SF Mayor wants to charge stores that sell sodas

[Jacobair]

I have a real problem with this.
It totally feeds the stereotype that all Democrats want to do is raise taxes.



(09-17) 20:36 PDT -- Calling soda the new tobacco, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom will introduce legislation this fall that would charge a fee to retailers that sell sugary beverages.

Newsom would need voter approval to tax individual cans of soda and sugary juice, but only needs approval from the Board of Supervisors to levy a fee on retailers. His legislation would charge grocery stores like Safeway and big-box stores, but would not affect restaurants that serve sodas.

Newsom wouldn't say how much the stores would have to pay or how the city would spend the fees. When he first floated the idea in 2007, he said the money would go to his Shape Up San Francisco exercise program and for media campaigns to discourage soda drinking.

The mayor said the city attorney's office has warned him the city would probably be sued over the matter, but he said it is worth the risk to try to curb a leading cause of obesity and diabetes.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/18/MNF619OSF4.DTL&type=printable

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. You may but the tax is being considered

at the federal level. Though I hate regressive taxes, there is a reason for it. Take a look at NATIONAL obesity rates.

[Jacobair]

3. I don't care. I'm not obese, and if I want to drink 24 cans of

pepsi per day, I shouldn't be penalized for that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. You are still paying for it

in increased health care costs.

Only the ignorant or not well educated on the costs of health care don't realize this.

By the way, go ahead drink the 24 cans, at 125 calories a pop you will be obese soon enough

[Jacobair]

7. I was obviously overstating the 24 cans per day to make

the point that I don't need the government monitoring what I drink.
You're crazy if you think a soda tax will do one thing to control health care costs.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Depends on what you do with that tax

if you spend it in the communities most affected to educate people on nutrition, have tax breaks for actual stores to move in and at least compete with Mickey Ds... and even use the money to give subsidies to gymns. Yep, that would go a long way.

If it is not used that way, forget it.

Reality is as a SOCIETY we need to do things that for some of the libertarian types may be nanny state... if we don't, well we will still pay for it.

Now I hate regressive taxes, but if those regressive taxes are used in the way they should... like oh Education... yes that will help. We have the experience of Tobacco... and it has partially worked.

[Tx4obama]

34. And if I want to chain smoke then....

I shouldn't be penalized with a huge cigarette taxes either, but I am.

So now it is time for the non-smoking soda drinkers to get a taste of what it is like to be singled out and taxed!

I am enjoying this.

Anyone that doesn't want to pay a soda tax can 'stop drinking soda' and drink water :)

[dionysus]

122. what if you chain smoke while chugging soda there buddy ;)

[enlightenment]

10. Sin taxes don't work.

Prohibition didn't work, either.

[rucky]

2. These nanny taxes have to stop.

They're regressive, and don't replace education.

[sandnsea]

9. They pay for education though

but I'd rather they paid for health care.

[Confusious]

65. Yea, well maybe the people who own land

Should be paying for more, and not the poor.

Property taxes usually go to pay for schools. So people don't want to pay more for the schools, but they still need to educate their kid. I KNOW! Lets have the poor pay for it.

[Quantess]

5. There aren't too many obese people in SF anyway, because everyone has to walk.

So a tax on soda seems unnecessary in San Francisco. How about Memphis instead?

[SoCalDem]

6. Better to call it a "non-essential edibles" surcharge

and extend it to anything with ADDED sugars, anything with HFCS, all "personal-sized" waters, all complete-ready-to-heat-and-eat prepared meals, chips & cookies. I would exempt "raw" popcorn & nuts.

and of course, all "fast-food" too.

But only if the money were to be set aside for health CARE..not just handed off to glitzy ad agencies for more dumb ads that tell us what not to eat.. (we already know that, and those ads probably make people hungry )

[sandnsea]

12. Yep. And gas, alcohol, cigs, guns, ammo,

everything that makes us sick.

I've been walking my grandson to pre-school and it occurs to me that everybody walked everywhere 100 years ago. No wonder everybody knew each other and were able to keep a better handle on crime. It's too bad we don't have the living standards we had then with the antibiotics we've got now. We'd be doing pretty good.

