Philly SHOCKED that new large soda tax is hurting consumers
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:41:54 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Philly SHOCKED that new large soda tax is hurting consumers
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Philly SHOCKED that new large soda tax is hurting consumers  (Read 2116 times)
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,222
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: January 05, 2017, 08:16:16 PM »


Yes it is. One of the main reason health care costs are so high is all of the needlessly unhealthy people.
Logged
JJC
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 446


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: January 05, 2017, 08:28:11 PM »


You don't get to tell people what is or isn't good for them. Enjoying losing in 2020 for the same reasons you lost in 2016 Smiley
Logged
ApatheticAustrian
ApathicAustrian
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,603
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: January 05, 2017, 08:29:54 PM »

i would have thought, like with nicotine taxes, this is...eh.....the goal?
Logged
Green Line
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,584
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: January 05, 2017, 08:33:53 PM »

I support.  Good!
Logged
JJC
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 446


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: January 05, 2017, 08:44:19 PM »

We're not changing them to our liking. We're changing them into a healthier version of themselves. Drinking less soda will bring them happiness, and they just don't know it. Alcohol is taxed generally and tanning beds ought to be as well.

Jesus Christ. Do you actually believe in this garbage? Were you taught how to be little fascists in school? Good lord.

It's none of your business what choices other people make and you don't know what's good for someone else. And those who think they do are intolerant, stupid scumbags.

You know what? Having a healthy relationship with God is good for the soul. People who reject religion are hurting themselves and don't know it. Let's find some way to tax them into making the *right* choice in accepting the Cristian faith.

It's the right thing to do, right? But somehow I don't think you would support that. Weird. It's almost like you want to use legislation to force people to be a certain way - your way - yet would balk if someone decided that you should make changes to be like them.

"I hate your lifestyle and think you should be forced to change because you are too stupid to realize how bad it is for you" #CTL-Left
Logged
JJC
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 446


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: January 05, 2017, 08:46:18 PM »

i would have thought, like with nicotine taxes, this is...eh.....the goal?

Imposing lifestyle choices on people like NAZI's?

Yes, I suppose they are meeting that goal.
Logged
Green Line
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,584
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: January 05, 2017, 08:48:11 PM »

We're not changing them to our liking. We're changing them into a healthier version of themselves. Drinking less soda will bring them happiness, and they just don't know it. Alcohol is taxed generally and tanning beds ought to be as well.

Jesus Christ. Do you actually believe in this garbage? Were you taught how to be little fascists in school? Good lord.

It's none of your business what choices other people make and you don't know what's good for someone else. And those who think they do are intolerant, stupid scumbags.

You know what? Having a healthy relationship with God is good for the soul. People who reject religion are hurting themselves and don't know it. Let's find some way to tax them into making the *right* choice in accepting the Cristian faith.

It's the right thing to do, right? But somehow I don't think you would support that. Weird. It's almost like you want to use legislation to force people to be a certain way - your way - yet would balk if someone decided that you should make changes to be like them.

"I hate your lifestyle and think you should be forced to change because you are too stupid to realize how bad it is for you" #CTL-Left

Yeah we do actually.  Pop is bad for you.  Everyone knows that.  God knows it too, Jesus never drank it.
Logged
SATW
SunriseAroundTheWorld
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,463
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: January 05, 2017, 08:56:39 PM »

I find it funny that the collectivists are accusing the individualists of being triggered when it is the former group that is offended by the very idea that people should be allowed to make their own bad decisions.

You don't get to sit here and lecture people about how you think you know what is better for others. Again, that is why Trump won in the first place. Stop treating everyone as if you are the intelligent ones and they are the stupid ones. That type of intellectual arrogance is devastating for democracy and for freedom.


FTR: I have virtually cease drinking soda as not drinking it has helped me keep my sugar low (thankfully, I haven't had a serious health care, but I've had a few incidents in the past where it was running a little high) I also stopped eating pork for religious and health reasons and also cut down on my beef intake over the past 2 years (though, its gone up a bit since November). I made these decisions on my own, because I am free to make those decisions.

However, I still drink a lot alcohol, still eat a crapload of unhealthy foods  and have gained a ton of weight. are you going to try and force me to change those behaviors?  If your answer is yes then you truly think you are on a higher plateau then us "little people" and don't believe in any sort of freedom in any real sense of the term.

Logged
Green Line
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,584
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: January 05, 2017, 08:59:06 PM »

I find it funny that the collectivists are accusing the individualists of being triggered when it is the former group that is offended by the very idea that people should be allowed to make their own bad decisions.

