The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Carl on November 08, 2014, 07:43:59 PM
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025788239
Sat Nov 8, 2014, 04:48 PM
steve2470 (23,935 posts)
Why Berkeley passed a soda tax and S.F. didn’t
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Why-Berkeley-passed-a-soda-tax-and-S-F-didn-t-5879757.php
Many Americans consider San Francisco and Berkeley two peas in a very liberal pod — both of them far-left, wacky cities filled with pot-smoking, quinoa-eating eccentrics whose mayoral candidates go by names like Chicken John (San Francisco, 2007) and Running Wolf (Berkeley, 2012).
But there are plenty of differences between the two bluest of blue Bay Area cities. Take a look at Tuesday’s election and the very different outcomes for both cities’ attempts to pass a tax on sodas.
Berkeley became the first city in the nation to adopt a soda tax after 30 other cities and states around the country failed. Its Measure D levied a penny-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened drinks. Its revenues weren’t pegged for any particular purpose so it needed just a simple majority, but it won the support of a whopping 75 percent of voters.
San Francisco, always a city that loves being first, instead became the 31st municipality to opt not to adopt a soda tax. Its Proposition E would have levied a 2-cents-per-ounce tax, and it needed two-thirds of voters to support it because it would have directed revenue to physical education and nutrition programs for children. A majority of San Francisco voters, 55 percent, supported Prop. E — but that wasn’t enough for it to win.
Whatever
Response to steve2470 (Original post)
Sat Nov 8, 2014, 04:51 PM
hfojvt (35,164 posts)
1. so Berkeley is supposed to be more liberal?
**** soda taxes.
We can't tax the rich, so let's go after soda drinkers. We can vote with out feet too.
Be patriotic and pay!!!!
Response to hfojvt (Reply #1)
Sat Nov 8, 2014, 05:14 PM
Erich Bloodaxe BSN (4,834 posts)
2. Taxing soda isn't about making money any more than taxing tobacco is.
It's a means to help create a healthier populace, by making the things that directly impact health in a negative way more expensive. Fewer people indulge in expensive habits, and indulge in them less often. Like it or not, large swathes of the American public are seriously overweight, and sugared drinks are one large reason why, packing on lots of added calories with no other nutritional value. Obesity not only shortens lives in a myriad of ways, but is also one of the reasons American healthcare costs have skyrocketed. We have to move from a system that waits until people get diseases, and then pushes a lifetime of drugs onto them to one in which people are kept healthier to begin with.
The mask slips
Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #2)
Sat Nov 8, 2014, 05:18 PM
yeoman6987 (3,974 posts)
3. It just hurts the poor period.
Sure throw the health in, but saying the poor can't make choices on their own is not the right answer. The rich and even middle class have the luxury of choice.
Pay your damn taxes,after all you always say you folks know what is in everyones best interests.
Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #3)
Sat Nov 8, 2014, 05:28 PM
Erich Bloodaxe BSN (4,834 posts)
6. By making them healthier?
'The rich and middle class have the luxury of choice'... to drink crap that makes them die sooner? Well sure. And quite frankly, I'm all for the rich gorging themselves on sugary foods and chugging soda by the gallon and smoking every single minute of the day. They'll die decades sooner, putting their money back into wider circulation.
Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #6)
Sat Nov 8, 2014, 05:49 PM
hfojvt (35,164 posts)
15. many years ago, I thought I should quit soda
about twenty years ago.
And then I thought. You know what, my life sucks enough already and I happen to enjoy a nice cold, sweet drink, so **** it, I am gonna indulge myself.
And you know what else? Nobody else in this world has been harmed by second-hand soda from me.
So here you are, all determined to make my life suck little bit more. But on the plus side, my crappy life will at least be longer.
Now I am all confused,aren`t taxes a good thing?
Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #2)
Sat Nov 8, 2014, 05:42 PM
hfojvt (35,164 posts)
8. it's a means for some people to try to control others
Tell you what, let's just have a weigh in every six months and we can directly tax fat.
Soda is not really making me fat at 6 foot and 168 pounds.
But the fact remains, with the addition of a soda tax, you would be taxing poor people, while at the same time many elected bodies are quite happy to give tax breaks to the rich.
You propose a soda tax, I guarantee you that I will oppose you with everything I've got. Go wag your finger somewhere else. How about we tax something that YOU indulge in?
You sir are a traitor. :bird:
Response to steve2470 (Original post)
Sat Nov 8, 2014, 05:20 PM
LostInAnomie (14,113 posts)
4. Because Berkley has more nanny staters/authoritarians...
... looking to control the behaviors of others under the guise of "health"?
