U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [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)
 
 
Old 06-17-2016, 09:34 PM
 
Location: White House, TN
5,151 posts, read 3,613,596 times
Reputation: 3235

Advertisements

The government has no business legislating or dis-incentivizing things like drinking soda. So what if someone wants to drink soda. That should be their choice, and they should have to pay what the market decides the price should be, not said price jacked up by some artificial tax. Not to mention it's a shameless cash grab.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-18-2016, 07:16 AM
 
8,221 posts, read 4,414,931 times
Reputation: 2718
Quote:
Originally Posted by citylove101 View Post
The biggest problem with this tax, IMO, is not that it is another move by the Nanny state, or that it is not being directly funded into obesity-prevention programs. The big problems is that this is a regressive tax: It falls more heavily on the poor than the affluent. Consider that two families drink a lot of soda each year. For the poor family this tax could total 3% a year of their meager family income, but for the middle-class family it might be only 1/10 of 1%. (Those numbers are just theoretical, but you get the idea.)

In general I'm against regressive tax structures and prefer progressive one, where people pay a higher rate the more they earn. I have no idea whether Philly has a progressive city income tax at all, but I'd have preferred them to fund universal pre-K that way rather than the way they have.
To answer your question the Philly income tax(aka the wage tax) is a flat tax.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2016, 08:52 AM
Status: "Finally Done With C-D BYE BYE" (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,947 posts, read 21,506,574 times
Reputation: 15431
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBayBoomer View Post
I support high tobacco taxes (and strict public smoking regulations) and I am nobody's fool; however, the money collected must go to health programs, just as the sugar tax shouldónot to city/county/state general coffers as was posted above, if that's accurate.

Although I do eat some sugar, I have no problem with a sugar tax if the money is used for health programs, including health education about diabetes and other obesity-related problems.

I've already started cutting back on sugar and I feel better. Personally, I have come to prefer mineral water with a squeeze of lime or lemon to soda of any kind. It's more refreshing than sugary or diet sodas, and far healthier.

Tea was where I was still adding some sugar. I got into the habit of adding first a teaspoon of sugar to my milk and tea, then cut that in half to half a teaspoon, then 1/4 teaspoon and this morning, just non-fat or 1% milk. I didn't miss the sugar at all. (Well, milk has natural sugar in the form of lactose.)

The sugar tax should extend to manufacturers of animal feed, too, to be fair, not just to consumers of sodas. How many of you know that molasses is added to some livestock you eat to fatten them up more quickly?

So you are eating the animal's heavy dose of sugar, too.
No, you are not...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2016, 09:44 AM
 
Location: Concord NC
1,686 posts, read 921,782 times
Reputation: 4618
This seems like an evil, racially-motivated attack on the most vulnerable among us: "...nonwhites, and the low-income in the U.S. drink more regular soda than other Americans." Regular Soda Popular With Young, Nonwhite, Low-Income
Don't these heartless legislators understand that those in "food deserts" are paradoxically also in "snack oases"?
(sarcasm)
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2016, 09:53 AM
Status: "Finally Done With C-D BYE BYE" (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,947 posts, read 21,506,574 times
Reputation: 15431
Quote:
Originally Posted by RP2C View Post
This seems like an evil, racially-motivated attack on the most vulnerable among us: "...nonwhites, and the low-income in the U.S. drink more regular soda than other Americans." Regular Soda Popular With Young, Nonwhite, Low-Income
Don't these heartless legislators understand that those in "food deserts" are paradoxically also in "snack oases"?
(sarcasm)
THEY DON'T CARE, it's all about increasing government on the backs of whomever will pay the freight.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2016, 10:17 AM
 
Location: Washington State
15,402 posts, read 8,054,172 times
Reputation: 13201
I support it, good idea. I support the idea of taxing things you want to discourage such as sugar water, cigarettes, gasoline, pot and heroin.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2016, 11:42 AM
 
3,071 posts, read 1,629,913 times
Reputation: 7974
Quote:
Originally Posted by wawa1992 View Post
The government has no business legislating or dis-incentivizing things like drinking soda. So what if someone wants to drink soda. That should be their choice, and they should have to pay what the market decides the price should be, not said price jacked up by some artificial tax. Not to mention it's a shameless cash grab.
Why? Are the prices dictated by 'the market' enshrined in the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights? Or perhaps 'the market' is mentioned as an essential contributor to liberty in the Declaration of Independence?

I'm tired of people who consider 'capitalism' to be their religion and 'market forces' to be their God. Our country was not formed on the basis of 'maximizing shareholder value', but to provide and protect the liberties of the citizens.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2016, 12:19 PM
 
Location: Long Island
8,514 posts, read 11,413,720 times
Reputation: 4770
Not sure why people are surprised when there's been a tobacco tax for years. Roll on down that slippery slope...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2016, 12:32 PM
 
3,183 posts, read 1,636,481 times
Reputation: 15371
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBayBoomer View Post
I support high tobacco taxes (and strict public smoking regulations) and I am nobody's fool; however, the money collected must go to health programs, just as the sugar tax shouldónot to city/county/state general coffers as was posted above, if that's accurate.

Although I do eat some sugar, I have no problem with a sugar tax if the money is used for health programs, including health education about diabetes and other obesity-related problems.

I've already started cutting back on sugar and I feel better. Personally, I have come to prefer mineral water with a squeeze of lime or lemon to soda of any kind. It's more refreshing than sugary or diet sodas, and far healthier.

Tea was where I was still adding some sugar. I got into the habit of adding first a teaspoon of sugar to my milk and tea, then cut that in half to half a teaspoon, then 1/4 teaspoon and this morning, just non-fat or 1% milk. I didn't miss the sugar at all. (Well, milk has natural sugar in the form of lactose.)

The sugar tax should extend to manufacturers of animal feed, too, to be fair, not just to consumers of sodas. How many of you know that molasses is added to some livestock you eat to fatten them up more quickly?

So you are eating the animal's heavy dose of sugar, too.

Here's another anti-sugar person looking to control everyone's sweet tooth. Interesting, isn't it, that he supported the tobacco tax.


Live and let live. Freedom to pursue. Privacy. Mind your own business.
All of these are foreign concepts to too many Americans.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2016, 04:09 PM
gg
 
Location: Pittsburgh
16,990 posts, read 17,213,797 times
Reputation: 10826
Quote:
Originally Posted by mishigas73 View Post
A money grab by any other name is still a money grab.
Yep and it is of course in a Pennsylvania city. One heavily taxed state as it is. It wouldn't have an effect on me, since I don't drink pop, but in Pittsburgh there is a special tax on alcohol and that does effect me. Yep, we have an extra 7% tax on booze at bars.
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.


 
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:
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 > General Forums > Current Events
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

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