Of Tea Party folks and Racial Slurs...

[quote name='Msut77']Ok, first off he is only been in a bit over a year.

Sorry he hasn't waved his magic deficit reduction wand amidst the worst economic times in generations and a toxic congress.

Like Wanda Sykes said "The man went to Harvard not Hogwarts".

Also, I don't remember "medical tort reform" being a plank of his election campaign (especially considering the fact it is more myth than fix) if anyone has a right to be pissed about what actually passed it is liberals.

You have the right to be as pissed as you wish to be, but you should recognize the fact being disappointed for your stated reasons isn't rational.[/QUOTE]

how about closing gitmo? How about bringing the troops home? Is he caving to "fearmongoring"? Is he a liar? Or is it possible that Obama knows more now than he knew a year ago?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']if you drink one can of soda a day, you're not 'paying through the nose' for shit - even if it is taxed at a higher rate.

If you drink 365 cans of soda a year, you as an individual buy 30.4 12-packs per year. At a price of $4.50 per 12-pack, if the tax is 18%, you're paying an extra $24.64 per year in taxes on sodas.

You'd be paying out $2.05 more in taxes per month.

"through the nose." lol.[/QUOTE]

Multiply that for a family of four. $8.20/month, or, about, $100/year extra in taxes.
What could you do with an extra $100 in your wallet?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Multiply that for a family of four. $8.20/month, or, about, $100/year extra in taxes.
What could you do with an extra $100 in your wallet?[/QUOTE]
Buy pizza to go with the soda?

Considering that the rise in sugared beverages has neatly paralleled the rise in obesity and related diseases, how is this any different from a tax on cigarettes to help pay for the treatment of nicotine related illnesses?
 
[quote name='Knoell']you mean corn?

Do you really think they won't switch back to sugar if it is cheaper after the tax? Is sugar going to solve the obesity problem? Why don't we educate rather than ban things or heavily tax things. If Im a healthy person and I want to drink a mountain dew one day, or even a juice, why should I have to pay through the nose for it? because some other sap made the decision to drink a twelve pack a day?

Doesn't seem fair to the company or me who will get the cost passed down to, but hey if its "good for the whole of the country", why the heck not? Ive got a better idea, why doesn't the government make ration packs for us to eat, it would be alot cheaper than those evil corporations are making us pay, and we will save a lot of money in the process! Not to mention it would be so much healthier for us.[/QUOTE]

So, you're in favor of corporate welfare?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']if you drink one can of soda a day, you're not 'paying through the nose' for shit - even if it is taxed at a higher rate.

If you drink 365 cans of soda a year, you as an individual buy 30.4 12-packs per year. At a price of $4.50 per 12-pack, if the tax is 18%, you're paying an extra $24.64 per year in taxes on sodas.

You'd be paying out $2.05 more in taxes per month.

"through the nose." lol.[/QUOTE]

Yep like UncleBob said multiply that by a family of four but in addition the family switches the local supermarket brand "shasta" comes to mind if any of you have ever heard of it. So instead of purchasing a $5.30 tax included dollar coca cola twelve pack that'll last 3 days in a family of four they buy the $4.13 dollar store brand. Oops say goodbye to dads job as the driver, or supervisor at coca cola.

But I know what you are going say, "these companies can afford to take another cut in profits instead of passing it to customers, or employees" right?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Yep like UncleBob said multiply that by a family of four but in addition the family switches the local supermarket brand "shasta" comes to mind if any of you have ever heard of it. So instead of purchasing a $5.30 tax included dollar coca cola twelve pack that'll last 3 days in a family of four they buy the $4.13 dollar store brand. Oops say goodbye to dads job as the driver, or supervisor at coca cola.

But I know what you are going say, "these companies can afford to take another cut in profits instead of passing it to customers, or employees" right?[/QUOTE]

Now, to be fair, if the store brand is able to control their costs better than Coke or Pepsi, then good for them. Also, if everyone switches over to Faygo or whatnot, then, while Coke or Pepsi might be terminating employees, Faygo is going to be hiring.
 
[quote name='Quillion']Buy pizza to go with the soda?

