Report: Tax would lead people in middle-income households to lose about 1.5 pounds per year
Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.comSoda tax may not be worth its weight, study shows
Seeded on Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:20 PM EST (msnbc.com)
- msnbc.com sites & shows:
- TODAY
- Rock Center
- Nightly News
- Meet the Press
- Dateline
- Morning Joe
- Hardball
- Ed
- Maddow
- Last Word
- msnbc tv
Leave a Comment:
Some areas have outlawed kid meals toys and drive thru windows. Why keep taking freedoms away from those of us who are responsible? Tax TV's and lazyboy chairs then. Can I have a tax break since I'm not overweight?
If you are really responsible and not drinking soft drinks to excess, then you're not being penalized to any meaningful extent.
Happy Meal-type toys are part of massive marketing campaign to addict people, starting with kids, to consuming fat- and sugar-based empty calories. It works, too: 35% of Americans are obese; 62% are overweight. In Washington state alone, the obesity rate has gone up 286% since 1990. That didn't happen because masses of people suddenly became irresponsible.
Obesity is a major contributing factor to cancer, diabetes, heart disease, asthma, and depression -- the five chronic conditions that eat up nearly 75% of American health care dollars and that are prime drives of a health care care inflation rate that is five times household income growth.
Personally, I'd rather not pay higher insurance premiums and make greater co-pays over your bizarre notions of freedom, which you seem to define as whether you can go through a drive-up window or not.
And, BTW, if you're self-insured, you may well have access to a plan that gives you a break for maintain weight. If you're employer insured, you may as well.
P.S. Many obesity policy developers do recommend tax televisions at purchase.
This is all about imposing still another tax, nothing more. The nonsense about taxing sweetened drinks for health purposes is simply a ruse.
As proof, I can guarantee that if such a tax is imposed, it will be on diet drinks as well because it's all about the money.
As for those posters here that think it’s a good idea for the government to impose a tax on something they claim could possibly be harmful to us in some way, I suggest you should rethink your position as this is a very slippery slope.
that sounds "worth its weight to me". Use the money in true prevention like educationg people not to drink soda and that could be huge!
If only sweetened sodas are taxed extra, then educated consumers who currently consume them would be more likely to switch to sugarfree sodas. This would certainly improve the health of those Americans.
Sodas with sugar (or high fructose corn syrup or any caloric sweetner) are a significant factor in rising obesity rates in children and adults. If nitwit alarmists wouldn't believe the false claims about the supposed "dangers" of diet sodas, then they would be swayed to switch to diet sodas if sugary ones are taxed higher.
You're not being a "better" parent by giving your child sugar sodas in lieu of diet sodas. You're merely increasing your child's addiction to sugar, worsening their health, and making them vulnerable to obesity.
And substituting similar amounts of fruit juice or sweetened box juice drinks doesn't reduce the body's intake of sugar (including fructose) and empty calories.
Carbonated beverages in general aren't as healthy as non-carbonated drinks. Try the great varieties of sugarfree powdered drink mixes available in peach tea, grape, orange, and lemonade. And be sure to include lowfat or fatfree dairy products in your diet.
And yes, I actually am a health professional...
Stuff it.
Kids should only drink milk and water. Even all those "low sugar" fruit drinks have a ton of sugar in them.
Whatever happened to a fun time being going to the drug store and sitting with your friends, drinking a glass of Coke after school on Fridays? Now fun has to cost hundreds of dollars on computers, phones, and games, and everywhere people have to have a bottle of pop next to them. It should be a rareity, not a constant thirst quencher.
Good point about carbonated beverages in general: People who consume diet drinks regularly still gain weight.
How about scifiwriter's contribution to the discussion? Nothing like reasoned discourse.
This has nothing to do with keeping people healthy. This is a way the government can steal more of our money. I personally don't care because I rarely drink soda, but call it what it is and don't say it's for our own good. Such BS.
I agree. The economy is bad, and the government is looking for every excuse to tax us more.
