Quote :

"Soda Tax Weighed to Pay for Health Care By JANET ADAMY Senate leaders are considering new federal taxes on soda and other sugary drinks to help pay for an overhaul of the nation's health-care system. The taxes would pay for only a fraction of the cost to expand health-insurance coverage to all Americans and would face strong opposition from the beverage industry. They also could spark a backlash from consumers who would have to pay several cents more for a soft drink. On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee is set to hear proposals from about a dozen experts about how to pay for the comprehensive health-care overhaul that President Barack Obama wants to enact this year. Early estimates put the cost of the plan at around $1.2 trillion. The administration has so far only earmarked funds for about half of that amount. 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... ..."Taxes are not going to teach our children how to have a healthy lifestyle," said Susan Neely, president of the American Beverage Association. Instead, the association says it's backing programs that limit sugary beverage consumption in schools. Some recent state proposals along the same lines have met stiff opposition. New York Gov. David Paterson recently agreed to drop a proposal for an 18% tax on sugary drinks after facing an outcry from the beverage industry and New Yorkers. The beverage-tax proposal would apply to drinks that many Americans don't consider unhealthy -- such as PepsiCo's Gatorade and Kraft's Capri Sun -- based on their calorie content."

And progression to a nanny state continues. Man, you just gotta love this BS.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124208505896608647.html

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 4:28 PM. Reason : I realize there shouldn't be an "s" on Senate in the title, my apologies.]

5/12/2009 4:27:35 PM

fucking retarded.

if they want to tax "unhealthy" activities, they could at list pick something that isn't heavily enjoyed by low-risk and high-risk people alike.


...Or if our present health care system weren't so far up shit creek, they could introduce universal health care with these tax policies, but allow people to opt out and use private insurance providers if they do not wish to be additionally taxed. But that won't happen, because it relies on a premise that does not exist.

5/12/2009 4:34:20 PM

what's worse

nanny state america

or

fat fuck america?

if I had my way I would make BIG legal pushes to help fight obesity

but... you know we should all just shut the fuck up and enjoy our 4th meal or our medium (REALLY LARGE FUCKING WENDY'S) soft drinks

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

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 4:34 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2009 4:34:26 PM

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

5/12/2009 4:42:34 PM

afiak there aren';t any subsidies on american sugar. There are however, plenty of terrifs on sugarcane related imports.

If you want to fix the obesity problem, stop socialzing health risks. Move to an out of pocket system with accident insurance priced on risk. Fat people would then have to pay their out of pocket expenses entirely themselves and they'd have to pay more for accident insurnace due to being more at risk of heart attacks etc...

As long as we keep socialzing the risk people are going to end up paying more and they're going to try to control other's behaviors to lower costs. I'd rather let people do what they want, but have them pay their costs entirely themselves.

5/12/2009 4:50:58 PM

Quote :

"what's worse nanny state america or fat fuck america?"

nanny state america would be worse.

I cannot fathom how someone could even doubt that in their mind without being certifiably insane or clinically retarded.

As much as I dislike fat fucks, it is someone's natural right to do what they please with their own bodies. Also, someone can still be fat and happy. Many are, and it's why they choose to remain fat.



...Though, given the choice between a tax increase for the good of public health and an outright ban for the good of public health (because frankly, I don't see our government choosing to do nothing on the matter, given the pushes for socialized health care and how bad our health care system is now), I'll take the tax. At least it maintains the right of choice and some degree of cost/benefit responsibility.

5/12/2009 4:52:37 PM

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."

And there's your problem right there. That particular nanny-statist group has to be one of the most egregious abusers of science out there.

I mean, for all the bitching we hear about right-wingers abusing science to their own ends - well, here you go: Exhibit A of the left's own answer to that. (Yucca Mountain being Exhibit "B").

Watch, of course, as Huckabee tries to latch onto this as his springboard for a failed 2012 presidential run. (Seriously, look him up - the guy's all about fat taxes.)

