Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, September 30, 2009
Politics Another Idea For Saving Your Pennies: Maybe Your Sullen Children Could Drink Tap Water With The Odd Meal?
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 9:49 AM
This woman makes me crazy—crazier—than even the Delta lady.
A one-cent-per-ounce tax on soda would raise billions in revenue annually—billions that could go toward providing the kind of health care these woman's morose children are going to need when they grow into diabetic, obese adults, thanks to mom's rabid support for low taxes and high fructose corn syrup. Soda should be heavily taxed—onerously taxed—if only to cancel out the the farm subsidies that make soda pop so freakin' cheap in the first place. And if you're worried about your pennies, why are you drinking soda at all?
1
"Juice drinks?" Does that mean "drinks that resemble juice, but have no relation to any actual fruit?
2
Argh! Annoying also is that the soda sits all by itself in a plastic bag. Bet she voted no on the bag tax, too.
4
Make pot legal, then tax marijuana so high that it makes up for all that health care that we'll spend on those diabetic, obese adults!
Pot should be heavily taxed--onerously taxed--if for no other reason than to cancel out the huge loss of productivity and wasted hours spent listening to bad reggae.
Pot should be heavily taxed--onerously taxed--if for no other reason than to cancel out the huge loss of productivity and wasted hours spent listening to bad reggae.
5
Americans Against Food Taxes is a coalition of concerned citizens – responsible individuals, financially strapped families, small and large businesses in communities across the country – opposed to the Government’s proposed tax hike on food and beverages, including soda, juice drinks, and flavored milks.
Citizens like:
7-Eleven, Inc.
Burger King Corporation
Chick-fil-A, Inc.
Coca-Cola Company
Dr Pepper Snapple Group
PepsiCo, Inc.
But they are REALLY looking out for our best interests... right?
7
Er, diabetes kind of detracts from your argument. A, diabetes has a strong genetic link. B, 75% of fat people don't get type 2 diabetes -- they don't have the right genes. C, ever heard of diet pop?
But yeah, if you're worried about money, skip the overpriced sugar water. And the latte and the juice.
But yeah, if you're worried about money, skip the overpriced sugar water. And the latte and the juice.
8
Right on, Dan! My kids rarely drink soda and even then it's usually when we have the occasional root beer float. Our city, Schenectady, won the NY State Drinking Water State Contest and I've used that to encourage my kids to drink up to show pride in our city and because it's healthy.
9
I actually think pot should be heavily taxed—I'd happily pay high taxes on pot. But even if pot isn't taxed at all—the current state of affairs—just ending the war on pot will save tens of billions of dollars annually. No more arrests, prosecutions, pot smokers in jail, helicopters buzzing national forests, etc., etc. The tax revenues would be chump change compared to the money we'd save if we ended the war on pot.
But, yeah, tax it—tax the shit out of it, like we do booze, and use the money to pay for health care and drug treatment for fools who get their asses addicted to more harmful drugs, like alcohol and nicotine.
But, yeah, tax it—tax the shit out of it, like we do booze, and use the money to pay for health care and drug treatment for fools who get their asses addicted to more harmful drugs, like alcohol and nicotine.
11
The way this woman gets defensive, then aggressive about her soda tax frightens me. Who thought this would make a good ad? It just makes supporters look crazy and weirdly passive-aggressive.
12
Why drink soda? Um. 'Cause it's fizzy? And you can use it to clean the contacts on your car battery?
13
Dan, rather than "cancel out" the farm subsidies that allow HFCS to exist with taxes on products that contain said substance, why not end the corn subsidy entirely? Doesn't that have the same net effect? Doesn't it eliminate a subsidy that doesn't do what liberals want subsidies to do? And, being as it's a subsidy, isn't there a conservative argument to be made for ending it that can win bipartisan support?
14
well, as I disagreed with Dan over on the hospital access thread, it's only fair to chime in here and say "right on" tax the pop and the pot. Hmm... a pop pot tax, sounds like a dictator of some sort, must be more creeping evil socialism
15
"those pennies add up when you're trying to feed a family"...
