Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Soda Tax
Options
Replies
-
Here in Connecticut, we pay a 5 cent deposit for soda, beer, and water cans/bottles. Maybe some others, but I'm not entirely sure. We get that 5 cents back when we return them to the store (4 cents, IIRC, if we take them to a recycling center - maybe the one I sometimes went to was a private entity?) and nothing if we either throw them out or just dump them in our home recycling bin.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Cherimoose wrote: »czmiles926 wrote: »However if large amounts of sugar is consumed frequently enough, the insulin receptors on the cells no longer respond to the presence of insulin and blood glucose levels remain too high for too long. This is type 2 diabetes.
Sounds good in theory, but...
"Sugar consumption will not directly cause diabetes. However, excess sugar consumption can cause weight gain. Obesity increases the risk of diabetes."
medicalnewstoday.com/articles/317246.php
Myth: Sugar Causes Diabetes
https://diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Enjoy-food/Eating-with-diabetes/Diabetes-food-myths/Myth-sugar-causes-diabetes/
Might as well tax brown rice, fruit, and whole wheat bread, since those can cause obesity & diabetes when eaten in excess.
Soda was a common beverage for decades before obesity became an epidemic around the 1980s. Soda consumption has actually dropped to almost the level it was in the 80s. The tax isn't based on statistics and science, it's about government officials trying to appear useful, while acquiring money to pay for their wasteful spending habits.
This is true, but I can also tell you as a kid in the '60s soda was maybe once every couple weeks. At a gas station it was a 10 oz bottle. If at home you split a 16 oz.
It's hard to compare, because families are different, different customs in different social circles, but this is consistent with what I recall from even a bit later.
In the 1970s I was less than 10, and we almost never had soda, period (which could be a function of age). My mom had diet (Tab, I think) occasionally. I only recall having it at McD's or the like, and it was a small. I think we got cans when I was out with my cousins a time or two, and they were the half cans, which were considered what kids should have, but I think that was possibly early '80s.
In the '80s, when I was in high school (and before), I recall having soda occasionally, but nothing more than a can or a normal sized fountain drink (maybe medium), and the latter only if we were at a fast food place or restaurant. Not routinely after school, not at school, and not at meals, where I was expected to have milk or water.
In college I'd have soda somewhat more (diet by that time), but those huge tubs were still not normal and I'd basically get one at the snack bar or maybe get one from the vending machine when studying.
I drank a ton of diet for a while in my 20s, since it was freely available at work.
It seems to me that drinking a lot, at least as a kid, is much more common now (or since I've been an adult) than it was in the '80s or '70s, but could this be a "kids, get off my lawn" thing? It could be.
I also see HUGE differences in social groups, as generally speaking I don't think it's a regularly drink a whole lot kind of thing for my friends' kids, either (they also eat vegetables or at least their parents serve them vegetables, so). It's something you get at a restaurant or as a treat. Do kids in high school buy them commonly with their own money? Probably (I live near a high school and a 7-11, so see that), but I don't think that's wildly different than it was. There are cultural changes, probably, but not across the board.
I was a kid in the 80s and I always had soda available. I remember in the 3rd grade (so mid- late 80s), that we could buy a can of soda at recess. We always had it at home, but were limited to what we were allowed to drink. In addition to soda, we often had things like Hi-C or CapriSun, Kool-aid or even the little really cheap plastic jugs that were basically colored sugar water. We drank that stuff pretty liberally and always had sweet tea (recipe was 1 and 1/3 cups of sugar per gallon, so it was REALLY sweet) for meal times. We drank lots of water when we were outside playing or doing yard work, etc., but there was always an abundance of sugar sweetened drinks available.
When I was little it was Kool-aid (maybe Tang at one point, but that was never common for us), but I think of it as a summer-specific drink that you would have after playing outside or at snack time, not throughout the day. I don't think juice boxes or Capri Suns were common yet -- I recall them from when I was babysitting (in the '80s).
This is just lemurcat's memory corner. ;-)
I remember kindergarten in 1984 when we had Kool-aid and cookies for a snack every day. Chocolate milk and sugary cereal in the cafeteria. In high school, the vending machines were stocked with sodas and candy bars. MANY days I had a Dr. Pepper and Milky Way for lunch because I hated what the cafeteria was serving. Not bad calorie-wise I guess (150 for soda, 250-ish I'm guessing for the candy bar) but pretty nutritionally lacking. I wasn't overweight then, but wouldn't recommend that now
3 -
Hmm. Okay, I think it is fair because other things that can badly influence your health (i.e. alcohol or nicotine) usually also have their own higher tax. But overall, apart from the fact that taxes are usually meant to make money more than they're meant to help, I think it's a bit of a stupid move to try to coax people to do the "right" thing.