5/12/2009 4:58:49 PM

Quote :

"what's worse nanny state america or fat fuck america?"

nanny state. Not even close. NOT EVEN CLOSE. "I cannot fathom how someone could even doubt that in their mind without being certifiably insane or clinically retarded."

Quote :

"As long as we keep socialzing the risk people are going to end up paying more and they're going to try to control other's behaviors to lower costs. I'd rather let people do what they want, but have them pay their costs entirely themselves."

Exactly.

Quote :

"remember your tax dollars are paying for fat fucks... one way or the other... direct or indirect"

Um... except most of us never agreed to that. No one, NO ONE, should have to pay for anyone else's health care costs. Period. (not counting dependents, of course...)

Quote :

"our 4th meal"

Actually, 4-5 smaller meals per day is much healthier for many people.


[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 5:18 PM. Reason : ]

5/12/2009 5:16:50 PM

he's talking about taco bell

not body for life

BUT YOU KNEW THAT

5/12/2009 6:38:50 PM

Quote :

"Wouldn't removing subsidies on sugar corn amount to the same thing"

5/12/2009 6:41:35 PM

Quote :

"nanny state america would be worse. I cannot fathom how someone could even doubt that in their mind without being certifiably insane or clinically retarded."

On top of everything already said, something I've always wondered about these sort of taxes. Let's say it succeeds in its goal of reducing or even eliminating these high sugar drinks. What are they going to do when their health care system starts having budget shortfalls from declining tax revenue?

5/12/2009 6:50:25 PM

Quote :

"progression to a nanny state continues"

The gov't is preventing you from drinking soft drinks they are merely taxing them more so fat fucks who likely drink more soda per capita pay into an unfortunately growing gov't subsidized health care system (although the gov't for decades has paid healthcare for those on medicaid who as the working poor correlate to being obese).

The gov't already specifically taxes alcohol, fuel, and cigs. I was actually caught off guard when charged for this in California a month ago. I rarely drink soda, usually only to mix alcohol drinks, so it would not effect me at all.

[user]ou know we should all just shut the fuck up and enjoy our 4th meal or our medium (REALLY LARGE FUCKING WENDY'S) soft drinks[/user]

ya i can't believe the ad agents for taco bell with all the PR against the obesity epidemic in america are really going with the advertising slogan of 4th meal.

Just two weeks ago i saw this morbidly obese middle age fat bitch and her inbred looking hill billy daughter at the harris teeter on College Rd (wilmington) whining that her EBT card (Food Stamps) was not working to pay for her basket which contained (5 12 packs of soda, 1 bag pork rinds, some beef, and donuts).

If our card touting Republicans like TKE-Teg want to bitch about a nanny state, why don't they write their senators a letter about.....

Seat Belt Laws
Harassing Adults 18-20 for having a fucking beer
Marijuana
Online Gambling


All of which in my opinion fall under the category of nannying a lot more than a fat tax on soda

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 7:02 PM. Reason : i]

5/12/2009 6:58:00 PM

Quote :

"he's talking about taco bell not body for life"

I lol'd.

5/12/2009 7:08:29 PM

Quote :

"If our card touting Republicans like TKE-Teg want to bitch about a nanny state, why don't they write their senators a letter about..... Seat Belt Laws Harassing Adults 18-20 for having a fucking beer Marijuana Online Gambling"

Can't we bitch about both?

I mean, for serious here - better to smother ill-thought-out policies like this in the crib than to have to fight a trench war over them after they've become established.

5/12/2009 7:17:47 PM

Increased taxes on soda, or any other food or drink that could be unhealthy if consumed in excess in conjunction with a sedentary lifestyle, will have no real benefit other than providing additional tax revenue. However, if they were going to tax anything, it should be the cheap, nutrient-void carbohydrates that are making lower class Americans get so fat. That, or work on solutions to make good, healthy food more affordable. Insurance companies can also do a lot to punish those that are putting a strain on the system.

If I want to drink some soda or eat some junk food every now and then, I should be able to do that, without any kind of additional tax burden. I'm against any form of sin tax, especially ones that hurt the people that aren't contributing to the problem that the tax claims to target.