I'm sorry, you're taking the high road about "feeding your family" when you're talking about soda? Seriously? Because soda has so much nutritional value? Because kids need to get their recommended daily amount of soda? If you are a "financially strapped family," how about considering the possibility of cutting out soda from your grocery budget?
This is of course, pretending that this character isn't just a shill for food & beverage corporations. Argh... corporate lobbying organizations using "but what about the little people" rhetoric makes Julie angry.
I'm sorry, you're taking the high road about "feeding your family" when you're talking about soda? Seriously? Because soda has so much nutritional value? Because kids need to get their recommended daily amount of soda? If you are a "financially strapped family," how about considering the possibility of cutting out soda from your grocery budget?
This is of course, pretending that this character isn't just a shill for food & beverage corporations. Argh... corporate lobbying organizations using "but what about the little people" rhetoric makes Julie angry.
16
"Pennies cost a lot when you're trying to feed a family." Remind me again how soda "feeds a family." Does that assume soda's food? Does she have a plastic bag full of a bag of chips in her trunk? Kinda like everyone in line in front of me at the grocery store the other day.
17
I don't hit women (or anybody else, really), so I would have to have a female friend do it. But someone needs to slap that bitch upside her head double quick.
18
Don't take away their soda, no siree. I recently did some work in Oklahoma, and my Canadian sensibility was not prepared for the size of the goddamned soft drinks in the south. Honestly, how about not serving 24 ounces of high fructose corn syrup as a 'medium' size, for a start? Even if you spring for the diet stuff, drinking 2 cans along with your fatty meal ain't good for your teeth.
Instead of taxing the consumer, tax the fuck outta the businesses who think charging $1.50 for a 44-ounce, 800-calorie soft drink is a socially responsible thing to do.
Instead of taxing the consumer, tax the fuck outta the businesses who think charging $1.50 for a 44-ounce, 800-calorie soft drink is a socially responsible thing to do.
19
I know, this is crazy! Parents, stop giving your kids soda!!! Don't drink it yourselves either! It isn't real food just like the Cheez-its you feed your family as a snack!
Americans don't realize how much better the occasional dessert is when it is occasional.
I know, this is crazy! Parents, stop giving your kids soda!!! Don't drink it yourselves either! It isn't real food just like the Cheez-its you feed your family as a snack!
Americans don't realize how much better the occasional dessert is when it is occasional.
20
#15 nailed it.
If you're scraping by to feed your family (or just yourself) soda should be the first thing you get rid of, ever before bottled water (which is it's own evil). It's not food, it's a treat with no nutritional value whatsoever.
If you're scraping by to feed your family (or just yourself) soda should be the first thing you get rid of, ever before bottled water (which is it's own evil). It's not food, it's a treat with no nutritional value whatsoever.
21
God, now only rich people will be able to afford their fancy Royal Crown soda! Not fair! My toddler deserves to have a MT Dew the same as them fancy folks do.
22
@12:
Champagne is fizzy too - and probably better for teh kiddie's health ounce-for-ounce than soda. Not that I'm advocating giving your young-uns a flute of Taittinger every evening with their mac-&-cheese, but still, just sayin'
Also, you know what's great AND cheap? A two liter bottle of sparkling water ($0.89) with a little - and I do mean LITTLE - splash of juice or non-sugared espresso flavoring added to it. Costs about 1/10th the amount of a similar-sized portion of soda, has waaaaaaay less sugar/HFCS/artificial sweetener, and tastes just as good!
Champagne is fizzy too - and probably better for teh kiddie's health ounce-for-ounce than soda. Not that I'm advocating giving your young-uns a flute of Taittinger every evening with their mac-&-cheese, but still, just sayin'
Also, you know what's great AND cheap? A two liter bottle of sparkling water ($0.89) with a little - and I do mean LITTLE - splash of juice or non-sugared espresso flavoring added to it. Costs about 1/10th the amount of a similar-sized portion of soda, has waaaaaaay less sugar/HFCS/artificial sweetener, and tastes just as good!
24
Cost to buy a giant box of non-sugar packets from Costco - $6.
Cost to buy a giant cannister of tea bags from Costco - $7.
