Poll: Leslie's Soda Tax
Poll Options
View poll results: Leslie's Soda Tax
I'd vote in favor of the tax
52 38%
I'd vote against the tax
70 51%
I'm not sure
16 12%
Voters: 138.
Page 4 of 6
#121
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
So...if you're a smoker, they'll make you quit? If you're obese, they'll make you go on a diet and start exercising? If you're ingesting too much sugar, they'll make you balance out your daily diet?

They'll encourage and help you with these things, yes.
But boys will be boys and girls have those eyes
that'll cut you to ribbons, sometimes
and all you can do is just wait by the moon
and bleed if it's what she says you ought to do
#122
Quote by due 07
Perhaps I read your post wrong, but I thought you were proposing that we let the government dictate lifestyles via eligibility for healthcare.

Well, I was actually using that as an example of why we shouldn't let the government dictate lifestyles.

I could see how the way I put it would be confusing though. My bad.

Quote by ChrisBW
I'm curious what your opinion is on the corn subsidies. As far as tobacco goes, if people want to smoke then let them smoke. That's fine, I guess. But would you want the government to subsidize tobacco farmers so they could sell their product for less than what it costs to produce (as is the case with corn)?

We should fix one of the major roots of the problem, which is the government subsidization of corn.

Well, I really don't think the government should subsidize corn, or at least it shouldn't subsidize corn that is used to make corn syrup or ethanol, etc. I guess I wouldn't mind if the subsidized corn was subsidized strictly on the requirement that it be sold in grocery stores as "corn on the cob".

As far as tobacco goes, I don't see any reason for the government to subsidize tobacco.

Quote by Hydra150
They'll encourage and help you with these things, yes.

Which is coercion. No thanks.
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at Sep 30, 2012,
#123
Quote by Dreadnought
^ wut. how is the problem anything other than people making shitty decisions?


But it isn't only people making bad decisions. The corn subsidies allow farmers to sell corn less than what it costs them to produce it and still make a profit. This in turn has made the cost of HFCS very cheap and attractive to food producers as a source of sugar and sweetness. This is why fast food places can sell giant drinks for $1.

Quote by crazysam23_Atax
As far as tobacco goes, I don't see any reason for the government to subsidize tobacco.


The tobacco was just to make a point about why you would need to subsidize something. You have a good point about corn that actually goes into stores as food which I didn't think of though.
I have a huge fear if rays.
Last edited by ChrisBW at Sep 30, 2012,
#124
^ Well right, my question still stands lol. None of that has anything to do with people choosing to get fat over soda.
My God, it's full of stars!
#125
Quote by crazysam23_Atax

Which is coercion. No thanks.

Well the option to get free help is there, if ever you decide that you need support in helping yourself.
But boys will be boys and girls have those eyes
that'll cut you to ribbons, sometimes
and all you can do is just wait by the moon
and bleed if it's what she says you ought to do
#126
Quote by Dreadnought
^ Well right, my question still stands lol. None of that has anything to do with people choosing to get fat over soda.


Just makes it a lot easier/cheaper to do so.
I have a huge fear if rays.
#127
Quote by Dreadnought
^ Well right, my question still stands lol. None of that has anything to do with people choosing to get fat over soda.

Essentially what it boilds down to is: people can buy large drinks for low prices, because HFCS (one of the main ingredients in most soda) is cheap. If we stopped subsidizing corn, then the price of soda would go up. If the price of soda goes up, then people would either get something else (water, most likely) or they would buy smaller quantities of soda. At least, that's the theory. Not sure if it would work in practice.

Frankly, I'm much more in favor of market forces (like the price of unsubsidized corn) dictating whether people drink as much soda than I am in favor of taxes on soda.
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at Sep 30, 2012,
#128
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Essentially what it boilds down to is: people can buy large drinks for low prices, because HFCS (one of the main ingredients in most soda) is cheap. If we stopped subsidizing corn, then the price of soda would go up. If the price of soda goes up, then people would either get something else (water, most likely) or they would buy smaller quantities of soda. At least, that's the theory. Not sure if it would work in practice.


That also doesn't impact my point. They're still choosing to do it, or choosing to do it to excess.
My God, it's full of stars!
#129
Quote by Hydra150
Well the option to get free help is there, if ever you decide that you need support in helping yourself.

Oh, and I forgot to mention in this post that I thought that your post was stupid. Your post was stupid.
But boys will be boys and girls have those eyes
that'll cut you to ribbons, sometimes
and all you can do is just wait by the moon
and bleed if it's what she says you ought to do
#130
Quote by Hydra150
Oh, and I forgot to mention in this post that I thought that your post was stupid. Your post was stupid.

That's nice...

Quote by Dreadnought
That also doesn't impact my point. They're still choosing to do it, or choosing to do it to excess.

The cost goes up, thereby theoretically reducing their power to do it to excess. Sure, it doesn't hurt the rich fat guys, but it sure hurts the poor fat guys. So, the poor fat guy either swallows the cost (most likely), or he cuts back or cuts himself off completely.