5/12/2009 7:23:31 PM

Get rid of corn subsidies instead. Seriously.

5/12/2009 7:51:55 PM

Go for it.

Question, though: How would this affect diet sodas, like Coke Zero?

5/12/2009 8:00:50 PM

Quote :

"f I want to drink some soda or eat some junk food every now and then, I should be able to do that, without any kind of additional tax burden. I'm against any form of sin tax, especially ones that hurt the people that aren't contributing to the problem that the tax claims to target. "

Eliminate the 50% tax on alcohol than.

The only way i'd tolerate such a tax is if the money was destined to be used in some health initiative program. Like money for schools to not cut PE which is happening all over our nation.

5/12/2009 8:08:39 PM

I don't think the government should restrict us in being able to do what we want to do as individuals.

HOWEVER, I do think the government should attack the problem where it would be most effective.

The government needs to fight corporate advertising and marketing.

fuck those guys

They are an evil force which the average american is ill equiped to fight.

oh... and also fuck subsidized corn

I think we can all agree on that.

5/12/2009 8:42:38 PM

Whats wrong with advertising?

Just because i see a coke commercial does that mean i'm going to be a drone and run to the store to drink a 2-liter.

Some people just don't care that drinking coke for every time they feel thirst makes them fat.

5/12/2009 8:48:32 PM

what is the point of advertising?

to inform or to persuade?

5/12/2009 9:33:50 PM

^^^Just like the lottery money is to only go to education, or penalties and fines are too? The government would NEVER raid that when times got tight for their own pet projects though would they?

This is more nanny state bullshit at its finest. As a fiscal conservative and libertarian social view, this rubs me wrong in every way. I used to fucking CHUG sugar sodas at a rate of almost a 2-liter a day every day. It was awful, but I had nobody to blame but myself. Obama taxing it more wouldn't make me drink it less. Now that I have switched over to exclusively drinking diet sodas, I lost almost 20 pounds with ZERO effort. But it was my own choice after finding my cholesterol way high.

I agree with the earlier poster that instead of shifting the problems of fat bastards on the rest of us who enjoy something responsibly and in moderation, shift the consequences back on them. I fully support insurance companies being able to run a full battery of health exams and determining your insurance premium based on that. Hell I think the state ought to implement it. My wife and I are both in healthy weight ranges, and if walking or losing a little more weight would give us a discount on our health insurance, I would be all for it. If gaining weight meant that I was going to have to pay more, I would FAR more motivated to keep myself in shape. Right now as a state employee I could be a 500 pound mess and pay nothing extra. Hell I work with a few such people, and their eating habits are atrocious. If they are going to live like that, its their choice. But let them pay for it in higher insurance premiums. Don't cushion it for them by hitting the rest of us making smarter choices. That fucking blows.

BTW, CSPI also wants to tax fatty foods, cars, and televisions to fund public health and nutrition programs. Because that will teach people to go outside and walk to work. UGH

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 9:55 PM. Reason : ]

5/12/2009 9:53:34 PM

Whoever asked about diet sodas, no it doesn't apply to them. Its a terribly long article, check out the whole thing!

HUR, please stop wasting your time addressing me in posts. I started blocking you a long time ago and don't see what you post (unless quoted as DrSteveChaos did in this instance).

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 10:00 PM. Reason : g]

5/12/2009 10:00:07 PM

Quote :

""remember your tax dollars are paying for fat fucks... one way or the other... direct or indirect" Um... except most of us never agreed to that. No one, NO ONE, should have to pay for anyone else's health care costs. Period. (not counting dependents, of course...)"

medicare, medicaid, and health insurance be damned!

5/12/2009 10:18:57 PM

i think failboat meant tariffs in his post...tariffs against brazilian sugar i guess

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 10:22 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2009 10:21:34 PM

Quote :

"medicare, medicaid, and health insurance be damned!"