Cost to buy (optional) a giant thing of lemon juice from Costco - $6.
Total cost to make 25,000 lemon iced tea drinks - #29.
Realizing that it's cheaper than a 24 pack of bad-for-you pop - PRICELESS.
Cost to buy a giant cannister of tea bags from Costco - $7.
Cost to buy (optional) a giant thing of lemon juice from Costco - $6.
Total cost to make 25,000 lemon iced tea drinks - #29.
Realizing that it's cheaper than a 24 pack of bad-for-you pop - PRICELESS.
26
I think it's damned fine of the soda pop lobby to give Sarah Jessica Parker a role in their commercial.
27
@22 That's what I usually do when I want something carbonated: juice + club soda. In fact, the parents of one of my good friends used to tell her that juice + club soda was "soda." She didn't find out about actual soda until she had a Coke at a birthday party when she was 6 or so (she was, of course, mad about being deceived, but I thought it was pretty funny).
28
You americans crack me up. I mean, "won't someone think of the children?" Don't you know cheap soda is guaranteed under the constitution?
We all know that burger king and coca cola are really worried about supporting your family through tough economic decisions like "Should I buy soda for my family?". If a company ran a campaign like this in the UK the advert would be laughed off the air.
Yes, soda will cost a little more, and yes the tax will be passed onto the consumer. However the government has to step in to make sure that the free market does not make goods with other costs (such as healthcare or environmental costs) cost less than their actual costs to society. It's econ101. The sooner americans realise that the free market isn't actually free, the quicker we can move onto tackling problems effectively. This boils down to the individual and companies not wanting to bare the actual costs of production and consumption. Another symptom of the western disease of "It's not my responsibility."
We all know that burger king and coca cola are really worried about supporting your family through tough economic decisions like "Should I buy soda for my family?". If a company ran a campaign like this in the UK the advert would be laughed off the air.
Yes, soda will cost a little more, and yes the tax will be passed onto the consumer. However the government has to step in to make sure that the free market does not make goods with other costs (such as healthcare or environmental costs) cost less than their actual costs to society. It's econ101. The sooner americans realise that the free market isn't actually free, the quicker we can move onto tackling problems effectively. This boils down to the individual and companies not wanting to bare the actual costs of production and consumption. Another symptom of the western disease of "It's not my responsibility."
29
Concerned working-class citizens don't have the money to buy television ads to air their concerns. Ads are expensive. The makers of carbonated sugar drinks, however, have the money to employ "concerned citizens" like this to explain why any tax on their products cuts into their profi--- er, presents an unreasonable burden on hard-working Washington families.
Hey, lady actor in this ad: You should be fucking ashamed of yourself.
Hey, lady actor in this ad: You should be fucking ashamed of yourself.
30
@28. "It's not my responsibility" is only a symptom, the real disease is "I want it cheap and I want it now!"
31
You are so adorable. I just want to pinch your cheeks.
Agricultural states will never stand for corn subsidies being cut or eliminated. Despite the *theoretical* conservative argument against subsidies, guess which party overwhelmingly represents Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, etc., etc., etc. Hint: it's not the Democrats.
And, being as it's a subsidy, isn't there a conservative argument to be made for ending it that can win bipartisan support?
You are so adorable. I just want to pinch your cheeks.
Agricultural states will never stand for corn subsidies being cut or eliminated. Despite the *theoretical* conservative argument against subsidies, guess which party overwhelmingly represents Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, etc., etc., etc. Hint: it's not the Democrats.
32
When I was a kid, soda pop was a seldom thing. We drank a shitload of Kool-Aid, though, mixed by mom (and by us, if we snuck it) in a pitcher with our own sugar. Also not food, but also not $5 a 12-pack. This commercial is bullshit.
34
I don't drink much soda but I can tell this battle is bigger than you even realize. One thing you are right is the cost of soda is crazy cheap. So cheap that many restaurants are willing to lose money on their food in order to make something on the soda. If soda goes up EVERYTHING goes up. Many people are very very defensive about their soda like when I go out to eat I drink water but I see so many choose the $2.95 all you can drink soda with their $7 meal (over 40% of the cost of their meal) and they cannot enjoy a meal without it. This is going to get really ugly and expect those dollar menus to disappear.
