Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

LollyTotlkyWondrr t1_itorf17 wrote

The thing is low sugar drinks are actually worse for you because shit like aspartame is carcinogenic and sweetener is just not good for you in general. No nutritional value at all. Even juice isn’t that healthy. You’re better off just drinking water and tea.

−2

ShinigamiRyan t1_itortlv wrote

Not a bad idea. Think there's more to be done at the federal level such as looking at sugar allowed in products in general.

−6

JustAScaredDude t1_itos740 wrote

While they’re at it, they should raise the bottle/can deposit. The vast majority of people don’t give a shit about the $05-.10 per bottle/can and just yeet that shit

7

[deleted] OP t1_itosr2b wrote

They could subsidize healthier drinks instead but I think they need to advertise it aggressively and they have to be cheaper than unhealthy drinks.

6

Foxcecil t1_itot8fl wrote

Why do so many people these days want the government to control what they can and can't do? Live and let live.

22

seeker135 t1_itov630 wrote

Let's penalize the enduser for selecting among choices approved by the authorities.

5

Foxcecil t1_itox1qa wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#214,450)

If it's largely preventable, then let free people prevent it if they want. If they don't want to prevent it, let them get diabetes. I often wonder why the progressive logic for assisted suicide and abortion is 'let them do what they want to do' but when it comes to giving the government power to tax things like sugary drinks, or force us to drink from paper straws, the same progressive logic is 'let the government make decisions for you'.

6

Sgt_Beefy t1_itox8yq wrote

How about we stop fucking taxing everything? thanks.

14

seeker135 t1_itoxd98 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#214,628)

Yeah, but we live in a society. We can't abandon fools to die on the side of the road. Uninsured (M4A) cancer treatment costs as set by the govt/industry are destructive. I have no problem with high taxes on products proven to kill. Booze only does it to certain people (hello, self). Cigs essentially get err'body.

Overall, this is all a feature of the slavery caste in the US. Owners, managers, overseers, slaves. A few specialties.

There is no central police authority in this country. The States do not have centralized police departments. Staties, sure. Control below that level? Nope. All little independent fiefdoms. Plantations, if you will.

Take a look around. Every other Tom, Dick and Harry is some kind of cop. DHS, TSA, BORDER FUCKING PATROL , it's endless. I'm glad I'm old. Because I just came out of a forty-year dissociation from grief trauma. And I've been becoming more alarmed with each passing year at the ignorance and violence that is considered "normal" in this place. I despise handguns, don't like guns. I'm debating getting a shotgun. Because the fascists have come around again, and are going to need slapping down again, as we do every eighty years with these fuckers. And their chosen market is stupid enough to buy half of a story, lock, stock and barrel.

−1

WikiSummarizerBot t1_itp0pi0 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#215,096)

Sugary drink tax

>A sugary drink tax, soda tax, or sweetened beverage tax (SBT) is a tax or surcharge (food-related fiscal policy) designed to reduce consumption of sweetened beverages. Drinks covered under a soda tax often include carbonated soft drinks, sports drinks and energy drinks. This policy intervention is an effort to decrease obesity and the health impacts related to being overweight, however the medical evidence supporting the benefits of a sugar tax on health is of very low certainty. The tax is a matter of public debate in many countries and beverage producers like Coca-Cola often oppose it.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)

0

Agreeable_Sun3754 t1_itp9hta wrote

Replying to Foxcecil (#214,387)

It's not about controlling people it's about controlling corporations. Tax their shitty products that cause problems to reduce problems. It's like the tobacco industry, the first step is taxing the product so we can see how bad it's infiltration is in our society.

−3

Unique-Public-8594 t1_itpdu79 wrote

Replying to seeker135 (#214,572)

“Approved by authorities”. In this case the FDA. that’s a low bar. They approve drinking sugar water, which definitely leads to more cancer, which definitely increases mortality. So, death is ok for the FDA. Not a protective agency.

2

-Horatio_Alger_Jr- t1_itpe2td wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#214,450)

So we should have an extra tax on fast food. How about oil, should we tax that more so people dont fry foods. Chips are horrible for your health, we need to tax that more. Don't get me started on candy.

Why don't we just get to the root cause. We should have a flat $20 tax on every pound of sugar. That will make you think twice about enjoying some of those Christmas cookies.

5

Sylvio_ t1_itpepv6 wrote

While they’re at it there should be a Reddit tax

2

SketchyCharacter4u t1_itph4f1 wrote

You know why I don’t drink sugary drinks? Because I know they are bad and I don’t want to be a fat ass.

0

josephkambourakis t1_itpibqn wrote

As long as the collected tax is allocated for healthcare uses.