No one is forced to pay for health insurance, nor should they be. It's a service that people voluntarily purchase as they desire, not to mention it varies from company to company and policy to policy. As for medicare and medicaid, well they're just flat-out wrong. If they weren't funded by taxes, society would not just sit there and let babies, the elderly, and disabled individuals die or remain seriously ill. I refuse to believe that, and nothing anyone can say will change my belief. In other words, as soon as society realizes that these innocent people would die without health care, the private sector would donate as much money as would be needed. Go ahead and disagree -- you'd be wrong though. As I said: No one, NO ONE, should have to pay for anyone else's health care costs. Period.

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 11:01 PM. Reason : ]

5/12/2009 10:49:16 PM

Frankly I'm more worried about

1.)
http://brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=566098
The gov't putting a GPS on my car without a warrant

2.)
http://brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=565352
Our gov't getting to trigger happy to use Enhanced Interrogation Techniques to coerce people in the name of
National Security

3.) The gov't randomly tapping my phone under use of the patriot act

4.) Our gov't filling our prisons with otherwise law abiding citizens for smoking doobies or doing a line of blow.

than OBAMA AND FRIENDS BE CHARGING ME 3 CENTS FOR MY XTRA LARGE COCA-COLA THAT COMES WITH MY SUPER SIZED TRIPLE
BACONATOR MCFAT BURGER

Quote :

"If they weren't funded by taxes, society would not just sit there and let babies, the elderly, and disabled individuals die or remain seriously ill."

I grossly disagree that society would "fill the gap". On the other hand I am not some heart felt do-gooder who thinks everyone and their lazy 400 lb 2 pack per day welfare mom deserves equal access to health care as a productive high wealth business owner. Some people receiving gov't entitlements truly are tragedies of society in real need of assistance. Alas though I think all to many people on the system do not truly deserve to be there and are stuck on the teats of the gov't out of mere laziness and lack of initiative.

Gov't welfare programs are like OxyContin. Used for as intended and it is a valuable drug in the medical community. All to easy though is for patients to get addicted and their is a high rate of use by those not in need of such drugs but use them recreationally.

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 11:00 PM. Reason : l]

5/12/2009 10:53:19 PM

Quote :

"If they weren't funded by taxes, society would not just sit there and let babies, the elderly, and disabled individuals die or remain seriously ill. I refuse to believe that, and nothing anyone can say will change my belief."

where is our lord marko when we need him most?

5/12/2009 10:55:22 PM

^^^it's just that any reasonable person should choose to pay for someone else's health care costs? do you have health insurance? do you think any reasonable person should?

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

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 10:56 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2009 10:56:15 PM

people fall through the cracks now

5/12/2009 10:59:07 PM

certainly. and without medicare it would be a lot of old people falling through the cracks. do we really want that? and god forbid what would happen with a serious recession or depression with no safety net for our elderly.

5/12/2009 11:00:36 PM

This tax has only one objective, to increase tax revenue. Demonizing sugar and fat people is just a vehicle to obtain more tax money. Don't be fooled, this is all about the Benjamins.

5/12/2009 11:01:31 PM

and Benjamin was a fat fuck

you see where this is all going?

it's cyclical

5/12/2009 11:03:01 PM

Quote :

"what is the point of advertising? to inform or to persuade?"

Both, duh.
Let me set you straight. You are 100% wrong about advertising being bad, per se.
The problem is that our fascist government routinely stifles competition and free markets and instead uses a small oligarchy of mega-corporations to do much of its dirty work. I think we can all agree that "too big to fail" is "too big to exist". Private companies simply should never become as powerful as entire nations, and a proper free market would never result in such. The persuasive aspect of advertising becomes out of check when corporations are so fucking big that they can afford scientists and technologies that allow the types and methods of advertising you, others, and myself, take issue with. A much larger number of smaller companies that more frequently go under and are replaced by other companies, instead of the relatively few huge and seemingly immortal companies that we have now would all but eliminate the invasive and mentally polluting advertising that is currently the problem. However, and I cannot emphasize this enough: advertising in and of itself is 100% innocent free speech.

Quote :

"I grossly disagree that society would "fill the gap"."

