Berkeley, CA, residents approve tax on sugary drinks

[Villages PL]

Tax on sugary drinks approved in Berkeley; S.F. measure falls short - capitalgazette.com (http://www.capitalgazette.com/topic/la-me-ln-berkeley-voters-approve-soda-tax-sf-measure-falls-short-20141105,0,4439721.story)

My comment: When it gets to the point where healthy people have to subsidize healthcare for the unhealthy, then it's time to tax unhealthy habits.

[Villageswimmer]

Does anyone really believe that people who drink sugary drinks are going to stop because of a few cents tax?

[JB in TV]

I'm not commenting on pro or con... however, I wonder how free refills at most restaraunts are calculated into the tax?

[redwitch]

Not a biggie. There are lots of towns surrounding Bezerkley. Wouldn't add more than a mile or two to get sweet stuff without paying an additional tax.

[Villages PL]

Does anyone really believe that people who drink sugary drinks are going to stop because of a few cents tax?

Yes, I believe it will work. Sales nosedived in Mexico after the country began enforcing a similar measure this past January. And Mexico was one of the worlds biggest consumers of sugary drinks.

[JB in TV]

I think there is a big difference in the added tax's impact on a typical Mexican citizen and a Berkeley citizen.

[AJ32162]

Tax on sugary drinks approved in Berkeley; S.F. measure falls short - capitalgazette.com (http://www.capitalgazette.com/topic/la-me-ln-berkeley-voters-approve-soda-tax-sf-measure-falls-short-20141105,0,4439721.story)

My comment: When it gets to the point where healthy people have to subsidize healthcare for the unhealthy, then it's time to tax unhealthy habits.

Why not just cut to the chase and tax fat people?:shrug:

[Villages PL]

Not a biggie. There are lots of towns surrounding Bezerkley. Wouldn't add more than a mile or two to get sweet stuff without paying an additional tax.

According to AAA's 2013 driving cost study, the average cost of owning and operating a car is 60.8 cents per mile.

[Villages PL]

Why not just cut to the chase and tax fat people?:shrug:

How would that work? It sounds complicated. :shrug:

[AJ32162]

How would that work? It sounds complicated. :shrug:

Perhaps a mandatory national weigh in the day after Thanksgiving and those exceeding the recommended BMI be taxed by the pound.:eclipsee_gold_cup:

[Barefoot]

Why not just cut to the chase and tax fat people?:shrug:

Perhaps a mandatory national weigh in the day after Thanksgiving and those exceeding the recommended BMI be taxed by the pound.

It sounds like a great plan. And then, after the mandatory weigh in, Big Brother could put chips in our brains to reduce our BMI.

[AJ32162]

It sounds like a great plan. And then, after the mandatory weigh in, Big Brother could put chips in our brains to reduce our BMI.

If I'm not mistaken, that idea has already been proposed by Jonathan Gruber.

[Moderator]

Please, let's get back to the original topic....

[Villages PL]

I think there is a big difference in the added tax's impact on a typical Mexican citizen and a Berkeley citizen.

Yes, people who know better than to drink sugary drinks in the first place won't be impacted by a tax.

[rubicon]

No one on this thread believes this is government overreach?????

We are quickly approaching Big Brotherism and I not talking bout the television reality show.

[KeepingItReal]

No one on this thread believes this is government overreach?????

We are quickly approaching Big Brotherism and I not talking bout the television reality show.


Totally, just another way to disguise a tax grab....

The Tax Poem | www.poeticexpressions.co.uk | Poetic Expressions (http://www.poeticexpressions.co.uk/poems/the%20tax%20poem.htm)

THE TAX POEM

Tax his land, tax his wage,
Tax his bed in which he lays.
Tax his tractor, tax his mule,
Teach him taxes is the rule.

Tax his cow, tax his goat,
Tax his pants, tax his coat.
Tax his ties, tax his shirts,
Tax his work, tax his dirt.

Tax his chew, tax his smoke,
Teach him taxes are no joke.
Tax his car, tax his grass,
Tax the roads he must pass.