35
I remember the first time I saw that commercial I wasn't sure whether to laugh or throw something at the TV.
You know, as a cash-strapped mom driving a brand-new hatchback trying to make ends meet and the pennies adding up, eliminating the daily soda allowance might also free up a little extra cash since you won't have to buy all that ritalin and insulin for your hyperactive, diabetic children.
Also, in the words of John Stewart: Close your trunk, lady.
You know, as a cash-strapped mom driving a brand-new hatchback trying to make ends meet and the pennies adding up, eliminating the daily soda allowance might also free up a little extra cash since you won't have to buy all that ritalin and insulin for your hyperactive, diabetic children.
Also, in the words of John Stewart: Close your trunk, lady.
36
@34,
I have no idea if you're right about dollar menus going away, but if that happens, it could be bad for the economy in the short run, but it'll be much better for people's health in the long run.
I have no idea if you're right about dollar menus going away, but if that happens, it could be bad for the economy in the short run, but it'll be much better for people's health in the long run.
37
Thank you @35, I was starting to wonder if I was the only one having the OCD reaction of wanting to go out there and slam her fucking hitchback door closed for her (ideally with her still reaching inside to get more soda in a plastic bag...).
38
If you think this commercial is bullshit (which it is), then send them an email from their website and on their YouTube channel. The cowards have rating and commenting disabled.
39
A spoof version is in order. I see the car scraping bottom when turning into the driveway. An obese woman, struggling to get out of the car, sluggish obese children that only come when she screams "Get off your asses and help Momma!" Of course the line, "Those pennies add up to families struggling to afford their insulin."
40
"Washington, if you're listening..."
I'm sure they are lady. With a list of supporters like that, they can't afford not to.
I'm sure they are lady. With a list of supporters like that, they can't afford not to.
42
If you guys want to see how a spoof should be done, you should look up the "high fructose corn syrup spoof" ad from Jackie Beat and Selene Luna and (mumblemumble, I forgot her name mumble).
43
@30
That's not the disease. Consumers rationally want goods/services as competitive as possible. It's up to government to ensure that there is a balance between competitiveness and paying for external costs through regulation and taxes. The problem is that it's political suicide to talk about collective responsibility. It's been that way since reaganism/thatcherism. However, the paradigm is shifting, the current global recession is a direct result of that ideology and belief in monetarism. Nowhere in the world is that ideology more entrenched than in the USA. That is why you're seeing things like tea parties etc.
US politicians would do well to talk about collective responsibility in terms of freedom. If company A plows the market with something with huge costs to the environment that limits others freedom to do things in our environment. Making A minimise the effects of its action on our freedoms is justified and for all of our liberty. It is about being willing to pay the costs for your actions and so is about responsibility and freedom. Im all for the smart consumer who wants the best deal. What Im against is when that deal doesn't reflect all the costs. So people end up paying for it in other ways, often without the choice but to accept it. This is fundamentally against liberty. Why should I pay because someone else decided to over consume? Why should I suffer as a result of actions I have no say in? Someone has to pay for it, and it should be the people who profit from and use the service or good. These companies are effectively saying "We want everyone else to pay for our costs of doing business, even if you don't use our products/services." What could be more socialist than that?
That's not the disease. Consumers rationally want goods/services as competitive as possible. It's up to government to ensure that there is a balance between competitiveness and paying for external costs through regulation and taxes. The problem is that it's political suicide to talk about collective responsibility. It's been that way since reaganism/thatcherism. However, the paradigm is shifting, the current global recession is a direct result of that ideology and belief in monetarism. Nowhere in the world is that ideology more entrenched than in the USA. That is why you're seeing things like tea parties etc.