[Confusious]

70. If we cut down on the number of cars and roads

And came closer together, things would eventually right themselves.

But we have to have our cars, roads, houses with a yard.

I would prefer, myself, to live above a little shop in a market district. I have a picture of an old german market district. Looks so cool.

[Shell Beau]

116. I prefer to live where I live. It may not be so close to everything,

but that is how I like it.

[Shell Beau]

115. Not everyone can walk their children to school.

I wish it were so, but working parents have to be on time to work, and walking 10 miles round trip ain't cutting it.

[abumbyanyothername]

11. Don't think of it as a tax

think of it as internalizing all of the true costs of the product. Then people can make their own decisions based on sound econometric inputs.

[Ron Green]

28. Bingo. This post says it all.

Sorry I didn't see it before I started ranting below at some of these libertarians crying "nanny state."

[Confusious]

30. Yea, bend over type internalizing

I bet all the ones saying it's a good idea would be up in arms if it was their lattes or gluten free humanly killed free range soy burgers.

Another fuck you, I'll make you do what I want, one way or the other.

As if its not the dumbass politicians fault that we don't walk anywhere because they build so many goddamn roads all over the place, so you can't get anywhere if you don't drive, exceptions being back east.

[The Straight Story]

13. Smokers warned people about these things being next and people laughed - idiots

Give in on one thing and they will add another to the list.

And yeah - it does seem like dems want to raise taxes a lot, especially on things that hurt the poor most.

What is sad is how many dems here agree with the idea.

[ejpoeta]

14. i could see it coming.... i don't agree with the tax, but i also think that

anyone who supported a tax on cigarettes can't say a damned thing about a tax on pop or anything else. the same reasons they thought were just fine for smokers ought to be good enough for them. I personally know people who were all happy and gung ho about taxing cigarettes up the wazoo... but oh boy are they steaming mad about the possibility of taxing pop. and i told them straight out that if they think that cigarette taxes are fine, then they have no room to complain. period.

[The Straight Story]

16. They only whine or care if it affects them usually, typical of pretend progessives

They remind me of preachers who want to save everyone from sin and shove their religion/ideals down your throats, and want to make laws to save you.

[ejpoeta]

20. and then get caught in a compromising position.

[Confusious]

23. 'pop' haha

You're from the east. I say 'soda'.

[Jacobair]

31. I think pop is more of a midwest term

But when I went to college in the Bay Area, I never heard anyone call it "pop."

[Confusious]

33. Maybe midwest

A friend from Texas looked at me funny when I said "soda". He always said "pop". That was in Alaska.

[iris27]

99. not Missouri - it's soda here.

It's pop in Iowa, though.

[Tx4obama]

40. Illinois / Texas

Growing up in Illinois we always said POP.
Here in Texas we say SODA.

Some places in the USA they say SODA POP.

[tammywammy]

113. I call it soda, but most people I know call it Coke

"Do you want a coke? I have dr pepper and sprite." :)

[ejpoeta]

78. i was born and raised in wny and have always called it pop. my husband says soda....

whether because he actually says it or just to annoy me i am not sure. LOL!

[Hannah Bell]

98. i'm from wa state & i say "pop", & so did my wa-state born parents.

"soda" sounds affected (to us).

[Confusious]

107. affected?

Sounds like I got a mental problem...

Well we won't go there :)

[dionysus]

119. no, it varies widely. on the east coast, it's soda. in the buffalo ny area, it's pop.

[madeline_con]

27. I can't see it breaking the budget.

I'd have to be doing some serious soda drinking to go broke from a few cents tax.

[Confusious]

45. No, its not that

Its the fact that this country is leaderless, and now seems to want to just patch everything instead of making real changes.

Take away the corporate subsidies, stop building more roads so people have to get their fat asses out and walk.

No, its the pick on the poor and middle class in this country, we don't want to piss off the corporations by taking away their trough.

