Sugar tax: Doctors call for sweet drink levy

[USS Monitor]

sweet lattes and cappuccino. Tax Starbucks and Dunkin donuts. The stuff tastes horrible anyway.

Blasphemy! Taxing Dunkin Donuts is racist against Yankees!

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Really, I must have missed the biology class where they explain how soda makes you fatter then...you know...actual fat...
But yeah, lets tax sugary drinks, not foods high in saturated fats. I'm sure sugar free soda, full of sweetness that get turned directly into fat are so much better then sugary soda.

You know there are other negative effects to excess dietary sugar than obesity, right? Type-2 diabetes being probably a bigger concern. And don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure carbs actually do contribute more to obesity than fatty foods, since most of the fat you eat isn't just added on to your own. Excess carbs, on the other hand, are actually converted to fat in the body if they're not used.

That aside though I'd be all for raising taxes on foods high in saturated fats, and I'd completely approve of taxing most artificial sweeteners off the mainstream market because the things are fucking toxic and should not be marketed as a healthy alternative to anything.

Type 2 diabetes is a long-term condition. Meaning, it takes decades to take hold, or you have to live in an environment like a sugar mill.

It's not like tomorrow you'll suffer from diabetes from taking one can of soda.

Carbs contribute more to obesity than fatty foods, but that is because the sedentary style of living of people.

I mean, when I was back in college 5 years ago I wasn't as overweight as I am now, but then I was more active than I am today. Guess what changed? It wasn't my diet, it was my levels of activity.

[USS Monitor]

Definitely.

Consumption of sugary drinks is one of, if not the, most important cause of the western obesity epidemic. Obesity hurts not only those who who are afflicted by it but all of society.

It's only fair that people who choose to consume soft drinks (including me on occasion) pay for the damage those drinks cause.

But putting the same sweeteners in a sauce instead of a drink magically makes it OK!

[Zottistan]

Well no, it would hurt the poor's ability to buy soft drinks. Like I said before, if the shit we feed the poor nowadays becomes too expensive for them, there will finally be a competitive market for cheap healthy food.

No there wouldn't.

They would just be forced to buy the healthy food that's already expensive and puts them on the red if they do anyways.

Your entire scheme revolves around "well, junk food is less expensive than healthy food? Let's tax it until it rises in price to become more expensive than healthy food! That'll make it much cheaper!"

Just because tomorrow you pay 7 dollars for a can of soda doesn't necessarily mean you won't keep on paying 5 for a pound of onions.

My entire "scheme" is the idea that since these foods contribute to higher state medical expenses, they should cover the costs.

And yeah, unhealthy foods becoming less accessible does necessarily mean a growth in the market for healthy food. It doesn't necessarily mean that market would be filled, but I honestly don't see why it wouldn't. I like to have more faith in our businessmen and women than that.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Definitely.

Consumption of sugary drinks is one of, if not the, most important cause of the western obesity epidemic. Obesity hurts not only those who who are afflicted by it but all of society.

It's only fair that people who choose to consume soft drinks (including me on occasion) pay for the damage those drinks cause.

It's not the fact that sugary drinks are the most important cause.

It's that cheap food is shit and not nutritive at all.

I mean, it has sugars in it, but it has High-Fructose Corn Syrup for a reason: to make you addicted to the stupid shit.

It literally has nothing to do with the sugar. Hell, I drink water and skim milk myself and, when I fancy, some Mexican sodas. But for the most part the reason why American-made sodas are so addictive is because they're so sweet.

[USS Monitor]

YOU SINISTER JACKBOOTED GOVERNMENT REGULATORS CAN LEVY A REGRESSIVE TAX ON MY COCA-COLA ONLY IF YOU CAN TAKE IT FROM MY COLD

DEAD

HANDS

---

Seriously though, this is a punishment for the middle class, the poor, and Dixie. All three of those groups tend to enjoy those sorts of sugary drinks. I drink a Coke every day, my mother drinks two or more... it's a tradition in my family. It will seriously hurt the poor.

-and today it's soda. Tomorrow it's sweet tea.

Soda's not a Southern regional thing. It's nationwide in the US.