Considering that the rise in sugared beverages has neatly paralleled the rise in obesity and related diseases, how is this any different from a tax on cigarettes to help pay for the treatment of nicotine related illnesses?[/QUOTE]

because any type of cigarrete is bad for you, just having one does damage to your lungs, and gets you addicted. Does having one mountain dew have the same effect?
 
You are both right, Coca Cola is not entitled to their market share, but should a tax decide whether or not coca cola is set at the right price? If this tax wasnt passed would coca cola still have their market share?
 
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']did the government tax milkmen out of existence?[/QUOTE]

Did the modern age take the milkman out of business?

You can still get milk delivered in lots of places, but it seems like more of a novelty/nostalgia thing.

There were several factors that killed off home delivery:

-Better refrigeration (like insulated road tankers) and better distribution systems (like the interstate highways) led to larger dairies.

-Larger dairies meant economies of scale, lowering prices and cutting into the profits of the delivery services. The milkmen would have to deliver to more homes to make the same money.

-At the same time, better refrigeration, better distribution, and cheaper prices milk more ubiquitous, available at more places, and less dependent on delivery.

-Milkmen didn't just deliver milk, they picked up the empty glass bottles for washing and re-use. The advent of cheap, disposable plastic containers meant that there were no longer bottles that needed to be picked up by the delivery service.

I stole that from another forum
 
^ This is largely correct. And a shame, too. We buy our milk from a local dairy ($3/half gallon, we're so fucking bourgeoisie) and I can't even *stomach* "Wal-Mart Milk" anymore. It's seriously fucking disgusting.

[quote name='Knoell']You are both right, Coca Cola is not entitled to their market share, but should a tax decide whether or not coca cola is set at the right price? If this tax wasnt passed would coca cola still have their market share?[/QUOTE]

if we had corn subsidies would they still have their marketshare?
 
Knoell, it is likely a certain percentage of people will switch to store brands. But there will also be people who will switch to the diet alternatives or seltzer.
 
[quote name='Knoell']because any type of cigarrete is bad for you, just having one does damage to your lungs, and gets you addicted. Does having one mountain dew have the same effect?[/QUOTE]
Having one cigarette is just as likely to give you cancer as one Mountain Dew is likely to give you diabetes.

It's possible that one has a larger deleterious effect on health than the other, but both have the said effect. "Vice" taxes have two results, decreasing the instances of said behaviors while increasing the funding to combat the consequences of the behavior. Secondarily, I can't think of a more responsible proposition than having the people who add cost to the system take a larger part of the burden paying that cost.
 
Shasta is useful if you buy the 6 oz cans, shake em and then plink them with a .22.

My wife buys from a local dairy because she doesn't want our daughters to get boobs at age 9.

Nobody wants to comment on "milkmen just don't deliver the milk?"
 
Doesn't the "store brand" also contain these taxes?

So what's the difference? if every soda goes up a quarter, if a person really likes it, they aren't going to quit. A person enjoying one can here and there still will no matter what.

It's like cigarettes, I remember when they were $2 per pack, now it's price tripled and we're finally seeing the decrease while providing more support to ween off of it and the cost of the healthcare.

And I like that phrase... Vice Tax.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Knoell, it is likely a certain percentage of people will switch to store brands. But there will also be people who will switch to the diet alternatives or seltzer.[/QUOTE]

Do you really think so? I don't. The people who are being most harmed by high sugar or HFCS intake are not going to sweat a dollar. I firmly believe in all health situations it has to be someones personal educated choice to be a more healthy person. I can use me as an example. I drank bottle after bottle of mountain dew, every day for like 10 years. I never got sick of the taste for some reason. So after a few expensive trips to the dentist, I kept drinking mountain dew, because you know it tasted good. The sale price steadily climbed from 5 six packs for $10 dollars to 4 six-packs for $10 dollars to 4 six-packs for $12 dollars to finally 3 six-packs for $10 dollars. The price went from $2.00 a six-pack to nearly $3.33 and I didnt flinch when purchasing. (I almost switched brands but noone else carries the six packs that I like).

The only thing that made me choose is my own concious decision after the last visit to the dentist that I want to put my health and my teeth ahead of this stuff and I havent drank mountain dew or any drink with sugar or HFCS since March.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Knoell, yay or nay on that corporate welfare?[/QUOTE]

You have to be more specific I have no idea what you are talking about.
 
