U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-01-2012, 06:19 PM
 
1,618 posts, read 3,370,928 times
Reputation: 1752

Advertisements

Researchers said today, that sugar can cause cancer and other health problems at the same rate or worse than tobacco or alcohol. Now i take most "scientist's findings with a grain of salt (Dang, also bad for you!) but it appears this might be a way for California to get some additional tax money.

Snickers and Milkyways at $5 a bar. Coke and Pepsi would have to be $10 a can. And, dont even think of how much a Twinkie will set you back!

I can see Snackeasys sprouting up all over California....where is another Eliott Ness when you need him?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-01-2012, 06:31 PM
 
Location: Quimper Peninsula
1,981 posts, read 2,518,321 times
Reputation: 1749
Did the specify the sugar? Like say high fructose corn syrup? I do not want to turn your thread into a GMO thing... But if a kind of sugar was specified I would be interested in knowing...

Yep I am all for taxing it and putting the money to treating the obesity and diabetes epidemic since highly concentrated sugars are being added to a large portion of the processed foods on the grocery shelf.

It is a ploy to sell more product. Processing makes food loose flavor so they need to add it back in....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2012, 07:09 PM
 
Location: South Bay
7,115 posts, read 19,053,853 times
Reputation: 3366
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrueTimbers View Post
Did the specify the sugar? Like say high fructose corn syrup? I do not want to turn your thread into a GMO thing... But if a kind of sugar was specified I would be interested in knowing...

Yep I am all for taxing it and putting the money to treating the obesity and diabetes epidemic since highly concentrated sugars are being added to a large portion of the processed foods on the grocery shelf.

It is a ploy to sell more product. Processing makes food loose flavor so they need to add it back in....
i read the article, it mentioned "added sugar", as in non-naturally occurring in the other ingredients of a product. high fructose corn syrup would certainly be on the list.

Sugar can be harmful and should be regulated, article authors argue - latimes.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2012, 08:27 PM
 
Location: California
178 posts, read 292,435 times
Reputation: 133
Maybe there should be a special tax lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2012, 09:49 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
13,784 posts, read 23,807,188 times
Reputation: 6195
Typical California article.

If they want to tax it, I'll go along under one condition.

Not even one dollar can go to the state or local government coffers or to further research (after all, what do you think the real motivation is here).

All funding should be used to reduce state income taxes across the board.

Otherwise, they can "stuff" their ideas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2012, 10:12 PM
 
Location: anywhere but Seattle
1,082 posts, read 1,900,409 times
Reputation: 983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Trails View Post
Researchers said today, that sugar can cause cancer and other health problems at the same rate or worse than tobacco or alcohol. Now i take most "scientist's findings with a grain of salt (Dang, also bad for you!) but it appears this might be a way for California to get some additional tax money.

Snickers and Milkyways at $5 a bar. Coke and Pepsi would have to be $10 a can. And, dont even think of how much a Twinkie will set you back!

I can see Snackeasys sprouting up all over California....where is another Eliott Ness when you need him?
I see you've been busy pulling numbers out of your ass. Nice work troll.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2012, 10:16 PM
 
11,715 posts, read 35,959,496 times
Reputation: 7512
Why not just ban it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2012, 07:17 AM
 
Location: Quimper Peninsula
1,981 posts, read 2,518,321 times
Reputation: 1749
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
Typical California article.

If they want to tax it, I'll go along under one condition.

Not even one dollar can go to the state or local government coffers or to further research (after all, what do you think the real motivation is here).

All funding should be used to reduce state income taxes across the board.

Otherwise, they can "stuff" their ideas.
OK, so the obesity/diabetes problem is the worst with the poor correct....? So we have a sugar tax that will hurt the poor the most, (Because the are the ones buying the cheap sugar laced processed foods.) and we are going to redistribute it to the general public?

IMO the money should go directly to off setting health care for the poor being treated for obesity and diabetes on the states dime.... THIS in turn should lower taxes to the general public...

Just IMO...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2012, 07:35 AM
 
Location: Sacramento
13,784 posts, read 23,807,188 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrueTimbers View Post
OK, so the obesity/diabetes problem is the worst with the poor correct....? So we have a sugar tax that will hurt the poor the most, (Because the are the ones buying the cheap sugar laced processed foods.) and we are going to redistribute it to the general public?

IMO the money should go directly to off setting health care for the poor being treated for obesity and diabetes on the states dime.... THIS in turn should lower taxes to the general public...

Just IMO...
We disagree, the motivation for any and all of these types of proposals is to fund folks who wish to create more and higher paying jobs for themselves in specific industries.

I do not support that, ever, at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2012, 07:54 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
13,720 posts, read 25,535,142 times
Reputation: 9216
Why not just ban/tax obesity? The end game is not how much sugar you consume. It is how fat you are.

So everyone can go to the DMV every year and get weighed. If their BMI (or some other measure) is > 30, they pay a fine. Let people choose how to achieve a satisfactory body weight.

Oh wait! This would be somehow unfair! Some people are naturally fat! Some people have a thyroid problem! Certain ethnic gorups would be discriminated against! Rich people would just pay the fines and stay fat because they don't care!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top