[ejpoeta]

79. i would welcome the ability to take a walk down my road. but i'd be taking my life in my hands at

this point. I live in the country on a long and windy road. There is a yellow line down the center, but not even the white lines you see on other roads.. and no edge... I used to take my now 10 year old in her stroller and walk down the road with cars racing past me. I quit doing it because I didn't want my daughter to get the idea it was ok to be out by the road. I used to walk when I was mad.... I could walk a good long clip. I still will go once in awhile, but it's harder to do with the kids... I know if I lived in town or in the city I would be walking a lot more because there are sidewalks and you're not really risking your life. I would go park at my sister's house and walk the kids down to the park or the library.

It's easier to just blame the pop than to look at the systemic problems... people work long hours for less pay and barely have the time or energy to do much of anything after that. They end up ordering take out or going through the drive thru not because they want to, but because they are just drained. We don't take vacations in this country. We work ourselves to death and then send our kids to ten different after school activiities. We fill our homes with pricey things we think we 'deserve' because we work so hard just making it so that we HAVE TO keep working so hard to pay it off. But we are never happy.

We don't need to tax pop.... we need to change our emphasis from THINGS to quality of life. Going out in my backyard and watching the deer come up and eat apples off the trees. Watching the kids laughing and playing in the yard. When a two year old is excited when she gets a new baby doll to play with. No, it doesn't do anything but to stoke her imagination. But she LOVES it... is happy to have gotten it.

[Confusious]

108. +1 x 10^23

So right.....

[DJ13]

15. "What is sad is how many dems here agree with the idea."

:thumbsup:

[Statistical]

18. +1. I guess the stereotype is at least PARTIALLY earned.

[Tx4obama]

37. Yep, the non-smokers should have stood up with us smokers! Now it is their turn to pay! n/t

[frebrd]

17. Isn't he running for Governor?

Got to keep his name in the news any way he can!

[Jacobair]

21. Eh, I don't know if that's the reason .. it's just very San Francisco

to propose such a thing.
Where else can you face a fine for pouring coffee grounds into the wrong trash can?
I love SF to death, but that city is in many cases overly regulated.

[Confusious]

36. I'm liberal ( Or so I think )

But if I got busted for pouring coffee grounds in the wrong trash can, I'm out of there.

For the most part, I'm live and let live, as long as you don't hurt anyone else.

That is not a live and let live law.

[Jacobair]

48. I absolutely agree with you. It's so regressive. I do not

get it at all.

[Luminous Animal]

63. I grew up in rural Michigan in the 60s and you would face a fine

for not separating your trash. Farmers depended on compost and nobody blinked an eye about saving green garbage for the slop truck. It was just was you did. San Francisco's dump won't be able to handle much more but there are a lot of local farmers that are enthusiastic about our compost.

[Confusious]

66. That's rural Michigan

You thought about that.

Who the hell is farming in the middle of San Francisco?

[Luminous Animal]

67. We have a lot of small farms within an hour and two from San Francisco...

and we supply compost to to them. They are on board and excited about this. San Francisco has a great relationship with our local farms and this will make it even better.

By the way, I farm in the middle of San Francisco. It's a little farm but I grow tomatoes, lettuces, peppers, onions, carrots, radishes, lemons, limes, chives, cucumbers, a dozen herbs, strawberries, and apples. I don't have room to compost but I can go to the San Francisco League of Urban Gardeners and get compost for free. Compost created from organic garbage collection.

[Confusious]

69. Well OK

I am corrected.:)

If it was me, I would probably do it. But I have a problem with being made to pay a fine for not doing it.

[Luminous Animal]

72. I am tired and I was on my way to go to bed...

but I got to thinking... where I grew up we burned our paper trash, refunded our bottles, metal went to the tinsmith, and garbage for the slop truck. Nobody felt the need to take a "moral" stand in the name of personal freedom. And if they had.. if they had mixed the garbage with the tin, or paper with the garbage, they'd be viewed as total assholes and left to stew in their own refuse. A city does not have the luxury of allowing people to stew in their own refuse. We live side by side and one person's refuse becomes their neighbor's refuse. But in a city we do have the luxury of anonymity; that is, we can assert our personal preferences free of community condemnation. If we live in a situation where our immediate neighbors do not know us well enough to view us as assholes, then it is up to our elected representatives to levy the asshole fine.