You don't get to sit here and lecture people about how you think you know what is better for others. Again, that is why Trump won in the first place. Stop treating everyone as if you are the intelligent ones and they are the stupid ones. That type of intellectual arrogance is devastating for democracy and for freedom.


FTR: I have virtually cease drinking soda as not drinking it has helped me keep my sugar low (thankfully, I haven't had a serious health care, but I've had a few incidents in the past where it was running a little high) I also stopped eating pork for religious and health reasons and also cut down on my beef intake over the past 2 years (though, its gone up a bit since November). I made these decisions on my own, because I am free to make those decisions.

However, I still drink a lot alcohol, still eat a crapload of unhealthy foods  and have gained a ton of weight. are you going to try and force me to change those behaviors?  If your answer is yes then you truly think you are on a higher plateau then us "little people" and don't believe in any sort of freedom in any real sense of the term.



YEah but it's just a tax.  We tax cigarettes because of the horrible effects they have on people, and really pop is almost just as bad if you drink too much of it.  It's not like they're banning it, just making it a little more expensive.
Logged
SATW
SunriseAroundTheWorld
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,463
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: January 05, 2017, 09:27:39 PM »

I'm against all luxury/sin/"big brother loves you" taxes.
Logged
Green Line
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,584
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: January 05, 2017, 09:31:03 PM »

But smoking rates have gone way down.  That's a good thing.  Less people will die.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: January 05, 2017, 09:43:07 PM »

Yes, with these sort of questions there are two parallel questions:

1) philosophically, is it moral for a government to coerce consumers towards or against one product or another?
2) on a utilitarian basis, will it work to reduce soda consumption to a level that will see a significant rise in health metrics?

Obviously, there is a line to be drawn somewhere, and every person has to chose a rather arbitrary point where the trade-off between public health and restrictions on the individual is easiest to burden. I tend to think as fizzy drinks are targeted at children (who have less agency than adults)  that taxes on them are relatively fair game. Hobbling childhood obesity is an important goal, and if sodas are a large contributing factor to childhood obesity then a tax would have more benefits than drawbacks.
Logged
Sprouts Farmers Market ✘
Sprouts
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,751
Italy


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: 1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: January 05, 2017, 09:49:06 PM »
« Edited: January 05, 2017, 09:52:18 PM by Sprouts Farmers Market ✘ »

We're not changing them to our liking. We're changing them into a healthier version of themselves. Drinking less soda will bring them happiness, and they just don't know it. Alcohol is taxed generally and tanning beds ought to be as well.

Jesus Christ. Do you actually believe in this garbage? Were you taught how to be little fascists in school? Good lord.

It's none of your business what choices other people make and you don't know what's good for someone else. And those who think they do are intolerant, stupid scumbags.

You know what? Having a healthy relationship with God is good for the soul. People who reject religion are hurting themselves and don't know it. Let's find some way to tax them into making the *right* choice in accepting the Cristian faith.

It's the right thing to do, right? But somehow I don't think you would support that. Weird. It's almost like you want to use legislation to force people to be a certain way - your way - yet would balk if someone decided that you should make changes to be like them.

"I hate your lifestyle and think you should be forced to change because you are too stupid to realize how bad it is for you" #CTL-Left

I would love if church was in effect mandatory for everyone, but there's a time and place for everything Sad America is too full of degenerates for that to go over well. They'd just throw a fuss and ruin it for the rest of us. Perhaps if the portion of income supposed to be given to the Church was a full tax credit (and increase marginal tax rates by that much)...just playing around here...but better? Smiley I'm sure the libs would find some way to ruin it unfortunately.

Also, please do not say the Lord's name in disgust.
Logged
SATW
SunriseAroundTheWorld
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,463
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: January 05, 2017, 09:55:15 PM »

But smoking rates have gone way down.  That's a good thing.  Less people will die.

Smoking rates have (thankfully) gone down for many difference reasons. I don't know how much a luxury tax has impacted that, I'd say it's minimal.

Many people who are dependent on the nicotine addiction will just continue to buy cigarettes at the higher price, or worse of all, buy cigarettes Eric Garner-style (one a piece) where one could lace those street-sold cigarettes with who knows what.

I think the public health campaigns, the ban on cigarette deceptive advertising and the negative portrayal of cigarette use in movies (usually only unsavory characters in films now have cigarettes) have all done more to lower cigarette use.