US politicians would do well to talk about collective responsibility in terms of freedom. If company A plows the market with something with huge costs to the environment that limits others freedom to do things in our environment. Making A minimise the effects of its action on our freedoms is justified and for all of our liberty. It is about being willing to pay the costs for your actions and so is about responsibility and freedom. Im all for the smart consumer who wants the best deal. What Im against is when that deal doesn't reflect all the costs. So people end up paying for it in other ways, often without the choice but to accept it. This is fundamentally against liberty. Why should I pay because someone else decided to over consume? Why should I suffer as a result of actions I have no say in? Someone has to pay for it, and it should be the people who profit from and use the service or good. These companies are effectively saying "We want everyone else to pay for our costs of doing business, even if you don't use our products/services." What could be more socialist than that?
44
America is one fucked up place.
1st: Get everyone addicted to something.
2nd: Declare that something "unhealthy" and add a little tax to it.
What a scam. Wish I'd thought of it first.
1st: Get everyone addicted to something.
2nd: Declare that something "unhealthy" and add a little tax to it.
What a scam. Wish I'd thought of it first.
45
Externalize and socialize the risk and internalize and privatize the profit.
That's what they do.
That's what they do.
46
@ 31, prominent Democrats have represented corn belt states in recent decades and done just as much to protect corn subsidies as their Republican counterparts. This is one of those issues that everyone protects because they're guaranteed to lose their jobs if they don't do it. It's maddening, but it's not the work of one party or the other.
47
@46,
Duh. I'm making the point that, while Republicans theoretically oppose subsidies, in this case (and many others of course) they're self-serving hypocrites.
Duh. I'm making the point that, while Republicans theoretically oppose subsidies, in this case (and many others of course) they're self-serving hypocrites.
48
And what's to keep such tax revenue from just slipping into the general fund instead of the programs it was meant for?
50
This tax would have the biggest impact on low income. It is not a progressive tax, rather it is a regressive tax. Rich people either do not drink soda, or the tax would not stop them from drinking it. On the other hand low income families would have to pay the same percentage of taxes as the rich (just like any other sales tax). I am all in favor of drinking fewer pops, but I really do not think this tax is the right way.
51
I agree with the tax. These commercials try to make it seem like they care about the average American, but the hypocrisy shines through pretty brightly.
Soda shouldn't be an everyday thing, and the people who drink it regularly know that. It's the corporations who don't want to see their profits dip down, and they need to get a nice kick in the nuts.
Soda shouldn't be an everyday thing, and the people who drink it regularly know that. It's the corporations who don't want to see their profits dip down, and they need to get a nice kick in the nuts.
53
50
It's not a regressive tax,
it's a sin tax-
you don't have to drink soda (or smoke, or drink booze);
and you (and society) would be better off if you never did;
but we don't want to outright ban it-
so we'll tax it heavily enough to discourage it's consumption but if you choose to consume it anyway you are paying a lot of taxes that (presumably) will be used to defray the cost to society of the ill-advised behavior/consumption in question.
Sin taxes usually are regressive in effect but they are optional to the taxpayer and are lifestyle costs rather than mandatory fees.
It's not a regressive tax,
it's a sin tax-
you don't have to drink soda (or smoke, or drink booze);
and you (and society) would be better off if you never did;
but we don't want to outright ban it-
so we'll tax it heavily enough to discourage it's consumption but if you choose to consume it anyway you are paying a lot of taxes that (presumably) will be used to defray the cost to society of the ill-advised behavior/consumption in question.
Sin taxes usually are regressive in effect but they are optional to the taxpayer and are lifestyle costs rather than mandatory fees.
54
@22: I was kidding. I really do think the only purpose of soda pop is to clean your battery contacts. Or dissolve your teeth.
55
@48: I can't but notice that conservatives like you are opposed to all taxes regardless of how trivial they are or where the money goes.
56
@50
You assume demand is inelastic or the same over differing levels of income and at different price points. Sales taxes are progressive taxes. Those with more money spend more money. They pay more tax. Those on low incomes spend their lower income and they pay less tax. I don't see how it could be any more proportional to income. You pay for what you consume.
Making soda cost a few cents more will also lower demand for soda. This will lessen the negative effects the consumption and production of soda cause. Making consumption of it more responsible. It doesn't "punish" the poor. It simply makes the actual cost of purchasing a soda the actual cost of purchasing a soda. As things stand the market cost of a soda does not reflect the actual cost of soda. Our taxes and insurance premiums are going to reward the soda company for its irresponsible business practices - this is their profit. As currently, our taxes and insurance premiums pay for the negative extraneous costs of the soda business, and a million other markets. This is a flaw of laissez faire capitalism.