1

Foxcecil t1_itpjga9 wrote

Replying to Agreeable_Sun3754 (#215,818)

Using taxation for anything other than maintaining the minimal effective level of government is simply the government putting their hands on the people's breasts or backside. Any excuse or reasoning for weaponizing taxation in such a way is akin to a physical perpetrator saying to his victim, " You like this. You need this. I'm just trying to help you." America was created to make sure the people didn't have to deal with this BS. Live and let live.

1

Alfond378 t1_itpulxk wrote

Just like how taxes are so effective in stopping people from smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol. Or how they are taxing marijuana to encourage legal sales. Taxes are just a way to think you are doing something when nothing is really happening at all except collecting cash.

5

Dobagoh t1_itpwh58 wrote

Replying to Foxcecil (#216,706)

Nope, America was created so voters could control what taxes they imposed on themselves instead of letting uninterested and disinterested people across an entire ocean make those decisions on their behalf, without their input or advice, contrary to what they were promised hundreds of years ago when the colonies were first formed.

Do better.

−2

Dobagoh t1_itpx6ac wrote

Replying to -Horatio_Alger_Jr- (#216,170)

Lol, there already is a tax on sugar. You can thank the corn lobby for that. I guess implementing taxes is ok when it’s backed by corporations am I right? But god forbid the people want a tax imposed on themselves.

−1

blounge87 t1_itpxobo wrote

Why we pay for our own insurance out of pocket anyways

2

[deleted] OP t1_itpyr7n wrote

We don't need any more taxes. Why do you people need the government to help keep you safe and make your decisions for you. They already dont spend the taxes they collect correctly. If people want to drink two 2 liters of coca cola let them drink two 2 liters of coca cola. Everything is expensive enough. Anyway to collect more taxes. So we can just give away the money to the next big crisis. I hate that every year we get more and more rules and laws. Most of us just want to be left alone. Stop being the great idea fairy. A tax won't stop people. Maybe if the government actually put out the information on how dangerous stuff is and not paid doctors to say what they needed them to say people wouldn't be addicted to sugar. And the health care system is broken. Anything big brother touches is broken. Our roads, our schools, Healthcare, bank system it's all broken you got cdc and epa making regulations we have to follow. Half out state can't have fires in there backyards. It should of never been based off of the city or town you live but by how much space such as 75 feet between your house and the next building. They we also limit livestock. They say we need bees but the towns want 1 acre of land per beehive if you keep them. Bees don't need an acre of land. We give the government an inch and they take a mile. If we use your logic on penalizing people. It will move on to candy bars and snacks and food eventually. You are worried about sugary drinks but not about the hundreds of cannabis shops popping up everywhere. The nasty smelling air I have to explain to my children what it is. That I can't go to a fair with out it smelling like weed. My children's football games smells snoop dog just pulled up on his bus. Fight the better fights. Pick up a history book. Read about the revolutionary war. Go to lexington and concord. Read the bill of rights the constitution and the declaration of independence. When you are done with that read our states constitution. The first article gives us the right to defending our lives, liberties, property, safety and happiness.

2

of_patrol_bot t1_itpys8q wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#218,537)

Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.

It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.

Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.

Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.

1

jp_jellyroll t1_itq02o9 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#214,628)

Lack of exercise has horrible life-long health impacts, and yet, we don't tax people for not exercising. Maybe we should put a massive tax on video games so people don't sit around all day. In fact, the government should force all game companies to put a cap at 1 hour of play per 24 hours. That'll force people to exercise!

We should tax elevators, escalators, and those moving sidewalks in the airports. We should tax e-bikes & scooters because pedaling manually is far better exercise.

We should reinstitute a nationwide military draft to force people to get in shape. Two birds with one stone there. We can bulk up our military and get rid of all the fat-asses.

Lol.

1

Popomatik t1_itq3na6 wrote

But that’s goes against my freedom and it will hurt corporations! /s

−1

Academic_Guava_4190 t1_itq4p3c wrote

Taxing individuals won’t change anything. People will still consume what they want. If you want to tax anyone then tax the corporation more. Of course they will just pass that expense on to the consumer and we’re in the same place we started. Give it a rest.

2

PakkyT t1_itq5vau wrote

Just make broccoli free. Easier and more socially acceptable.

2

SLEEyawnPY t1_itqaxlw wrote

Replying to Foxcecil (#214,387)

>Why do so many people these days want the government to control what they can and can't do? Live and let live.

Perhaps in part because the fraction of Americans who actually operate by a "live and let live" philosophy in practice is very small.

