrowing against future settlement payments), and then incurred further liabilities with that borrowed windfall.<br /><br />Here's an analogy: Let's say you promise your kid a $5 a week allowance. He then goes to the securities markets and uses your promise of 10 years of future allowance money to collateralize a loan for $1,300 at 7% interest ($1,300 is roughly the net present value of $5 a week for 10 years).<br /><br /><em>Then</em>, he uses that $1,300 to make a downpayment on a car, taking on an additional loan for the rest of the car's value at 6%. Now he's making payments at 7% for the "allowance loan" and 6% for the car. <br /><br />Boom: Suddenly, a huge windfall (that was supposed to pay for government efforts to get us to smoke less) gets turned into a double liability. Ouch. <br /><br />I get how the <em>idea</em> of taxing soda is, in theory, a good thing. But when I see prior examples of where theory meets practice, I'm just horrified by what happens to the money. <br /><br />DKDanielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02388302796031288076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37886248.post-66968876156883050172010-07-07T07:10:12.657-07:002010-07-07T07:10:12.657-07:00I think that the point of the tax should be to inc...I think that the point of the tax should be to increase revenue, period. Sorry. I don't necessarily think that the tax should pay for stuff directly related to the item being taxed.....BUT that so-called sin taxes SHOULD be for non-essential items. In otherwords, don't tax food. (But soda is fair game). It raises much-needed revenue, and if it discourages undesirable consumption, so much the better. This is why I favor a largely increased gasoline tax: we could all stand to cut back on our gasoline consumption, and if gas were very expensive consumers would start looking for alternatives to driving. But more importantly, it is a fair way to increase revenue.<br /><br />I have very mixed feelings about the cigarette settlement money, btw. As a health care provider, a part of me agrees that the money should have least gone to health care related projects. But my state (Nevada) used to mostly to set up a college scholarship program for state residents...a program that was available to all as long as they stayed in the state for college, regardless of need. As the mother of two sons who attended college here in Nevada, I received direct benefit from that program -- hence my conflicted position.Janet Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37886248.post-91678856606982269092010-07-07T06:25:19.549-07:002010-07-07T06:25:19.549-07:00Warren, I don't believe NYS made a distinction...Warren, I don't believe NYS made a distinction between sweetened soda of all types (diet, cane sugar/sucrose, HFCS) and sodas sweetened just with cane sugar/sucrose. Sometimes when you let the government make choices for you, they don't choose the choice you'd choose. <br /><br />Jeff: on this debate and on most food blogs, yes, I agree, most people are fixated on the soda itself, not on the personal liberties aspect of this debate. Hey, sometimes we give up freedoms by majority vote without even realizing it. That's democracy for you. Fortunately it didn't happen in this case. <br /><br />Milehimama: I hear you. I totally forgot to mention the irony of corn subsidies in this debate. I'll add, however, that corn subsidies are <em>federal</em> and predominantly for farmers in other states. This tax is New York State's effort to dig up more revenues. <br /><br />Sadly, the hilarious irony of subsidizing corn farmers and then turning around and taxing drinks containing HFCS was lost on many New York legislators. :)<br /><br />DKDanielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02388302796031288076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37886248.post-56578322172878014742010-07-06T21:22:12.959-07:002010-07-06T21:22:12.959-07:00We subsidize soda through corn subsidies (HFCS). ...We subsidize soda through corn subsidies (HFCS). It doesn't make any sense to tax it! Why not just withdraw the subsidy for HFCS? In effect, a soda tax will require taxes twice for the same product (once to pay the corn farmers, once to pay for whatever anti-obesity program they come up which is likely to be a boondoggle.)<br /><br />I live in TX and the schools have outlawed "foods of minimal nutritional value" in schools. Perhaps we could consider disqualifying foods of minimal nutritional value from the food stamp program? Right now you can buy Cheetos, Snickers, and Dr. Pepper with food stamps, but not a roasted rotisserie chicken. <br /><br />I would support that before I supported a soda tax.<br /><br />@Ivy<br />In my neck of the woods, you can get a 12-16 oz. frozen juice concentrate that reconstitutes to 48 or 64 oz. for around $1 to $1.50 - the same price as a 2L of Coke.Milehimama @ Mama Sayshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04755353355022539817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37886248.post-55177880917190306122010-07-06T16:01:10.152-07:002010-07-06T16:01:10.152-07:00Honestly, I haven't given it much thought--I d...Honestly, I haven't given it much thought--I don't drink soda (not a fan of the carbonation). <br /><br />What I'd like to see, even more than a soda tax, is more of an effort to make healthy food more affordable. Even if soda is taxed--you can get a 2 litre of soda for, what, 99 cents? Even with tax, how much will it go up? To 1.99? Still a bargain compared to $3 for a gallon of milk, or $4 plus for orange juice. Of course, that's not as catchy as soda tax.Ivyhttp://www.quirkyknitgirl.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37886248.post-2075848326154705192010-07-06T13:39:06.788-07:002010-07-06T13:39:06.788-07:00I don't think it's the government business...I don't think it's the government business to tell people what to put in their bodies, but I know I'm out there in that belief. <br /><br />You will also quickly see manufacturers figure out how to make beverages that do not meet the definition of the taxed beverage. This is what happened in Japan when they put a hefty levy on beer. The breweries there changed their formulas enough so that their beverages no longer met the legal definition of "beer" and sold them untaxed.Jeff Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02545175976763211339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37886248.post-48348676291128385672010-07-06T06:38:25.809-07:002010-07-06T06:38:25.809-07:00I am all for a soda tax.
What is wrong with cutt...I am all for a soda tax. <br /><br />What is wrong with cutting sugary soda out of the diet?<br /><br />I do draw the line on cane sugar soda, these are sublime!Warren Bobrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17069135151635584373noreply@blogger.com