If you have a kid, you try to raise them so they can tell good from bad. What the government is doing here is slapping their "kids" butts without even telling them what they're doing wrong.
I don't think it's gonna have any effect. Most sweetened beverages are already more expensive than mineral water and people will still go and grab a Coke. They won't even think about why they're paying yet more money now, they'll grumble for a while and then just accept it while continuing to drink whatever they want whenever they want.0 -
Cherimoose wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Did you just say any effect short of 100% is negligible?
Uh, no - i'm saying the effect on obesity levels will be close to zero. People will simply pay the tax like they do the bottle fee, or they'll switch from Coke to the cheaper generic brands of cola.. or to fruit drinks, which have similar calorie levels.
Soda consumption has already fallen 23% the last 20 years and is at a 30-year low. Did obesity go down? Nope, it rose 23%. It's not the soda.
Since obesity is from a calorie surplus, why not tax all food in proportion to its calorie content, and also tax anything that reduces activity levels, including computers, cars, and chairs. This is ridiculous of course, which is why singling out a beverage is ridiculous. It's just a feel-good, nanny state move that ignores the real issue, which is CICO. We can't tax our way out of that.
www.businessinsider.com/americans-are-drinking-less-soda-2016-3
www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db219.htm
I don't have any facts and data to support (maybe if I have some time to kill I'll look) but my perception is as soda consumption has fallen, you can chart a proportional (if not greater) increase in energy drinks and high calories coffee drinks.
Personally think the calories per person from the drinks with added sugar category is the same or increasing over the last 10+ years.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Cherimoose wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Did you just say any effect short of 100% is negligible?
Uh, no - i'm saying the effect on obesity levels will be close to zero. People will simply pay the tax like they do the bottle fee, or they'll switch from Coke to the cheaper generic brands of cola.. or to fruit drinks, which have similar calorie levels.
Soda consumption has already fallen 23% the last 20 years and is at a 30-year low. Did obesity go down? Nope, it rose 23%. It's not the soda.
Since obesity is from a calorie surplus, why not tax all food in proportion to its calorie content, and also tax anything that reduces activity levels, including computers, cars, and chairs. This is ridiculous of course, which is why singling out a beverage is ridiculous. It's just a feel-good, nanny state move that ignores the real issue, which is CICO. We can't tax our way out of that.
www.businessinsider.com/americans-are-drinking-less-soda-2016-3
www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db219.htm
I don't have any facts and data to support (maybe if I have some time to kill I'll look) but my perception is as soda consumption has fallen, you can chart a proportional (if not greater) increase in energy drinks and high calories coffee drinks.
Personally think the calories per person from the drinks with added sugar category is the same or increasing over the last 10+ years.
You're right. Energy drinks and similar went up. Overall, calorie consumption from sugary beverages is still going down though.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662243/1 -
stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Cherimoose wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Did you just say any effect short of 100% is negligible?
Uh, no - i'm saying the effect on obesity levels will be close to zero. People will simply pay the tax like they do the bottle fee, or they'll switch from Coke to the cheaper generic brands of cola.. or to fruit drinks, which have similar calorie levels.
Soda consumption has already fallen 23% the last 20 years and is at a 30-year low. Did obesity go down? Nope, it rose 23%. It's not the soda.
Since obesity is from a calorie surplus, why not tax all food in proportion to its calorie content, and also tax anything that reduces activity levels, including computers, cars, and chairs. This is ridiculous of course, which is why singling out a beverage is ridiculous. It's just a feel-good, nanny state move that ignores the real issue, which is CICO. We can't tax our way out of that.
www.businessinsider.com/americans-are-drinking-less-soda-2016-3
www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db219.htm
I don't have any facts and data to support (maybe if I have some time to kill I'll look) but my perception is as soda consumption has fallen, you can chart a proportional (if not greater) increase in energy drinks and high calories coffee drinks.
Personally think the calories per person from the drinks with added sugar category is the same or increasing over the last 10+ years.
You're right. Energy drinks and similar went up. Overall, calorie consumption from sugary beverages is still going down though.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662243/
Didn't see anything in there to indicate those goofy high calorie coffee drinks were included in the analysis. Again, personal observation, but I noticed people I worked with bring in the high calorie Starbucks/Dunking Donuts coffee drinks instead of soda.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Cherimoose wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Did you just say any effect short of 100% is negligible?
Uh, no - i'm saying the effect on obesity levels will be close to zero. People will simply pay the tax like they do the bottle fee, or they'll switch from Coke to the cheaper generic brands of cola.. or to fruit drinks, which have similar calorie levels.
