Philly SHOCKED that new large soda tax is hurting consumers

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I mean, most municipalities are starved for cash. It's no wonder they're leaning on sin taxes - it's basically all they have to give themselves autonomy.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

That's the thing though - when you start to rely for revenue on a product that you ideally want to discourage, you end up with an unfortunate side-effect...

(Not that I oppose these laws, although granted I haven't seen enough evidence for full frontal support).

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Drinking less of those unhealthy drinks isn't hurting them.

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

Thing is, most people accept tobacco taxes as a useful source of revenue nowadays. There really is no logical reason to claim soda taxes are intolerable attacks on freedom, yet ciggy taxes are a necessity.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

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"

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

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  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

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

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.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

[insert obligatory spiel about how the notion of morality is absurd]
i've said it before and say it yet again. it is not the job of government to decide how persons ought to live their lives (so long as they aren't hurting others) or compel them to act in a certain way by means of taxation. such is tantamount to imposing religious beliefs upon us. and maintaining secularism is important. this is why i'm against "sin" taxes. #pro-choice

Do you have a socialist avatar because it looks cool or because you think it makes you cool. Because that doesn't sound like a socialist.

I had no idea sugar taxes were an essential part of socialism.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I mean, one shouldn't get hooked on labels, but you do know that libertarianism was considered a left wing/socialis philosophy until recently?