The bottom line is that these costs have to be paid. There is nothing more representative, democratic and free than making those who consume soda pay what a soda actually costs, regardless of their income.
If you want to drink copius amounts of soda, you should pay what it costs. Soda isn't a human right.
I fully support the sentiment that those on lower incomes should be supported and not unfairly penalised. However, taxing soda is hardly going to increase the numbers of people below the poverty line, or indeed starve anyone.
I can't afford to smoke 40 cigarettes a day. I probably would if I could afford it. However, taxes are so high on cigarettes because of their extraneous costs. I'm pretty glad they are so expensive, I will probably live longer as a result and it means I can have access to great healthcare when I need it. I may have put more taxes into the system than a non-smoker. However, Im more likely to use that system for a costly smoking related illness. This means healthcare can stay at a reasonable cost to everyone and I'm not being subsidised for my irresponsible decisions. With obesity now over taking smoking as the leading cost of healthcare in the USA and some of the EU closely following behind. "Fat taxes" are inevitable and equitable.
More...
You assume demand is inelastic or the same over differing levels of income and at different price points. Sales taxes are progressive taxes. Those with more money spend more money. They pay more tax. Those on low incomes spend their lower income and they pay less tax. I don't see how it could be any more proportional to income. You pay for what you consume.
Making soda cost a few cents more will also lower demand for soda. This will lessen the negative effects the consumption and production of soda cause. Making consumption of it more responsible. It doesn't "punish" the poor. It simply makes the actual cost of purchasing a soda the actual cost of purchasing a soda. As things stand the market cost of a soda does not reflect the actual cost of soda. Our taxes and insurance premiums are going to reward the soda company for its irresponsible business practices - this is their profit. As currently, our taxes and insurance premiums pay for the negative extraneous costs of the soda business, and a million other markets. This is a flaw of laissez faire capitalism.
The bottom line is that these costs have to be paid. There is nothing more representative, democratic and free than making those who consume soda pay what a soda actually costs, regardless of their income.
If you want to drink copius amounts of soda, you should pay what it costs. Soda isn't a human right.
I fully support the sentiment that those on lower incomes should be supported and not unfairly penalised. However, taxing soda is hardly going to increase the numbers of people below the poverty line, or indeed starve anyone.
I can't afford to smoke 40 cigarettes a day. I probably would if I could afford it. However, taxes are so high on cigarettes because of their extraneous costs. I'm pretty glad they are so expensive, I will probably live longer as a result and it means I can have access to great healthcare when I need it. I may have put more taxes into the system than a non-smoker. However, Im more likely to use that system for a costly smoking related illness. This means healthcare can stay at a reasonable cost to everyone and I'm not being subsidised for my irresponsible decisions. With obesity now over taking smoking as the leading cost of healthcare in the USA and some of the EU closely following behind. "Fat taxes" are inevitable and equitable.
57
Keshmeshi - I know you were being facetious, but rest assured that I'm objectively adorable for a man of my age. :)
That said . . . Yeah, I hear you. I think the more often you publicly make an argument for your own interests from your opponents' philosophical premises, the more you force those opponents into a position of hypocrisy . . . for the record. Which is something quite different from getting actual support for a well-reasoned position, I admit.
That said . . . Yeah, I hear you. I think the more often you publicly make an argument for your own interests from your opponents' philosophical premises, the more you force those opponents into a position of hypocrisy . . . for the record. Which is something quite different from getting actual support for a well-reasoned position, I admit.
58
Cost of soda: $.88
Cost of soda with tax: $.89
Cost of not buying soda: $ 0
Which saves the most money?
Cost of soda with tax: $.89
Cost of not buying soda: $ 0
Which saves the most money?
59
@ 47, as long as you're only targeting the Republicans (and if you reread your comments, you'll see that you are) then you're addressing only half the problem.
