LetsRun.com is Officially Against the Soda (ang Gatorade and Tea) Tax: Join With Us

Oaklandia wrote:

Thanks for the info, wejo!

I will be voting YES on Measure D this afternoon.

Ha ha. And you are not a troll. I looked up your IP and it maps out to Oakland.

At least you're not voting yes for the 2 cent tax in San Fran.

I was going to say all the groceries in Berkeley will lose business as people will go buy there Cokes in Oakland or whatever the nearest town is.

But do the groceries in Berkeley even sell Coke? I'm assuming it's like Whole Foods and organic on every corner.

Here's a tax people in Berkeley will be against:

It makes sense a more organic type town where not many people drink coke would be the one trying to tax it.

wejo wrote:

Oaklandia wrote:

Thanks for the info, wejo!

I will be voting YES on Measure D this afternoon.

Ha ha. And you are not a troll. I looked up your IP and it maps out to Oakland.

Well done!

SomeBloke wrote:

Wejo, once again, I suggest you do not speak of subjects you do not know of. France HAS a soda tax.

And yes, french are slimmer than americans. However, if you compare the average poor frenchman to the average american they are probably equally overweight. Soda tax makes sense in France and it would 10000000% make more sense in the US.

You are correct and I was wrong. The soda tax was started in 2012 in France and is about 1 cent can. Estimates I see say it is about 3.5% so about 10% times. So it's maybe 8-10 times less than the tax being proposed in Berkeley.

This article says the soda tax in France is more about raising revenue than stopping obesity:

Well Yeah Butt wrote:

(2) If you think that the cost of cigarettes does not influence smoking rates you are incredibly naive and/or ignorant.

I guess you are right. I mean, there has to be a point where it will affect usage, but isn't that also where the black market come into play?

I am not sure so I will stop commenting on it.

Oaklandia-one final plea.

I still think LRCers should be against the soda tax.

Imagine how much the fatboy coworker would have beaten the LRC poster in the 5k by if he didn't drink soda and wasn't fat?

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6087884

If the soda tax passes, obesity rates will drop, the LRC posters will start getting drilled in races by formerly fat runners. Their morale will decline and who knows what other bad outcomes will result.

LRCers it is in your own self interest to keep the rest of America fat. Please vote NO on all soda taxes. Otherwise you will no longer be special and beating your co workers in races.

Why tax soda when you can tax hard work and entrepreneurship instead?

wejo wrote:

....the proponents of the tax seem most concerned about protecting kids from diabetes.

There are better ways to do that.

Goddamn these f-ing do-gooders. All they care about is public health, esp that of the poor.

So what is a better way? Lets hear it.....

Wejo your narrow self-interest is amazing. You cannot abide the idea of explicitly paying more for a product solely because it might help other people.

The price americans pay for sugar is 10-11x the world market price. Subsidies and protections keep prices high.

You pay for other farm subsidies every day

You pay for coal subsidies.

You pay tax on gasoline to disuade you from driving and to finance roads

There are all manner of taxes to dissuade consumer behavior, or finance various projects. But this one, that may help discourage poor people from buying cheap sugary drinks, is too much for you?!?!

You are truly amazing....

Think of eating and drinking in terms of a running analogy. The body is resilient and it responds to any stress placed on it, but the adaptations won't be as ideal if you don't train wisely. Drinking sodas and burgers would be like having a runner enter the boxing ring to help train for a race. Sure, it's exercise, but it's not at all the ideal way to prepare your body for what you want it to do. You'll have a better career if you go for actual runs and specific training rather than dance around a ring and wake up with bruises every morning.

wejo wrote:

Stop worrying about who will win the Senate tomorrow, there is a cause we can unite against.

No we can't. I'd love to see a tax on every single sugary, empty-calorie beverage out there. Not just 1%, either, more like 5%. I'm sick of watching fat, acne-studded teenagers lumbering around carrying Big Gulps and looking like stricken retards. This would obviously still occur to a great extent and we'd still have many of those selfsame retards posting on letsrun, but it would at least generate a lot of revenue. Tax the hell out of anything that makes Americans look, smell or act in bad ways (e.g., cigarettes, booze, soda and frigging lottery tickets too).

Lyndon LaRouche wrote:

You pay tax on gasoline to disuade you from driving and to finance roads

This tax is hardly meant to dissuade people from driving. It's a source of income, period. It pays for roadways and earmarked programs. 40% of it go towards earmarked programs.

Now that people are using hybrids, people are using less fuel, and the government is in panic mode trying to find more funds to replace the lost revenue from the fuel tax. They WISH people were driving more.

xvxxv wrote:

Lyndon LaRouche wrote:

You pay tax on gasoline to disuade you from driving and to finance roads

This tax is hardly meant to dissuade people from driving. It's a source of income, period. It pays for roadways and earmarked programs. 40% of it go towards earmarked programs.

Now that people are using hybrids, people are using less fuel, and the government is in panic mode trying to find more funds to replace the lost revenue from the fuel tax. They WISH people were driving more.