That would be my guess.
How about under the guise of "climate change" instead?
Response to LostInAnomie (Reply #20)
Sat Nov 8, 2014, 06:00 PM
alp227 (27,994 posts)
22. The fact is: SOFT DRINKS CAUSE HEALTH PROBLEMS.
Reality is not a popularity contest, and companies that peddle crap like soda, tobacco, etc. should be responsible for the externalities (like health costs) that come with the profits.
Guess what? When people understand the consequences of the crap they eat, they eat less of the crap!
The government knows what is good for you. :)
Response to alp227 (Reply #22)
Sat Nov 8, 2014, 06:18 PM
LostInAnomie (14,113 posts)
23. Well, God forbid they make that choice to drink soda without being punished.
It would be awful for people if people chose to consume something freely without the express approval of the city of Berkley.
You never did answer the question: who gets to decide if you are informed enough to drink soda? Is it possible for person to be fully informed and still decide to drink sugary soda? If they are fully informed, what would be the point of taxing them other than to coerce them into stopping?
Teabagger.
Response to LostInAnomie (Reply #23)
Sat Nov 8, 2014, 06:24 PM
alp227 (27,994 posts)
24. Oh boo hoo, a tax is PUNISHMENT? Oh those poor, poor soda lovers needing to pay an extra cent or 2!
#FirstWorldProblems!
Your question "who gets to decide if you are informed enough to drink soda" is based on a faulty premise because no one wants to BAN soda, but only to INFORM PEOPLE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF DRINKING SODA! I don't answer leading questions, thank you very much.
"Is it possible for person to be fully informed and still decide to drink sugary soda?" Yes, but as the saying goes, "don't say we didn't warn ya."
"If they are fully informed, what would be the point of taxing them other than to coerce them into stopping?" To repeat myself, the tax is the externality for the soda companies' profit!
Response to alp227 (Reply #24)
Sat Nov 8, 2014, 06:39 PM
LostInAnomie (14,113 posts)
25. What a clever hashtag to dismiss creeping authoritarianism with!
Amazing how liberalism has morphed into using governmental powers to punish behavior we don't approve of. The political spectrum is indeed a horseshoe.
This tax isn't meant to "inform" anyone of anything other than what behavior the government approves of and what it doesn't. If you can't see that as nanny statism/authoritarianism, I don't know what to say.
My,how quickly a leftist becomes a conservative when it is their pocket being picked.
Response to steve2470 (Original post)
Sat Nov 8, 2014, 07:18 PM
Odin2005 (48,577 posts)
31. This is authoritarianism, not liberalism.
Says the useless Jabba the Hutt impersonator.
C`mon people,sacrifice for the collective good or pay.
It is the leftist way.
-
LostInAnomie (14,113 posts)
4. Because Berkley has more nanny staters/authoritarians...
... looking to control the behaviors of others under the guise of "health"?
That would be my guess.
Is this DUmmie admitting that liberals want to control people's lives through taxation and other means?
-
Response to alp227 (Reply #24)
Sat Nov 8, 2014, 06:39 PM
LostInAnomie (14,113 posts)
25. What a clever hashtag to dismiss creeping authoritarianism with!
Amazing how liberalism has morphed into using governmental powers to punish behavior we don't approve of. The political spectrum is indeed a horseshoe.
This tax isn't meant to "inform" anyone of anything other than what behavior the government approves of and what it doesn't. If you can't see that as nanny statism/authoritarianism, I don't know what to say.
I'll bet you say "Global Warming" in your sleep. Liberalism never morphed. Conservatism is "Classical Liberalism" and Liberalism is Progressive Marxism. It's was never anything else. You were simply duped long ago.
-
If you're dumb enough to live in Bezerkeley, you get what you deserve.
.
-
Is this DUmmie admitting that liberals want to control people's lives through taxation and other means?
Yep Thundley. The only thing about this that pisses the dummies off: It affects them. I bet they consume more soda per capita than any other group of people.
Now about that cheetos tax... :whistling:
-
LostInAnomie (14,113 posts)
25. What a clever hashtag to dismiss creeping authoritarianism with!
Amazing how liberalism has morphed into using governmental powers to punish behavior we don't approve of. The political spectrum is indeed a horseshoe.
Taxes are the State's tool to encourage or discourage particular behavior. The same point about social engineering of soda or cigarette consumption can be made about wages, profits, capital gains, property, savings, employee benefits, or gasoline.
Wonder when if this DUmmy will make the connection?
-
Libs love taxes because libs do whatever they can to not pay them.