The only thing that this tax will make thinner is my wallet. The money will not go for education or healthy programs. It will go for pork - and not the eating kind. They are all desperate to find another source of money. The last acts of a desperate government.
Is anyone aware that the federal government subsidizes corn more than any other crop. The result is that anything made with high-fructose corn syrup (IE SODA) is indirectly subsidized by the federal government. Amazing that the government will simultaneously tax and subsidize a given product and that people are absolutely clueless about it.
I agree. And the overwhelming majority of farm subsidies don't go to small family farms but rather to huge wealthy agribusinesses. With both the deficit and obesity rates skyrocketing, it's high time to end farm subsidies for all but the smallest Mom & Pop operations.
Um, the article doesn't refer to a single person in the government.
Obesity is a major health problem -- arguably the major health problem. Public health policy developers have been calling for an obesity-related tax policy for some time, in part because tobacco taxes have played such a key role in reducing cigarette consumption. Unless we curb obesity, your health costs will continue to escalate, regardless of your weight.
I agree with Crimson Wife. farm subsidies for Agribusiness lead to over production of corn, and it dumped into everything in the form of HFCS. Suport the small farmers especially if they are sustainable farmers.
As for soda. There is NO nutritional value in it. sugar is bad for you. artificial sweetener is bad for you. I don't know why so many people enjoy drinking acid. Have you ever taken the pH of that stuff?
A tax is a tax no matter how you sugar coat it. This will only take more money from poor and low income people. and we think we can pat ourselves on the back for looking out for their health. BS
Did you read the article? The study says that low income people will not be taxed that much. Not that it matters in this case: Low income is a risk factor for obesity. Why do you want poor people to get fat and die young?
I strongly recommend new "Hypersonic Weight Loss" it works like a miracle, Just thought should share this good news.
ANYTHING that someone claims, "Works like a miracle" is a scam and doesn't work.
Shove it up your a$$.
Occasionally having a soda is good but not drinking soda like drinking water.
Soda can not be replaced water.
Soda can be soften bone, caused diabetic mellitus and obesity... and it may be secondary caused fracture and infection.
When is our Government going to put a tax on the water that we drink. I heard that the water we drink can kill us to!
Ever look at your water bill?
It's already taxed! The only thing left is the air you breathe. They haven't figured that out yet....
You guys read the article about the bitch that owns the sun now or something? And wants to find a way to tax people to use it?
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/11/woman-in-spain-now-owns-the-sun.php
Taxes are always, and solely, a way to take money from individuals. Governments might use all kinds of justifications to try to convince people a tax is good, but it's all a lie. The only purpose of a tax is to raise government revenue. There *are* no other benefits either direct or indirect.
hells yeah! definately do it. im a smoker. i get a 200% tax hike every 6 months. the reason? because those taxes are going to pay for my healthcare and and eventual death caused by smoking.
bull@!$%#. im not saying im NOT going to die or get cancer due to smoking... but i am saying that chances are i wont. im sorry but there was lung cancer and emphezma long before cigs arrived.
eating loads of sweets on the other hand.... hmmm diabetes, cancer, heart attack, stroke.... all things that are caused by sugar and obesity and all things that kill people that dont work that our (i meant my) tax dollars pay for.
so do i think there should be a tax on sodas? hell yeah! a tax on every chocolaty dessert thing you can imagine. i dont care if its cake, rootbeer or ice cream... tax the @!$%# out of it!!
Whoa whoa whoa, Hi smoker trying to turn all of the hating onto the overweight? All that crap that can happen to you and the millions of other smokers out there will cost more than anything that happens to the overweight. Thin people can get many, many health problems, even the ones overweight people get. I as a non-smoker am less likely to get lung cancer, but I am also slightly overweight but a recent blood panel shows I am in perfect health because I play a sport and stay active so I'm not in any danger of developing diabetes or other diseases.
I can't believe the idiotic comment you left. Cancer and such was hugely increased by smoking, and ANY PERSON of any weight is at a higher risk of heart attack, stroke, and diabetes than a non-smoker being at risk for lung cancer or emphysema. If you have facts, I'd like to see them. You, sir, will increase my premiums more than anything.