It depends on the city. Some cities impose fuel taxes on top of federal taxes, just as they raise parking fees, etc. It is all designed to nudge consumers out of their cars and onto public transport.

Off the Grid wrote:

wejo wrote:

....the proponents of the tax seem most concerned about protecting kids from diabetes.

There are better ways to do that.

Goddamn these f-ing do-gooders. All they care about is public health, esp that of the poor.

So what is a better way? Lets hear it.....

Here's a proposal LRC can get behind. Add to food and beverage labels how many miles you have to run to burn off the calories consumed. Example:

Double Whopper with Cheese: 990 Calories

You must run:

6 miles at D1 Ivy Leaguer, future millionaire pace

7.5 miles a local sub elite pace

8 miles at D3 girls pace

9 miles at Hobby Jogger pace

10 miles at ultra marathon hiker pace

15 miles at the Parvesh fata$$ marathon walker cheater pace

Lyndon LaRouche wrote:

Wejo your narrow self-interest is amazing. You cannot abide the idea of explicitly paying more for a product solely because it might help other people.

The price americans pay for sugar is 10-11x the world market price. Subsidies and protections keep prices high.

You pay for other farm subsidies every day

You pay for coal subsidies.

You pay tax on gasoline to disuade you from driving and to finance roads

There are all manner of taxes to dissuade consumer behavior, or finance various projects. But this one, that may help discourage poor people from buying cheap sugary drinks, is too much for you?!?!

You are truly amazing....

This thread is about the soda tax. He has never stated his opinion on the other taxes you listed. Why are you making so many assumptions?

This is why I'm libertarian/anarchist.

Seriously, if someone wants to completely waste their life away and drink 20 sodas a day and get horribly fat, that's THEIR life, why do you care so much what they do with their life? Mind your own business. It's like the republicans who hate gay marriage so much. It doesn't affect you at all, not one bit, so why on earth do you care?

Let me live my life how I want to, and make my own decisions (without the government judging me by making me pay more for products), and you live your life how you want to. How on earth is that unreasonable?

Lyndon LaRouche wrote:

xvxxv wrote:

This tax is hardly meant to dissuade people from driving. It's a source of income, period. It pays for roadways and earmarked programs. 40% of it go towards earmarked programs.

Now that people are using hybrids, people are using less fuel, and the government is in panic mode trying to find more funds to replace the lost revenue from the fuel tax. They WISH people were driving more.

It depends on the city. Some cities impose fuel taxes on top of federal taxes, just as they raise parking fees, etc. It is all designed to nudge consumers out of their cars and onto public transport.

It does get more complicated when getting to the city level, as I'm sure they each have their own rationale for such a tax. Generally these tend to be a way to produce funds more than anything still. Even if driving goes down, net taxes will increase. The decrease in vehicle miles is a fringe benefit.

anapaix wrote:

Seriously, if someone wants to completely waste their life away and drink 20 sodas a day and get horribly fat, that's THEIR life, why do you care so much what they do with their life? Mind your own business. It's like the republicans who hate gay marriage so much. It doesn't affect you at all, not one bit, so why on earth do you care?

Let me live my life how I want to, and make my own decisions (without the government judging me by making me pay more for products), and you live your life how you want to. How on earth is that unreasonable?

Because we end up paying for it.

If two gay partners get married, it impacts my life not a whit.

However, when it comes to healthcare, we all pay, eventually. So if we allow poor people to consume as much soda as they can be lulled into, they will develop more diabetes, and we - all americans - will pay for it in terms of higher healthcare costs, reduced productivity, increased disability payments, etc.

as dr ferrari infamously stated, EPO is no more harmful than orange juice. it's the abuse that is dangerous. similarly, a soda now and then, or even daily, is equally unharmful. now drinking a freaking 2liter, all by yourself, before dinnertime, then washing dinner and your stupid reality show down with another half a bottle is what is harmful. i'm sorry, those people get what they deserve and you CANNOT act punitively towards those who actually practice self control. just b/c someone ELSE doesn't have self control, doesn't mean i have to pay the price for their lack thereof. I'm with you wejo.

not my real name. wrote:

...a soda now and then, or even daily, is equally unharmful. now drinking a freaking 2liter...

I really wish people would look things up before posting. Your comment may make rational sense to you but is baseless and false information. FACT: 1-2 soft drinks every day increases a person's chance to get type 2 diabetes by 26%. FACT: it's even higher in children. And every one of us will pay for it in our insurance and taxes. So stop pretending this is some freedom issue when we're all in this sh*t together anyway.

NJ Possible wrote:

FACT: 1-2 soft drinks every day increases a person's chance to get type 2 diabetes by 26%. FACT: it's even higher in children.

These are not "facts" in the way that you mean it. I am sure you have posted a study (if so, do so again, I will read it) that *ESTIMATES* this is the increased risk. Other studies might contradict this. This is an estimate.