In particular when a "pedigreed Caucasian" explicitly tells you "I tend to operate by a live and let live-kind of philosophy" you can generally safely translate that to "I am a control-freak lunatic. I will attempt to micro-manage the shit out of your life, every chance I get."

That is to say Reagan said "Trust, but verify" and with respect to dealing with Americans he wasn't wrong.

−3

SLEEyawnPY t1_itqfwyi wrote

Replying to Dobagoh (#218,250)

The difference between user "Foxcecil" and you is they're probably at some level self-aware they'd say anything if there was decent money to be made in saying it, while you seem to actually believe your variety of bullshit.

>Do better.

At least they're predictable.

1

SLEEyawnPY t1_itqhazk wrote

Replying to Sloth_are_great (#220,667)

>They’re not Caucasian. Just call them white.

Yes it's anything but a neutral term the way the "pedigreed Caucasians" to whom I'm referring use it. That's why I used it. I've put it in quotes, now..

0

Bigguymanfellow t1_itqhgbs wrote

These are drugs not food, coke and doritos are dopamine hits no different then cigs, you cant tax them because people like them and want them cheap, this is capitalism

1

chucktownbtown t1_itqhif8 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#214,628)

Taxes on alcohol are to take advantage of transaction volume for revenue purposes. Essentially, there’s a ton of money to be had because alcohol sales are so common.

If you want sugary drinks taxed to deter use, for health reasons, you should be making the same argument for alcohol to be taxed at an increased level to deter (for health reasons).

3

SkipAd54321 t1_itqk3rr wrote

In theory yes. But in practice no. NY did this and human behavior was unexpected. Purchases of drinks subject to the tax did not change. The reasons are varied and probably there are some reasons that were not identified but the general consensus was people buy what they want and marginal small taxes aren’t enough to change that behavior. It ended up being a tax on the poor.

1

-Horatio_Alger_Jr- t1_itqosao wrote

Replying to Dobagoh (#218,336)

>I guess implementing taxes is ok when it’s backed by corporations am I right?

You guessed wrong.

>But god forbid the people want a tax imposed on themselves.

I have great news. When you fill out your taxes next year, there is a spot where you can voluntary pay more taxes. You are allowed to impose as much tax on yourself as you want.

2

SLEEyawnPY t1_itqpn2z wrote

Replying to Dobagoh (#221,621)

>These are some of the reasons stated in the Declaration of Independence

Yes, and God prevents tax-evading slave owners from ever not telling the full truth in written documents.

2

warlocc_ t1_itqra9q wrote

You ever see that movie, Demolition Man?

They thought they were making a joke, not predicting the future.

1

SLEEyawnPY t1_itqsmm3 wrote

Replying to Foxcecil (#214,741)

Even close to brain-dead people are aware that conservatives tend to love the government making all sorts of decisions, when it's conservatives that have the power to do so.

They only slip on their "live and let live" sheep-disguise when it's someone else who's calling the shots.

> I often wonder why the progressive logic for assisted suicide and abortion

I guess if you were suffering from an excruciatingly painful terminal illness, or dying from a pregnancy or abortion gone wrong you wouldn't have to wonder no more, eh?

Your last thoughts would probably be "Gosh I wish those progressives hadn't stopped me from having the opportunity to use more plastic straws in my life"

0

theopinionexpress t1_itqu5p6 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#214,450)

Dunno why you’re being downvoted so heavily. This is the truth. Those of us that lead a healthy lifestyle pay disproportionally higher amounts into health insurance than we use, compared to some other people with preventable health ailments that are caused by lifestyle choices. It’s the same argument conservatives have against welfare. I go to the doctor less than someone who smokes, eats fast food, doesn’t exercise, doesn’t manage their health, yet I pay the same or maybe more for my insurance premium. If the entire nation was healthier, we’d have more money for other things. But it’s not a direct to your pocket equation, it takes time and more than a few intermediaries and variables for that benefit to be realized. It’s too nuanced to be explained or understood in a soundbyte so it will not gain main stream approval. People just hear higher taxes. I don’t drink that shit so it wouldn’t affect me, just like the higher cigarette prices or the ban on candy flavored vape cartridges didn’t effect me.

1

Foxcecil t1_itsa25j wrote

Replying to Agreeable_Sun3754 (#220,359)

Let's look at real world analogies. Would I prefer the CCP of China or Bill Gates/Apple to call the shots. I would certainly prefer making my own decisions, but if I had to choose an evil overlord, it definitely would be a company over a huge government..

1

Agreeable_Sun3754 t1_itsd5wz wrote

Replying to Foxcecil (#228,130)

Ya, those companies are only being so nice because you have a huge government preventing them from doing what they normally do without oversight. Hint company towns and being paid in company script.

0