People have been smoking for eons and eons - just not commercial cigarettes.
Cigarette taxes pay for healthcare costs? Since when?? It's just a pork winfall.
Hmmmmmm. I wonder if the extra tax weighs 1.5 lbs a year?
I think taxing sweets in general is a great idea. A majority of patients in hospitals today are there either from smoking or obesity related habits. Neither of which I partake in. I enjoy the occasional sweet now and then, but don't live off of the stuff as if it's a daily staple which I see a lot of people doing...hence the yearly increase in obesity rates.
If people could learn to control themselves, then we all might see a decrease in healthcare cost instead of the constant increase. If this is a way to encourage some to cut back, I'm all for it.
Are you kidding? When in the hell do you ever think they will say "well, people seem to be taking better care, we can lower cost now." When in America is anything EVER lowered? NEVER! Whether we become a healther country or not, it's all about getting more money and it will just keep getting more expensive no matter what.
We could all become physically fit as Arnold was back in the day and the tax would STILL exist. It will never go away.
What a dog shhiitt ppiiss poor story. An oxymoron story. Bascically the bottom line to this (obvious to the average brain) story from the very git go yesterday is simply about "MONEY" for our GOV. All this story says as a oxymoron is that no---soda tax is not going to create huge weight- loss or even any substancial weight-loss. But that's ok folks it will make money for our Gov. But ALAS!!! It tends to rob the consumer who buys said taxed products and that is perfectly fine. Carry on and----NEXT?
I thought soda was already a taxable product anyway? Why add extra tax? If someone is significantly overweight losing 1.3 lbs per year due to an extra tax isn't going to help much. People get this way because they can't control themselves.
What's so great about soda anyway? I drink maybe one or two 20 ounce diet Pepsis a month and it takes me about three days to finish the whole bottle. I can't believe people guzzle down soda like there's no tomorrow. Yet they do.
I doubt taxing soda will really have any effect at all. They tried to pull this in Philly and it didn't work. We already have 8% sales tax as it is here. We don't need to be taxed anymore.
Ah, I love it when people are all "I only drink it once a month" brag brag brag. I bet you drink it when you go out to eat. Now you'll say "I only go out to eat once a month" brag brag brag.
I'll say it again, theres talk of soda tax, theres talk of legalizing prostitution and taxing that, tax tax tax... you cant just start taxing everything to make up for this huge defeceit.. the solution is not to spend all that dam money in the first place, spend it responsibly...
Remember when the british decided to tax the tea? hmmm now its soda... wonder if the results will be any different...
This will never pass as the american people wont stand for it...the massive spending and taxing is killing us and why there was such a massive change during the mid term elections.... the american people want this out of control spending to stop...
People just dont realize just how much the defecit really is... they cant comprehend it or understand how its affecting us even right now let alone down the road... You have to put it into terms the average person can understand...
Just in Obamas first 2 years he's increased the defecit 3 trillion dollars... doesnt sound so bad huh... people hear million, billion, trillion... ehhh it will be ok...
If we were able to pay $1 every single second of every day towards the defecit it would take 95,129 YEARS to pay off yet we continue borrowing and printing money like theres no tomorrow... then they wanna tax tax tax to act like they are helping the defecit... no amount of taxation will cover this kind of fraudulent spending!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WAKE UP AMERICA
Let's see, they are going to tax "sweetened soda", basically non-diet soda (as I understand it). Do you really think that the diet soda will be less expensive on the shelves? The soda companies (as well as the grocers/retailers) will dictate that both regular and diet be the same price, otherwise the diet stuff will fly off the shelf, and the regular will collect dust. This is a totally flawed theory.
Great business point!
Ok, really? I only read the first few lines and I am already calling BS on this theory and study. Cigarettes are expensive as HELL, they keep raising tax on them and people still buy them! Adding a few more cents to a bottle of pop is not going to deter people from buying it. If you cut them from food stamps, they'll just use their own money to buy it. They drink it because they want to. And they will no matter what you tax on it. Please focus on something more important and impactful, please!!!
