[QUOTE=Code3Response;46448592][I]WHAT[/I]
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)[/QUOTE]
$1.44 for a $3.00 12 pack is kind of extreme.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46448664]The tax is on distributors, not stores or consumers.[/QUOTE]
Taxes on distributors get passed down onto consumers you know, or did you never take economics?
[QUOTE=matt000024;46450929]Well I'm never going to visit Berkley it seems. Fuck them.[/QUOTE]
"Hey buddy, wanna go to a concert in Berkel-"
"NO WAY, THEY IMPOSED A TAX ON SODA, THAT'S FUCKING CRAZY, .20 MORE CENTS? FUCK EM!"
lol really? I mean Berkeley is cool place, one of the better places to check out in the east bay.
[QUOTE=BLOB Fish Dude;46451687]"Hey buddy, wanna go to a concert in Berkel-"
"NO WAY, THEY IMPOSED A TAX ON SODA, THAT'S FUCKING CRAZY, .20 MORE CENTS? FUCK EM!"
lol really? I mean Berkeley is cool place, one of the better places to check out in the east bay.[/QUOTE]
I don't care. A soda tax is literally a crime against humanity.
[QUOTE=matt000024;46451699]I don't care. A soda tax is literally a crime against humanity.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, because what is 'water'? I've never heard of this 'water' thing before! All I ever drink is soft drink! How will I be able to keep myself hydrated if I can't drink soft drink? It's a crime against humanity!
[QUOTE=matt000024;46451699]I don't care. A soda tax is literally a crime against humanity.[/QUOTE]
You're crazy.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;46451740]Yeah, because what is 'water'? I've never heard of this 'water' thing before! All I ever drink is soft drink! How will I be able to keep myself hydrated if I can't drink soft drink? It's a crime against humanity![/QUOTE]
Yeah, but silly Obama is poisoning us with fluoride to make us all gay!
[QUOTE=BLOB Fish Dude;46451813]You're crazy.[/QUOTE]
So being a concerned citizen is crazy?
[sp]Yeah, I thought it was obvious I was being sarcastic. I do think it's a dumb law, but if I ever needed to go to Berkeley for something I probably wouldn't really think twice. If I lived there it'd be a different story though...[/sp]
oh
[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]
Overlooked? I see more people blame Soda as the sole cause of obesity, as if there's no other contributing factors besides this vile evil death-drink brewed by Satan.
Yeah. And spoons make you fat.
[QUOTE=Pandamox;46451629]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.[/QUOTE]
Which would be a fine argument if we also taxed anything else unhealthy while subsidizing healthy foods and [I]actually had national healthcare[/I]. But we aren't and we don't, so there's no real point in this law other than a bunch of health freaks trying to prevent college kids from enjoying sodas.
I actually pleasure myself to the thought of a well informed electorate casting a ballot for a thing that they personally want to control. It is like, whatever they decide will be objectively correct and you can't disagree with it, because it's a majority. So damn sexy.
[QUOTE=s0beit;46452150]I actually pleasure myself to the thought of a well informed electorate casting a ballot for a thing that they personally want to control. It is like, whatever they decide will be objectively correct and you can't disagree with it, because it's a majority. So damn sexy.[/QUOTE]
The US government was made to protect from not only a tyranny of a minority, but also a tyranny of the majority. Let's say that 75% of the population voted to take away the rights of the other 25%. Would that be right just because it is a majority?
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;46452030]Overlooked? I see more people blame Soda as the sole cause of obesity, as if there's no other contributing factors besides this vile evil death-drink brewed by Satan.[/QUOTE]
I see McDonalds blamed more than soda
[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, like allowing the sale of pot and taxing it?
drive 5 mins to oakland then, easy.
my aunt and uncle live on the oakland berkeley border
like they say,'a block makes a difference'
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;46452052]Which would be a fine argument if we also taxed anything else unhealthy [/QUOTE]
Pretty much why the soda ban here in New York didn't go into effect. It would have been A-OK to have a quintuple decker bacon cheeseburger with extra lard sauce, the problem was if you drank a soda/non Snapple juice or tea that was more than 12 ounces.
Actually seems quite similar to what almost happened here in New York. The only apparent difference is they aren't sneaking in something to profit more from it. Because Snapple, which the mayor at the time apparently has a major stake in, was exempt from the ban and just as bad as any soda/sugary juice drink.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46452130]Your argument would be extremely valid except for one issue: The US doesn't have universal healthcare. I could totally get behind this if I was paying for everyone elses healthcare, but I'm not. As long as you aren't paying for someone elses healthcare, then you don't get a say in what they put into their bodies.
If we're going to start doing things to be healthy, then the alternatives should receive tax breaks, and gym memberships should be subsidized. I should be able to deduct the cost of running shoes from my taxes, It shouldn't cost me an arm and a leg to buy salad ingredients, I should get time off of work to go work out.
But we aren't doing any of those things.[/QUOTE]
Let me point out that it isn't my argument, I was just clarifying what the two main sides of the argument usually tend to be with these kinds of issues. The regulatory side which people think the government needs to regulate things because society can't think for itself and needs to be guided through things, and then there's the other side which is the Friedman approach where we should just let people choose what they want and the market will sort itself out like it always does.
I lean more towards the Friedman side for this particular instance because in the U.S. as you pointed out, one persons obesity isn't really another persons burden. In places like Canada and the U.K. though it's more of an issue
[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]
Government officials who just want more kick backs from vendors like coca cola and pepsi
[QUOTE=notlabbet;46453049]drive 5 mins to oakland then, easy.
my aunt and uncle live on the oakland berkeley border
like they say,'a block makes a difference'[/QUOTE]
exactly, all it will do is make people want to jump the county line for soda. Like how one county here finally allowed alcohol sales on sunday and gained massive amounts of customers due to the convince.
My hatred of fat people is surpassed only by my hatred of politicians thinking they can solve the problem by making soft drinks a tiny bit more expensive.
i like how the bald guy talking about stocking up on sugary drinks has the yellowest fucking teeth
[QUOTE=itisjuly;46447415]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.[/QUOTE]
It's less because they want people to stop buying stuff and more because they know they can get away with it by saying "b-but it's for your own g-good w-what about the poor tubby children?!". It's a loaded subject; by arguing against it you're implicitly arguing in favor of obesity.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
