my question still stands. i assume lemonade, iced tea, fruit punch and diet sodas would not be affected by this tax

5/13/2009 12:34:42 PM

Bojangles sweet tea is probably worse than any soda there is.

5/13/2009 12:35:54 PM

if I had my way I would make BIG legal pushes to help fight people who exercise

but... you know we should all just tear our ACLs and enjoy our 4th stomach ulcer from taking too many NSAIDs. That way we can leech off medicare until we're 90 instead of just catching a heart attack and being done with it at 60.

remember your tax dollars are paying for exercisers... one way or the other... direct or indirect

[Edited on May 13, 2009 at 12:51 PM. Reason : l]

5/13/2009 12:47:48 PM

Quote :

"I think that being active and not living a sedentary lifestyle is the big part and almost trumps a simple diet change; since most people do not want to completly revamp their eating habits to fight weight gain. A 40 min walk per day, couple trips to lift weights per week, or biking 10 miles at the park a couple days of the week; would do more than simply grabbing the diet coke over coke or getting your subway sandwich on a tortilla instead of bread. Problem is most people are lazy; just wanting a quick easy magical way to lose weight so they can watch their 5 hours of AMerican Idol, celebrity Dancing X, or Full House re runs."

I agree with you, but I want to stress that exercise and diet are very very connected. Something I laughed at lately at the grocery store was that the vegetarians actually put exercise on the food pyramid:



The more you think about it the more this makes sense. Being active versus a potato affects food preferences. Humans are built to live in a bygone world where famines were common and winter came once every year making food scarce. A hibernation-like state would dictate little activity and an insatiable appetite for high calorie food that can be turned into blubber.

And your changes to food options will be in vein if people don't get out and move their bodies some.

The automobile industry is as guilty as the coke industry. Study after study has shown coke to be no worse than any kind of sugar water. The problem is that people want to drink sugar water and have no necessity to move. Food and exercise feed back to each other.

Quote :

""Then coke will offer a section of the fountain drink machine for a healthy beverage that you can chose instead." this would be nice."

Oh...

I left that post unfinished. I should have said they would off "healthy" alternatives. Not really healthy alternatives. Whatever it is would be laden with sugar and trigger the "i want more" chemical receptors. That's the business model.

Quote :

"Idk where you guys are getting the idea that this will make people put juice into fountain machines. The reason you have free refils on soda is because its going to take you about 30 refils before you eat into their profit margin. 1 refill of something like apple or orange juice and they're in the red."

Isn't the point that we would tax by the amount of sugar a company is pumping into the veins of Americans? It seems like the entire idea of free refills would be the concept to go.

5/13/2009 1:02:47 PM

Quote :

"hat way we can leech off medicare until we're 90 instead of just catching a heart attack and being done with it at 60."

I was under the impression that exercise decreased your chances of a heart attack. As a high pulse rate during strenuous activities help unclog plaque and other clotting shit from building up in your arteries.

5/13/2009 1:23:26 PM

that's what he's getting at. the exercisers will end up costing our health care system more in the long run. i'm not sure if this is true or not, but there was something about smokers being cheaper to our health care system because died earlier (iirc)

5/13/2009 1:28:03 PM

^^that was his point
the exercisers are the ones living to 90 not the ones dieing of heart attack at 60.

[Edited on May 13, 2009 at 1:28 PM. Reason : ^]

5/13/2009 1:28:09 PM

I know several smokers who have not been very cheap for our health care system... ...

The only way I could see this making sense is if everyone goes into hospice services for the last years of their life, which is basically expensive assisted living as everyone waits for you to kick the bucket.

5/13/2009 1:34:05 PM

again this is going off of memory, but i think this was in reference to medicare, because they died before they ever received any benefits. but i could be wrong about that. it has been a while.

5/13/2009 1:53:38 PM

Quote :

"my question still stands. i assume lemonade, iced tea, fruit punch and diet sodas would not be affected by this tax"

Damn sarijoul, is it that hard to read the article?

From the article:

Quote :

"The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based watchdog group that pressures food companies to make healthier products, plans to propose a federal excise tax on soda, certain fruit drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks and ready-to-drink teas. It would not include most diet beverages. Excise taxes are levied on goods and manufacturers typically pass them on to consumers."

It's not a bill yet, so nothing is hammered out entirely. And yeah, I'd bet my sweet ass Bojo's sweet tea would be taxed.

This is crap. Look, if you a fatty (and do nothing about it) you should pay more for insurance. Leave those of us who are responsible out of this.

5/13/2009 2:06:20 PM

how did that answer my question? i'm asking an admittedly nitpicky question, but it is an issue.

and if the stores just raise the price of the diet sodas, etc to compensate (or lower the price of the non-diet soda) then the impact of the measure would be completely eliminated in those instances.

[Edited on May 13, 2009 at 2:10 PM. Reason : .]

5/13/2009 2:09:30 PM

yea. Its worthless legislation.

5/13/2009 2:13:53 PM

???????

Quote :

"It would not include most diet beverages. Excise taxes are levied on goods and manufacturers typically pass them on to consumers.""

