NYC's ban on suggary drinks overturned

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I prefer a calorie tax on junk food sales collected with all income going toward a tax subsidy on produce.

That would be awesome! And make the poor much healthier.

There's so much that can done with sales taxes without creating a government bureaucracy that could solve all of our nations problems.  Cash registers and bar code pricing is so advanced these days that these things could be collected and redistributed without any sort of meddling.  It's a shame there's no place on the political spectrum for it.

You'd need an operation to monitor tax collections, and an operation to determine who's eligible to get the money and how much. 

[angus]

I prefer a calorie tax on junk food sales collected with all income going toward a tax subsidy on produce.

you'd be popular in the midwest.  Nothing they like better than produce subsidies.  Especially those favoring corn and other ethanol-producing crops.

I'm not for any of it, myself.

[angus]

I prefer a calorie tax on junk food sales collected with all income going toward a tax subsidy on produce.

you'd be popular in the midwest.  Nothing they like better than produce subsidies.  Especially those favoring corn and other ethanol-producing crops.

I'm not for any of it, myself.

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I think you're parodying the perfect congressman.  Let's tax fructose-containing foods, then use the tax to subsidize the growers of the fructose, who will grow more fructose, sell more fructose, and we'll get more taxes on that fructose.

It's all circular, and all very clever.

I'm for letting folks grow what they want, smoke what they grow, and eat what they grow but don't smoke, all without any subsidies or consumption taxes.

I think I'm becoming a libertarian in my old age.  I think you are too. 

[King]

I prefer a calorie tax on junk food sales collected with all income going toward a tax subsidy on produce.

That would be awesome! And make the poor much healthier.

There's so much that can done with sales taxes without creating a government bureaucracy that could solve all of our nations problems.  Cash registers and bar code pricing is so advanced these days that these things could be collected and redistributed without any sort of meddling.  It's a shame there's no place on the political spectrum for it.

You'd need an operation to monitor tax collections, and an operation to determine who's eligible to get the money and how much. 

Yes, but that's not very difficult in today's retail environment.  As terrible comedians like to point out, cashiers don't make change anymore.  Monitoring tax collections may simply be observing that rates are set properly in registers.

New Mexico has a food exemption system in place for its sales tax, though it's very broad ("restaurant" goods are taxed and "raw" goods are not).  A lot of other states do, too.  There doesn't seem to be much oversight attached, yet when I go to Starbucks or Kroger, I know that at Starbucks a bottled water (raw) won't be taxed but a latte (prepared) will and while bananas won't at Kroger and bakery prepared donuts will be; and zero time is spent outside of the register's computer to figure it out.  And of course booze and smokes are taxed even more.  Adding a subsidy rate to raw produce would be very simple IMO.

Experimentation would be required to perfect it, but I definitely think it could work.

[King]

I prefer a calorie tax on junk food sales collected with all income going toward a tax subsidy on produce.

you'd be popular in the midwest.  Nothing they like better than produce subsidies.  Especially those favoring corn and other ethanol-producing crops.

I'm not for any of it, myself.

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I think you're parodying the perfect congressman.  Let's tax fructose-containing foods, then use the tax to subsidize the growers of the fructose, who will grow more fructose, sell more fructose, and we'll get more taxes on that fructose.

It's all circular, and all very clever.

I'm for letting folks grow what they want, smoke what they grow, and eat what they grow but don't smoke, all without any subsidies or consumption taxes.

I think I'm becoming a libertarian in my old age.  I think you are too. 

I'm not talking about subsidizing the farmers.  I'm talking about subsidizing the final good at the stores.

[angus]

you're breakin' my heart, King.

[AkSaber]

States (nor cities for this matter) do not have rights, as the 10th Amendment makes no mention of rights. It may seem like a semantic issue, but otherwise it sounds as though government officials have special rights instead of designated powers.

So power = government, and rights = people.

Makes sense.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The law was stupid, but I don't see a basis to strike it down.

True. There's no right to colas in the Constitution. The mayor was merely exercising his 10th Amendment right.

From the U.S. Constitution, there was no problem.  The problem was with the state constiution and separation of powers.  The precedent was Boreali v. Axelrod, 71 N.Y.2d 1, 517 N.E.2d 1350 (1987).

Goodness, is nobody reading my posts?

[Rooney]

Tingling is not making an argument for or against some sort of law regulating soda. He is saying that the inconsistency of the law undercuts the claim that it is a measure responding to an epidemic, which is the legal basis for the Board of Health's authority.   I think you also misunderstand the phrase "demonstrate legislative inaction," which is a descriptive argument about what legislators have or haven't done and is relevant to the case law.

Now his ruling makes more sense to me. Thank you.

[Nutmeg]

Republicans: Large sodas are unhealthy, so I choose not to drink them.
Democrats: Large sodas are unhealthy, I want them banned for everyone.

Then liberals claim they're for individual rights. Hypocrites.

And your position on marijuana...

One's illegal, the other's not, "King".

What?! That's the entire point of this discussion - which things that are bad for you (maybe) should be legal or not.