[Confusious]

74. Yes, but whoe standards?

Who is to tell me I am committing a sin when I weight less then most of people around me?

6'2" 180 pounds. I drink 4 sodas a day, eat mostly vegetables, moderate chicken, and beef maybe maybe 1ce every two weeks. Barely ever eat fast food.

Should I put my standards on you? Should we require everyone to eat more vegetables?

Should we have the government telling people you can have all the vegetables you want, chicken every 3rd day and beef 1ce a month? Just because your a fat ass.

BTW. Even if you put a sin tax on soda, how about the other thousands of food out there which 90% have sugar in them? Are you going to ban them to. You better, or else it all comes to nothing.

You should also require everyone to join a gym and get a cop to make sure they go if they are over 300 pounds.

They're fighting a symptom, not the cause.

[Luminous Animal]

114. FYI, I don't support the soda tax.

It's yet another regressive tax but I do believe that government (and we are the government) does have the responsibility to address obesity. It is a public health issue. I don't know the answer, I do know that government has succeeded in reducing cigarette smoking through education campaigns.

[Confusious]

77. Ahh, fuck it

We can all eat wheat grass for all I care.

I'm sure that would make a lot of people happy. One big granola family.

out.

[Mist]

19. The sugar lobby is going to land on this with both feet. Hard. nt

[handmade34]

100. they've been working on this one for awhile now...

http://www.nofoodtaxes.com/facts/#education

[dionysus]

120. wrong. (the corn lobby)

;)

poor sugar farmers, hardly anyone uses sugar to sweeten things because HFCS is so much cheaper.

[Ron Green]

22. I've got no problem with this.

Junk food is subsidized by policies that favor Big Ag, and I'm happy to see money go the other way. If people want to drink this shit, they can pay a lot more for it.

Those who scream "Nanny state!" are either libertarian assholes or they're not thinking very hard about it.

[Jacobair]

24. No wonder the Republicans so effectively use the

"Democrats are going to do nothing but raise your taxes" line over and over again.
If I want to 'drink this shit,' that should be my business. Not your or the government.

[Ron Green]

26. It IS your business. You just ought to pay a little more for it, to make up for the

subsidies that Archer Daniels Midland gets for its ingredients. Get a clue.

[Jacobair]

29. No, I shouldn't ought to pay a little more for it.

You're spewing nonsense with your Archer Daniels Midland meme. Give me a break.
Tax and spend advocates like you cost Democrats elections. You should get a clue.

[Ron Green]

35. Sorry, I don't agree with your libertarian point of view.

In my opinion, government policy can effectively counteract corporate propaganda and hegemony if it's properly designed and applied. That's one of the things Progressivism can do. Your "tax and spend" language is the same as used by those who want to let a consumerist society run wild with addiction and slavery. They'll scream about "big government" but never about who's really running the government.

[Confusious]

39. Well, I don't like your fascist state ideas

See, I can name call too.

"government policy can effectively counteract corporate propaganda and hegemony"

HAW! Thats funny. Don't you know who owns the government?

"run wild with addiction and slavery"

So your here to rescue us with your new addiction and slavery?

"They'll scream about "big government" but never about who's really running the government"

And your screaming about "big corporations" without ever really wanting to fight them.

[Ron Green]

42. I'm not sure what point you're making.

My point is that the corporations DO own the government, and they are happy to offer poor people cheap food that's not good for them, and Metformin when they get diabetes. I don't want smaller government or lower taxes, I want BETTER government and taxes that are used to improve people's lives.

[Jacobair]

46. Yes, because the soda tax will be used to improve people's

lives. LOL
'I don't want smaller government or lower taxes.'
OMG, would the Republican propaganda machine have a field day with your rhetoric.