[quote name='Quillion']Having one cigarette is just as likely to give you cancer as one Mountain Dew is likely to give you diabetes.

It's possible that one has a larger deleterious effect on health than the other, but both have the said effect. "Vice" taxes have two results, decreasing the instances of said behaviors while increasing the funding to combat the consequences of the behavior. Secondarily, I can't think of a more responsible proposition than having the people who add cost to the system take a larger part of the burden paying that cost.[/QUOTE]

Ok well everything can cause some sort of illness if eaten too much of. Moderation is the key, not banning or taxing everything. Wheres the tax on cake, or candy, or burger king, or pie, or pizza, or chocolate milk, apple juice, all of this stuff can be bad for you if eaten in excess as well. Case in point is the new studies that organic foods could be bad for you too.

The government has to leave us with some personal responsibility for ourselves.
 
[quote name='xycury']Doesn't the "store brand" also contain these taxes?

So what's the difference? if every soda goes up a quarter, if a person really likes it, they aren't going to quit. A person enjoying one can here and there still will no matter what.

It's like cigarettes, I remember when they were $2 per pack, now it's price tripled and we're finally seeing the decrease while providing more support to ween off of it and the cost of the healthcare.

And I like that phrase... Vice Tax.[/QUOTE]

Is it the governments job to "ween" anyone off of mountain dew though? You are working off of a conclusion that "if we only raised this tax it would solve this problem" when in reality it wont. I have a feeling that obese people have far worse eating habits than just drinking sugary drinks.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Do you really think so?[/quote]

Yes.

I don't.
Click to expand...

Don't care.

You may honestly believe that not a single person will switch to seltzer or a diet version but it is not as if that means anything.
 
[quote name='Knoell']You have to be more specific I have no idea what you are talking about.[/QUOTE]

Are you in favor of the subsidies for corn that allow business to produce HFCS cheaper?

If you need further explanation, I can't help you because you're being too ...
http://cltad.arts.ac.uk/groups/camberwellmateriallibrary/wiki/f347a/images/5bd87.jpg

5bd87.jpg
 
[quote name='Knoell']Is it the governments job to "ween" anyone off of mountain dew though? You are working off of a conclusion that "if we only raised this tax it would solve this problem" when in reality it wont. I have a feeling that obese people have far worse eating habits than just drinking sugary drinks.[/QUOTE]

Sugary drinks are a big part of the problem because they're ubiquitous, contain a lot of calories along with no nutritional value and they don't fill you up (so it's easy to drink a lot of them). A can of soda with each meal (3) would provide over 20% of the average adult's recommended daily caloric intake. And that's not an unusual occurrence.

But anyway, taxing what causes the problem would discourage people from doing it while raising money to be used to fight the problem that it causes, so it seems to make sense. It doesn't have to eliminate the problem.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Are you in favor of the subsidies for corn that allow business to produce HFCS cheaper?

If you need further explanation, I can't help you because you're being too ...
http://cltad.arts.ac.uk/groups/camberwellmateriallibrary/wiki/f347a/images/5bd87.jpg

[/QUOTE]

Sure I am, I don't believe the subsidies are in place solely to give businesses a discount to make HFCS cheaper.

http://www.grist.org/article/Farm-subsidies-bitter-and-sweet

The study done shows that HFCS only amounts to 3.5% of total cost of production.

"Today, HFCS represents just 3.5% of the total cost of soft drink manufacturing as measured by the value of shipments. Meanwhile, the corn content of HFCS represents only 1.6% of this value. Thus, the impact of corn prices on the final retail price of a food product is not as high as one might think."
 
[quote name='SpazX']Sugary drinks are a big part of the problem because they're ubiquitous, contain a lot of calories along with no nutritional value and they don't fill you up (so it's easy to drink a lot of them). A can of soda with each meal (3) would provide over 20% of the average adult's recommended daily caloric intake. And that's not an unusual occurrence.