I mean, that should give you an idea. And until there's an actual bill, who's to say? So either accept that answer, or stop asking for one that doesn't exist

5/13/2009 2:14:38 PM

i'm asking how it will affect places where there is no (current) way to differentiate price between diet and regular soda (for instance the taps inside restaurants like mcdonald's). if there is no way to differentiate these prices, then the impact of this tax will be completely eliminated in that situation. i also have a feeling that fast food joints might make that the status quo, where they just adjust the prices of their other sodas so that the consumer sees the same price regardless of what drink they choose. the only place i could see this having a real impact is at the grocery store.

5/13/2009 2:20:11 PM

I wonder, would it be more effective to just attack the producers of sweeteners?

I mean, just tax the living hell out of the commodity (all sweeteners proportional to health detriment) itself and then maybe someone will figure out a way to make a drink people want to drink without (gasp!) drowning it in sugar/sweetener. It would be easier, arguably more effective, and we don't have to get into the political minefield of "you want to buy a soda? that's 50 cents federal tax." Plus, it seems like that would be consistent with the rationale for already levying tariffs on sugar imports.

I know that would simply result in more wild chemical engineering by drink manufactures, but that's already sort of the "goal", the legislation is to encourage diet drinks right? We'll just ignore the increased teeth decay and all for now.

But hey, what do I know?

5/13/2009 2:22:43 PM

A better idea would be to fix our current healthcare system so people are accountable for their own health.

5/13/2009 2:25:18 PM

Quote :

"Wouldn't removing subsidies on sugar amount to the same thing, except without the whole wealth transfer thing from the people to the corporations? "

i don't know why the thread continued after this point. it pretty much summed it all up.

5/13/2009 2:45:45 PM

(we don't subsidize sugar, that's why corn syrup is used in everything. if he had said corn subsidies, that'd be a different matter)

[Edited on May 13, 2009 at 2:53 PM. Reason : i guess we do subsidize american sugar. but that's not the problem here]

5/13/2009 2:52:51 PM

Quote :

"A better idea would be to fix our current healthcare system so people are accountable for their own health."

Quote :

"A better idea would be to fix our current healthcare system so people are accountable for their own health."

Quote :

"A better idea would be to fix our current healthcare system so people are accountable for their own health."

Quote :

"A better idea would be to fix our current healthcare system so people are accountable for their own health."

Quote :

"A better idea would be to fix our current healthcare system so people are accountable for their own health."

5/13/2009 3:16:50 PM

i doubt many people are thinking about the long-term costs of their consumption most of the time, whether they have to pay for it or not.

and wouldn't you think living an unhealthy, unhappy life would be accountability enough?

[Edited on May 13, 2009 at 3:18 PM. Reason : .]

5/13/2009 3:18:11 PM

Quote :

"Study: Fat people cheaper to treat... It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars. ... On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years, and obese people lived about 80 years. Smokers and obese people tended to have more heart disease than the healthy people. ... Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on. The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000."

Full article here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-02-05-obese-cost_n.htm

Skinny people cost too much. Smokers die too early and stank all the time. Being fat is the patriotic thing to do.

Back to the topic though, I agree with this statement:

Quote :

"Taxes are not going to teach our children how to have a healthy lifestyle"

People will just pay the price. That's evidenced by the fact that people still buy 20 oz sodas in the gas station despite the fact that they have somehow gone from $.79 each to $1.19+ in about a decade. When we thirsty, we drank.

5/13/2009 3:24:42 PM

if we really want to keep living in what is still a mostly free country, unfortunately people like nastaout are going to have to be killed :-/

5/13/2009 7:24:11 PM

Quote :

"do you have health insurance? do you think any reasonable person should?"

You shouldn't need health insurance in order to get health care. Put differently, health care services should not be so expensive that one needs insurance in order to afford the services.

Quote :

"also, why do you think medicare was created in the first place? people fell through the cracks, that's why."

Actually, Medicare was created because of the absolute failure of the Social Security system. People were told "hey, the gov't will take care of you, man..." And then, 30 years later, it came time to for the people to collect. And the government couldn't honor its promise. So, we made Medicare.

5/13/2009 7:42:53 PM

Quote :

"People will just pay the price. That's evidenced by the fact that people still buy 20 oz sodas in the gas station despite the fact that they have somehow gone from $.79 each to $1.19+ in about a decade. When we thirsty, we drank."

meh, accurate. I still can't resist butting in.

There exist flexible and inflexible spending items. When you're talking about the effect of a price change for an item of spending category, you'll start off assuming a fixed income and asking "what would the person change?" If Mr. Fat American spends 5% of his income on food, and all unhealthy foods go up in price, he'll feel the pinch in his budgeting (or last minute debt financing). However, sticker shock aside, if food prices go up to 7%, it will feel more like his income went down 2% because it's not a category he's willing to change behavior in until his economic means decreases by a much greater percent. Why should he? It's already a society of over-consumption meaning that pointless spending in other ares could be cut much more easily, and at 5%, food was way under priced anyway.

