New soda tax - for or against? (Philadelphia, Penn: insurance, taxi)

[slambram]

Originally Posted by Pine to Vine

Diet sodas are sweetened. I think it's important to stop fear mongering.

Diet sodas are not sweetened in this context, and you know it. Continually saying this applies only to sweetened soda implies it has something to do with health, instead of just money.


And define fear mongering. Why should anyone think this will stop at soda? If the test is "nobody needs..." then why wouldn't candy bars be next? Or coffee? Or potato chips?

[Pennsport]

I just don't understand what is wrong with this tax. Soda is one of the biggest causes of diabetes, obesity, and a slew of other nasty health issues. And, as was stated up-thread, this disproportionately impacts the lower economic classes -- meaning that ultimately society fronts a great deal of the bill for many of the aforementioned diseases.

Cigarettes cause lung cancer, so as a society, we determined to tax the sh&t out of them. Alcohol causes numerous health issues, so as a society, we determined to tax the sh&t out of them. What is wrong with taxing the sh&t out of products that are that the forefront of enabling what could turn out to the be the most devastating scourge in human history (i.e. childhood obesity and type 2 diabetes)?

[Pine to Vine]

Originally Posted by slambram

Diet sodas are not sweetened in this context, and you know it. Continually saying this applies only to sweetened soda implies it has something to do with health, instead of just money.


And define fear mongering. Why should anyone think this will stop at soda? If the test is "nobody needs..." then why wouldn't candy bars be next? Or coffee? Or potato chips?

Diet sodas are sweetened. It's a fact.

And imagine potato chips being taxed! Horrors! Our pursuit of happiness has never been so at risk!!

[slambram]

Originally Posted by Pennsport

I just don't understand what is wrong with this tax. Soda is one of the biggest causes of diabetes, obesity, and a slew of other nasty health issues. And, as was stated up-thread, this disproportionately impacts the lower economic classes -- meaning that ultimately society fronts a great deal of the bill for many of the aforementioned diseases.

Cigarettes cause lung cancer, so as a society, we determined to tax the sh&t out of them. Alcohol causes numerous health issues, so as a society, we determined to tax the sh&t out of them. What is wrong with taxing the sh&t out of products that are that the forefront of enabling what could turn out to the be the most devastating scourge in human history (i.e. childhood obesity and type 2 diabetes)?

How does diet soda cause or contribute to type II diabetes?

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by Pennsport

I just don't understand what is wrong with this tax. Soda is one of the biggest causes of diabetes, obesity, and a slew of other nasty health issues. And, as was stated up-thread, this disproportionately impacts the lower economic classes -- meaning that ultimately society fronts a great deal of the bill for many of the aforementioned diseases.

Cigarettes cause lung cancer, so as a society, we determined to tax the sh&t out of them. Alcohol causes numerous health issues, so as a society, we determined to tax the sh&t out of them. What is wrong with taxing the sh&t out of products that are that the forefront of enabling what could turn out to the be the most devastating scourge in human history (i.e. childhood obesity and type 2 diabetes)?

The thread was started by someone from Atlanta( a Coke employee or lobbyist?)and, unfortunately, we(me included) got baited by their trolling and "intervention" into Philadelphia politics which shouldn't concern someone 1000 miles away from Philly.

And, yes, I agree with the tax and I drink soda sometimes.

[2e1m5a]

Originally Posted by slambram

How does diet soda cause or contribute to type II diabetes?

Not diabetes, just cancer- at least with aspartame.

I agree with the soda tax as long as it is going where it is intended to-but OTOH I don't really drink soda and hardly ever pay for it if I do (cook-outs and such where nothing else is available). This probably will effect sweetened green/iced tea and coffee drinks which I do purchase.

I think it is valid to question why the city is not going after delinquent property owners that haven't paid their taxes in decades, while raising it for those that do pay and eliminating it for those that can afford it the most. We need new ways to help poorer communities directly, instead of using bureaucracy which often only seems to know how to grow and waste. I also agree with those that mentioned the fact that "trickle down" has long been proven a disastrous economic policy...

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by 2e1m5a

Not diabetes, just cancer- at least with aspartame.

I agree with the soda tax as long as it is going where it is intended to-but OTOH I don't really drink soda and hardly ever pay for it if I do (cook-outs and such where nothing else is available). This probably will effect sweetened green/iced tea and coffee drinks which I do purchase.

I think it is valid to question why the city is not going after delinquent property owners that haven't paid their taxes in decades, while raising it for those that do pay and eliminating it for those that can afford it the most. We need new ways to help poorer communities directly, instead of using bureaucracy which often only seems to know how to grow and waste. I also agree with those that mentioned the fact that "trickle down" has long been proven a disastrous economic policy...

I wish I could easily find the links to show that the city is trying to tackle the delinquent tax problem but, obviously, it's not been aggressive enough.

[Pine to Vine]

Originally Posted by 2e1m5a

Not diabetes, just cancer- at least with aspartame.

I agree with the soda tax as long as it is going where it is intended to-but OTOH I don't really drink soda and hardly ever pay for it if I do (cook-outs and such where nothing else is available). This probably will effect sweetened green/iced tea and coffee drinks which I do purchase.

I think it is valid to question why the city is not going after delinquent property owners that haven't paid their taxes in decades, while raising it for those that do pay and eliminating it for those that can afford it the most. We need new ways to help poorer communities directly, instead of using bureaucracy which often only seems to know how to grow and waste. I also agree with those that mentioned the fact that "trickle down" has long been proven a disastrous economic policy...

Agree with all that you said. Philly is the first but not the last large city to tax sweetened sodas. One day this tax will be as common as gasoline taxes.

New council member Allan Domb is already laying the groundwork for being more aggressive on collecting delinquent property taxes: Phila. can do a lot more to collect back taxes. It's a new ballgame with Kenney in the driver seat, so time will tell if this takes off.

[2e1m5a]

^That is great to hear. I have to say-so far, so great with Jim Kenney. Going after the delinquent properties also has the added benefit of helping to solve the blight problem in many neighborhoods.

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by Pine to Vine

Agree with all that you said. Philly is the first but not the last large city to tax sweetened sodas. One day this tax will be as common as gasoline taxes.

New council member Allan Domb is already laying the groundwork for being more aggressive on collecting delinquent property taxes: Phila. can do a lot more to collect back taxes. It's a new ballgame with Kenney in the driver seat, so time will tell if this takes off.

I suppose you may have read that the Bloomberg Foundation may help the city wrt to any law suits that may arise that are opposed to the tax.

Nutter was probably unsuccessful in the past with this because he had an adversarial relationship with council and I don't recall him directly connecting to it to something quite positive like universal kindergarten.