Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chicago-area soda tax may carry political price for backers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    That's a very bad idea to tax soda like that. Should they city council be concerned with the fact that crime in Chicago is the highest since Prohibition.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      The real humor would be someone decides to sue the city over the tax being imposed on their buying say an unsweetened tea at a convenience store from the soda machine...

      No sugar, no carbonation, no tax... but it is still imposed...

      The tax is based, in part, on a lie.
      It was originally called a tax on "sugary drinks".
      It is still being advertised locally by Bloomberg organizations as a way to combat childhood obesity and other disorders related to being overweight.
      The only problem is that the tax applies to drinks with artificial sweeteners too.
      So any drink that is "sweetened", even artificially, is taxed regardless of the calories,.
      The tax amounts to a 30-40% increase in the price of all drinks.
      Anyone with the ability to buy beverages outside of the area, will do so.
      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

      Comment


      • #18
        Sugary and "artificial sweetener" drinks are horrible for your health, and without a doubt cause massive issues. Not only obesity, but massive dental issues especially with kids. Taxing is the only thing government knows. The result is more money for government though, not healthier kids/people.
        Wisdom is personal

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
          The tax is based, in part, on a lie.
          It was originally called a tax on "sugary drinks".
          It is still being advertised locally by Bloomberg organizations as a way to combat childhood obesity and other disorders related to being overweight.
          The only problem is that the tax applies to drinks with artificial sweeteners too.
          So any drink that is "sweetened", even artificially, is taxed regardless of the calories,.
          The tax amounts to a 30-40% increase in the price of all drinks.
          Anyone with the ability to buy beverages outside of the area, will do so.
          The bigger lie is that the low prices that enable such obscene consumption of said drinks is in part supported by government farming subsidies and economic policy.

          To summarize: government subsidizes farmers to keep corn cheap, which makes corn syrup cheap, which makes it the go-to sweetener in soda, which enables prices to be very low... so now the government looks to impose a tax on the drinks to raise the prices because the low prices are enabling obesity and are bad for health.

          How about we simply cut the subsidies in the first place, rather than enacting another tax on the people?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
            The bigger lie is that the low prices that enable such obscene consumption of said drinks is in part supported by government farming subsidies and economic policy.

            To summarize: government subsidizes farmers to keep corn cheap, which makes corn syrup cheap, which makes it the go-to sweetener in soda, which enables prices to be very low... so now the government looks to impose a tax on the drinks to raise the prices because the low prices are enabling obesity and are bad for health.

            How about we simply cut the subsidies in the first place, rather than enacting another tax on the people?
            but taxing is so much fun for the politicians ......it's out of control

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
              The bigger lie is that the low prices that enable such obscene consumption of said drinks is in part supported by government farming subsidies and economic policy.

              To summarize: government subsidizes farmers to keep corn cheap, which makes corn syrup cheap, which makes it the go-to sweetener in soda, which enables prices to be very low... so now the government looks to impose a tax on the drinks to raise the prices because the low prices are enabling obesity and are bad for health.

              How about we simply cut the subsidies in the first place, rather than enacting another tax on the people?
              My sister mentioned this fact yesterday when we talked about this, why tax the drinks when you could stop subsidizing the sugar and corn syrup, probably would save the same amount of funds overall as you would get on taxing drinks anyway.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Nebfer View Post
                My sister mentioned this fact yesterday when we talked about this, why tax the drinks when you could stop subsidizing the sugar and corn syrup, probably would save the same amount of funds overall as you would get on taxing drinks anyway.
                The problem there is that high fructose corn syrup goes in a huge variety of products not just soft drinks. Ending the subsidies would potentially increase the price of a very wide range of food products.
                It's not that ending them isn't a reasonable idea, I'd think that politicians would be more worried about the unintended consequences of doing that. I doubt anyone could accurately predict the result.
                The other problem, and one reason subsidies were started was the agricultural sector is, even today, subject to very wide swings in price due to things like weather. Market instability results and society and the economy are subject to shortages and market collapses. So, some subsidy helps smooth out those variations in production and price.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  The problem there is that high fructose corn syrup goes in a huge variety of products not just soft drinks. Ending the subsidies would potentially increase the price of a very wide range of food products.
                  It's not that ending them isn't a reasonable idea, I'd think that politicians would be more worried about the unintended consequences of doing that. I doubt anyone could accurately predict the result.
                  The other problem, and one reason subsidies were started was the agricultural sector is, even today, subject to very wide swings in price due to things like weather. Market instability results and society and the economy are subject to shortages and market collapses. So, some subsidy helps smooth out those variations in production and price.
                  Here is a cheap sweetener that is probably responsible for 1/3 of the country now being diagnosed with being diabetic. That poison is in just about everything replacing natural cane, honey, maple, or beet sugar.

