Obama Open to 'Sin Tax' on Soda

page: 3
46
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Where will people finally draw the line? When will everyone finally decide that they want to make their own life decisions. If you think a sin tax on soda will remain low then I suggest you check the prices of cigarettes lately, they have been steadily climbing in cost because the end goal is to tax them out of existence.

I don't know about anybody else but if I want to drink a soda its my !@#$in choice to make, not some pencil necked bean counter in DC. Its an affront to sensibility to have a government dictate to you what should be a personal decision and I hope people are getting angry about this, because if they don't stand up soon they will find themselves cut off at the knees. This Nanny state crap really needs to go...




posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sargon of Akkad
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


She isn't adverse to charity, you know!

I don't think she's George III, or anything. And we'll have you back on the condition you have a "tea party" over your pop culture. On the plus side, we'll have one about ours, too. And while we're at it, everyone else can do the same thing. Nobody needs to hear German happy hardcore or French rap.

I'm starting to really like the idea of chucking a wagon-load of pop 'stars' into the ocean...


Laugh all you will my friend but clearly this is the ...

Pop that will be heard around the world!

This will lead to a second American revolution that will not fizzle out!

America will sparkle once more in all it's mixed carmel colored glory!

Besides look at it this way, who really wants to go to Charlotte North Carolina to see the Coca Cola 503.62 instead of the Coca Cola 500 because of some stupid tax!

Give the Queen Mum my regards and tell her not to wait up, I won't be home tonight!



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Helig
 


Here, here my friend. Send my kids to Afghanistan, make it illegal to J-walk, give the nation's bankers all of our money...

But don't screw with my soda!



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by lucentenigma
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


With this and the talking head on CNN (was watching the plane hijacking) saying that all Americans have a personal responsibility to have health insurance (and will be fined or jailed if they don't) I don't doubt that there will be rioting in the streets soon.


It won't be long at this rate before Americans are ready to jail the government and give them some extra special healthcare that's for sure.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Something that by all means is a form of poison when you look at it. Why not pay an extra 5 cents a can if it means more revenue?


Your opinion. Not our opinion.

The govt and its IGOR stooges needs to shut up and get a job making real goods and services.

Enough is enough.

NOT ONE DIME MORE- NOT ONE MORE RIGHT UNDEFENDED.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Burdman! yuo got a good idea!!! Would it be possible, to get a public lawyer to spnsor and represent..a few million of us, citizens,a nd impose a few hefty taxes on the FED??? why cant we? If the fed sas no, they have jsut openly stated thier lying!!! we could tx city security cameras! local corrupt police stations that ste states never find any fault in police brutality! we could tax obama presidential car! and turn the money into public works stuff! then we could start skiming the money, get cuaght, and asked why we did it...wel yuo gus at the FED do it, why cant i!



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
First they came for the smokers,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a smoker.
Then they came for the bic macs,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a big mac eater.
Then they came for the sodas,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn't a soda drinker.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

-with apologies to. . .
by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945



[edit on 9-9-2009 by mikerussellus]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   


This is the face of a man with a clear soda problem.

Notice the shifty look in the eyes, the possessive look that says THIS IS MY SODA stay back!

Is this simply a despotic politician breaking every promise not to raise taxes or is this...

is this?

The face of a SODA HOARDER!

Tryanical taxing dictator or deviant suffering from scarcity paradigm paranioa?

You make the call!

[edit on 9/9/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Starred for making me choke on my iced tea. He looks like he's blowing bubbles.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Starred for making me choke on my iced tea. He looks like he's blowing bubbles.


My friend I have a funny feeling based on that picture that somewhere in Kenya not only is someone missing their hope but is missing a Coke!

A picture truly is worth a thousand words isn't it?



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


My problem with taxing "just a little" on things like soda is the same problem they now have with cigarettes and alcohol: When you place a tax on an item, you create incentive for people to stop buying those items. That may sound like a responsible step to take for a government that wants a healthier base, but the problem is that the tax money that comes in for those items isn't "extra" money. Whenever the government accrues new tax revenue, it doesn't use that money to decrease debt, it sets that money aside for projects.