But anyway, taxing what causes the problem would discourage people from doing it while raising money to be used to fight the problem that it causes, so it seems to make sense. It doesn't have to eliminate the problem.[/QUOTE]

So what you are saying is, take the decision away from the consumer, the government knows whats good for us, and can use our money to fix it but not really because they need it for something else.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/weekinreview/18rampell.html
 
[quote name='Knoell']Sure I am, I don't believe the subsidies are in place solely to give businesses a discount to make HFCS cheaper.

http://www.grist.org/article/Farm-subsidies-bitter-and-sweet

The study done shows that HFCS only amounts to 3.5% of total cost of production.

"Today, HFCS represents just 3.5% of the total cost of soft drink manufacturing as measured by the value of shipments. Meanwhile, the corn content of HFCS represents only 1.6% of this value. Thus, the impact of corn prices on the final retail price of a food product is not as high as one might think."[/QUOTE]

That's not actually the important part, but rather its comparison to sugar. I agree with the author though, that maybe subsidies should be used for healthier things rather than being eliminated altogether, which would make healthier products cheaper.

[quote name='Knoell']So what you are saying is, take the decision away from the consumer, the government knows whats good for us, and can use our money to fix it but not really because they need it for something else.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/weekinreview/18rampell.html[/QUOTE]

Take the decision away from the producers, which market cheap sugary things that people are biologically inclined to consume. Making them more expensive doesn't keep people from buying them, it simply adds to the price the consequences of consuming them. Here is where speed would say something about externalities.
 
[quote name='Knoell']So what you are saying is, take the decision away from the consumer, the government knows whats good for us, and can use our money to fix it but not really because they need it for something else.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/weekinreview/18rampell.html[/QUOTE]
Decision was never the consumers. It was cheaper and increased the bottom line for producers so they switched, despite protests at the time. I love me my coke, but my buck twenty five buys me only a coke and no say in what the company uses to sweeten its delectable poison.
 
[quote name='Knoell']So what you are saying is, take the decision away from the consumer, the government knows whats good for us, and can use our money to fix it but not really because they need it for something else.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/weekinreview/18rampell.html[/QUOTE]
No, not at all. Try not to be so obtuse.

What we're saying is that if a behavior has a negative side effect and adds to the costs for the rest of society, that the costs in question should be paid disproportionally by the people who engaged in the behaviors.

Too many times, personal responsibility is used as a buzzword meaning "I can handle it, so they should learn to." It's used as an weasel statement by people who think everyone else is weak or inferior, or just can't control themselves. Personal responsibility includes carrying the burden of the costs you incur. The people who consume the most soda will pay the most tax.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Sure I am, I don't believe the subsidies are in place solely to give businesses a discount to make HFCS cheaper.[/QUOTE]

I'm glad you like some people to receive welfare.

Reviewing your link, it appears your corporate welfare helps lower the cost of beef, pork and poultry.

Do you know what happens when you eat more meat and less vegetables?
 
I couldnt handle mountain dew, I drank it for many many years. I love the taste of it and could have a bottle right now. However I committed myself to not drink it for my own health, why do you all feel US citizens arent able to do this anymore and the government should step in? Adult obesity is closely related to childhood obesity, so isnt it a sign of the half assed parenting rather than a companies fault for selling it? Its not like we have to drink sugary drinks because we have no other choice. There are thousands of different options that dont have any sugar of HFCS that arent as expensive.

Milk is a healthy alternative with no HFCS. Even milk has the danger of drinking too much because of the fat content. Should we tax whole milk or cut milk subsidies because it is unhealthy as well?
 
[quote name='Knoell']I couldnt handle mountain dew, I drank it for many many years. I love the taste of it and could have a bottle right now. However I committed myself to not drink it for my own health, why do you all feel US citizens arent able to do this anymore and the government should step in? Adult obesity is closely related to childhood obesity, so isnt it a sign of the half assed parenting rather than a companies fault for selling it? Its not like we have to drink sugary drinks because we have no other choice. There are thousands of different options that dont have any sugar of HFCS that arent as expensive.

Milk is a healthy alternative with no HFCS. Even milk has the danger of drinking too much because of the fat content. Should we tax whole milk or cut milk subsidies because it is unhealthy as well?[/QUOTE]

Yes.

Do you know what happens when you eat more meat and less vegetables?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I'm glad you like some people to receive welfare.

Reviewing your link, it appears your corporate welfare helps lower the cost of beef, pork and poultry.

