Soda Tax Weighed to Pay for Health Care

[Exterminator]

Or perhaps he wasn't overweight to begin with and was predisposed to being a diabetic...

Maybe the whole bunch of them are genetic rejects that never should have been bred in the first place?   

[Bo D]

Aren't you the eternal oiptimist!

Ahhhhh .... the sound of one hand clapping.

[LOsborne]

... None of those things are bad for you if not consumed in excess and what right is it of the governments to dictate how much of something we are allowed to eat or drink.

But me, maybe the tax will provide incentive to people not to consume these things in excess.

Also who is that tax hurting?  The lower income people who Obama said he is trying to help.

How so? There isn't any tax on tap water is there? All these lower income people have to do is refrain from buying the products that carry the tax. We aren't talking about life's necessities. We're talking about soda pop!

.... turn around and smoke pot?  One joint is like smoking 5 cigarettes and I don't think people should smoke pot so why don't they make it legal and tax it to the hilt for that health care plan?

Now that is probably the best idea around for eliminating the deficit. Legalize (or decriminalize) ALL drugs, impose quality standards, and tax the hell out of them. It's win-win. We don't fill up prisons with druggies, because even taxed, legal drugs will be cheaper than black market product, and easier to obtain. We don't waste LE time, or court time on prosecutions. We create JOBS!!!! (that's the magic word) in factories which process, package and distribute drugs. And the taxes make this country solvent again. Where's the downside? Why don't we do this?

Anyway, my original point was that a tax on consumables gives choice back to Dick and Jane America. Anyone who objects to paying taxes, just has to watch his purchases, and stay away from the crap carrying the tax. And if you really, really love Pepsi, pay the tax and drink it. It's still your choice. And I love choices.

[mcgonser]

I will continue to drink my Pepsi as long as I can afford it. I just might have to cut back some. LOL

[LOsborne]

ATTAGIRL!!

[me]

Seems to me like lower income people have it hard enough as it is without denying them some of life's pleasures on top of it which is what imposing higher taxes on things like that will do. 

[kimmi]

No one is denying anyone anything.  If they want it, they would have to pay a higher price for it than say orange juice concentrate.  WIC already limits what can and cannot be purchased with that money.  You can get Cheerios with it, but not Cap't Crunch!  Why?  Nutritional values. 

[me]

No one is denying anyone anything.  If they want it, they would have to pay a higher price for it than say orange juice concentrate.  WIC already limits what can and cannot be purchased with that money.  You can get Cheerios with it, but not Cap't Crunch!  Why?  Nutritional values.

The point is they cannot afford to pay the higher price.

[LOsborne]

As things stand now, T-bone steak costs more than hamburger. We don't go all bleeding heart because the lower income people can't eat steak at every meal. What's the difference? These "lower income" folks you are so concerned about  pay little if any income tax. Yet they enjoy the benefits of police and fire protection, public education, and a vigilant military that those of us in more comfortable circumstances pay for. I have no problem asking them to carry a little of the freight -- especially if they can opt out by deciding to drink ice water instead of Pepsi.

[me]

There are lower income people who do pay taxes too ya know.  There are also people on fixed incomes, Social Security, who worked all their lives and paid taxes who might have been barely able to afford the luxury of a case of soda a month that might not be able to if it has the extra tax added to it.  Oh, and by the way, some people pay taxes on their Social Security plus having to pay for part of the medicaid they receive.  Why do you think there are so many older people working now?  What about those lower income people they don't even get WIC to help with their grocery's. 

[DannyBoy]

Wouldn't all 'junk food' have to be taxed....not just soda pop.  Our gov't will have to decide what is good or bad for the people.  Somebody has to be the holy roller determining what is 'bad'.  Obama will probably have to create a new cabinet position and 20,000 gov't jobs to manage this.

If our gov't is seriously going to keep looking for more money to fund more programs....the whole tax process needs to be blown up.  It makes no sense to just keep picking things almost at random to tax.  Go with the flat tax per ole Huckabee.

Legalize and tax the hooch.....still one of the best ideas out there.

[LOsborne]

(sigh) The WIC program is for Women with Infants and Children. Very few women on SSI have infants and children. Those who pay income tax on social security do so because their income is sufficiently large to merit the tax. And you won't get any sympathy from me for having to pay for part of the Medicaid, because most of us don't get any free (or partially free) medical care. Medicaid recipients have already received subsidies for life's necessities. If they can afford luxuries (like that case of soda,) why aren't they spending the money things they actually need, instead of free-loading off the rest of us. You won't convince me, me. I still say let 'em drink OJ instead of Pepsi.

[LOsborne]

If our gov't is seriously going to keep looking for more money to fund more programs....the whole tax process needs to be blown up.  It makes no sense to just keep picking things almost at random to tax.  Go with the flat tax per ole Huckabee.

I still prefer taxing consumables, rather than income, because it gives me some control ... and I'm kind of a control freak. But I agree it's time to scrap it and start over. Of course, I feel that way about the entire government, not just the tax system.

Legalize and tax the hooch.....still one of the best ideas out there.

Ab-so-freakin'-lute-ly!!

[me]

(sigh) The WIC program is for Women with Infants and Children. Very few women on SSI have infants and children. Those who pay income tax on social security do so because their income is sufficiently large to merit the tax. And you won't get any sympathy from me for having to pay for part of the Medicaid, because most of us don't get any free (or partially free) medical care. Medicaid recipients have already received subsidies for life's necessities. If they can afford luxuries (like that case of soda,) why aren't they spending the money things they actually need, instead of free-loading off the rest of us. You won't convince me, me. I still say let 'em drink OJ instead of Pepsi.

I know what WIC is.  You just have no clue about this Social Security thing do you?  If you want to be fully covered you have to buy supplemental insurance which can cost up to $300 or more per month and sometimes the monthly SS check is less than $1000.  So it's approx. $100 pr month for pt B, which is prescriptions, and another approx $300 for supplemental which is $400 of the SS check off the top and what does that leave the retiree to live on???  Sometimes less than $500 pr month.  Great you say????  Hum, maybe they're lucky enough to be able to still get around and own a car and own a house and maybe aren't one of the lucky ones who have it paid off.  There's still utilities which are getting ridiculous and upkeep.  Wow, what a great retirement.  You would really have the guts to tell them forget the soda you like and drink water?  Maybe you'll get lucky enough to have an income like that when you reach retirement age. 

[LOsborne]

Actually I understand the Social Security system quite well. I'm still paying in, of course, but I look after my mother's financial affairs. Most people, including me, live on some kind of a budget. The point of a budget is to be able to pay for the things you must have, and still have money for the things you would like to have. I understand that people in poor health have more expenses, and therefore less disposable income than healthy people. In that case, doesn't your argument against taxing unhealthy substances ring false? Make unhealthy consumables more expensive, and logically, you wind up with a healthier older population.

Personally, I don't want the government to play daddy to me. I would rather see all consumables taxed. But I see a definite return on investment to making people pay out the @ss for stuff that rots their teeth, because then maybe they won't pay out the @ss for dental work. And if these people are indigent, then I won't pay out the @ss for their dental work.

Furthermore, if a person enters the Medicare age group in healthier condition, Part B is unnecessary, and perhaps even the supplement can be forgone.

Finally, I don't believe it is only luck that determines what funds we have available when we reach retirement. I believe intelligent planning plays a big part.