[Ron Green]

51. You're sounding a lot like this machine of which you speak. I'm a proud socialist. You?

[Jacobair]

54. I'm a proud live and let live guy who doesn't want the government

in my business.
I'm also in favor of not sticking yet another tax on the poor.
You're fooling yourself if you think a soda tax will be appropriated properly for anything that has to do with health care or any other reason you cite for thinking this is a good idea.

[Ron Green]

57. It's a free country. You can be a Libertarian, but I'm working for something better.

[Jacobair]

59. Good. Well work on something better without raising working

family taxes.

[Confusious]

60. And you're free to be a fascist.

Better is relative. For you? While we pay.

[Confusious]

55. And so pure as the driven snow

That he doesn't even wait for you to prove that you're not a republican.

You CAN NEVER be a pure as he is.

[Confusious]

49. And you're the one to decide

What's good for them.

[Ron Green]

53. I didn't decide that sugary soda pop isn't good for them. Medical scientists did.

Now it's up to our governments to make policy (taxes, education, labels, removal of subsidies) to encourage people to quit using so much stuff that's a public health problem.

[Confusious]

58. And beef is even worse

Lets tax that, and eggs, and bacon, and anything processed, and pizza, and cheese, and chips and driving, and bicycling ( You can fall on you head and die! )

Living is a danger.

Maybe if the government stopped building so many roads, people would get off their fat asses and walk. But that's to damn hard for you isn't it. Better to pick on people who have no voice.

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. actually research shows that the 39 lb of sugar you and I

are consuming on average are actually worst than beef. Something about Insulin resistance, which leads to CAD.

I am glad you are a libertarian though... but you should read the releases from research published by the AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION. That was the last two weeks.

[Confusious]

73. Insulting me by calling me a loonytarian does nothing for you

We may eat 39 lb of sugar, but that doesn't all come from sodas.

My guess is, they tax soda to high heaven, and nothing changes, except for the 5% who have addiction problem anyways.

They'll just switch to donuts or powered sugar and now we tax that.

How about candy, or Fast food, or any of the crap you buy at the store?

Have you ever read the ingredients for the stuff we eat? Sugar is in almost everything.

They're fighting a symptom, not the cause. sodas are the scapegoat. All of our obesity problems are because of that!

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. We all hold a libertarian view on some things

insofar as this goes you do. If the shoe fits...

And of course that tax would include the crap at the store. Ideally all subsidies given to the Corn industry, and our CURRENT CHEAP FOOD policy, will end

In fact, they will. It is called the end of cheap oil... so one way or the other they will.

By the way keep supporting ADM and the rest of the boys.

[Confusious]

32. So I should pay for it from both ends

In my income tax, and a sales tax.

Wouldn't it jut be easier to take away the subsidies? No, I guess not. That would involve a fight, better to pick on people who can't fight back.

[Ron Green]

38. You fight back in two ways: One, you quit drinking the stuff.

Two, you elect politicians who give agricultural policy its rightful importance and who agree with Wendell Berry instead of Earl Butz.

[Confusious]

41. No, that says nothing

You didn't answer my question.

You just made another statement.

[Ron Green]

43. Taking away the subsidies is necessary too. This isn't rocket science.

[Confusious]

47. No, its not

And it took you 2 posts to answer.

[The Straight Story]

106. Uh then end the subsidies, unless you are into punishing people for choices - is abortion next?

People choose to have sex, not to use condoms, etc. STD's and such increase health care costs, pregnancies are elective, as are abortions - should we tax those as well?

[Ron Green]

118. Indeed, end the subsidies. People are always punished for bad choices,

unless it's corporate players with government in their pockets. In that case, consumers are punished for their "choices" (addiction to unhealthy foods, for example) while the corporations thrive. I'd rather see people punished for their choices in a way that leads us all to better choices, not to further addiction and slavery.

I'm amused at the fears about government "social engineering." It's the private sector that's been doing the social engineering for at least half a century. I think we can stand a little more socialism in the service of better health and better choices.