Soda consumption has already fallen 23% the last 20 years and is at a 30-year low. Did obesity go down? Nope, it rose 23%. It's not the soda.
Since obesity is from a calorie surplus, why not tax all food in proportion to its calorie content, and also tax anything that reduces activity levels, including computers, cars, and chairs. This is ridiculous of course, which is why singling out a beverage is ridiculous. It's just a feel-good, nanny state move that ignores the real issue, which is CICO. We can't tax our way out of that.
www.businessinsider.com/americans-are-drinking-less-soda-2016-3
www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db219.htm
I don't have any facts and data to support (maybe if I have some time to kill I'll look) but my perception is as soda consumption has fallen, you can chart a proportional (if not greater) increase in energy drinks and high calories coffee drinks.
Personally think the calories per person from the drinks with added sugar category is the same or increasing over the last 10+ years.
You're right. Energy drinks and similar went up. Overall, calorie consumption from sugary beverages is still going down though.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662243/
Didn't see anything in there to indicate those goofy high calorie coffee drinks were included in the analysis. Again, personal observation, but I noticed people I worked with bring in the high calorie Starbucks/Dunking Donuts coffee drinks instead of soda.
A girl I used to work with went to Starbucks twice a day. A venti chai latte with extra pumps of chai. It was not nonfat either. I was more astounded at how much she was spending just on coffee every day. That stuff adds up fast over time!1 -
More lawsuits...yesterday was Walgreens, now today McDonald's and 7-11 as well:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-mcdonalds-walgreens-soda-tax-lawsuits-0809-biz-20170808-story.html
0 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »More lawsuits...yesterday was Walgreens, now today McDonald's and 7-11 as well:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-mcdonalds-walgreens-soda-tax-lawsuits-0809-biz-20170808-story.html
I don't envy the retailers trying to deal with this. What a poorly thought out mess!2 -
3 -
These lawsuits were obviously planned in advance. I suspect the motives are either to cash in or to cause disruption/negative news to keep hyping the problem to try to force a repeal. Don't be fooled for a second that these lawsuits are in response to any true unethical dealings by the companies. I suspect they will be dismissed rather quickly. This is one of those issues IMO where everybody on both sides is lying and they all suck.4
-
czmiles926 wrote: »Soft drinks are luxury items.
No one needs to buy them!
Except erm.....Type 1 diabetics.
Energy drinks are the quickest way to get sugar into someone having a hypo.1 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »More lawsuits...yesterday was Walgreens, now today McDonald's and 7-11 as well:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-mcdonalds-walgreens-soda-tax-lawsuits-0809-biz-20170808-story.html
I don't envy the retailers trying to deal with this. What a poorly thought out mess!
From my limited understanding they are trying to tax fountain drinks. Would be much easier just to tax the mix to the retailer and the retailer includes it in the cost of the drink. Draft beer sure has a tax on it, but they don't call it out on any sort of receipt the customer sees.
I'm guessing they didn't go the beer route because they wanted to make the tax amount very clear.1 -
These lawsuits were obviously planned in advance. I suspect the motives are either to cash in or to cause disruption/negative news to keep hyping the problem to try to force a repeal. Don't be fooled for a second that these lawsuits are in response to any true unethical dealings by the companies. I suspect they will be dismissed rather quickly. This is one of those issues IMO where everybody on both sides is lying and they all suck.
Oh, for sure. But, it does call to attention what happens when a poorly planned tax goes poorly.0 -
girlinahat wrote: »czmiles926 wrote: »Soft drinks are luxury items.
No one needs to buy them!
Except erm.....Type 1 diabetics.
Energy drinks are the quickest way to get sugar into someone having a hypo.
Also if your electrolytes are low. Post op mine were low and in addition to potassium iv and magnesium pills the surgeon told me to drink coke zero (or any dark pop) for the phosphoric acid instead of the phosphorus tabs you put in water.1 -
A friend passed this along. 2 tallboys of Bud are less than 2 20 oz Cokes in Chicago.
4 -
Packerjohn wrote: »A friend passed this along. 2 tallboys of Bud are less than 2 20 oz Cokes in Chicago.
So the city of Chicago is encouraging beer consumption?4 -
And now they are in trouble with the Feds and may lose food stamp funding over the tax:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-soda-tax-food-stamps-preckwinkle-0811-biz-20170810-story.html
0 -
The fact that Starbucks is not included is the biggest joke I've ever heard. I contribute most of my weight gain prior to this year to mochas and lattes from Sugarbucks4
-
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »And now they are in trouble with the Feds and may lose food stamp funding over the tax:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-soda-tax-food-stamps-preckwinkle-0811-biz-20170810-story.html
Just my opinion, but soda should not be allowed to be purchased with food stamps in the first place.4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions