radio commercial where moms are bemoaning taxing soda's and flavored water

[Anonymous]

lately I've been hearing a commercial that really bugs me. Two moms are complaining that the government wants to tax certain food items. They say that they know what's best for their families, they don't need government involved. They complain about taxes on soda's, flavored drinks and other junk food. Then they say they just can't afford the new taxes. I guess what concerns me is that the target audience doesn't see the irony in this claim. Makes me fear for the future.

[Anonymous]

While I agree that soda and junk food are not good for us, I think that a reasonable person can object to the tax. It is a deliberate attempt to make a product more expensive, all because other people can't moderate their intake.

I think there is a strong argument for such taxes for cigarettes, because the health impact extends beyond the smoker. But in this case, the government is trying to get involved in a personal consumption decision.

Personally, I don't object to the tax. And of course moms are not the ones paying for these commercials. But some people object on principle to government interfering with their daily life. And food is a pretty basic aspect of daily life.

[jsteele]

DC already has a tax on sodas. Has anyone noticed? This type of tax is normally so low that it has little to no impact on purchasing. It's just a way to raise revenue and is less offensive then some of the alternatives. In DC's case it wil fund the Healthy Schools Initiative.

[Anonymous]

I think the tax is a great idea. Obesity is becoming (or already is?) the number one health problem in the US. It's amazing how many calories are consumed by children and teens through these sugary drinks. This problem does extend beyond the individuals actually drinking the drinks -- all of us are paying for the strain it's placing on our health care system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the tax is a great idea. Obesity is becoming (or already is?) the number one health problem in the US. It's amazing how many calories are consumed by children and teens through these sugary drinks. This problem does extend beyond the individuals actually drinking the drinks -- all of us are paying for the strain it's placing on our health care system.

Yes, although you could always join a health plan that has as its customer base a low risk, healthy pool of people to cut your costs.

But if we are going down the route of making an individual's personal health into a public issue, the government has a million opportunities to get involved in our lives. They could place a limit on calorie size at a restaurant meal. Why not? Those fancy restaurants pack three meals' worth of calories into one dinner. We could make a drink limit - one for women, two for men per public health definitions of moderate drinking. We could have gym membership mandates. The government could upload our visit history and fine us if we don't work out enough. Why not outlaw dessert? It serves no health purpose.

We could also outlaw activities which have a high risk of injury. Cheerleading is dangerous. So is skateboarding. What purpose do bars serve? In England they had a mandatory 11 PM curfew to lessen alcohol consumption (at least they did when I was there). Having too many kids is a financial burden on the local community. Maybe China had it right with a 1 child per family law. Or maybe 2 because we are progressive.

Obviously these proposals are over the top. They are much more extreme than a beverage tax. But the point is that it is not reasonable to define someone's health as a public matter. It is a private matter.

I would feel much better if the government did what it could to ensure that people had access to healthy foods at low prices, creating a positive incentive to choose a healthy item. But I guess that is socialism.

[Anonymous]

Individuals health already is a public issue because those who live healthy lifestyles are subsidizing the health care costs of those who don't.

All a soda tax or any similar 'sin tax' does is have the consumer pay something closer to the fair cost of their decision to support that product.

This is why many favor a change to the gas tax to something akin to a mileage tax, so that all road users pay a proportional amount for the roads.

[Anonymous]

"I guess what concerns me is that the target audience doesn't see the irony in this claim. Makes me fear for the future. "

What else is new?

[Anonymous]

Of course if you want to prevent over-consumption you could always issue ration books for soda, say one 12-ouncer every day. After that, though, you'd pay an extra 50 cents per can.

But unless you put it on credit cards or something and revamp vending machines, you'll have all sorts of black marketeering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Individuals health already is a public issue because those who live healthy lifestyles are subsidizing the health care costs of those who don't.

All a soda tax or any similar 'sin tax' does is have the consumer pay something closer to the fair cost of their decision to support that product.

This is why many favor a change to the gas tax to something akin to a mileage tax, so that all road users pay a proportional amount for the roads.

Why a mileage tax? The cost of a road is nothing compared to the cost of emissions on our environment and to our health, and the political cost of oil. If someone drives a hybrid, they should pay less per mile than someone in an SUV. The unfairness on highway depreciation is more than made up by the benefit of choosing an efficient vehicle. It seems crazy to say that someone who drives a road pounding, gas guzzling suburban should pay the same tax as the diver of a small hybrid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the tax is a great idea. Obesity is becoming (or already is?) the number one health problem in the US. It's amazing how many calories are consumed by children and teens through these sugary drinks. This problem does extend beyond the individuals actually drinking the drinks -- all of us are paying for the strain it's placing on our health care system.

Yes, although you could always join a health plan that has as its customer base a low risk, healthy pool of people to cut your costs.