So, when the natural thing (that their initial "goal" was) happens, and people buy less soda/cigarettes/alcohol/whatever, they gain less revenue for whatever project the tax went to, and are forced to raise the tax on the item. Look at cigarettes as an example. Taxes on tobacco went to health care for children, which is a noble goal (thank you, smokers!) but after taxes started increasing as smokers decreased, less money overall goes into that system.

For some reason, the government never seems to understand that when you tax a behavior, it naturally decreases that behavior, and they lose. Instead of rethinking their position on taxes, they just add more in different ways, and continue the same downward spiral.

So, while I don't really care about a soda tax (I don't drink much anyway) I think it's just another mistake in their long line of failures in the whole tax/revenue system they've got going, and thus am very against it.

I think you need to rethink your own political ideology and where you place yourself on that spectrum, TenthPower, because what you're saying is not a libertarian point of view.

Edit: Also, the very fact that you'd be willing for a total ban on something people could control themselves says to me that you're a liberal. When you take choice away from the people because you or the government "knows better" you're steering yourself very far away from anything libertarian.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by EsSeeEye]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
How can anyone be surprised?The"Sin"taxes were money cows designed to create more money cows.First alcohol.Then tobacco.I told the well i dont smoke crowd so i dont care that sooner or later they Will tax something you DO care about.Back to thread.Soda drinkes like smokers will have 2 choices...quit or pay the extortion.Next addictive sin tax...coffee?



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Eh... people, basic economy. A higher price of soda would mean less people buying soda, which would be the goal of such a tax. Just like in some places the tax on gas is very high, so the price of it would be very high, and people search for more environmentally friendly options. Is just the means of controlling what you buy for your own good, without actually prohibiting the product, which just happens to be poison. Not that I actually favor such means, for of course I dont like getting my freedom cut, but admitted must be it is effective, and if I were in his position I would do it. Just to say what this actually means, even though I though it was actually obvious.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
[edit on 9-9-2009 by mikerussellus]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 

If it was a tax something that was actually good for you and that you enjoyed, ok, I would be PO'ed, But it's on SODA.

Something that really should be taken off the market since it accounts for the increase in Diabetes among children and the diet stuff with aspertame? Don't even get me started.

~Keeper


It is my right to be able to drink all the soda I want, even pour it all over my head while dancing like a maniac. As a competent adult it is my choice what I put in my body not yours.

It is a parents responsibility to take care of their children, it is not my responsibility to pay taxes for people that are bad parents.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Your arguments are educational related ones, where the burden should be placed on the corporations that sell them to put disclaimers on their products and ultimately if the products are unsafe then it's up to the government not to tax people for consuming and using them but to prohibit their sale and make them illegal.


You're advocating prohibition.



What you fail to see is that the government just becomes a partner with the so called 'merchants of death' and profits of it as well by further punishing the very people you want to save.


Then it's up to the people to STOP. You're suggesting that the government take care and control of everything we put in our mouths. Soda isn't any more dangerous than bacon or skydiving as long as we use common sense in partaking. People (and especially kids) are drinking so much soda that it's damaging them. Someone should limit their intake, but I don't think it should be the government.

I can't believe you want the government to tell us what we can and cannot put in our mouths.



The government is more than empowered and capable through the Surgeon General and the FDA to compell warnings, educational programs, restrict advertising etc, etc, if saving people is the motive.


How does that work with smoking? Unsafe sex? Drinking responsibly?



Think about what you are advocating and then think about just where the line is ever going to be drawn.


My thoughts to you, exactly.

And I'd like to stress that Obama said the idea should be explored, not that he likes or supports the idea. He hasn't proposed this idea and from the link in the OP:



another administration official said no proposal would be forthcoming.


So... what are you all so upset about? Something that's not going to happen??? AGAIN???



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Actually I am not advocating any of those things except as an alternative to trying to correct behavioral conditions with taxation.

In other words there are other ways beyond taxation.

I am not in favor of those alternatives any more than I am in favor of taxation.

I am against both.

The reality is that politicians lie. They don't say things just for the heck of it, they put things out there to plant seeds knowing that the ground and time is not always suitable for growing.

So that's what they do, they plant the seeds of ideas that they say are not really things they plan on doing but want to explore.

Of course they want to do them as there is no reason to explore something you don't intend to do.

