Berkeley, CA, residents approve tax on sugary drinks
 

Tax on sugary drinks approved in Berkeley; S.F. measure falls short - capitalgazette.com

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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:

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

NO!

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

"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."

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

.

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

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

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?

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.

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

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!

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?

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.

Huh?

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.

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.

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