[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.
Especially with such idiotic statements of "40% of kids will get diabetes unless WE DO SOMETHING". Yes, you can start at home, by not being an absolute fucking moron and actually raising your kids. This tax isn't going to help take care of those who are victims of their own vices, it's going to go into the city's general fund.
By the way, it's a penny per fluid ounce of liquid.[/QUOTE]
The reason it had 75% of the votes is because it is reasonable. The committee will encourage the money be spent on awareness and just educating people on living healthier. You gotta understand in Berkeley these funds most certainly will go towards the cause. I am not a soda drinker so I don't give a shit. But I think this measure is perfectly fine and most likely does represent the wishes of the people in Berkeley. They are not making people not drink soda, they are just getting a little more to spread the word that drinking sugar all day everyday isn't a great idea.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46448338]If you can't take care of your kid, if you need the state and the government telling your kid how to do right and wrong, you're a fucking moron. If you can't educate your child on basic "how to be human 101", then you shouldn't be having kids in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Right, you have all the answers and 75% of Berkley voters are fucking morons who don't know how to function as people or parents despite the fact that they have one of the most economically and demographically successful cities in the United States.
Ladies and gentleman, the Ivory Tower Conservative.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46448378]I'm not exactly a conservative, I just believe that if you yourself aren't going to take the time to educate your kid on proper decision making, you're an idiot and shouldn't have had kids in the first place.
There REALLY isn't an excuse to have a kid anymore if you didn't directly want to have a kid. And if you wanted to have a kid, you should want to take care of them and guide them, not delegate that to the state.[/QUOTE]
What if because of the awareness brought on by this measure, said moron changes their ways and begins to help their children live healthier, are they still a moron?
What part of "75% of the population voted for this initiative" is escaping you and your anti-government, anti-social ranting?
[editline]9th November 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jitterz;46448393]What if because of the awareness brought on by this measure, said moron changes their ways and begins to help their children live healthier, are they still a moron?[/QUOTE]
They are eternally a moron because they voted for something that ilikecorn disagrees with philosophically.
Maybe if they brought a tax cut on healthier alternatives I'd be more for it, but considering lower-middle class is what drinks it most its more a burden if anything.
[QUOTE=Fapplejack;46448418]Maybe if they brought a tax cut on healthier alternatives I'd be more for it, but considering lower-middle class is what drinks it most its more a burden if anything.[/QUOTE]
This isn't so much a problem in Berkeley where the median income is $60,000 a year.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46448453]Because it's literally doing nothing but punishing someone for having a vice. Just like tobacco taxes and alcohol taxes, unless you're going to funnel the money made INTO TREATMENT OF THOSE VICES, then you're being a massive dick.
You're generating revenue for the city, great, but did you make alternatives cheaper? No. Ok, well then are you funneling this cash into treatment of those diseases caused by intake of these substances? No. Ok, well then what the fuck are you doing with this money? "oh well it's going into the cities general fund, and we're making a panel of experts who'll make recommendations to the city on healthy things". Yes, congrats, but now the city has no obligation to actually implement recommendations BY that panel of experts.
Essentially: You made a tax, you're not treating the thing your taxing, and you have no legal obligation to implement a damn thing the experts suggest.
[editline]9th November 2014[/editline]
Which is why it passed in the first place, rich white people can afford to feed their vices in the first place, so who cares. Which is why SF didn't pass the tax, and Berkeley could, because they're richer, and whiter.[/QUOTE]
If the people of Berkeley did not have faith that the city would use the funds properly, 75% of them would not have voted for it.
In a system with true universal healthcare I could see the purpose of a federal soda tax (compensation for treating apendicitis and obesity-related health complications) but in this instance I'm a bit confused about what the tax money is going towards. Seems odd and arbitrary to fix roads and stuff with municipal money from soft drink consumption.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46448378]
There REALLY isn't an excuse to have a kid anymore if you didn't directly want to have a kid. And if you wanted to have a kid, you should want to take care of them and guide them, not delegate that to the state.[/QUOTE]
Do you also disagree with having age limits for sexual relationships? For being able to buy alcohol? Tobacco? Driving?
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46448453]
Which is why it passed in the first place, rich white people can afford to feed their vices in the first place, so who cares. Which is why SF didn't pass the tax, and Berkeley could, because they're richer, and whiter.[/QUOTE]
Yes? Ballots pass when more people support them? I don't see the point you are making here.
I would prefer a tax break on healthier alternatives or some way of making healthier alternatives cheaper than making sugary drinks more expensive.
It gets rid of the accountability problems, it works by encouraging people to choose a healthier lifestyle not punishing people for failing to do so and it pretty much avoids all of the concerns ilikecorn brought up.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46448517]Unless you're actually going to lay down extremely limited things on what the money can be spent on, then politicians WILL fuck it up eventually[/QUOTE]
This is the problem with arguing with ideological extremists.
I'm done, we are just going over the same points over and over again. 75% of Berkley thinks soda and sugary drinks should be taxed and approve of government oversight on the collection and distribution of theses taxes. Deal with it and stop insulting people for disagreeing with your viewpoints.