Do you know what happens when you eat more meat and less vegetables?[/QUOTE]

I know what happens in my diet because I am well informed and educated on the subject which is what I think the government should focus on rather than blindly taxing random products they think may be unhealthy.

Do you understand that too much of anything is unhealthy for you?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Its not like we have to drink sugary drinks because we have no other choice. There are thousands of different options that dont have any sugar of HFCS that arent as expensive.[/QUOTE]

And it will remain so, only slightly more cheap in comparison.

[quote name='Knoell']I know what happens in my diet because I am well informed and educated on the subject which is what I think the government should focus on rather than blindly taxing random products they think may be unhealthy.[/QUOTE]

Blindly taxing random products indeed.

[quote name='Knoell']Do you understand that too much of anything is unhealthy for you?[/QUOTE]

A lot of water will kill you, a little bit of cyanide will kill you. I believe these things are equal.
 
[quote name='SpazX']
And it will remain so, only slightly more cheap in comparison.

A lot of water will kill you, a little bit of cyanide will kill you. I believe these things are equal.[/QUOTE]

Again it isnt the governments job to tell us what to eat or drink through taxes. How is that at all constitutional?

obviously cyanide is more deadly than water, but don't be ridiculous. Too much of any nutrient is bad for you.

Next time you are at the store look at everything you see. It all has either HFCS or sugar in it. If HFCS is so terrible for you and it is causing all of these problems directly why not just ban it?
 
Corn lobby says hi.

[quote name='Knoell']Again it isnt the governments job to tell us what to eat or drink through taxes. How is that at all constitutional?[/QUOTE]

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 of the Constitution.

fuck man, why do we always have to do your research for you?
 
[quote name='Knoell']obviously cyanide is more deadly than water, but don't be ridiculous. Too much of any nutrient is bad for you.[/quote]

I would never think to challenge you in ridiculousness. Can we agree that some things are worse than other things?

[quote name='Knoell']Next time you are at the store look at everything you see. It all has either HFCS or sugar in it. If HFCS is so terrible for you and it is causing all of these problems directly why not just ban it?[/QUOTE]

This isn't answered by what I've already posted?
 
[quote name='IRHari']Corn lobby says hi.



Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 of the Constitution.

fuck man, why do we always have to do your research for you?[/QUOTE]
Did you read the whole section or just the title? Which one of these says we can tax certain ingredients?
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I would never think to challenge you in ridiculousness. Can we agree that some things are worse than other things?



This isn't answered by what I've already posted?[/QUOTE]

No, if HFCS is so bad for us on its own and is the cause of so many health issues, why not ban it?
 
Knoell, if it is bad for the government to tax foods that will increase health care costs, is it good for the government to subsidize the manufacture of foods that will increase health care costs?
 
[quote name='Knoell']No, if HFCS is so bad for us on its own and is the cause of so many health issues, why not ban it?[/QUOTE]
How about incrementalism?

Instead of a ban, how about we stop subsidizing it?
 
[quote name='Knoell']No, if HFCS is so bad for us on its own and is the cause of so many health issues, why not ban it?[/QUOTE]

You're the one complaining about freedom. Taxing something rather than banning it lets people make their own decision while building the costs of that decision (some at least) into the price.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Why are we acting like soda is some sort of dietary staple that families must have?[/QUOTE]

Let's put an 18% tax on everything that isn't a necessity of life. At least then, it's equal across the board.

For those who are okay with the government playing the Consumption Police via taxes, do you also support ISPs charging differently for different types of content and such?
 
Net Neutrality is not comparable, because it implies that ISPs - middle men - start handling who can see what and when and for how much. What's worse is that they fly this under the banner of "we're losing out on costs due to pirates running torrents" and other malarky bullshit.

That's not the same as the government imposing "sin" taxes, both because taxes imply payment toward the government and because there's no competing agencies regulating various levels of taxes on products.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Why are we acting like soda is some sort of dietary staple that families must have?[/QUOTE]

juice, soda, anything that is sugary or has HFCS. Sure this isnt a staple but should we tax tvs at 25% because they waste time? What about cars? Should we have to pay a tax on cars because they are bad for the environment? We should probably tax bath tubs because they kill babies too, maybe then people will think twice before buying that damn tub. (and by tax I mean raise the tax that already exists)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top