How's the sugary drink tax working out? (Penn: buy, pre-school)

[cpomp]

Do sport drinks count?

[HappyRider]

Originally Posted by BK_PHL_DEL

This is your argument? Really? lol

What's your argument? Should we or shouldn't we buy sugary soda? If you don't buy sugary drinks, you are refusing to contribute to children education. I could even call it tax evasion.

[1ondoner]

The provision of pre-K facilities to the under-privileged by city is a good idea.

The taxing of soda is also a good idea, however, the money should be used for making improvements that would promote healthier lifestyles rather than provide social services such as the pre-K. The extra revenue should have been used to improve the parks, public spaces, playgrounds, trails, etc.

Originally Posted by HappyRider

How can it be a "good idea" if you don't buy sugary drinks? Where will school funding come from? By "eliminating" soda from your diet you are hurting kids.

[BK_PHL_DEL]

Originally Posted by HappyRider

What's your argument? Should we or shouldn't we buy sugary soda? If you don't buy sugary drinks, you are refusing to contribute to children education. I could even call it tax evasion.

Okay, I'll bite. There is no "should" in this matter. It is an individual's choice to buy soda or not. My personal lifestyle/health choice is to NOT buy soda. My lifestyle choice is not a refusal to contribute to the PSD.



"If you don't use rational thought, you are refusing to contribute to basic intellectual discussion. I could even call it intelligence evasion." FTFY

Keep trolling, troll-lito

[selhars]

Now that I think of it I remember being surprised that soda companies lost their challenge to the law. (NYC's size law was overturned,)

1) I don't drink sugary drinks.
2) I live near the county line, so tend to do all my shopping outside the city anyway. The sales tax is higher, now this. what are they going to tax next? AIR?

[Pennsport]

Hmm... looks like the end of sugar water isn't all that far away.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/c...211350342.html

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by Pennsport

Yes, agreed. Couldn't be going better! We're saving lives and hopefully phasing out the popularity of useless sugar water while simultaneously using the revenue from those who insist on killing themselves to help fund a HUGE gap in our city. This should have been done years ago!

Much like sugar gum which is basically a product of the past, fingers crossed that the next generation won't even consider buying sugar water and our country will save billions annually in healthcare costs.

I hope you're right; I don't drink the stuff.

The current "in" generation (millennials) seems to be in rebellion about not learning the ugly truth about tobacco use....a lot of them anyhow. So the same thing may happen with future generations and sugary drinks. Some will continue to drink them no matter what.

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by 1ondoner

The provision of pre-K facilities to the under-privileged by city is a good idea.

The taxing of soda is also a good idea, however, the money should be used for making improvements that would promote healthier lifestyles rather than provide social services such as the pre-K. The extra revenue should have been used to improve the parks, public spaces, playgrounds, trails, etc.

Isn't the latter also part of what the tax will be used for? I seem to remember that.

[AJNEOA]

I can understand the frustration of having a tax or provision that is not fully logical or is random between its source and what it funds. I also see frustration with choosing sugary drinks rather than the many other ridiculously processed foods Americans live on (I know soda is a HUGE problem).

I'm not saying I'm against this provision (I also consume zero sugar drinks), but it is counter-intuitive in its cause because if it reduces soda consumption (good), it takes money away from schools (bad). Kind of strange.

[HappyRider]

Originally Posted by BK_PHL_DEL

Okay, I'll bite. There is no "should" in this matter. It is an individual's choice to buy soda or not. My personal lifestyle/health choice is to NOT buy soda. My lifestyle choice is not a refusal to contribute to the PSD.

You cannot simultaneously argue that it is a good idea to fund schools by taxing sugar and then say you refuse to buy sugar. The only conclusion then is you are refusing to help the kids. When all is said and done, don't be surprised for the city to collect less in taxes by losing the sales tax they would have collected otherwise.