PGH, they may still be buying cigarettes but the increase in tax has reduced overall usage. Less kids are buying and even adults have reduced. Increasing costs of bad habits overall works. Here's a link to the data:
http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/prices/
Along with these increasing costs, wasn't there also more awareness raised on health concerns? Maybe that could factor in somewhere?
Thank you for that unbiased piece of trash.
Bob are you talking about my posts or that link palan posted?
smoking is bad and banned in certain areas. I don't want to support others' bad habits, I can barely afford mine ;-) Don't pick on liquid sugar ALONE; I think we should either get rigid about ALL bad consummables or leave all of them alone- and let us be responsible for ALL our actions.
Why tax soda and not candy? I like candy corn and there's far more sugar in that. Here's a solution: If it has more then 5 ingredients tax the you know what out of it. At least then there's some fairness to it.
Maybe other food can be made more affordable? Meat is expensive, cheese is expensive, even fruit and veggies is getting expensive. More than a dollar a pound for most things. people don't want to buy ingredients - they want to buy an 89cent box of Mac and Cheese that is ready in minutes with everything already there.
Amen to that! And sometimes it isn't even about want - low income people can spend $3.50 on a box of hamburger helper and a pound of meat at Walmart and dinner is done.... super cheap. Our average cost of a meal in this house is about $7.
I'm all for making whole ingredients more affordable. Maybe instead of subsidizing corn the govt should subsizide produce. Or just stop subsidizing period and let supply and demand set prices. Besides, I know plenty of people that don't want produce and like crappy food like hamburger helper. What is the purpose of the tax? Is it too get people to eat healthy or to raise money? If it's the former don't waste the effort. If it's the later at least tax fairly, that's why I suggest food with more then 5 ingredients.
Use the money from the tax to run ads promoting healthy habits. Use the money to educate the public. Obesity rates continue to rise hence people obviously can't do it on their own.
Education??? what a joke, and a waste. When I was 5 years old back in the 70's I knew cigarettes were bad for you. What did I need to be educated about? IT'S COMMON SENSE! Just like nobody needs education to know that junk food is also bad for you. You said "people obviously can't do it on their own" So you are an advocate for more nanny state policies? If they can't do it on their own they get NO SYMPATHY from me.
I support a soda tax to fund the healthcare monstrosity known as ObamaCare, because I DON'T BELIEVE all their rosy predictions that the law will pay for itself. There's no way that will happen. HOWEVER, I don't think you can both reduce consumption AND raise revenue - they've tried that with cigarette taxes for years. If people cut back on purchases you don't get the expected revenue. So go ahead and tax 'em, just not too much.
Think of the revenue saved if the government stopped subsidizing corn production. Hi fructose corn syrup prices would rise, and then some people would stop drinking softdrinks...win-win!
Well said,
I'll grudgingly accept higher prices if it's the result of supply/demand. But more taxes I say HELL NO!
Why should myself and people like me be financially punished because other people can't control their weight? It's a slippery slope people.
Fair question, I also wonder why I have to pay when I control my own weight and health. However, we're all ultimately responsible because as soon as these people can't afford their healthcare we all pay. We all pay when they miss more work. In our current society, all of our lives are intertwined to some extent. I wish it wasn't so, but it is.
I just don't think this is the reason our government was established. There was a time that The People were suspicious of their government to the point of limiting it's power. It used to be of the People.
I submit this question, if the majority of America is obese, how can this taxation be the will of the People? It sounds like it is more the will of the few that feel it is their responsibility to shepherd all of us poor dumb fat people. There was a time that this type of elitist governing was not tolerated. Have we become so accepting of the government as an authority figure that we forgot; they don't have any power that we do not give them. They do not have any money that we do not give them.
I just can't believe no one has brought this up. It is not a question of "Will this help?" I see it as a question of "Under who's authority do you attempt to legislate my behavior?"