60
BaconCat: The third woman is Nadya Ginsburg.
and, i'm guessing you've seen Nadya and Selena spoof Madonna and Lourdes?
and, i'm guessing you've seen Nadya and Selena spoof Madonna and Lourdes?
61
People are mainly on the "don't drink soda if you want to save money" front here, so I'm going to attack this ad from a different angle:
The ad says "those pennies add up," but they don't!
Seriously. If the tax on a 2 liter is 2 cents, and you buy a bottle a week (which if you ask me, is an absurd amount), you'll only have spent $1.04 more at the end of the year. Or if you want to go fucking nuts, buy 2 bottles a week and spend an extra $2.08
I'd bet that most people lose (as in physically drop or misplace) that much money a year.
Just use a "buy one, get one" coupon once or twice ever, and you'll make that back.
This is such a non-issue.
The ad says "those pennies add up," but they don't!
Seriously. If the tax on a 2 liter is 2 cents, and you buy a bottle a week (which if you ask me, is an absurd amount), you'll only have spent $1.04 more at the end of the year. Or if you want to go fucking nuts, buy 2 bottles a week and spend an extra $2.08
I'd bet that most people lose (as in physically drop or misplace) that much money a year.
Just use a "buy one, get one" coupon once or twice ever, and you'll make that back.
This is such a non-issue.
62
@61: Boy, are you out of touch. I know people who go through three of those bottles a day. Every day.
63
@61 - except, I think they're talking about a penny an ounce. And a two-liter bottle is 68 ounces. Which is about $70 a year if you drink 2 2-liters a week. If the average two-liter is $1.30 or $1.40, that's about a 50% increase in price.
I don't disagree with the magnitude of the tax because the intent of a tax like this is to get people to change their behavior. So, hopefully that means less people will be buying soda since it's more expensive.
I don't disagree with the magnitude of the tax because the intent of a tax like this is to get people to change their behavior. So, hopefully that means less people will be buying soda since it's more expensive.
64
@59 - I think keshmeshi was only pointing out republican hypocrisy on the issue because I'd pointed out earlier that there's a conservative argument to be made for ending farm subsidies. So I'm to blame for that particular skew.
The funny thing is that farm subsidies are a bipartisan problem with myriad bipartisan solutions. The obstacle? Bipartisan hypocrisy.
The funny thing is that farm subsidies are a bipartisan problem with myriad bipartisan solutions. The obstacle? Bipartisan hypocrisy.
66
That woman is even more annoying than that bitch in the anti bag tax radio spots.
I realize that she's just an actress playing a part, but I really, really hate her character. I hope that her character's tacky tract house is located adjacent to a fictional nuclear power plant that is about to go all Chernobyl on her nasty ass, and that her imaginary husband is spending all his time cruising parks and rest stops for unsafe sex. I hope her fictional zombie children hate her and are stockpiling guns and ammo for revenge against their terrible imaginary town, and that their nihilistic rampage will be fueled by her precious soda.
Why did I ever take that method acting class?
I realize that she's just an actress playing a part, but I really, really hate her character. I hope that her character's tacky tract house is located adjacent to a fictional nuclear power plant that is about to go all Chernobyl on her nasty ass, and that her imaginary husband is spending all his time cruising parks and rest stops for unsafe sex. I hope her fictional zombie children hate her and are stockpiling guns and ammo for revenge against their terrible imaginary town, and that their nihilistic rampage will be fueled by her precious soda.
Why did I ever take that method acting class?
68
Seriously, when was the last time you saw an upper middle class, college educated professional smoking a cigarette and drinking a Coke? This is working class behavior now, like buying American cars, so tax the shit out of it I say!
You'll never seem them tax $4 heirloom tomatoes at the farmer's market or my fine cheeses from PCC, that's for sure. Call this a tax on minorities and hillbillies with meth/mountain dew habits. I love these kinds of regressive taxes. These fuckers cost the rest of us an arm and a leg, time for the poor to start paying for the costs of their shitty, misguided lifestyles.
