Seatle sin taxes soda

a reply to: dreamingawake

Thanks. It something to consider.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Our moral and intellectual superiors are at it again.



The next step must be tax people by the pound.
It's for their own good ya know.

I have to disagree with your consensus. This isn't about helping anyone in their eyes.

This is literally taking from the poor and giving it to the rich.

They aren't changing anyone's habits. They cant. They know this.

They are stealing money from people most likely to consume large amounts of sugar, poor people. And they are giving it to the rich who, on average, buy more fresh fruits and vegetables.

I hate laws like this. But let me tell you what really gets me. It's the gall these people have, who I believe are smart enough to know this truth, when they tell themselves they are doing it for the good of it all and pat themselves on the back.

Now THAT makes me sick to my stomach.

a reply to: Tempter

They might have overdone it this time. THey've hiked the tax up high enough that people who can will likely drive outside the city to buy soda and likely do all their other shopping their too. The high cost of the tax will more than pay for the cost of the gas to do it.

So the city of Seattle will lose not just the soda tax, but all the sales tax associated with that.

a reply to: ketsuko

Yep health class said sugar is bad, then you get blasted 40 times before you go home about having a Coke and a smile.

Corporations have been held accountable in the past, and they will be in the future.

And as I have said in this thread, I am against the tax.

a reply to: seasonal

I was also taught the purpose of advertising in school too. It's to make you want something.

a reply to: seasonal

To bad the people never get held accountable for their actions

a reply to: seasonal

but, most sodas aren't sweetened with sugar anymore, it's the high fructose corn syrup, which is in so much stuff it's insane....
they were probably healthier when they were sweetened with sugar, but to insist that the corps go back to using sugar instead would just be too traumatic for the industries...
so, well, ya, pick and choose which products to scapegoat and tax the heck out of and continue on letting the industries add crap into our products that they know danged well are making us sicker....

they've just about removed the smokers out of the public sphere, has the rate of asthma gone down any???

a reply to: Bluntone22

Corporations are people, people who now pay a reduced amount of corporate (personal ?) tax.


,

a reply to: dawnstar

Sugar/high fructose both are very dangerous, and it matters not. The corps know what damage their products are doing and are not giving the consumer the info that they have.

I do not agree with the tax.

And adding a warning more than likely will not change the amount of the shIt that people consume. But the corps are not willing to take that chance. They will ride this sucker into the ground.

a reply to: dawnstar

Asthma is on the rise (10% in the last decade)

www.aaaai.org...

And black kids have a significantly higher risk.

www.cdc.gov...

a reply to: Tempter


The acceptance of this, if truly accepted beyond the city council members, has a lot to do with the gentrification that many larger cities have already gone through. They are feeling the effects of it too, now gangs are corned into smaller city areas, shootings are on the rise with turf wars.

a reply to: Bluntone22

The Chicago area tried this. 1 penny tax on every ounce of beverage that contained sugar. A glass of lemonade cost an extra 24 cents...in addition to the hellish 11% tax already levied on all Chicago purchases. $1.00 Bottle of Soda = an additional 64 cents in sin fees.

It lasted about 3 months (Oct/Nov/Dec) and ended at the end of 2017, due to public outcry. Strange for Chicago to complain about something that Michelle Obama endorsed. But I guess looking out for #1 is the top priority, even for Democrats.

a reply to: carewemust

That wonderful sales tax chicago has pretty much keeps me away.

a reply to: seasonal

And when people go back to the old-fashioned sugary beverage?

They didn't levy a tax on sugar itself, and Kool-Aid in the packet is not pre-sweetened.

a reply to: ketsuko

As I said, I am not in favor of the tax.

There needs to be public service announcements, and an educational push to let the public know how dangerous these products are. But the corps that have done the studies are hiding the info.

There is a place for these products, but from a health stand point it isn't having blood glucose spiking amounts of sugar 8 times a day. And this goes into processed foods as well. The food pyramid is a recipe for illness.

a reply to: seasonal

Don't worry. They'll be trying to mandate that we become vegetarians soon enough.

a reply to: ketsuko

Where do you get the idea that there is a plot to make us all veg?

a reply to: seasonal

You don't recall the discussions we had over this?

a reply to: seasonal

High dietary intake of fructose is problematic because fructose is metabolized differently from glucose. Like fructose, glucose is a simple sugar. Derived from the breakdown of carbohydrates, glucose is a primary source of ready energy. Sucrose (table sugar) comprises one molecule of glucose and one molecule of fructose. Thus, excessive sucrose intake also contributes to the rise in overall daily fructose consumption. Glucose can be metabolized and converted to ATP, which is readily “burned” for energy by the cells’ mitochondria. Alternatively, glucose can be stored in the liver as a carbohydrate for later conversion to energy. Fructose, on the other hand, is more rapidly metabolized in the liver, flooding metabolic pathways and leading to increased triglyceride synthesis and fat storage in the liver. This can cause a rise in serum triglycerides, promoting an atherogenic lipid profile and elevating cardiovascular risk. Increased fat storage in the liver may lead to an increased incidence in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and this is one of several links between HFCS consumption and obesity as well as the metabolic syndrome.

Fructose may have less impact on appetite than glucose, so processed foods rich in fructose can contribute to weight gain, obesity, and its related consequences by failing to manage appetite.20 Additionally, loading of the liver with large amounts of fructose leads to increased uric acid formation, which may contribute to gout in susceptible individuals.

www.lifeextension.com...

they aren't broken down by the body the same way, and it seems that the hfcs is a tad bit harder on the body.
and thanks to the gov't subsidies, the hfcs is so much cheaper!! I don't know how old you are but it seems that the walk down the cereal aisle is a tad different now than it was in my teen years. there's all these different types of cereal that didn't exist back than. oh, sure, some of the oldies are still there, but you ever compare of box of the shredded wheat biscuits to the price of all that overly sweetened garbage that they are passing off now days? I grew up with the shredded wheat and sugar bowl.. sweetened it myself... ya know a spoon full of sugar, not 10 or 20 or however much is in the cereal now days!!! if the companies were having to use cane sugar to sweeten their products, there wouldn't be as much sweeteners in them, we would be eating less sugar.

so, well, we could eliminate the hfcs from our store shelves and remove the more harmful of the two sweeteners from our diet, and yes, prices would go up some so people would buy less.... isn't that the same thing that they are hoping to achieve with this tax? we can go back to having sweeten our cereal ourselves, and thus be aware of just how much sugar we are eating... we can go back to the daily routine of the after supper dessert being the primary sugar fix... all of which might cost more, might be a tad more inconvenient, but much healthier for us...

or we can put up with our gov't picking and choosing this or that, declaring how those things are the cause of the rising obesity rates, rising diabetes, and taxing the heck out of them, and they will always have another item they can go after in the future because the real cause is the poison they are injecting into everything, not just the few things they are picking out, so the obesity and diabetes will not go down as long as there are so many other products containing the crap!!!
we were healthier back when the gov't and industries weren't trying to find all these healthy man made substitutions and alternatives and telling us how we needed to change our diets.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

but... I thought it was the cigs causing the asthma????
funny that as a kid the restaurants and bars were filled with smoke and so many of the parents were smoking in the homes....
but, it seems like all of us kids were able to run and play and breath just fine.... I can't think of one person I knew growing up that had asthma....