Also, as much as I share your love for Coke, we don't need the giant fonts.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And yeah, unhealthy foods becoming less accessible does necessarily mean a growth in the market for healthy food. It doesn't necessarily mean that market would be filled, but I honestly don't see why it wouldn't. I like to have more faith in our businessmen and women than that.

As a businessman myself, I am sorry to disappoint you, but you're placing the faith on the wrong kind of people.

Businessmen live for the money, not for some moral directive you seem to think we have to live by.

[Zottistan]

You know there are other negative effects to excess dietary sugar than obesity, right? Type-2 diabetes being probably a bigger concern. And don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure carbs actually do contribute more to obesity than fatty foods, since most of the fat you eat isn't just added on to your own. Excess carbs, on the other hand, are actually converted to fat in the body if they're not used.

That aside though I'd be all for raising taxes on foods high in saturated fats, and I'd completely approve of taxing most artificial sweeteners off the mainstream market because the things are fucking toxic and should not be marketed as a healthy alternative to anything.

Type 2 diabetes is a long-term condition. Meaning, it takes decades to take hold, or you have to live in an environment like a sugar mill.

It's not like tomorrow you'll suffer from diabetes from taking one can of soda.

And paying a dollar or two extra for that one can of soda isn't going to bankrupt anybody.

Because of the heavy taxing I can't afford to maintain a heavy smoking habit. I can, however, comfortably afford a pack every week or two. Occasionally paying a bit more for occasional indulgence isn't going to bankrupt anybody. It's only the people who indulge regularly who will see any significant effect.

Carbs contribute more to obesity than fatty foods, but that is because the sedentary style of living of people.

I mean, when I was back in college 5 years ago I wasn't as overweight as I am now, but then I was more active than I am today. Guess what changed? It wasn't my diet, it was my levels of activity.

I did specify "if they weren't used". And yeah, westerners today are lazy and sedentary. Their diet is still atrocious.

[Zottistan]

And yeah, unhealthy foods becoming less accessible does necessarily mean a growth in the market for healthy food. It doesn't necessarily mean that market would be filled, but I honestly don't see why it wouldn't. I like to have more faith in our businessmen and women than that.

As a businessman myself, I am sorry to disappoint you, but you're placing the faith on the wrong kind of people.

Businessmen live for the money, not for some moral directive you seem to think we have to live by.

It's not a moral expectation at all. I'd just imagine that if healthy foods were being sold at an arbitrarily high price, somebody would have the common sense to undercut that price for higher sales.

[USS Monitor]

And the more food you eat, the fatter you become. Suprising how that works.

Sugary drinks are an exception because they are especially effective at causing weight gain, people don't feel nearly as satiated after consuming sugary drinks as they are after eating the same amount of calories as food.
It's right in the link I posted.

Some foods are much more filling than others relative to their calorie content. Comparing "food" vs. "drinks" as if all foods are created equal is simplistic and unhelpful. If you're eating candy and snack cakes all day, those are also not very filling for the amount of calories they have. Even things like chicken nuggets or microwave dinners tend to be less satisfying compared to less processed versions.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Because of the heavy taxing I can't afford to maintain a heavy smoking habit. I can, however, comfortably afford a pack every week or two. Occasionally paying a bit more for occasional indulgence isn't going to bankrupt anybody. It's only the people who indulge regularly who will see any significant effect.

A lot of people can't "comfortably" buy food off the shelves every week or two.

People can quit smoking to an appreciably level every week or two. You can't ask a person to fucking starve for a week or two.

And the only people who can say "paying a dollar or two more for a can of soda isn't going to hurt anyone" is people like me, who has a lot more disposable income than some miserable 8 dollar an hour worker or an SSI recipient can make in an entire year.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

As a businessman myself, I am sorry to disappoint you, but you're placing the faith on the wrong kind of people.

Businessmen live for the money, not for some moral directive you seem to think we have to live by.

It's not a moral expectation at all. I'd just imagine that if healthy foods were being sold at an arbitrarily high price, somebody would have the common sense to undercut that price for higher sales.

Nope. Price wars are a stupid idea for a simple reason:

Businesses end broke after price wars. And, if the market can tolerate a shock of a tax, then a businessperson can raise their own prices too, after all there's a big fucking ceiling they can make a profit out of.

I'll just be frank. There's absolutely nothing you can do in countries where people live on 600 fucking dollars a month and the cost of living keeps rising that can solve the obesity epidemic, as it stands. Unless you're willing to spend more money in a safety net for workers (which is, you know, what we're avoiding to begin with here, spending more money on obese people apparently), I don't see it happening.

[USS Monitor]

So normal people should pay more because some people have no self control? Why not just ban fat people from buying soda, more effective that way.

Some people?

Two thirds of Americans are overweight or obese and most other western countries aren't far behind.

If you're using US government definitions of "overweight" that is because the government's definition is absolute shit. First of all, if you're using their BMI guidelines, that makes no distinction between muscle and fat. Secondly, the government's guidelines are not based on maximizing life expectancy. They are based on minimizing your risk for a particular list of medical conditions that the government recognizes as being obesity-related. This is not necessarily the same thing as maximizing life expectancy because having a little extra weight can be a useful reserve to help your body heal if you are injured in an accident, catch an infection, etc.

This is not to say that morbid obesity is fine and dandy -- there are people whose weight is harming them -- just that the definitions of "overweight" and "obese" are a bit arbitrary and you shouldn't panic over every person that gets classified as "overweight." Even someone that is moderately overweight, and it is because they have too much body fat, that's still not a serious issue that requires other people to stick their nose in it. Being 20 lb overweight isn't going to ruin your life or prevent you being a productive member of society.

[USS Monitor]

But with all taxation on a good or service, it disproportionately affects the poor. A rich person pays 1 more dollar for a soft drink, he doesn't care, he has a lot of money. If a poor person has to pay that extra dollar, it's going to affect him much more than it would affect the rich person. This tax would hurt the poor, and make sugar a luxury only upper classes could enjoy.

Well no, it would hurt the poor's ability to buy soft drinks. Like I said before, if the shit we feed the poor nowadays becomes too expensive for them, there will finally be a competitive market for cheap healthy food.

There already is cheap healthy food in grocery stores, and a lot of people pay more to keep buying crap.

[Community Values]

But with all taxation on a good or service, it disproportionately affects the poor. A rich person pays 1 more dollar for a soft drink, he doesn't care, he has a lot of money. If a poor person has to pay that extra dollar, it's going to affect him much more than it would affect the rich person. This tax would hurt the poor, and make sugar a luxury only upper classes could enjoy.

Well no, it would hurt the poor's ability to buy soft drinks. Like I said before, if the shit we feed the poor nowadays becomes too expensive for them, there will finally be a competitive market for cheap healthy food.

We don't feed poor people shit. They feed themselves. Companies offer many choices, and many choose the cheaper, more unhealthy foods. If you start charging unhealthy food the same as healthy food, poor people will pay more.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well no, it would hurt the poor's ability to buy soft drinks. Like I said before, if the shit we feed the poor nowadays becomes too expensive for them, there will finally be a competitive market for cheap healthy food.

There already is cheap healthy food in grocery stores, and a lot of people pay more to keep buying crap.

That honestly depends where you shop.

I can say with confidence that I have not seen, anywhere in my city, a shop where a healthy food is cheaper than unhealthy food, either up front or in the long run.

[Community Values]

Well no, it would hurt the poor's ability to buy soft drinks. Like I said before, if the shit we feed the poor nowadays becomes too expensive for them, there will finally be a competitive market for cheap healthy food.

There already is cheap healthy food in grocery stores, and a lot of people pay more to keep buying crap.

Ramen Noodles will always be cheaper than anything healthy you can offer.

[Bhikkustan]

I'd say do it. And in schools, there needs to be a certain fitness and physical activity test that must be passed before one moves up another year. That would be very effective.

[USS Monitor]

A lot of things are legal that hurt people, but we usually regulate and tax those things to mitigate the damage.

Again, sugary drinks are disproportionately likely to make poeple obese and should be subject to more scrutiny than other sources of calories.