They would. Seriously. In this day and age, with all the media and communication, you would have to be crazy to think that society wouldn't do whatever necessary. ("society" doesn't mean every single person, duh...)

Quote :

"people fall through the cracks now"

Also, people work until april or longer before they're working for themselves. With nearly a third of your money back, you certainly have more room to donate it voluntarily.

Quote :

"and without medicare it would be a lot of old people falling through the cracks. do we really want that? and god forbid what would happen with a serious recession or depression with no safety net for our elderly."

BECAUSE US LIBERTARIANS WANT TO END IT OVERNIGHT

Quote :

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

Why? Do you think so? No one needs health insurance any more than they need life insurance. If you're healthy and can pay out-of-pocket, you certainly don't need it. Perhaps if people spent less and saved their money...

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 11:19 PM. Reason : ]

5/12/2009 11:06:58 PM

a) you're a dick

b) so... you're in favor of government curtailing of corporations... of seriously regulating them? Because that's what you're proposing.

actually, you're not

you're just in lala libertarian land, aren't you?

where things should be this way and that... but in actuality, you have no connection to reality...

bah... whatever

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 11:14 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2009 11:11:38 PM

^
Nice rebuttal -- what are you?... 12 years old?

5/12/2009 11:16:05 PM

rebut against what?

libritarians base their ideas on idealistic systems

it's like arguing with an anarchist or a communist

come to reality with the rest of us

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 11:18 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2009 11:17:47 PM

Quote :

"all agree that "too big to fail" is "too big to exist""

I agree

Quote :

"people work until april or longer before they're working for themselves."

I get your point but this line of thinking is kinda false. If i quit working in April than my annual income is dropped by
a proportional percent yet my tax liability decreases like a decaying exponential. Thus I could probably say well golly gee
i sat around on my ass 8 months, worked two weeks in January for uncle sam, and through april for myself.

Quote :

"libritarians base their ideas on idealistic systems"

I agree with libertarian principles but taking libertarian doctrine like an evangelist with the bible would be about as successful as launching a probe into space without a compensator for its navigation closed loop control system.

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 11:27 PM. Reason : l]

5/12/2009 11:24:49 PM

^
Yeah, but you know what I meant -- I was quoting Earthdogg, anyway....

Quote :

"libritarians base their ideas on idealistic systems"

Perhaps some do. I don't. Nothing I advocate would result in undue harm to anyone. You're the one not in reality. Libertarians say that tax-payer-funder benefit X should be done away with and you scream, "Oh noes... how about the innocent people that would be hurt when such a policy takes effect overnight!!" But we aren't saying that it should happen overnight. Such changes in policy are very dramatic and would take years or decades to complete. Believe it or not, I am a good person. I love animals and children and my mom, etc. I don't want some fucked up rigid world dreamt up by some idealistic nut. For some reason, you've attributed libertarianism with such a vision, and you COULDN'T BE MORE WRONG.

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 11:40 PM. Reason : ]

5/12/2009 11:25:25 PM

Quote :

"Why? Do you think so? No one needs health insurance any more than they need life insurance. If you're healthy and can pay out-of-pocket, you certainly don't need it. Perhaps if people spent less and saved their money..."

hey look at you not answering my question.

i'll put it this way: do you think the average would be best served by not having health insurance and just saving their money for health costs instead?

5/12/2009 11:25:45 PM

^^

Quote :

"I refuse to believe that, and nothing anyone can say will change my belief."

-Willy Nilly

those are the words of an idealistic nutjob

i mean really

Quote :

"Believe it or not, I am a good person. I love animals and children and my mom, etc."

where do come up with this?

are we attacking your morality or something?

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 11:33 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2009 11:26:38 PM

I don't see the problem. If you aren't a criminal, you have nothing to worry about.

5/12/2009 11:28:11 PM

Quote :

"hey look at you not answering my question. i'll put it this way: do you think the average [person] would be best served by not having health insurance and just saving their money for health costs instead?"