I'd much rather that a tax wasn't what forced people to cut back on soda though.
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at Sep 30, 2012,
#131
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
The cost goes up, thereby theoretically reducing their power to do it to excess. Sure, it doesn't hurt the rich fat guys, but it sure hurts the poor fat guys. So, the poor fat guy either swallows the cost (most likely), or he cuts back or cuts himself off completely.


If fatass wants to do it, all the power to him. Fatass should just make himself stop though if he wants to, and other people shouldn't blame corn subsidies (or the price of these drinks) on fatass's fat ass.
My God, it's full of stars!
#132
Quote by ChrisBW
The tobacco was just to make a point about why you would need to subsidize something. You have a good point about corn that actually goes into stores as food which I didn't think of though.
Well, I got why you used tobacco as an example.

I actually found it to be a good point.

Quote by Dreadnought
If fatass wants to do it, all the power to him. Fatass should just make himself stop though if he wants to, and other people shouldn't blame corn subsidies (or the price of these drinks) on fatass's fat ass.

I agree 100%, man. (I've actually made this point in this thread.) However, those who want to put taxes on soda believe that the government should "save people from themselves".

Edit:
Although, I should mention, I don't agree with you on the corn subsidies thing. See above (post #122) for my reasons why.
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at Sep 30, 2012,
#133
Quote by Dreadnought
That also doesn't impact my point. They're still choosing to do it, or choosing to do it to excess.


It directly addresses your point, because excess is the problem. I have no idea what years this picture is comparing but it's interesting to see. And a link which I'm sure no one wants to follow showing the same type of thing.



http://www.divinecaroline.com/22175/49492-portion-size-vs-now
I have a huge fear if rays.
#134
Quote by Dreadnought
If fatass wants to do it, all the power to him. Fatass should just make himself stop though if he wants to, and other people shouldn't blame corn subsidies (or the price of these drinks) on fatass's fat ass.


Corn subsidies aren't directly the guys fault, but indirectly by making the drinks cheaper for him to consume.
I have a huge fear if rays.
#135
Quote by ChrisBW
Corn subsidies aren't directly the guys fault, but indirectly by making the drinks cheaper for him to consume.


It's still more expensive than water. The corn subsidization thing lowering the cost definitely contributes, but it's not like it makes it cheaper than everything else and if you remove it, it'll solve everything. It's not like he goes "Well gee, Coke is $X, so I'll buy it", he goes "I like the taste of Coke, so I'll buy it"
THE FORUM UPDATE KILLED THE GRADIENT STAR

Baltimore Orioles: 2014 AL Eastern Division Champions, 2017: 46-49
Baltimore Ravens: 2012 World Champions, 2017: 0-0
2017 NFL Pick 'Em: 0-0
#136
Quote by necrosis1193
It's still more expensive than water. The corn subsidization thing lowering the cost definitely contributes, but it's not like it makes it cheaper than everything else and if you remove it, it'll solve everything. It's not like he goes "Well gee, Coke is $X, so I'll buy it", he goes "I like the taste of Coke, so I'll buy it"


I'm quite aware it won't solve the whole problem.... which is why I said "one of the major roots of the problem." Theoretically it would come down to something like "Oh a small 12 oz Coke is $2 now? I guess I'll just go with water."
I have a huge fear if rays.
#137
Quote by ChrisBW
I'm quite aware it won't solve the whole problem.... which is why I said "one of the major roots of the problem." Theoretically it would come down to something like "Oh a small 12 oz Coke is $2 now? I guess I'll just go with water."


Or even if you tax junk food to make healthier food cheaper. I don't see how anyone could oppose that.
#138
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
I don't think the government should be paying for healthcare.

However, they do (at partially, in the US). So, frankly, I think that people who continue to smoke or stay obese should not be eligible for government healthcare.




I like this guy
...it was bright as the sun, but with ten times the heat
#139
Just because you made soda a few more cents expensive isn't going to stop fat asses from drinking it.
#140
Look guys, the government was not implemented to be our mom. Were big kids now and that means we have the right to eat candy whenever we want and even eat desert before our dinner.

But we also have to deal with the side effects of what we do. If we become fat, it is because we are not responsible with what we eat, not because the government failed to do it's duty.

Just another reason why government healthcare is a bad idea.

Also, think about the businesses. Okay, strike that, I know you people don't care about big businesses, but think about the people effected by the impact this would have on the businesses. IF the tax actually was enough to get people to stop buying these drinks then the businesses would make less money, thus creating more of an incentive for these businesses to lay off or fire employee's, or stop hiring. Now, not only do you have a rising cost of once cheap food options, but a rising unemployment rate.

Congrats.

When will people learn that taxing businesses or their products is always going to filter down to the consumer?
...it was bright as the sun, but with ten times the heat
Last edited by c3powil at Sep 30, 2012,
#141
Quote by ChrisBW
I'm quite aware it won't solve the whole problem.... which is why I said "one of the major roots of the problem." Theoretically it would come down to something like "Oh a small 12 oz Coke is $2 now? I guess I'll just go with water."


