What does the tax money go towards?
[editline]9th November 2014[/editline]
If people want a coke they're gonna buy a coke even if it's 1c dearer.
Yes, lets force our views on others because we're too stupid to tell you something basic. Don't drink too much soda.
This'll have the same effect as taxing cigarettes, oh you get money but in the end you aren't doing anything about the problem, just profiting off of it.
That's pretty fucking stupid. I drink water and have a soda every now and then. I'm at a healthy weight. Yet I'd still have to pay the tax because someone out there says "soda is bad for you I don't like it".
[QUOTE=Chickens!;46446880]What does the tax money go towards?
[editline]9th November 2014[/editline]
If people want a coke they're gonna buy a coke even if it's 1c dearer.[/QUOTE]
What do you think it goes towards?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFEKnmlyCS0[/media]
This is only meant to annoy soda drinkers. It won't help in any way they seem to think it will. Idiots.
At the very least, it's not as idiotic as NYC's soda ban attempt.
Still unbelievably dumb and useless, though.
"You're all to stupid to think for yourselves, let us think for you"
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;46446896]Yes, lets force our views on others because we're too stupid to tell you something basic. Don't drink too much soda.
This'll have the same effect as taxing cigarettes, oh you get money but in the end you aren't doing anything about the problem, just profiting off of it.[/QUOTE]
Soda is an often overlooked major contributor to obesity and people are too stupid to do something basic, such as stop drinking soda to lower obesity.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46447377]That's be great... If the state actually paid for our healthcare. But it doesn't, so why the hell are they interfering with peoples lives. Furthermore, what is this tax actually paying for? Certainly not the health issues that arise with obesity, so then what?[/QUOTE]
Profiting. Just like alcohol and cigarette tax. They know people won't stop buying this stuff so they add a "safety" tax for more dosh.
That's a surprisingly drastic tax. That's $2.88 extra for a 24 case of soda that usually cost around $6-7. That's a rate of 48-41%.
Taking all that money though and using in a public education campaign in conjunction with funding organizations to help give dental care to disadvantaged kids it would make acceptable to me. Getting put into the local governments general coffers though wouldn't be a good use of tax payers money.
See we care about you very much, so in concern of your own health that you sheep can't possibly care about we have decided, in our completely and purely good will, that we will [del]stop[/del] help you to overcome the temptation to buy more soda through taking additional money for your purchases of said soda, obviously that money is just an irrelevant, meaningless side product of our intense care about you!
Did people not watch the video at all? 75% of voters in Berkely voted for it. This isn't the case of the government taking action. If the majority of voters didn't want it, there would be no tax. Instead you got a massive majority approving it. Finding 75% support for any policy is difficult.
Also consumption taxes have a proven record of lowering usage rates regarding alcohol and cigarettes. It stands to reason it will work with soda as well. I'm interested in what the taxes go to as well but simply decreasing the cases of diabetes and obesity seems like a benefit on its own.
No sales tax on protein
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46447811]I'm more disappointed that 75% of the populous in Berkeley thought that the government should hold someones hand in making decisions in regards to whether or not they want to be healthy.[/QUOTE]
Probably has more to do with the fact that most citizens in Berkely are health conscious than they are simply stupid sheep powerless without the governments guidance.
It seems like the people, at least in the video. Were the 'I drive a Prius, and all my friends have Hybrids, so let's try and get a tax against all non-hyrbid cars."
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46447811]I'm more disappointed that 75% of the populous in Berkeley thought that the government should hold someones hand in making decisions in regards to whether or not they want to be healthy.[/QUOTE]
It's Berkeley, that's how they are.
For those who don't know, my source is that I go to the college there, Berkeley is basically a amped up version of San Francisco in terms of their ideologies. They are very reluctant to accept corporate brands to open stores, I have yet to see a starbucks for example, and they are very willing to ban or regulate anything that is not considered "health food." While this will probably annoy some of the college students who are not as health conscious as the normal citizens, them being the 25% that voted against this, the long term citizens of Berkeley are not the type to drink soda and are definitely the type who would lecture people on why soda drinking is bad.