Really, I must have missed the biology class where they explain how soda makes you fatter then...you know...actual fat...
But yeah, lets tax sugary drinks, not foods high in saturated fats. I'm sure sugar free soda, full of sweetness that get turned directly into fat are so much better then sugary soda.

Drinking sugary soda actually does put you at higher risk of obesity and diabetes than if you drank diet soda instead. I mean, diet soda tastes gross, but it really does have less calories.

[USS Monitor]

Just because tomorrow you pay 7 dollars for a can of soda doesn't necessarily mean you won't keep on paying 5 for a pound of onions.

WTF? Onions are more like $1 a pound.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Really, I must have missed the biology class where they explain how soda makes you fatter then...you know...actual fat...
But yeah, lets tax sugary drinks, not foods high in saturated fats. I'm sure sugar free soda, full of sweetness that get turned directly into fat are so much better then sugary soda.

Drinking sugary soda actually does put you at higher risk of obesity and diabetes than if you drank diet soda instead. I mean, diet soda tastes gross, but it really does have less calories.

You know what else puts you at higher risk of obesity? Working as a cook.

My grandma never drank a soda in her life and ended up with Type 2 diabetes anyways because she used to be the kind of cook at a shop she owned whereupon she always tasted the food for quality before serving.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Just because tomorrow you pay 7 dollars for a can of soda doesn't necessarily mean you won't keep on paying 5 for a pound of onions.

WTF? Onions are more like $1 a pound.

I was placing an example, you know. The numbers are arbitrary and made up.

Over here a pound of onions cost 58 cents at the cheapest. Of course, it takes me 20 minutes driving to Wal-Mart to get those 58 cent onions so in the end I end up spending about 7 dollars for onions with transport included.

And I'm sure I could find them much more expensive over here near my neighborhood (in fact, I am pretty sure I can find them at 1.50/lb at any small store within walking distance).

However, why would I spend 1.50 on a pound of onions over something that fills me like a small bag of chips, or a piece sweet bread and is about the same price as the pound of onions? My health? Over what, the fact I have, say, 10 dollars for the day to eat (which is what I used to spend as a college student)?

[USS Monitor]

There already is cheap healthy food in grocery stores, and a lot of people pay more to keep buying crap.

Ramen Noodles will always be cheaper than anything healthy you can offer.

Some veggies cost around the same as ramen. Some cost more, but then some junk foods cost more too.

How many of the people complaining that they can't afford to eat healthy are literally buying ramen and nothing else?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Ramen Noodles will always be cheaper than anything healthy you can offer.

Some veggies cost around the same as ramen. Some cost more, but then some junk foods cost more too.

How many of the people complaining that they can't afford to eat healthy are literally buying ramen and nothing else?

I used to buy ramen and nothing else as a college student.

I mean, I have enough of an income now to where, you know, I eat actual food, but that doesn't mean I didn't buy ramen and literally nothing else before. Got sick of the shit, and would never touch ramen again, but I have done it.

[USS Monitor]

WTF? Onions are more like $1 a pound.

I was placing an example, you know. The numbers are arbitrary and made up.

Over here a pound of onions cost 58 cents at the cheapest. Of course, it takes me 20 minutes driving to Wal-Mart to get those 58 cent onions so in the end I end up spending about 7 dollars for onions with transport included.

And I'm sure I could find them much more expensive over here near my neighborhood (in fact, I am pretty sure I can find them at 1.50/lb at any small store within walking distance).

However, why would I spend 1.50 on a pound of onions over something that fills me like a small bag of chips, or a piece sweet bread and is about the same price as the pound of onions? My health? Over what, the fact I have, say, 10 dollars for the day to eat (which is what I used to spend as a college student)?

That's why you don't make a separate trip just to buy onions. You buy the onions and some other things on the same trip.

Also, chips and sweet bread and neither filling nor cheap. Chips are $3 or $4 a pound compared to $0.50 for potatoes to cook at home. I spend about $40 a week on groceries, which is less than $10 a day, and I have decent meals like stir fry or chicken alfredo ziti.