[madeline_con]

25. Coca Cola vs San Francisco n/t

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

44. Way to force more small neighborhood groceries out of the city, Gavin

As if that wasn't a big enough problem already.

[Jacobair]

52. And there's another good point.

Even though I'm sure most of the penalty, as I call it, will be passed on to the consumer.

[Ron Green]

56. Maybe small neighborhood groceries could start to sell more real food and less

soda pop, cigarettes and skin mags. What a concept.

[Confusious]

61. The next target?

Got a problem with porno there green? Going to be taxing that to high heaven now?

[Jacobair]

62. You sound just like Pat Robertson.

And Sarah Palin.

[Odin2005]

50. Sin taxes are wrong and immoral.

[Milk]

68. But sin taxes are par for the course for some vices

Why not expand them to other unhealthy habits? We get hammered for cigarettes and liquor so why not tax obesity friendly foods? I already pay the sin tax on the first two sins and will gladly pay the sin tax for unhealthy foods I almost never consume.

As is the case now, if you have a habit of legal drugs you pay through the nose (and up and up) and choose to modify your expenditures to continue your unhealthy habit. I admit that my smoking and drinking are unhealthy (and pay WAY more than when I started) so I think it's at least fair (and smart) to add 60% more in taxes to discourage their habit and maybe force them to stop drinking soda or eating fast food, and so on.

[Milk]

64. What's next for the food police? Donuts in public schools?

We're not robots for pete's sake.

[Confusious]

76. Yes we are

$10 for a candy bar, $50 for a taste of ben & jerrys.

You should have nothing but wheat grass.

Get out and graze!

[Confusious]

75. Freaking nutrition NAZIs n/t

[Taverner]

81. I have mixed feelings on this

One hand, good tax revenue generator. Especially if he could levy the tax on the cans themselves.

Other hand, I like soda, and don't want to pay more taxes

[Jacobair]

82. LOL. Nobody wants to pay more taxes, especially if we know

the money is not going to go to the correct use!
Believe me, a soda tax would disappear into the general fund of something off track.

[Taverner]

83. Yes, but it is a smart method of taxation

renewable, it grows every year and keeps up with inflation

Not like a cigarette tax, which brings less money in each year, and is only good as a deterrent (and even then, very limited)

[Jacobair]

84. No, it's a dumb method if taxation .. Sticking it to the people

who don't have a lot of money is wrong -- not to mention the whole concept is completely intrusive.

[Taverner]

85. Last I checked the rich and poor both like soda

[Jacobair]

86. Right, so therefore this regressive tax is sticking it to the poor.

Would you say at some point, it will be a good time for the Democrats to stop taxing everything, so the Republicans can no longer use it as ammo.
A tax on soft drinks. Now I've heard everything.

[Taverner]

87. No I don't think we pay enough taxes in this country

Any other industrialized nation, and you'd easily pay 10-12% more in taxes.

A 2 cent tax on soda is not a bad thing, and I really don't think that sticks it to the poor any more than a whiskey tax would be. Sodas aren't essential, in fact they aren't that healthy even.

[Jacobair]

88. OMG. ***DRAMATIC MUSIC*** "And now, in one of the worst

recessions in American history, the Democrats want to actually tax your soda pop!
Where does it end?

You can't picture that ad?

Believe me, I'm nowhere near confident about the 2010 midterms. This kind of baloney tax proposal (key word, TAX) does not help when so many people are out of work.

And who cares if they 'aren't that healthy even?'

[Taverner]

91. This is SF. A Republican couldn't get elected dog catcher in this town

[Jacobair]

97. No, it doesn't matter that it's San Francisco. You know as well

as I that the Republicans are dishonest and when it comes to making television ads: the goal is to lie and trick.
They could very easily say leave out the city, and make it a generic ad about the Democrats wanting to tax your soda pop, which would technically be true without disclosing they only are targeting SF for now.
Look, if someone like myself has a million swiftboat-like advertising ads about this, imagine how many the professional GOP lie machine have.
This is a bad idea, particularly during a recession, and particularly coming up on the 2010 midterm elections.

[Taverner]

117. Richard Riordan was the last Republican Mayor of SF

He was largely elected by a very corrupt city hall and a very corrupt police department. Oh yeah, and the last gasp of the gentry that used to rule SF.

It took a while to get the scum out of SF City Hall - but Willie Brown and Gavin Newsom did it.

[dionysus]

121. while you may be correct factually, you'll never convince enough people that the

additional governtment services provided will be worth it. that's why the repukes get away with the "those dem's are gonna raise your taxes, and keep it all for themselves!!11!!!11" tactic.

[handmade34]

89. your argument is lost on me

when you don't even consider corporate exploitation. What's a few more cents to the gov't to help the population as a whole when a Coke or Pepsi Company is selling a bottle of soda that consists of carbonated water, hyper processed high fructose corn syrup, food coloring and caffeine for $1.89. I fully support taxing soft drinks!

[Jacobair]

93. Tell me handmade34 where that 'few more cents to the gov't'

is going to go to allegedly 'help the population.'
Because if you actually believe such a regressive and intrusive tax is going to be correctly appropriated, I have a bridge...
Your comment would also be used by the Republicans: 'I fully support taxing soft drinks!'
That will not play well to most Americans who want less government and fewer taxes.

[JVS]

94. It will let the government give more tax cuts to rich people and owners of highly valued property

[handmade34]

101. I support the soft drink tax

I support the doubling of taxes for those making $500,000+ and I support the legalization of herbs and their use. I support people being actively involved in their communities and gov't and deciding what is best for the common good.

[handmade34]

96. people want to feel as if they have control over their own lives

I get it. So the unfettered market is not intrusive and exploitive, but the gov't is?

[Confusious]

104. It's not a few more cents

Its a tax on every can, a twelve pack will cost $1.00 more.

[handmade34]

109. soft drinks and juice drinks are outrageously overpriced,

of no nutritional value, they use up precious resources(bottling and processing), they add to our collective bad health, consumers have bought into corporate marketing and continue to buy them no matter the detriments and high price... the American Beverage Association is fighting back hard against taxes on their products
this is their argument- http://www.ameribev.org/blog/2009/09/a-tax-on-beverages-with-sugar-a-money-grab/

do we really want to fight for the right to be able to buy tax free junk?? I tend to think there are more important causes to fight for... I figure if I am buying an overpriced luxury item - I may just as well chip in a few cents for supporting my gov't.

[Confusious]

111. That spends it on war. n/t

[handmade34]

112. so let's spend our energy on ending the *war*

[JVS]

90. The cigarette tax was a golden goose, until they got greedy and killed it.

They finally piled up enough taxes that an addictive substance doesn't sell (or at least doesn't sell on the legitimate market) enough to keep generating the revenues it used to.

[Taverner]

92. That, and the ones who pay the tax end up dying quicker

Than those who don't pay it

[Hannah Bell]

95. nice way to put independent "corner stores" out of business.

[Hansel]

102. We have sales tax on pop and candy in MN and...

I haven't seen any corner stores go out of business as a result. I don't think anyone even pays attention to it. People stopped complaining about it after about the 1st week it was in effect.

The sales taxes that piss me off are the ones we pay in Minneapolis for building stadiums so that the already too rich can make more profits and the people least able to afford it get stuck with the bill and no benefits from them. It's ridiculous buying lunch downtown with all of the taxes you have to pay on it.

[Confusious]

103. I think it's close to the same thing

I would have less of a problem with it, probably no problem with it, if they went after the corporations who did this.

I feel like the politicians are being cowards and dumping on the poor and middle class.

How much more will they dump on us?

[handmade34]

110. you are absolutely correct

there are politicians that are cowards (good word) and they impose laws, rules and taxes that poor people don't have the means to fight against. Exactly why we must work together and not be victims, help each other fight against unfair practices...

[Hannah Bell]

105. only on pop & candy? because corner stores make a bigger chunk of their margin on

those items than supermarkets do.

and if they're not chains, can less afford the drop in revenue.