You can argue that it'll have that effect, but personally, I think that for the overwhelming majority, taste is the factor, and they'll just put more pocket money into their drinks if you tax it/remove the subsidization.

I'm not actually in opposition to taxing it - in fact, I'm in favour of it. Just for different reasons, economic reasons rather than health reasons, I see it as a luxury item with no real practical purpose that isn't served better by a cheaper, healthier product. You're not impinging on anyone's rights by taxing it, you're just taking advantage of a very popular product people will be more than willing to pay a little more for because they like it so much in order to try and start healing a gigantic deficit.

And it's not like you have to tax it to hell, you could still get billions of dollars by not even adding a full dollar to the price of a case of Coke. If you had a ¢25 tax on half the cases of Coke sold worldwide in 2010 - a single quarter per case, not anything ridiculous - you'd raise over $3 billion. That's just a drop of water in the gigantic US deficit, but enough drops of water become a hurricane. It's not impeding customers because it's just a quarter that they'd probably lose in a washing machine or a couch anyway, you're not hurting stores because it's not going to stop anyone from buying it, it doesn't really harm anyone. Hell, it may even help small businesses if the tax actually does make people not want to spend that much, because then they'll buy the local store's generic brand instead of the big-name.
THE FORUM UPDATE KILLED THE GRADIENT STAR

Baltimore Orioles: 2014 AL Eastern Division Champions, 2017: 46-49
Baltimore Ravens: 2012 World Champions, 2017: 0-0
2017 NFL Pick 'Em: 0-0
Last edited by necrosis1193 at Sep 30, 2012,
#143
just ban HFCS. Problem solved.

Edit: also remove the tariffs on sugar.
Last edited by Eastwinn at Sep 30, 2012,
#144
i'm a ****ing stick. i don't see why i should pay more just cause some ****ing fatass kids metabolism isn't as sexy as mine




#145
Quote by MinterMan22
i'm a ****ing stick. i don't see why i should pay more just cause some ****ing fatass kids metabolism isn't as sexy as mine


So you'd rather pay for their government-provided healthcare with your tax dollars?
#146
I'd support it, anyone drinking that amount of soft drink is going to end up in a hospital, they may as well have to pay a little more to help out with their inevitable coronary.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#147
I don't drink soda and honestly consider it unhealthy... but I really don't like the idea of imposing taxation on things like this. I'd vote against it.
████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
#148
I'm poor, and I'd be for it.

Taxes the fatties more than the poor.
Quote by neidnarb11890
the chinese take-out place my family always ordered from gave you chopsticks, so as a kid it was fun to try & eat with chopsticks
now i just use a fork, 'cuz nothing is fun anymore & i just want to shovel food into my mouth to fill the void
#149
Quote by Epi g-310
So you'd rather pay for their government-provided healthcare with your tax dollars?

i do anyway so..




#150
They tax smokes so it would be logical to also tax other unhealthy products. This only makes sense now that we are finally getting national healthcare... even though everyone's already paying for that. before it's just dicks being dicks.

#151
Quote by c3powil
But we also have to deal with the side effects of what we do. If we become fat, it is because we are not responsible with what we eat, not because the government failed to do it's duty.

Just another reason why government healthcare is a bad idea.

How exactly is that a reason why gov't healthcare is a bad idea?
#152
Quote by due 07
How exactly is that a reason why gov't healthcare is a bad idea?

Communism, brah.
Quote by Diemon Dave
Don't go ninjerin nobody don't need ninjerin'
#153
Quote by SaintsofNowhere
They tax smokes so it would be logical to also tax other unhealthy products. This only makes sense now that we are finally getting national healthcare... even though everyone's already paying for that. before it's just dicks being dicks.

So, we're getting nat'l healthcare? Since when?

And don't call Obamacare that; it's a misnomer.
#154
Quote by MinterMan22
i do anyway so..


And I'm sure you're loving it. Taxing soda would relieve some of that burden.
#155
Quote by crazysam23_Atax

And don't call Obamacare that; it's a misnomer.

So is Obamacare.
But boys will be boys and girls have those eyes
that'll cut you to ribbons, sometimes
and all you can do is just wait by the moon
and bleed if it's what she says you ought to do
#157
I've finally decided I would vote against it.

Not that this post is contributing anything.
#158
As someone who is currently enjoying a soda right now I would like to provide these kind words: **** that shit
Warning: The above post may contain lethal levels of radiation, sharp objects and sexiness.
Proceed with extreme caution!
#159
I'm against it. IMO, you change people's habits through education, not by making them poorer.
"If God exists, there's no way he is French" - Andrea Pirlo

S A D B O Y S
#160
Quote by captaincrunk
against it. it taxes the poor, pretty much. it's uncool.


Hmm, this is true, I think they should check out your annual income when you're purchasing, and if you're not poor, you get the tax.

On a side note: sucks that western society is kind of aimed at being unhealthy physically and mentally. Convenience and economic growth is driving this shit.