[Brenda]

andyt andyt:

Yes, yes it did actually.

We could force coke to use less sugar. Taxing it instead is a softer approach.

Not sure why a sugar tax seems to get people so upset.

No, it didn't, actually.

We could FORCE Coke to use less sugar?
Are we not going to import Coke products anymore if they don't comply?
Sure

Diet coke, coke zero... ring a bell?

[Yogi]

andyt andyt:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

They could slap a hefty carbon tax on bottled water too, if it's just about revenues and health.
Too much salt is bad for you too. Let's tax it more even though salt is essential for brain functions.

If the govt was really serious about the "sugar problem", they'd pass legislation seriously limiting the amount of sugar one can add to food and food products.

Coke used to have a "brand" called C2. It was original formula Coke but with only half the sugar. After two sips you couldn't tell the difference. That's one difference that can be made, force the "liquid candy" makers to cut their sugar content by half if they want to sell it here. And by reducing it by half, I don't mean playing semantics and reducing a serving size by 50%, which is what one cereal maker actually tried to pull off. They "reduced" the sugar content per serving by reducing the suggested serving size of cereal to half a bowl.

How is bottled water bad for your health? When people are out and about, what do you want them to drink?

Check out the amount of energy required in the manufacturing process of the bottles as well as the carbons produced. People who use these bottles are not concious of the environment that they claim to be so concerned about. There is a specific word that describes them, but it escapes me at the moment

[Tyler_1]

I like my water fresh, my sugar sweet, and I can't remember the last time I got pop.

[stratos]

My question is why Tax the consumer. Tax the company. I'll use Brenda's example of Coke but this can be for any product. For every gram of sugar coke puts in it's product over X amount tax them. Say the line is 10g, for ever gram coke goes over 10g's tax them.

Thus you can get the product taxed while at the same time having companies seriously look at their product and see if they can change the sugar amount to help reduce and or avoid the sugar tax.

[PluggyRug]

stratos stratos:

Thus you can get the product taxed while at the same time having companies seriously look at their product and see if they can change the sugar amount to help reduce and or avoid the sugar tax.

Don't think that would work very well, companies like Coca Cola would just find different chemical(s) to replace sugar which would probably be more toxic.

[stratos]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

stratos stratos:

Thus you can get the product taxed while at the same time having companies seriously look at their product and see if they can change the sugar amount to help reduce and or avoid the sugar tax.

Don't think that would work very well, companies like Coca Cola would just find different chemical(s) to replace sugar which would probably be more toxic.

True but doing an extra tax on people for a product you allow seems like an ill-fated idea to me.

[OnTheIce]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Don't think that would work very well, companies like Coca Cola would just find different chemical(s) to replace sugar which would probably be more toxic.

We already have that, it's called Aspartame.

[housewife]

And aspartame was suppose to be so much better than the last one.


I'm really tired of the cookie cuter solutions. There isn't one answer to the problem. They do it all the time everything wrong will be fix if... It can't work that way. As for a tax I doubt they would put into health care regardless of what they said

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Taxes on cigarettes did little to nothing to curb use.

Education is what caused the decline in usage along with the habit being deemed socially unacceptable, not taxation.

It's both. There's a lot of research on this topic and cigarette taxes do curb use. Unfortunately they also create a black market and, therefore, a substitute good, which greatly discourages quitting. But the key is, of course, education about the products' external costs: death.

stratos stratos:

My question is why Tax the consumer. Tax the company. I'll use Brenda's example of Coke but this can be for any product. For every gram of sugar coke puts in it's product over X amount tax them. Say the line is 10g, for ever gram coke goes over 10g's tax them.

Thus you can get the product taxed while at the same time having companies seriously look at their product and see if they can change the sugar amount to help reduce and or avoid the sugar tax.

You tax the consumer to create an incentive for him/her to use less of it. But your solution is also one that creates an incentive, though not so directly to the consumer. Interesting idea.

[andyt]

Brenda Brenda:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

andyt andyt:

Yes, yes it did actually.