It's like saying hey lets go see a bad movie tonight and have dinner at a resturaunt we hate the food!

The exploration is planting those seeds by distancing themselves as much as possible from it personally at the same time.

Ben Franklin did this best by advocating his ideas not as his ideas but like this:

Some people believe it's a good idea to tax products that can lead to obesity and ill health.

Ben does that mean you feel that way...

Ben: Some people do feel that way, how do you feel? (non-answer, take control by asking the questions and keeping yourself from being nailed down at the same time)

Ben: Do you want a tax on say something like Soda?

Now Ben hasn't advocated this at all as he? No, even though Ben favors it, but Ben is a shrewd enough politician and negotiator to not tie his fortunes to a ship unless it looks like it can sail instead of sinking.

Some people are more naive and less worldly than others, what can I say?



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I agree with just about everything you said.
Why do people expect a politician to not act like a politician, though? I don't think many of us just LOVE politicians. Yet we are constantly dismayed by them acting like politicians...


This is how they work, yes. They float ideas.

By the way, I have always supported a consumption tax.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
I don't really see the problem here folks.

It's SODA.

Something that by all means is a form of poison when you look at it. Why not pay an extra 5 cents a can if it means more revenue?

It's just amazing to me that you won't just compromise on the ltitle things that will hardly effect anybody.
...................
~Keeper


Wow, how about we tax the HIGH ALLMIGHTIES who think they have a right to dictate what people should, eat, drink, or even what they should think?...

It amazes me that people such as yourself can't see how full of it you are when you try to dictate other people's lives...

EVERYTHING is bad nowadays. WATER has several "poison" contaminants such as flouride, and even mercury... should we also have a higher tax on water, and even on vegetables because they have pesticides, and small amounts of poisonous materials?...

I would think people would concentrate more on trying to get rid of these "poisons" being added to EVERYTHING we eat and drink instead of trying to dictate what people should eat and drink.

Perhaps we should also fine all those young girls who starve themselves to look more like the emaciated models they keep seeing in every add on tv, or when they go out to the streets.

Perhaps we should fine models, and hollywood in general for promoting drugs, and emaciated models, not to mention steroids, and other hormone related drugs used by hollowood men, and even sport players who want to buff themselves into a "blow fish of muscles"....

How about we fine heavily plastic surgery for trying to change people from who they were born to be, into barbie and ken dolls out of humans?....

But of course not, instead let's go after things like soda, lets even ban candy since we are on it, and will be the next stupid idea by the President...

Mr. President you are a dumbass.




[edit on 9-9-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I agree with just about everything you said.
Why do people expect a politician to not act like a politician, though? I don't think many of us just LOVE politicians. Yet we are constantly dismayed by them acting like politicians...


This is how they work, yes. They float ideas.

By the way, I have always supported a consumption tax.


I am against all taxation not specifically allowed for in the original constitution for the same reasons that taxes weren't allowed for in the original constitution. It gives the Federal Government the power to grow itself without end and overstep the balances and checks placed on the various branches of Federal, State and Local government.

The reality is that you like President Obama, and it's perfectally alright to like the President if you feel it's a wise thing to do.

Yet America because of it's democratic values has always prized dissent as much as it has prized acquiessence and sometimes dissent even more, because it's all part of a critical process of debate designed to promote the sharing of the best ideas and reaching a concensus and a majority.

Too much of the political process has become dictatorial where people actually say assinine things like "He won get over it".

That's just retarded, the President isn't given a mandate to be a dictator because he won an election, he's given a mandate to lead and provide direction, people are still free to follow or not follow based on their own personal oppinions and to dissent against bad ideas.

Some people want a regulating all powerful intrusive central government that negates constitutional protections, self determination and rewards some people at other people's expense.

Some people don't...go figure.

The artful dodge is seldom done artfully in this day and age.

The Government has gotten way to big, the Framers and Founders would not approve, and the Constitution does not favor such things as a Federal Sin tax and it didn't for good reason.

That's my oppinion and until the Government finishes crushing the last vestiges of Constitutional law I am still allowed to voice it, jut like yours.

Since you are in favor of a consumption tax, how about you pay the tax on what I consume, that way we will both be happy, but you will be the one poorer!





new topics
top topics
 
46
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join