answered question
answers (6)
That's a good question, dallaselvis, and I think that you are probably referring to subsidies for corn-growers, with that corn then being made into the corn syrup that goes into the sodas. (Or, maybe sugar subsidies.) I would guess that there are ways to nix subsidies for the growers who turn their corn into syrup, and that might be a good idea.
But, I'd like to address part of the premise of your question - that the govt is considering taxing sugary drinks. I've done some checking into the ad campaign to scare people about the imminency of such a tax. It struck me that these ads started while everyone was talking about healthcare reform and that people will infer that a soft drink tax is part of the reform debate.
I'm here to say that THERE IS NO SOFT DRINK TAX BEING CONSIDERED AS PART OF HEALTHCARE REFORM!!!
The ad said: "This tax isn't about health. It's about money.... sign the petition." Maybe you saw it, too. Of course, I was curious as to what tax is NOT about money - though some (like cigarette taxes) do have secondary purposes.
Turns out, this is from another astroturf group apparently trying to stir up the scare on healthcare reform. The beverage industry is passing themselves off as a group of concerned Americans opposing a food (and soft drink) tax. Except, guess what?
THERE IS NO PROPOSAL FOR A SUGARY SOFT DRINK TAX IN CONGRESS! Not in HR3200, not in any other proposal, and not in any other piece of legislation pending.
Can you say SCARE? I expect it is just a matter of hours before Republicans start latching onto this industry-financed bit of misinformation.
The online ad takes you to the triply-misleading website "nofoodtaxes.com". The group's name is "Americans Against Food Taxes". Misleading because (1) they're really only concerned about SOFT DRINK taxes; (2) it is an industry-group, not a collection of "Americans"; and (3) there is no food or soft drink tax proposal in sight.
They acknowledge misleading aspect #1 on their home page, where they acknowledge "Discriminatory and punitive taxes on soda and juice drinks..." are not the way they want to go.
They acknowledge misleading aspect #2 on their "about" page, where they disclose all of the industry groups and corporations backing the fortune being paid to their DC lobbyists/PR firms (http://www.prwatch.org/node/8524; http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_Against_Food_Taxes). No Americans (defined as "natural persons" who are citizens of the U.S.) are disclosed as contributing to this astroturf group, even though they claim to be the voice for families and individuals (who apparently won't give up their Cokes until pried from their cold, quenched hands).
They don't acknowledge misleading aspect #3, instead pointing (on their home page, no less) to an editorial in the Enid (Okla.) News claiming there's a "misguided" "scheme to levy a new tax on 'fat' foods." No sources for the claim.
Sure, there has been off and on chatter about a tax on soft drinks that might have an impact on obesity. Even an article in the New England Journal of Medicine (http://yaleruddcenter.org/resources/upload/docs/what/industry/SodaTaxNEJMApr09.pdf). But, that only addresses soft drinks, and it does NOT qualify as a "scheme". More importantly, there is NOTHING afoot in Congress, notwithstanding occasional protestations from Republicans in Congress. To confirm this, I searched the various articles and editorials for references to something concrete, I searched at thomas.loc.gov under "soft drink" and under "calorie", and I reviewed the Joint Committee on Taxation's review of the revenue proposals in H.R. 3200 (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/hr3200rt.pdf). Not a gosh-darned thang anywhere.
Now, without saying whether a tax on sugary soft drinks is good or bad, I think we can all agree that an industry association fronting as a grass roots group and implying that Congress is planning to tax foods (and, oh yeah, soft drinks) at a moment when the entire country is focused on health care reform proposals is flat out wrong.
I researched and wrote this post because I was startled to see such BS and I wanted to share my findings and impressions in the hope that noone at this site will be fooled by this scare tactic.
(Full disclosure: I consumed one 16oz DIET soft drink while researching and writing this post.)
But, I'd like to address part of the premise of your question - that the govt is considering taxing sugary drinks. I've done some checking into the ad campaign to scare people about the imminency of such a tax. It struck me that these ads started while everyone was talking about healthcare reform and that people will infer that a soft drink tax is part of the reform debate.
I'm here to say that THERE IS NO SOFT DRINK TAX BEING CONSIDERED AS PART OF HEALTHCARE REFORM!!!
The ad said: "This tax isn't about health. It's about money.... sign the petition." Maybe you saw it, too. Of course, I was curious as to what tax is NOT about money - though some (like cigarette taxes) do have secondary purposes.
Turns out, this is from another astroturf group apparently trying to stir up the scare on healthcare reform. The beverage industry is passing themselves off as a group of concerned Americans opposing a food (and soft drink) tax. Except, guess what?
THERE IS NO PROPOSAL FOR A SUGARY SOFT DRINK TAX IN CONGRESS! Not in HR3200, not in any other proposal, and not in any other piece of legislation pending.
Can you say SCARE? I expect it is just a matter of hours before Republicans start latching onto this industry-financed bit of misinformation.
The online ad takes you to the triply-misleading website "nofoodtaxes.com". The group's name is "Americans Against Food Taxes". Misleading because (1) they're really only concerned about SOFT DRINK taxes; (2) it is an industry-group, not a collection of "Americans"; and (3) there is no food or soft drink tax proposal in sight.
They acknowledge misleading aspect #1 on their home page, where they acknowledge "Discriminatory and punitive taxes on soda and juice drinks..." are not the way they want to go.