                  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068646/
                  “Breaking News,”

                  “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post
                    Here is a cheap sweetener that is probably responsible for 1/3 of the country now being diagnosed with being diabetic. That poison is in just about everything replacing natural cane, honey, maple, or beet sugar.

                    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068646/
                    I wouldn't doubt it. But, that's simply because its the cheapest, most effective sweetener manufacturers can find.
                    Can I help it if most Americans are too stupid to pay attention to what they eat.

                    Muummm, muummm! Nothin' like a stick o' deep fried butter with sugar glaze!



                    Maybe nature is trying to find a way to cull the herd of stupid...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                      The bigger lie is that the low prices that enable such obscene consumption of said drinks is in part supported by government farming subsidies and economic policy.

                      To summarize: government subsidizes farmers to keep corn cheap, which makes corn syrup cheap, which makes it the go-to sweetener in soda, which enables prices to be very low... so now the government looks to impose a tax on the drinks to raise the prices because the low prices are enabling obesity and are bad for health.

                      How about we simply cut the subsidies in the first place, rather than enacting another tax on the people?


                      Not a bad idea. It is insane that we subsidize something that is in high demand. Just another reason why I oppose government taking control of our healthcare/insurance, but that's another issue.

                      Not surprisingly, this has nothing to do with health and everything to do with the fact that the the county in question (Cook, which is Chicago) is broke and corrupt. Soon they will come out with another tax to they claim is for our own good.
                      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        The only tax that's worse than this is the gun tax Seattle has. It hasn't stopped crime there it's made it worse.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                          Not a bad idea. It is insane that we subsidize something that is in high demand. Just another reason why I oppose government taking control of our healthcare/insurance, but that's another issue.

                          Not surprisingly, this has nothing to do with health and everything to do with the fact that the the county in question (Cook, which is Chicago) is broke and corrupt. Soon they will come out with another tax to they claim is for our own good.
                          Corruption is a big one, but the worst is that it is universal. For instance, these government subsidies for farmers are an essential part of buying farmer support in the rural Midwest (who are a big red bloc for the GOP).

                          People talk about handouts for urban populations as buying votes, but the GOP plays the same dirty game. And that has a knock on effect for other things like, in this case, sodas and obesity. It's a whirlwind of corruption and bloated, big government policy.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            If you buy your carbonated beverages with"food stamps"you don't pay this tax, suckers
                            The history addict asked me,"Where did you fought?"
                            Me...Damn..."I'm not sure."

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by hankwill View Post
                              If you buy your carbonated beverages with"food stamps"you don't pay this tax, suckers


                              Interestingly, the food stamp issue might be one of the reasons the tax is struck down.
                              I am not certain of this, but as I understand it, federal law prohibits charging of taxes like this on items purchased with "aid".
                              In their wisdom, the local taxing authority dealt with the issue by ordering retailers to charge the tax, but then reimburse the purchaser in the amount of the tax. I'm not sure if this means that the purchaser gets given the tax money or if that is credited to the feds. Nevertheless, this is still a violation of the law, because reimbursing the money doesn't affect the fact that a tax was charged in the first place and that is prohibited.
                              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X