Tax his food, tax his drink,
Tax him if he tries to think.
Tax his sodas, tax his beers,
If he cries, tax his tears.

Tax his bills, tax his gas,
Tax his notes, tax his cash.
Tax him good and let him know
That after taxes, he has no dough.

If he hollers, tax him more,
Tax him until he's good and sore.
Tax his coffin, tax his grave,
Tax the sod in which he lays.

Put these words upon his tomb,
"Taxes drove me to my doom!"
And when he's gone, we won't relax,
We'll still be after the inheritance tax.

[Indydealmaker]

No one on this thread believes this is government overreach?????

We are quickly approaching Big Brotherism and I not talking bout the television reality show.

Of course it is over-reach under the guise of "health". Sugar is NOT the least bit bad for you in moderation and there is ZERO evidence to show that it is.

However, that inconvenient truth has nothing to do with the creation of another tax. If it did, the tax would be escrowed and returned to the taxpayer if this did not reduce consumption.

[KeepingItReal]

Of course it is over-reach under the guise of "health". Sugar is NOT the least bit bad for you in moderation and there is ZERO evidence to show that it is.

However, that inconvenient truth has nothing to do with the creation of another tax. If it did, the tax would be escrowed and returned to the taxpayer if this did not reduce consumption.

And I have some oceanfront property in Arizona for sale......right!

[Villages PL]

No one on this thread believes this is government overreach?????

We are quickly approaching Big Brotherism and I not talking bout the television reality show.

The people of Berkeley voted for it. How is that overreach? Please explain.

[Barefoot]

The people of Berkeley voted for it. How is that overreach? Please explain.

Rubicon explained it in Post #15.
KIR explained it in Post # 16
Indy explained it in Post #17.

[Villages PL]

Rubicon explained it in Post #15.
KIR explained it in Post # 16
Indy explained it in Post #17.

Those posts were giving opinions on the nutritional value of sugar. Regardless of what anyone's opinion is, the voters voted to tax it. If it was decided by the voters, how is that overreach?

[Villages PL]

Of course it is over-reach under the guise of "health". Sugar is NOT the least bit bad for you in moderation and there is ZERO evidence to show that it is.

Right, "sugar is not the least bit bad for you in moderation," and taxing it, according to voters, will help to moderate consumption.

[KeepingItReal]

Right, "sugar is not the least bit bad for you in moderation," and taxing it, according to voters, will help to moderate consumption.

Does anyone really, really, think the reason it passed was to moderate consumption?

[billethkid]

Does anyone really believe that people who drink sugary drinks are going to stop because of a few cents tax?

NO!

Just like gasoline and cigarette taxes were not meant to disuade the users.

[pooh]

"The Berkeley measure levies the tax on the 15 to 20 companies that contract with beverage makers to distribute their products in the city, and would be charged as part of their business license fee, backers of the measure say. The tax would not be collected from retailers or from consumers at the cash register."

[chuckinca]

C&H Sugar Plant is about 20 miles north of Berkeley - not a very neighborly act by the crazies.

.

[golf2140]

Perhaps a mandatory national weigh in the day after Thanksgiving and those exceeding the recommended BMI be taxed by the pound.:eclipsee_gold_cup:

:beer3::beer3::beer3::beer3:

[graciegirl]

Perhaps a mandatory national weigh in the day after Thanksgiving and those exceeding the recommended BMI be taxed by the pound.:eclipsee_gold_cup:

OH my goodness. That would shickle the *it out of VPL.

[dbussone]

"The Berkeley measure levies the tax on the 15 to 20 companies that contract with beverage makers to distribute their products in the city, and would be charged as part of their business license fee, backers of the measure say. The tax would not be collected from retailers or from consumers at the cash register."

And if they believe that I have a bridge to sell them. The consumer will undoubtedly be paying for it in increased cost for the product. Don't you just love political math?

[Villages PL]

Does anyone really, really, think the reason it passed was to moderate consumption?

What do you think the reason was? If they were just looking to bring in more tax revenue, there are a number of other ways they could have done that.

[Villages PL]

NO!