They acknowledge misleading aspect #2 on their "about" page, where they disclose all of the industry groups and corporations backing the fortune being paid to their DC lobbyists/PR firms (http://www.prwatch.org/node/8524; http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_Against_Food_Taxes). No Americans (defined as "natural persons" who are citizens of the U.S.) are disclosed as contributing to this astroturf group, even though they claim to be the voice for families and individuals (who apparently won't give up their Cokes until pried from their cold, quenched hands).
They don't acknowledge misleading aspect #3, instead pointing (on their home page, no less) to an editorial in the Enid (Okla.) News claiming there's a "misguided" "scheme to levy a new tax on 'fat' foods." No sources for the claim.
Sure, there has been off and on chatter about a tax on soft drinks that might have an impact on obesity. Even an article in the New England Journal of Medicine (http://yaleruddcenter.org/resources/upload/docs/what/industry/SodaTaxNEJMApr09.pdf). But, that only addresses soft drinks, and it does NOT qualify as a "scheme". More importantly, there is NOTHING afoot in Congress, notwithstanding occasional protestations from Republicans in Congress. To confirm this, I searched the various articles and editorials for references to something concrete, I searched at thomas.loc.gov under "soft drink" and under "calorie", and I reviewed the Joint Committee on Taxation's review of the revenue proposals in H.R. 3200 (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/hr3200rt.pdf). Not a gosh-darned thang anywhere.
Now, without saying whether a tax on sugary soft drinks is good or bad, I think we can all agree that an industry association fronting as a grass roots group and implying that Congress is planning to tax foods (and, oh yeah, soft drinks) at a moment when the entire country is focused on health care reform proposals is flat out wrong.
I researched and wrote this post because I was startled to see such BS and I wanted to share my findings and impressions in the hope that noone at this site will be fooled by this scare tactic.
(Full disclosure: I consumed one 16oz DIET soft drink while researching and writing this post.)
source(s):
as listed in the body
as listed in the body
lack of subsidies means they will not be able to afford to make them. Without these products in our stores, and in our homes, less money is made, and it hurts everybody, from the farmers, manufacturers, retailers, to the consumers. We do not only make these things for ourselves, but they are exported worldwide. Without the subsidies, we could not afford to do this, and our economy would suffer, putting us deeper into the recession, and possibly throwing us fully into another depression.
Taxing, on the other hand, helps pay for the subsidies that pay for the products, and also helps put money back into the government, for other programs that benefit everybody from major industries, to the guy wanting to open his own business, or go back to school. To put food on the tables of those families hit the worst by the economical problems we currently face. And, more taxes collected in this way, allows more tax money to be spent in relief efforts, and programs designed to help strengthen the economy, thereby removing us from the recession...
Two Twinkies at a time.
http://3putt.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/twinkie.jpg
Taxing, on the other hand, helps pay for the subsidies that pay for the products, and also helps put money back into the government, for other programs that benefit everybody from major industries, to the guy wanting to open his own business, or go back to school. To put food on the tables of those families hit the worst by the economical problems we currently face. And, more taxes collected in this way, allows more tax money to be spent in relief efforts, and programs designed to help strengthen the economy, thereby removing us from the recession...
Two Twinkies at a time.
source(s):
My own blurry vision of how our blurry economy works.
My own blurry vision of how our blurry economy works.
Imagine you have thousands and thousands of acres of corn. You could trade your corn syrup on the fair market and compete with sugar. Or, you could pay government officials to ensure that sugar is always imported with a tariff, so your corn syrup will always be the cheaper manufacturing option, and your profit margins always stay high. What do you? Exactly.
We keep on eating a food product our bodies can't recognize, and thus immediately turn to fat, and that guy stills rich.
As usual, government greed wins.
We keep on eating a food product our bodies can't recognize, and thus immediately turn to fat, and that guy stills rich.
As usual, government greed wins.
We don't subsidize soda, sweets, or fatty foods. You are wrong in your assumptions. We do subsidize corn, wheat, cotton, soybeans, and rice but those are not necessarily connected to soda, sweets, and fatty foods. Should corn flakes or corn on the cob or beef cost more because corn can be abused in corn syrup sweetened soda? Should bread cost more so that cake costs more? No.
A tax is a useful disincentive when it is closely targeted on something that needs reduction. Soda's have been singled out by eminent public health experts and medical associations as needing strong disincentives to reduce their abuse.
A tax is a useful disincentive when it is closely targeted on something that needs reduction. Soda's have been singled out by eminent public health experts and medical associations as needing strong disincentives to reduce their abuse.
source(s):
http://farm.ewg.org/farm/dp_analysis.php
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2009/09/16/soda-tax-wins...
http://farm.ewg.org/farm/dp_analysis.php
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2009/09/16/soda-tax-wins...
Furthermore, when the beverage industry lobbies against this tax, one of their claims is that such a tax would not reduce the consumption of sugary beverages unless the tax is extremely high (much higher than the current idea of $0.01/oz tax). Really? Then why do these companies spend millions of dollars to fight the tax? Out of the goodness of their corporate hearts? Out of their commitment to libertarianism?
While I do not necessarily support such a tax, the very fact the beverage industry is fighting it tooth and nail seems to support its usefulness.
While I do not necessarily support such a tax, the very fact the beverage industry is fighting it tooth and nail seems to support its usefulness.
Because it's really just so they can increase taxes, and get more money coming in.
Currently, a person on food stamps in many states can purchase sodas and juice drinks (as in less thatn 10% juice) with their foodstamps card. Taxing soda and juice drinks (koolaid, crystal lite, etc) will prevent people on food stamps from being able to purchase them. The other day, I watched two individuals purchase three cases of diet pepsi on their food stamps card, so this really does need addressed.
Related questions
140 characters left
ask any question