Basically this surprised no one in the city that this law passed and for the most part, no one really minds the law because everyone is too busy drinking $11 kale juice to worry about paying extra for soda.
Just pass a law saying that you can't buy junk food and soda if you're fucking fat.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46447986]No, I know. That's pretty much middle california on down. "I don't like X, therefore no one should have X".[/QUOTE]
Doesn't apply in this case. It's more like "X causes widespread and long term health issues in our population, lets tax X to decrease overall consumption while still letting people have the freedom to consume X"
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46448133]No it really does. "X causes health problems over the long term if you're a fucking idiot. We don't trust people to not be fucking idiots, therefore we'll slowly tax the ever living fuck out of it till no one can afford to do it".[/QUOTE]
Who is "we"? 75% of a population? Do you have a problem with democracy?
[editline]9th November 2014[/editline]
Do you even know the tax rate?
[QUOTE]Where does the money go? How does the Panel of Experts work?
The tax revenue would go into the city’s general fund. Accountability is written into the measure: Measure D creates a panel of experts in child nutrition, healthcare, and education to make recommendations to the City Council about funding programs that improve children’s health across Berkeley. The panel will issue annual public reports detailing the impact of funded programs.
This is a system that has proven to work in Berkeley. The City and citizens of Berkeley have a decades-long, ongoing commitment to child health and nutrition. City Council has a proven track record of respecting the recommendations of their boards and commissions. For example, the Children, Youth, and Recreation Commission makes recommendations to Council about general fund appropriations in the same way as the Panel written into Measure D would, and the City Council has consistently adopted that Commission’s full recommendations.
Once Measure D passes, the panel can be formed. Panelists are required to have thorough background in nutrition, education, and/or healthcare. To encourage representation from across Berkeley, each councilmember plus the mayor will appoint one panel member. Panelists are not paid.
How do you know a tax will work?[/QUOTE]
From the initiatives website.
[URL="http://www.berkeleyvsbigsoda.com/faq#q5"]http://www.berkeleyvsbigsoda.com/faq#q5[/URL]
The measure includes any beverages with sugar added, not just soda.
[QUOTE=Mr._N;46448198]The measure includes any beverages with sugar added, not just soda.[/QUOTE]
Makes sense. Why would you tax soda and not tax Monster energy drinks or "fruit" juices with corn syrup?
[QUOTE=splenda;46447927]They are very reluctant to accept corporate brands to open stores, I have yet to see a Starbucks for example[/QUOTE]
There's a couple, one on Shattuck, and one on the corner of Oxford and Center.
[QUOTE=Mr._N;46448232]There's a couple, one on Shattuck, and one on the corner of Oxford and Center.[/QUOTE]
I guess I'm just blind or something then. (I'm not really the coffee type anyways so I don't really look for those places.)
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;46446896]Yes, lets force our views on others because we're too stupid to tell you something basic. Don't drink too much soda.
This'll have the same effect as taxing cigarettes, oh you get money but in the end you aren't doing anything about the problem, just profiting off of it.[/QUOTE]
Did you watch the video? The bill passed, locally in Berkeley, with a 75% margin. They're not forcing this on anyone... a 3/4 majority [I]wanted the tax[/I]
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46448260]Democracy isn't infallible. So yes, I do have a problem with democracy, especially in the way that the US has elected to implement it.
[/QUOTE]
So you don't think city policy should be dictated by the residents, but by an executive?
I thought we were against big government.
She has the most horrifying face holy fuck
[img]http://i.imgur.com/SZJriMI.png[/img]
Also you look really immature when you call tens of thousands of people "absolute fucking morons" incapable of raising their children. Particularly when their home seems pretty clean.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