We could force coke to use less sugar. Taxing it instead is a softer approach.

Not sure why a sugar tax seems to get people so upset.

Taxes on cigarettes did little to nothing to curb use.

Education is what caused the decline in usage along with the habit being deemed socially unacceptable, not taxation.

I agree.

$1:

Most studies found that raising cigarette prices through increased taxes is a highly effective measure for reducing smoking among youth, young adults, and persons of low socioeconomic status.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228562/

$1:

A giant federal tobacco tax hike has spurred a historic drop in smoking, especially among teens, poor people and those dependent on government health insurance, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-09-10/cigarette-tax-smoking/57737774/1

[andyt]

Yogi Yogi:

andyt andyt:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

They could slap a hefty carbon tax on bottled water too, if it's just about revenues and health.
Too much salt is bad for you too. Let's tax it more even though salt is essential for brain functions.

If the govt was really serious about the "sugar problem", they'd pass legislation seriously limiting the amount of sugar one can add to food and food products.

Coke used to have a "brand" called C2. It was original formula Coke but with only half the sugar. After two sips you couldn't tell the difference. That's one difference that can be made, force the "liquid candy" makers to cut their sugar content by half if they want to sell it here. And by reducing it by half, I don't mean playing semantics and reducing a serving size by 50%, which is what one cereal maker actually tried to pull off. They "reduced" the sugar content per serving by reducing the suggested serving size of cereal to half a bowl.

How is bottled water bad for your health? When people are out and about, what do you want them to drink?

Check out the amount of energy required in the manufacturing process of the bottles as well as the carbons produced. People who use these bottles are not concious of the environment that they claim to be so concerned about. There is a specific word that describes them, but it escapes me at the moment

How does that answer my question about health?

Why is it people get all bent out of shape about bottled water, but not bottled soft drinks?

[raydan]

Wanna buy some black market sugar.

[Brenda]

raydan raydan:

Wanna buy some black market sugar.

How many lbs ya got and how much ya want for it?

[Delwin]

Where do you guys live ? Snack food is already taxed here and produce and healthy stuff is tax exempt. The incentive to make your product a non-snack food already exists.

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

andyt andyt:

Yes, yes it did actually.

We could force coke to use less sugar. Taxing it instead is a softer approach.

Not sure why a sugar tax seems to get people so upset.

Taxes on cigarettes did little to nothing to curb use.

Education is what caused the decline in usage along with the habit being deemed socially unacceptable, not taxation.

Actually, there is a fair amount of peer-reviewed research that shows that cigarette taxes did help in reducing smoking:

$1:

Higher cigarette prices reduce cigarette smoking by decreasing smoking prevalence and reducing the number of cigarettes smoked by continuing smokers.

Well over 100 studies from high-income countries have confirmed the inverse relationship between cigarette prices and cigarette smoking. The consensus among researchers working in this area is that a 10% increase in the price of cigarettes in developed countries will result in a 3 to 5% reduction in overall cigarette consumption. Studies that investigate the impact of cigarette prices on smoking prevalence and average smoking intensity among smokers separately generally find that approximately half of the impact of price on overall cigarette demand results from reducing the number of smokers by motivating current smokers to quit and discouraging youths from ever starting to smoke.

Smokers living in areas with higher cigarette prices are significantly more motivated to quit. However, the use of coupons, buying low-tax cigarettes on Native American reservations, or buying cigarettes on the internet,common strategies used by smokers to reduce their out-of-pocket expenses, weaken the impact of price on smoking behavior. For example, smokers who bought cigarettes from Native American reservations were half as likely to make a quit attempt compared with those who bought full-priced cigarettes.

http://www.treatobacco.net/en/page_120.php

If that's not enough, this PDF has quotes from tobacco companies themselves (among others) saying that taxes do reduce smoking by making it more expensive, especially with youth.

https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/researc ... f/0146.pdf

Cigarette taxes are not solely responsible for reducing smoking rates, but they were part of a comprehensive program (edcuation, advertising bans, etc) to do so.