Talk of The Villages Florida
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)
-   The Villages, Florida, Non Villages Discussion (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-non-villages-discussion-93/)
-   -   Berkeley, CA, residents approve tax on sugary drinks (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-non-villages-discussion-93/berkeley-ca-residents-approve-tax-sugary-drinks-133276/)

KeepingItReal 11-19-2014 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubicon (Post 970491)
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

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 11-19-2014 05:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubicon (Post 970491)
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 11-19-2014 05:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indydealmaker (Post 970514)
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 11-20-2014 05:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubicon (Post 970491)
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 11-20-2014 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages PL (Post 970908)
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 11-20-2014 06:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barefoot (Post 970910)
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 11-20-2014 06:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indydealmaker (Post 970514)
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 11-20-2014 07:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages PL (Post 970919)
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 11-20-2014 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by naneiben (Post 970413)
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 11-20-2014 07:52 PM
"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 11-20-2014 11:35 PM
C&H Sugar Plant is about 20 miles north of Berkeley - not a very neighborly act by the crazies.

.

golf2140 11-21-2014 09:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ32162 (Post 970447)
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 11-21-2014 09:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ32162 (Post 970447)
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 11-21-2014 10:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pooh (Post 970951)
"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 11-21-2014 11:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeepingItReal (Post 970936)
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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:36 AM.
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.