What I find funny is that that the same people who argue against the drug war and for marijuana legalization want to use the same tactics they oppose in those cases for sodas and other items.
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,066


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: January 05, 2017, 09:59:22 PM »

The tax should raise the price of unhealthy food, disincentivising consumers from buying it, and be unused to subsidise fruit and vegetables,  making those cheaper and incentivesing people to buy those instead. Duh.
Logged
SATW
SunriseAroundTheWorld
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,463
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: January 05, 2017, 10:02:21 PM »

The tax should raise the price of unhealthy food, disincentivising consumers from buying it, and be unused to subsidise fruit and vegetables,  making those cheaper and incentivesing people to buy those instead. Duh.

Except that's not how economics works and that has yet to ever actually happen. Unless you vastly spike the prices of certain products, in which case refer to the first part of my statement about economics.
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,063
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: January 05, 2017, 10:28:07 PM »

Well, I happen to like sugary drinks, of both the soda variety and the latte variety. Tongue
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: January 05, 2017, 11:05:14 PM »


It is when we have to pay for the added health cost. Internalize the externality.
Yes, that contradicts what I said earlier, but it's just upsetting about how regressive it is.

If we try to tax away fat or unhealthy people, I am of the opinion that we are tip toeing toward eugenic thought.

Not really, no.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: January 06, 2017, 01:27:25 AM »

The interesting question is, if someone thinks that "X is bad for one's health" necessarily means "X should be taxed (or such should be considered)," then aren't we only a hop skip and a jump away logically from saying "X should be banned altogether"?  This is one of my biggest problems with collectivist thinking when it comes to soda, junk food, etc. 
Logged
Shameless Lefty Hack
Chickenhawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,178


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: January 06, 2017, 02:40:35 AM »
« Edited: January 06, 2017, 02:44:11 AM by Chickenhawk »

I always love when my fellow lefties endorse social experimentation that primarily affects the poor.

Reminds me of the good old days in the 20s when eugenics was "progressive."


EDIT: ninja'd by RINO Tom of all people. Strange bedfellows, I suppose.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,086
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: January 06, 2017, 08:25:12 AM »

Will this cause an underground Coca Cola trade like Bill de Blasio made with cigarettes in NYC? Constant government regulation never works as a deterrent.

"Pssst mate ... You holding any coke?"

"Yeah how many grams"

"Grams? You mean cans right?"

"...Err"
Then the local politicians can send the men in blue to hassle 'em for selling liquid caffeine.  Because we need more bad laws that put poor people and cops up each other's ass Roll Eyes  Laws against selling loose cigs and raising taxes an extreme amount on a consumable most people consume are horrible for poor people, but Dems keep shoving them down our throats.  Over regulation of occupations, stupid housing laws...if only the poor people voting for them would wise up.  Sadly they've been told there are only two options and the other option is racist and hates you....even more sad, they're often right.  (at least on the last bit, the two options thing is complete bull sh**t)

I was just making a joke
I wasn't.  Local Dem politicians are dicks to the poor people that vote for them.  Doing everything they can to keep them poor and thinking that the Dems are the only ones that can help them.  It's done amazingly horrible things to a number of large cities in this country.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,086
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: January 06, 2017, 08:26:31 AM »

I always love when my fellow lefties endorse social experimentation that primarily affects the poor.

Reminds me of the good old days in the 20s when eugenics was "progressive."


EDIT: ninja'd by RINO Tom of all people. Strange bedfellows, I suppose.
progressives loves regressive taxes
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,063
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: January 06, 2017, 01:21:04 PM »

EDIT: ninja'd by RINO Tom of all people. Strange bedfellows, I suppose.

Yeah, I have to admit it kind of amusing to see one of Michael Bloomberg's biggest fans (i.e. one of the three people on this site that actually likes him) arguing against this. Tongue
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: January 06, 2017, 02:10:02 PM »

EDIT: ninja'd by RINO Tom of all people. Strange bedfellows, I suppose.

Yeah, I have to admit it kind of amusing to see one of Michael Bloomberg's biggest fans (i.e. one of the three people on this site that actually likes him) arguing against this. Tongue

LOL, I am NOT a fan of Bloomberg.  I am even less of a fan of people who hate him because he supports policies that "help the affluent" (and, in his mind, by extension everyone else), but I am not a nanny stater in any sense of the word.
Logged
Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself
omegascarlet
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,969


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: January 06, 2017, 03:25:11 PM »
« Edited: January 06, 2017, 03:36:28 PM by A new beginning under a Scarlet Sun »

i would have thought, like with nicotine taxes, this is...eh.....the goal?

Imposing lifestyle choices on people like NAZI's?

Yes, I suppose they are meeting that goal.

*facepalm*


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah no. You have zero evidence that not blindly following your religion is unhealthy. And drinking sugary drinks isn't a matter of conscience like religion
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.072 seconds with 12 queries.