[QUOTE=Fapplejack;46448418]Maybe if they brought a tax cut on healthier alternatives I'd be more for it, but [B]considering lower-middle class is what drinks it most its more a burden[/B] if anything.[/QUOTE]
[I]WHAT[/I]
[quote]The tax rate is a penny per fluid ounce. For syrups, the tax rate is calculated based on the final volume of drinks produced by the syrup.[/quote]
Thats like a whopping $0.20 more per bottled pop. Poor college students are too blind to notice that jump in price
[editline]9th November 2014[/editline]
(its more of a burden on businesses than consumers)
The tax is on distributors, not stores or consumers.
b-but guise, don't you know it's all part of satan's agenda?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bntfUA6TmLs[/media]
[I]bottoms up[/I]
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;46447300]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]
I'm obese and never drink soda.
It really doesn't fucking matter.
[editline]a[/editline]
Water all day every day
[QUOTE=gk99;46448763]I'm obese and never drink soda.
It really doesn't fucking matter.
[editline]a[/editline]
Water all day every day[/QUOTE]
Yes, because you must be representative of everybody with obesity.
[editline]10th November 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46448664]The tax is on distributors, not stores or consumers.[/QUOTE]
It's intended to be passed on to consumers though.
And I live in Berkeley, woo hooo
fuck
Tbh though, I do understand it. Berkeley is home to UC Berkeley where some of the brightest people go to. It is also home to poor areas where kids arn't often taught the health affects of soda. Charging more money for soda will def lower child consumption of soda. I don't really like the tax since I drink soda rarely, but I can't say I don't support it.
Yay Sin Taxes these aren't a horrible fucking idea.
one time i was walking around Berkeley and this 300 lbs woman wearing a sweatshirt and sweatpants combo which read "GREEK REVOLUTION" looked down her fat nose at me and unleashed the fakest *cough cough* while i was discreetly smoking a cigarette before she walked into starbucks and no doubt ordered a $6 mocha-lard-accino
[QUOTE=Kommodore;46449567]one time i was walking around Berkeley and this 300 lbs woman wearing a sweatshirt and sweatpants combo which read "GREEK REVOLUTION" looked down her fat nose at me and unleashed the fakest *cough cough* while i was discreetly smoking a cigarette before she walked into starbucks and no doubt ordered a $6 mocha-lard-accino[/QUOTE]
Hehe, I think I know her, she went to a party at our frat once since we had a wine party with food. She ate everything within seconds.
If people want to get fat and die, let them.
[QUOTE=Kommodore;46449567]one time i was walking around Berkeley and this 300 lbs woman wearing a sweatshirt and sweatpants combo which read "GREEK REVOLUTION" looked down her fat nose at me and unleashed the fakest *cough cough* while i was discreetly smoking a cigarette before she walked into starbucks and no doubt ordered a $6 mocha-lard-accino[/QUOTE]
I had the almost exact same thing happen to me but instead of a Starbucks she waddled her Fiat 500 sized body into a take away after telling me smoking's unhealthy.
I'm just gonna shoot something out there and play a little bit of devils advocate for the fun of it.
From what I understand people being overweight actually causes some economic damage, so a way to stop being from being overweight would be to tax things like soda.
[url]http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-consequences/economic/[/url]
It's just going to be annoying for people who drink soda healthily, and people who drink soda like its water arent going to give a shit.
Nobody has posted it?
[video=youtube;jyZ5hzEWj4w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyZ5hzEWj4w[/video]
[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]
Why the hell are they interfering in peoples' lives?
Because it's a government and its sole existence is to manage the lives of the country it resides in? I swear people say the same shit about alcohol and tobacco and this and that. When good sense and general wellbeing are undermined by marketing and ingrained values don't you think it [i]should[/]i be the government's job to interfere? Like I get it, this doesn't do jack really but just because they don't pay for our healthcare that doesn't mean that they shouldn't deincentivize purchase of shit products or regulate them. I don't think anyone's complaining about them restricting cigarettes and shit even though we didn't get any social services out of that tax and establishing that age restriction.
[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]
So you are saying that:
If sodas are not taxed, people will drink soda
but
If sodas [I]are [/I]taxed, people will still drink the same amount of soda and the government will get money
I don't see why the government wouldn't tax soda if it did nothing but benefit them.
Well I'm never going to visit Berkley it seems. Fuck them.
[QUOTE=Richoxen;46450558]I'm just gonna shoot something out there and play a little bit of devils advocate for the fun of it.
From what I understand people being overweight actually causes some economic damage, so a way to stop being from being overweight would be to tax things like soda.
[url]http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-consequences/economic/[/url][/QUOTE]
Came in to post this. The main argument behind taxing / regulating things like certain foods and drinks is that these items are costing societies more money by being unhealthy and needing more help from the social system. The idea is you tax or regulate certain things that are seen as unhealthy, which will deter people from eating or drinking them and ultimately save society money by not having to spend it on supporting unhealthy individuals who need medical assistance constantly because of their health.
The other side of the argument which has already been laid out pretty clearly is that it's a market economy and everyone should have free will to do what they please, regardless of the strain on society they'll cause by indulging in these things
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