Just like gasoline and cigarette taxes were not meant to disuade the users.

But I believe users have been dissuaded. There are fewer smokers today and more fuel efficient cars on the road than ever before.

[Indydealmaker]

"The Berkeley measure levies the tax on the 15 to 20 companies that contract with beverage makers to distribute their products in the city, and would be charged as part of their business license fee, backers of the measure say. The tax would not be collected from retailers or from consumers at the cash register."

If the implication is accurate that consumers will not feel the pain, that underscores the reality that this is simply another revenue generating tax with no intended quality of life benefits.

[dbussone]

If the implication is accurate that consumers will not feel the pain, that underscores the reality that this is simply another revenue generating tax with no intended quality of life benefits.

And developed by another bunch of politicians who think voters are stupid. Off with their heads!

[Villages PL]

"The Berkeley measure levies the tax on the 15 to 20 companies that contract with beverage makers to distribute their products in the city, and would be charged as part of their business license fee, backers of the measure say. The tax would not be collected from retailers or from consumers at the cash register."

Sooner or later all costs get passed along to the consumer, especially due to the fact that the overwhelming majority voted for it. Why would the companies absorb the added cost of doing business in Berkeley?

[Villages PL]

The reason the beverage industry is so worried is because these initiatives have been popping up around the nation in the past few years. And the fact that this Berkeley initiative succeeded indicates there could be a domino effect.

Starting over ten years ago, I was calling for making it revenue neutral. In other words, put a tax on sugary beverages while removing the tax on some necessity like bathroom paper. (Don't tell me it's a $hitty idea.;)) If communities around the country would do that, that initiative would pass easily.

[graciegirl]

Huh?

[Mikeod]

Interesting that the proponents could have written this so that the proceeds would be directed to specific uses, such as diabetes research, health/nutrition education, or some other means to affect reduction in the consumption of sugary drinks. But that would have required the measure pass with 2/3 majority. Instead they elected to draft the measure so that the proceeds go into the general fund without targeting their use because that would only require a simple majority for passage.

The measure also requires a nine person committee to study ways to reduce consumption. And specifies the qualifications for the members. I would expect the costs for this committee would far exceed the revenue generated, thus becoming a drain on the city's resources.

And there are exemptions for distribution to smaller stores (<100K gross).

I expect we will see in a year or so that there has been negligible effect on consumption of these drinks in Berkeley. That is, if the measure withstands the almost certain court challenge.

[Halibut]

My comment: When it gets to the point where healthy people have to subsidize healthcare for the unhealthy...

Where and when hasn't it always been that way? And do you feel the same way about the young subsidizing social security for the old?

[dbussone]

Where and when hasn't it always been that way? And do you feel the same way about the young subsidizing social security for the old?


In my case I can assure you that my children, or any one else, are not subsidizing my social security. If I had in a 401(k) what I paid in SS I'd be very happy right now. SS is just another redistribution of wealth by the Feds.

[jblum315]

High cigarette taxes have reduced the consumption of cigarettes. Taxes on sugary drinks may or may not reduce the consumption of sugary drinks

[Barefoot]

High cigarette taxes have reduced the consumption of cigarettes.
I think there are a lot of factors leading to reduced consumption of cigarettes.

Laws against smoking in offices and restaurants.
Now smokers have to huddle outside on smoke breaks instead of the old days when people were free to smoke at their office desk or in bars.
Or perhaps it's the negative publicity that makes cigarette smokers feel like they have a communicable disease.
And possibly the information about how second-hand smoke affects everyone in the family.
And of course the increase in price, but I think the anti-smoking advertising has been the key factor.

[Villages PL]

High cigarette taxes have reduced the consumption of cigarettes. Taxes on sugary drinks may or may not reduce the consumption of sugary drinks

The trick is to figure out how high the tax needs to be. :)

[Villages PL]

Where and when hasn't it always been that way? And do you feel the same way about the young subsidizing social security for the old?

If more people could demonstrate the ability to save for their old age, we wouldn't need social security. But most people can't (or won't) and whatever people can't do for themselves the government usually ends up doing it for them.