http://www.wsj.com/articles/soda-consumption-falls-after-special-tax-in-california-city-1471982400
Looks like a good policy experiment we can apply elsewhere.
Here’s the key to findings:
“Berkeley, a city of about 115,000 people, collected $1.4 million from the sugary drink tax in the first 12 months.”
but taxation is theft, bra
Yeah, but did high fructose corn syrup consumption fall during that time? Industry just “shit shifts”. The obvious move is to simply turn off supply ; make HFCS illegal, and shut down the factories making it. No point in playing around.
pretty sure pa’s archenemy is willy wonka
Which one? I think I would actually root for PA against the Johnny Depp version of WW, but the Gene Wilder version is an all-time classic.
If I may be a devil’s advocate for a second…
Drinking 64 oz. sodas leads to health problems (namely, obesity and diabetes). Therefore, we can, and should, tax soda consumption, which will have net benefits for society.
If that is true, then…
Gay sex (and by default, gay marriage) leads to health problems (namely, mainly transmission of HIV). Therefore, we can, and should, tax marriage licenses for gay people because that will have net benefits to society.
Women? Amiright6?
But if they’re faithful to each other then they’d only transmit it to their uninfected partner. If you discourage marriage and let the infected person play the field they’re likely to spread it to many more people.
So, we should actually tax single gay men.
now that would be an engagement pressure <2 drum sounds, 1 cymbal sound>
Your very serious argument fails to consider the fact that such taxes actually have nothing to do with improving the general health of society. They are government revenue generators. Politicians in cities that have enacted these taxes don’t give a crap about the health of constituents, they care about the new source of revenue. If sugary drink consumption falls off dramatically and the revenue goes down, they’ll just hike the tax to get revenue back to where it was.
Do you support banning smokes?
Yes, but assuming the municipality needs to tax something, I would rather the tax be applied to something like soda consumption, which might have a negative societal effect, rather than property, sales, or income. Anyway, a soda tax is a poor people tax, so it makes taxes less progressive with respect to income, so I thought people here would like that.
^ Except they never reduce or eliminate an existing tax when they put in a new tax like this. It’s just more money that disappears into the black hole of government. Philadelphia just implemented a soda tax. When they “sold” the idea to residents, they said 100% of monies received from the tax would go directly to education or seniors or some other feel good program. When they actually wrote the tax though, the money goes into the general fund and can be used for anything. Wow, what a shocker.
But without the soda tax, there would just be higher likelihood of increasing other taxes in the future! Or maybe they just tax everyone even more, who knows. Anyway, as mentioned, I am indifferent towards this tax, since it mostly affects people who are not me, so that drives my support somewhat.
I’d be for a tax rebate for people that maintain good health. I haven’t had a soda in years but all the good food i buy costs a lot more than the cheap shit. My lack of health problems means i don’t clog up the medical system and am a functioning member of society.
I don’t think governments look at things that way. They have more money, so they’ll find a way to spend it and it won’t reduce future increases in other taxes.
I don’t drink soda very much either and don’t actually live in the city, so doesn’t negatively affect me in a material way, but I have a philosophical objection to the way governments try to frame new taxes like these.
I have zero problem with taxing sugary drinks. Those fat bastards drive up the cost of healthcare for the rest of us.
How are kool-aid sales doing?
gene wilder would tear pa apart. that man is insane.