Seatle sin taxes soda

Sugar is the great bane of modern human health. It's impact on public health eclipses any other substance on earth.

There's a lot of dietary notes being tossed around in here, but what does any of that really have to do with this tax? Some of you here really sound like you're ok with a governing body falsely taxing people "For their own good". have anyone here taken the time to see what is really going on here, or did the non-sense about "sugar good/bad" confuse everyone?

Look here's the issues;

A criminal mayor proposes a tax on a daily consumable, in an attempt to divert attention from his sexual misconduct accusations.

The mayor sets down from office due to these accusations, but for some reason the city keeps the tax in place.

Now a city that has a windfall of a year in tax revenue suddenly needs this taxation in order to provide "much needed services" to it's people.

Part of the taxes collected are going to be use to study the affect of the tax, and this includes any expanses needed in this review. No over sight has been stated for this.

And nobody has an issue with this, because "sugar bad". Hey if you don't like sugar avoid it, but don't force your personal choices on the rest of humanity. Sadly it sounds like an Orwellian Utopia, having the local government forcing everyone to conform to "their" way of thinking. Everyone is a robot, and it's all ok.

Bunch of crap, that's what this is. Seattle and King County in general basically control the state. Those of you on the Eastern side of the mountains know what I'm talking about, remember the water restrictions a few years back so that the salmon will be ok. That really put one over on the small farms didn't it. How about this new carbon tax we're going to be getting, because you know people didn't like ash on their cars last year. Sorry Governor but that ash came from massive fires, not the tail pipe of a car, but hey who cares because some people that sit in the city council of Seattle want to end the use of cars for the state.

I mean really, the state spend all that money for a tunnel project that's going to be tolled, and when the city released that people will just drive through the city instead, they started a study to see if they can legally toll city streets. That's the level of madness here. So go on and complain that you think sugar is this or that, it's great ignoring that a city is totally corrupt, but takes care of either it's very rich (Billionaires) or it's public image (like inviting homeless into the city limits, and trying to get the residence to deal with them).

Here's is some of the trash Seattle has been up to incase you're not aware:
Asking people to house homeless on their property or in some cases their homes.
Allowing Illegals to come and go as they please (you know Seattle in a "Welcoming City")
Wanting to tax businesses for the number of people they employ within the city limits.
Reducing city roads to an almost un-usible size, and getting rid of streetside parking so that bike lanes can be arbratraily laidout in the city.
Approving violent protests (yes with city officials instagating riots), then tying the hands of the police, and then spending money to investigate "what went wrong"
Ending all investigations into wrongful death cases, pending further review (so if your case is currently in court, well now it's postponed)
Firing two female employees that complained about being spanked at work by their supervisor. Sure the women had to spilt a 250000$ payout, but also are not allowed to work for the city again. Their supervisor had no penalties waged against him.

Some of these things are are a little old, but most are very current things that the city of Seattle is/was/trying to do. I guess it doesn't matter though since sugar bad?

a reply to: dawnstar

I don't think anyone should dictate what food choices people make. I think the food corps should be forced to state what is in their processed foods.

And you would have to use a glucose meter to determine if your blood glucose is with in specs. Everyone is different and different people react differently to carbs. My point is that sugar is snuck into everything. And a vast number of people do not have a clue to the potential damage that, for example, drinking 3 cans of soda for an extended stretch of time can do.

Now why do people not know?
My theory is that the 6 Huge corps that own the media also have stakes in processed food production, and they will not allow any hard hitting news about a profit silo in their corporate portfolio.

But the good news is that soda pop is dropping like a rock and water sales are going up.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Yes, and it is hidden and the corps who are making a killing (pun) selling are not passing the information that they have about their products.

Tobacco did the same thing, we will see.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

as a kid, we had some type of dessert after dinner at least a couple times every week... might be a piece of cake, might be some strawberry shortcake, a bowl of ice cream, some pie, there was something. and yes, there were sodas to be had every now and then also. then there were the cookie jars that were often times filled with homemade cookies...
and the penny candy store we would hit on the way home from school..
ya know what, out of all my classmates, I can only think of maybe five or so that I would define as obese...
for the most part, we were all healthy kids, outside running around, having fun... lol.... playing in the creek that is now fenced off with a warning sign from the EPA telling everyone to keep out...

no, it's not that the kids are now sitting inside playing their computer games, it's not that the adults are more likely to be sitting at a desk all day....
it's not all the changes that the manufacturers have made to our food supply... it's not our quest for convenience...

it's sugar!!! too much of anything can cause problems, but we still need a little bit of everything in our diets...
including the sugars and carbs. balance is the key, not elimination.

a reply to: seasonal

sugar isn't being snuck into everything though...
hfcs is... which is worse.. which is cheaper so the companies can sneak more of it into the products at less cost, making it sweeter and even more damaging...
my point with the shredded wheat is that it isn't sweetened before I buy it, I get to control the amount of sugar I put on it, unlike so many other cereals out there. I have oatmeal also, again, non-sweetened, old fashioned oatmeal.
the first sugar substitute I remember coming out was saccharin, which, I only remember because my father was diabetic and that was what he used. some say it causes cancer...
aspertame?? some say that is worse than the saccharin..
hfcs??? still say that the overabundance of it in our food supply is what is causing the health problems, not just because it is worse than sugar but also because it seems to be in everything.
the point I am making is that the further we go to avoid the sugar, it seems that the worse it gets....
just might be that the cane sugar of old is the most healthy alternative for us.
just like butter and lard just might be more healthy than the margarine and vegetable oils..
real eggs better than the fake,
ect.
and the good ole home made meat and potatoes dinner more healthy than the throw in the over and wait till it's dragged out done.