There are too many variables to answer that. Health insurance is not necessary. It is a service that some people choose to have because it makes sense for them. Others may choose not to have it because they'd rather spend their money on something else. IT DEPENDS ON THE PERSON AND THE SITUATION. It's like you're asking, "do you think the average person would be best served by not having a car and just saving their money for buses and taxis?" IT DEPENDS ON THE PERSON AND THE SITUATION.

Quote :

"where do come up with this? are we attacking your morality or something?"

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I felt that I was indirectly accused of either caring more about a political principle, or not caring at all, about the well-being of innocent babies, seniors, and disabled... We libertarians often get painted as cruel and out-of-touch with the common man. I am neither.

5/12/2009 11:39:21 PM

^^^,^ Discussions like these are why I try to add actual pragmatic reality checks at the end of my libertarian posts... You should try it, Willy Nilly. Currently it seems like you're operating on the premise that our health care system in its current form actually follows free market principles and is not fucked up beyond all belief.

Example/template: If we were doing things the right way, [X] discussion would never even have arisen. However, the government has already set the precedent that it has power over [X], and by the nature of that sort of thing, we're not going to be going back to the old no-government way of doing things (at least not until the whole system gets rebuilt from the ground up). Thus, given this as a premise, the best course would be to [Y].

[rant]
Unfortunately [Y] usually ends up being a more-government solution... because if they introduce a regulation, they have to keep regulating and enforcing or else the whole thing is going to fall apart or cause even bigger problems. It's the nature of the beast.

...It's also why I firmly believe that never regulating in the first place is 99/100 times the best course for government to take ("regulation" here referring to government trying to change the way businesses operate, not its legitimate function of playing contractual referee), however, due to the nature of individuals plus laws of statistics (people crave power, people in large groups tend to be stupid and impressionable, and even if you get a few staunchly virtuous leaders who uphold limited government, it simply can't last forever), that's not going to last very long in any democratic/representative-democratic system of government.

Even given all that, it's still a less idealistic system than pro-government/socialism. A libertarian utopia only violates the laws of human nature. A socialist utopia violates the laws of human nature (the majority of people are lazy and will do as little as possible to earn their share) AND the laws of physics (free energy does not exist, resources are inevitably limited).
[/rant]

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 11:55 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2009 11:53:32 PM

if people didn't want to pay the tax couldn't they just not buy soda?

5/13/2009 12:35:56 AM

^Welcome to the entire point of this policy.
Or at least the rationalization of it.

The actually point is simply for more $$$

5/13/2009 12:40:11 AM

isn't soda pretty much the cheapest beverage that you can get off the shelves?

Plus, given the sheer volume and efficiency of the corn syrup sweetener supply chain and coke's business model, once you start to slowly cut off that product, the market push up prices of alternatives like, say, apple juice.

Then coke will offer a section of the fountain drink machine for a healthy beverage that you can chose instead. The only problem is that they'll still somehow figure out a way to make it factory produced while at the same time more addicting to the people who drink it.

The way that this will help obesity is by making people eat less. Not by making people eat more healthy.

Normally people eat less food because they have less money. Our country is unique in history b/c the poor people are so fat. American heros like Coke are a big part of the reason for that.

5/13/2009 9:37:13 AM

Quote :

"The way that this will help obesity is by making people eat less. Not by making people eat more healthy. "

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.

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.

5/13/2009 12:17:55 PM

i'm interested how this would be implemented in restaurants where there is customer access to the soda machines for refills (think mcdonalds etc) where they have sodas and other drinks mixed in that are all priced the same. will you have to specify which drink you want upon purchasing and pay a couple extra cents for those? will they price the non-soda drinks slightly higher so that the price after tax would equal that of the soda plus tax?

[Edited on May 13, 2009 at 12:22 PM. Reason : .]

5/13/2009 12:22:14 PM

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.

Increased taxes means it costs the consumer more (not the company) which might make a 20oz bottle of soda more competitive (price wise) with a 20oz OJ, but the effect on fountain drinks will be non-existant.

5/13/2009 12:28:58 PM