It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: mOjOm
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: mOjOm
Yeah, I thought so. No wonder this thread has you so upset.
Not going to explain that comment I see. Well, that was expected. It's never an easy thing to explain your own biased perspective in a reasonable way. Much easier to just make such a vague comment and leave it open to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean and leave it like that, isn't it??
originally posted by: jjkenobi
It's kind of ironic he's going to end up taxing the same people who are supposedly going to benefit from the tax. Everyone drinks soda and/or diet soda. Rich, poor, middle. Maybe he should tax wine over $30 a bottle?
originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: ChaoticOrder
Finally, hearing from someone who gets it
The Nanny state was never about health. Its about creating divisions and grabbing control/money
non-smokers against smokers
black against white
thin against fat
non-drinkers against drinkers
asthmatics against everybody who chooses perfumed products
etc etc
all of this is used as an excuse to tax, tax, tax. Now its pop. Tomorrow its other foods the public health/government think might be bad for you (think baked goods, cookies, any kind of junk food). And the day after that, it will be all foods.
The question isn't about whether diet pop should be taxed. Its about whether or not, the government is reaching to provide more services to justify more taxes.
originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: BuzzyWigs
smaller government, less services, less taxes.
citizen's treated as adults who can decide what to eat and drink instead of as children, who must be punished financially.
We need taxes to pay for necessary services but notice how the taxes all end up in general revenue and just disappear.
notice how these soda taxes are going to pay for education. Notice we already pay taxes for education and its never enough. notice how if tax revenue goes down because people stop drinking soda and then general taxes must be increased to pay for the education the soda tax was dedicated to.
Try holding politicians accountable for the most important thing that we pay them to do.....account for our money
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: UpIsNowDown
Diet drinks are known to cause serious health issues.
Soft drinks consumed instead of water or non-sugar (unsweet tea and club-soda type) drinks make people fat, which causes serious health issues.
The only issue I see is that the big fatsos don't want to be "shamed" via their pocketbooks like they want to "shame" other people. "Vice tax." One size fits all.
Kinda.
But the mayor has updated the plan after the staff of the mayor’s office told him that the tax would actually disproportionately fall on poor minorities, who have higher rates of soda consumption than white residents.
originally posted by: TarzanBeta
originally posted by: Arizonaguy
Am I reading this right? The soda tax is meant to even up disparity in education, but if there is any inkling of minorities having to fund it then they have to alter it so white people have to pay?
This is the mayor of the town from whence the song "Hunger Strike" came.
They don't mind stealing bread from the mouth of decadence.