But if we are going down the route of making an individual's personal health into a public issue, the government has a million opportunities to get involved in our lives. They could place a limit on calorie size at a restaurant meal. Why not? Those fancy restaurants pack three meals' worth of calories into one dinner. We could make a drink limit - one for women, two for men per public health definitions of moderate drinking. We could have gym membership mandates. The government could upload our visit history and fine us if we don't work out enough. Why not outlaw dessert? It serves no health purpose.

We could also outlaw activities which have a high risk of injury. Cheerleading is dangerous. So is skateboarding. What purpose do bars serve? In England they had a mandatory 11 PM curfew to lessen alcohol consumption (at least they did when I was there). Having too many kids is a financial burden on the local community. Maybe China had it right with a 1 child per family law. Or maybe 2 because we are progressive.

Obviously these proposals are over the top. They are much more extreme than a beverage tax. But the point is that it is not reasonable to define someone's health as a public matter. It is a private matter.

I would feel much better if the government did what it could to ensure that people had access to healthy foods at low prices, creating a positive incentive to choose a healthy item. But I guess that is socialism.

I agree with so much of this post. But would add that in order to make the healthy foods more accessible we need not go all the way to socialism. Really, what we should be doing is killing the incredible government subsidies to sugar producers so they'd shift to other growing other products and the prices on sodas, etc, would rise naturally. Far more efficient than countering the effects of a tax-break with a tax.

[Anonymous]

I hope the government restricts abortions or places a HUGE tax on it as well. It is harmful to people's health.

[Anonymous]

On sugar, the global price of table sugar is much lower than here. If we eliminate corn subsidies we will probably be forced to end sugar import tariffs and we will be back where we started. Besides that, sugar is far from the sole reason we are fat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the tax is a great idea. Obesity is becoming (or already is?) the number one health problem in the US. It's amazing how many calories are consumed by children and teens through these sugary drinks. This problem does extend beyond the individuals actually drinking the drinks -- all of us are paying for the strain it's placing on our health care system.

Yes, although you could always join a health plan that has as its customer base a low risk, healthy pool of people to cut your costs.

But if we are going down the route of making an individual's personal health into a public issue, the government has a million opportunities to get involved in our lives. They could place a limit on calorie size at a restaurant meal. Why not? Those fancy restaurants pack three meals' worth of calories into one dinner. We could make a drink limit - one for women, two for men per public health definitions of moderate drinking. We could have gym membership mandates. The government could upload our visit history and fine us if we don't work out enough. Why not outlaw dessert? It serves no health purpose.

We could also outlaw activities which have a high risk of injury. Cheerleading is dangerous. So is skateboarding. What purpose do bars serve? In England they had a mandatory 11 PM curfew to lessen alcohol consumption (at least they did when I was there). Having too many kids is a financial burden on the local community. Maybe China had it right with a 1 child per family law. Or maybe 2 because we are progressive.

Obviously these proposals are over the top. They are much more extreme than a beverage tax. But the point is that it is not reasonable to define someone's health as a public matter. It is a private matter.

I would feel much better if the government did what it could to ensure that people had access to healthy foods at low prices, creating a positive incentive to choose a healthy item. But I guess that is socialism.

I agree with so much of this post. But would add that in order to make the healthy foods more accessible we need not go all the way to socialism. Really, what we should be doing is killing the incredible government subsidies to sugar producers so they'd shift to other growing other products and the prices on sodas, etc, would rise naturally. Far more efficient than countering the effects of a tax-break with a tax.

I'm with you, except that the massive government subsidies don't go to sugar producers - they grow to corn farmers, and we end up with high fructose corn syrup as a result. Good luck changing it though - a lot of those farmers are in Iowa and nobody wants to offend the Iowans or their precious f*cking caucus voters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While I agree that soda and junk food are not good for us, I think that a reasonable person can object to the tax. It is a deliberate attempt to make a product more expensive, all because other people can't moderate their intake.

I think there is a strong argument for such taxes for cigarettes, because the health impact extends beyond the smoker. But in this case, the government is trying to get involved in a personal consumption decision.
Personally, I don't object to the tax. And of course moms are not the ones paying for these commercials. But some people object on principle to government interfering with their daily life. And food is a pretty basic aspect of daily life.

Actually children have NO CHOICE in decisions to drink sodas and high sugar drinks. They are victimized by their parents who give them this crap. Parents shape their growing children's bodies and this shape will effect them their entire lives.

[Anonymous]

The real public debate here no doubt will get screwed up by all the morons on the talk shows. But bad food and beverages does cost society in multiple ways, including through high health care premiums, crowed emergency rooms, etc. So, what are the public policy choices. First, we could outlaw bad food and beverages through limits on sugar, etc. Second, we could make those items cost more through higher taxes on selected products. Third, we could spend a much of money trying to educate the public about these issues. In my view, the most sensible policy is the second. It does not prohibit these items. And it does not involve spending public money on education (no nanny state). It simply creates a financial disincentive to buy bad food.