You'll never seem them tax $4 heirloom tomatoes at the farmer's market or my fine cheeses from PCC, that's for sure. Call this a tax on minorities and hillbillies with meth/mountain dew habits. I love these kinds of regressive taxes. These fuckers cost the rest of us an arm and a leg, time for the poor to start paying for the costs of their shitty, misguided lifestyles.
69
@ 56 You say "Sales taxes are progressive taxes."
This is wrong. First up, check out wikipedia on sales tax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_tax#E…
The reason sales taxes are not progressive is that the more money you make, the less of your income you spend.
Let's say, hypothetically, it takes $5K of taxable spending to support 1 person for 1 year. If person A makes $5K a year, all of his income is taxed. If person B makes $10K a year, half of his income is taxed. If person C makes $100K a year, 5% of his income is taxed.
Arguably, person B and person C might spend more as they make more money. However, it's unlikely that person C is going to spend ALL of his money. He's going to save some, and that money he saves doesn't get taxed. In fact, the more he makes, the less of his salary we tax. This is, therefore, a regressive tax. It taxes the poor at a higher PERCENTAGE (not a higher flat dollar amount) than the rich.
This is wrong. First up, check out wikipedia on sales tax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_tax#E…
The reason sales taxes are not progressive is that the more money you make, the less of your income you spend.
Let's say, hypothetically, it takes $5K of taxable spending to support 1 person for 1 year. If person A makes $5K a year, all of his income is taxed. If person B makes $10K a year, half of his income is taxed. If person C makes $100K a year, 5% of his income is taxed.
Arguably, person B and person C might spend more as they make more money. However, it's unlikely that person C is going to spend ALL of his money. He's going to save some, and that money he saves doesn't get taxed. In fact, the more he makes, the less of his salary we tax. This is, therefore, a regressive tax. It taxes the poor at a higher PERCENTAGE (not a higher flat dollar amount) than the rich.
70
@69
I never said that sales tax should be a silver bullet replacement for a progressive income tax system.
Some goods/services need to be provided for the public good that even a well regulated free market cannot be expected to provide. Hence we need a progressive tax system.
What world do you live in that someone who makes $100K has the same lifestyle and makes the same consumer choices as someone who makes $20K?
Granted the $100K earner is likely to save/invest. However, taxes are paid on any profit made from the savings/investments.
Just for clarity, I wasn't advocating a simple sales tax based system. Just explaining why, in this case and many others, a sales tax is a good idea.
I never said that sales tax should be a silver bullet replacement for a progressive income tax system.
Some goods/services need to be provided for the public good that even a well regulated free market cannot be expected to provide. Hence we need a progressive tax system.
What world do you live in that someone who makes $100K has the same lifestyle and makes the same consumer choices as someone who makes $20K?
Granted the $100K earner is likely to save/invest. However, taxes are paid on any profit made from the savings/investments.
Just for clarity, I wasn't advocating a simple sales tax based system. Just explaining why, in this case and many others, a sales tax is a good idea.
71
@65- this is slightly misleading because by "restaurant" they mean fast food place. i read it in fast food nation years ago- the flavor for drinks only costs them a few cents a cup. they can sell burgers below cost since they make a killing on the drink that naturally you will buy in the combo meal. also from that book- a few drops of grape chemical made in new jersey will flavor a swimming pool size of soda.
73
Those pennies add up when you're trying to feed a family with soft drinks. When I feed soft drinks to my children, I worry about those pennies in this economy. A soft drink is a food that my children need. Keeping my family fed with soft drinks should be a concern for all concerned citizens. Read my lips, Washington: feeding soft drinks to my kids is more important than funding government programs. Soft drinks are foods that keep my family fed. It's my responsibility to feed them. What will happen if my family is unfed? With soft drinks?
74
If we can't end the farm subsidies, then how about some Agro-Keynesianism? But it from the farmers and bury the surplus corn in caves somewhere, lest it be turned into Brawndo and consumed. Ethanol mania was about to kick food prices up, in fact, it did, for a little while, a year or so ago, no? Bad news was, while food was still fairly cheap even for low income people here, in Haiti, they started eating mud pies. I am not making that up. Pennies and dimes really DO count there, and a spike in world food commodity prices threw them for a loop.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (75) RSS