5/14/2009 12:52:14 AM

Quote :

"i doubt many people are thinking about the long-term costs of their consumption most of the time, whether they have to pay for it or not."

SO
FUCKING
WHAT?
That's their problem. Why in the goddamn fuck do you think that the irresponsibility of some is IN ANY WAY an excuse to enact a system where all people aren't accountable for their own health? That is the most retarded logic I've ever heard.... If 1 out of 10 people are irresponsible, are unwise with their money, don't maintain a health savings account, don't buy insurance to protect themselves against "random illness/injury", and generally aren't accountable for their own health, and thus die at an early age from a preventable or treatable disease, THEN SO FUCKING WHAT?
IT IS THE PREROGATIVE OF EVERY ADULT TO LIVE THEIR LIFE THE WAY THEY WANT TO. IF THEY WANT TO EAT JUNK FOOD ON THE COUCH FOR 50 YEARS AND THEN DIE, WE SHOULD LET THEM. WHO THE FUCK IS ANYONE TO SAY THAT THEY DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO LIVE UNHEALTHILY?

LIVING UNHEALTHILY IS A RIGHT.
NO ONE, NO ONE, IS OBLIGATED TO PAY FOR ANYONE ELSE'S HEALTH CARE COSTS. (not counting dependents)

Quote :

"and wouldn't you think living an unhealthy, unhappy life would be accountability enough?"

Does not compute.... Accountability how? I was under the impression that unhealthy life choices are usually ones associated with pleasure. Also, when those whom make unhealthy life choices die early, that acts as an example to others to perhaps not make the same unhealthy life choices, should they care. Contrarily, when a system exists wherein these self-made-sick people can keep getting cheap or free care on someone else's dime, that acts as an example to others that they might as well make the same unhealthy life choices, because after all, they won't have to pay for it.

Quote :

"if we really want to keep living in what is still a mostly free country, unfortunately people like nastaout are going to have to be killed :-/"

If the US were to descend into a bloody civil war, I'd not hesitate one second before killing socialist douchebags like nastoute. (just kidding... or am I?)

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 8:01 AM. Reason : ]

5/14/2009 7:46:19 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/business/economy/20leonhardt.html

Sodas are too cheap, thereby making everybody fat and all expensive medically. Free market and personal choice have failed, admit it!!

What now you Godless conservatives??

5/20/2009 2:35:11 PM

Well how is it that I remember buying 2-Liter drinks for $0.89 and $0.99 ( and less for generic) years ago, now it is more like $1.39 or $1.49 for a 2-Liter Drink. I don't really have a good basis of comparison for the other items in that chart

5/20/2009 2:51:14 PM

If the government can tax the fuck out of alcohol as a way to "discourage" people from living the life of a drunk off cheap booze using manipulation of the supply v demand curve. What is the problem with using a tax to "discourage" people from being ignorant fat bastarts who guzzle down 32 oz coca colas everytime they feel thirst.

Using this money to sponsor health initiatives, PE for school, and parks.

5/20/2009 2:56:36 PM

^^ well..

1. The graph above is the relative change from the basic CPI. That's how much they're changing above or below inflation. If prices for all commodities rose 20% from 2006 to 2008 (they didn't), then coke will also increase 20% while registering 0% change on that graph. The fruits and vegetables change comes to probably somewhere around 1.5 above inflation for the 30 year period, so if inflation increased prices by about 1.5, then total change in fruit/vegs prices would be 1.5*1.5 = 2.25 (factor of).

2. The change you "observe" needs to keep other variables (such as the store) constant in order to observe correspondence or non-correspondence with the graph. Even better, your observation needs to average price everywhere it's sold and average, properly weighted by sales volume.

3. I would testament that my own observation has not been a similar trend. I frequently observe the stack of 12 packs of coke in the grocery store, which intermittently go on sale for 2 or 3 for the price of one, which 'normally' retails at $6. Thus my observation is claiming a unit price hitting:

(6 U.S. dollars) / (12 fl oz * 12) = 1.40891761 U.S. dollars / L

with frequent discounts, only for the cans. And again, my claim is that I haven't observed any major change in the price year to year. If that's not scientific enough for you, take the actual revenue of the Coke-a-cola company for 2005 through 2008:

http://www.google.com/finance?fstype=ii&q=NASDAQ:COKE
1,463.62 1,436.00 1,431.01 1,380.17 (M US$)

Which shows a 6% increase over the 3 year time interval, (1.06)^(1/3), or less than 2% annual change. While tenuous, it probably follows roughly that sales were rather constant. That doesn't include the merchant's cut either, but I think we establish that Coke is a sub-inflation industry with this.

If you think you saw prices rise more quickly, then I suggest that maybe that's only retail sales of bottle-like products, which might be due to rising land prices causing a larger merchant margin or something like that. I also suggest that the retail price is highly variable due to very very low production costs. Anyway, apparently there are still plenty of Americans suckling the sweet nipple of cheap coke.

http://community.stretcher.com/forums/t/1844.aspx

...

...I need to get outside today.

[Edited on May 20, 2009 at 3:32 PM. Reason : ]

5/20/2009 3:21:55 PM