I agree that the companies should have to make clear what we are eating on their labels...
but, I also think we might need to take a few steps backwards in this.... it seems like the more we try to be healthy, the less healthy we end up being.

a reply to: dawnstar

HFCS and sugar are damaging. If you have a coke that is sugared or HFCS it is still going to spike you glucose just as any simple carb will. I can't speak to one being worse that the other with out testing it with a meter.

And there is a reason there are so many different names for sugars for ingredients on labels, it is to hide it. Make no mistake, it is to make the consumer crave the product. Look at how much sodium is in a coke. Along with the sugar it is a good combo to get the consumer wanting more.

The 57 Names Of Sugar
You can only avoid it if you know where to look

www.prevention.com...

a reply to: Bluntone22

The ignorance of liberals amazes me,what kind of group goes thru life with constant failure,they fail at everything,are the idiots looking for sympathy?

a reply to: Bluntone22

While i disagree with the tax, if we're going to allow taxes on things like alcohol and cigarettes, why not "sugary beverages", fast food, GMO foods, processed foods, children's medicine with parabens in it and other really really bad for you consumables?

Actually, maybe we should, it would help expose the bad stuff for what it is. Plus, we'd retu re n to Hunter-Gatherer, because nobody would have any money to buy food.

a reply to: dawnstar

No one needs sugar. We only need carbs in low amounts (30g/day).

Some folks process it better than others.

The problem is the war on fats. Fats are what is needed. Dense energy (9 cals/g vs 5 cal/g for sugar) that is filling. Instead they remove the fats and replace with sugar to balance the missing flavor. So you are less full, and you have a higher glycemic impact to drive the insulin-hunger cycle making you eat more total calories in the end

a reply to: Guyfriday

No.

Some of us are very much against the idea of the "sin" tax because it doesn't save us from ourselves. It just makes some people feel good to think their pet peeve is being forced by the government in some way and that the "sinners" who don't conform to their personal orthodoxy of how to properly live are being punished.

Governments, on the other hand, do this because they want/need money and for no other reason.

a reply to: Lab4Us

well you're perfect then aren't you.

How much would a 20oz Coke cost then?

a reply to: torok67

Honestly, I never started smoking and I don't drink sugary drinks aside from an occasional fruit juice and I pay the extra for the 100% juice (and read the label) when I do that. Usually, I drink tea.

But I could care less what others choose to do with themselves. You can't control what others will do, only what you will do. What I feel is proper for a person doesn't matter. I can only live by my beliefs on the matter, try to guide my family as best I can.

It is improper to try to compel others on matters like this through force. People like to talk about shoving morality down others' throats, well this qualifies just the same as anything else. Matters of diet are personal and not going to spill over onto others or infringe on them.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Bluntone22

The even funnier thing is that the chemicals in diet soda are shown to increase obesity by dicking with the brain's receptors, making those who consume them hungrier and left wanting to be "satisfied" by the sweets that their brain was tricked into thinking that it got.

Recent studies also show that artificial sweeteners feed the "bad" but bacteria that play a large role in obesity. So the bad bacteria overpopulate and crowd out the good ones that contribute to slimness. Double-whammy.

Has anyone mentioned the Starbucks loophole yet? Interesting how that worked out.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Has anyone mentioned the Starbucks loophole yet? Interesting how that worked out.

They aren't taxing sugar, just drinks already prepared with sugar.

Still...all those lattes and frap's....

I wonder if this will have a negative economic affect on the grocery and big box stores within the Seattle area.

If I wanted to buy soda and went to another big box store, I'd do my big box shopping there as well

I don't thinks this was well thought out

a reply to: Bluntone22

so city raises minimum wage to $ 15 an hour to raise wages now they make frivolous takes to steal back all that extra cash.
i see walmarts outside city limits going to be making alot more sales on 24 cube packs.

a reply to: Guyfriday

did city gov immigrate from shy-town or gotham?

this is a money grab plane and simple. didn't they raise minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour now we see it was a way to give poor more money they can steal.

a reply to: Wildbob77

Oh, it likely will. It did in the other places where it was implemented. They lost revenue and lost those sales taxes and people lost jobs and they lost those revenues too.

Why do you think it was repealed in Chicago where they never met a tax they didn't like?

Philadelphia still has theirs, but while it has curbed sales of soda *in* the city by 55%, sales *outside* the city rose by 38%. Predictably the revenue projections from the tax have fallen way short, and outside cities are realizing the gain.

The city started taxing sweetened drinks at 1.5 cents per ounce this year after a contentious debate. The tax was billed as a way to fund community schools, prekindergarten programs, recreation centers, libraries and parks. However, revenue expectations have fallen short every month since the tax took effect in January.

Based on preliminary estimates, the tax generated $39.3 million in revenue through the end of June. That's about 15 percent short the city's original projection of $46 million, and just under its revised estimate of $39.7 million.

A new study from market research firm Catalina found people in Philadelphia are still buying sugary drinks, but they're traveling outside city limits to stock up.

None are really being "saved" by it, and the city isn't getting the money it wanted to pay for all those fat, expensive programs.

So who's next to get taxed do you think?