Soda Tax considered to pay for health care reform

Originally posted by KidRock
Since when is a sales tax not a tax?

Obama's words: No new taxes on those making under 250k a year.

Taxing soda = a new tax that people making under 250k a year will have to pay.

Obama = liar

Wow, I know Obama-hate has people making illogical conclusions and stretches as to make Obama look bad at any opportunity, but this one is ridiculous.

Repeat: Taxes on goods isn't the same as income tax/Fed. Apples to oranges, sir.

Even if you were right in some bizarro-world short of way (which you're not), people making under $250k can avoid this 'soda-tax' by not buying soda. Taxes on tobacco products is set to increase soon, going to blame that one on Obama too?

In the bigger picture, sure, he is a liar, as are all presidents. But you're wrong here.

Originally posted by Robtard
Wow, I know Obama-hate has people making illogical conclusions and stretches as to make Obama look bad at any opportunity, but this one is ridiculous.

Repeat: Taxes on goods isn't the same as income tax/Fed. Apples to oranges, sir.

Even if you were right in some bizarro-world short of way (which you're not), people making under $250k can avoid this 'soda-tax' by not buying soda. Taxes on tobacco products is set to increase soon, going to blame that one on Obama too?

In the bigger picture, sure, he is a liar, as are all presidents. But you're wrong here.

Repeat: Obama never said income/federal taxes..he said people would SEE no NEW TAXES.

Which they clearly are going to with this new one. He said people would see no new taxes, period.

Unless you can convince me a sales tax is not a tax then no I am not wrong.

It was obvious to anybody with a brain that he was referring to taxes that actually depend on income...

Originally posted by King Kandy
It was obvious to anybody with a brain that he was referring to taxes that actually depend on income...

It's pretty obvious that "no new taxes" can and would be interpreted as...NO NEW TAXES.

So I guess it's okay for Obama to raise other taxes on the poor as long as it isn't the income tax, right?

Originally posted by KidRock
It's pretty obvious that "no new taxes" can and would be interpreted as...NO NEW TAXES.

So I guess it's okay for Obama to raise other taxes on the poor as long as it isn't the income tax, right?

Sorry, dudes, I agree with KR. Taxes is taxes is taxes. He didn't say income tax and I don't see how what he said doesn't apply to any and all taxes directly against the demographic specified: The under $250k group.

Edit -It in this modern age, if he meant a specific type of taxes, he would specify that. You know, these guys are lawyers and politicians. They leave things ambiguous to get away with things, and are very specific with other items to prevent misinterpretation.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sorry, dudes, I agree with KR. Taxes is taxes is taxes. He didn't say income tax and I don't see how what he said doesn't apply to any and all taxes directly against the demographic specified: The under $250k group.

Edit -It in this modern age, if he meant a specific type of taxes, he would specify that. You know, these guys are lawyers and politicians. They leave things ambiguous to get away with things, and are very specific with other items to prevent misinterpretation.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Obviously, if the exception is made for A SPECIFIC INCOME GROUP, that tax promise RELATES TO INCOME. If taxes have nothing to do with income, then it makes no sense to have the promise be related to income. Sorry but it is clear he was talking about, when raising taxes on income tiers, none of those raised taxes would come from tiers below 250K. If that campaign promise was intended as being against nontiered taxes, then it was complete stupidity and i'd be more upset if he WAS following it.

However, the tax does include an income group. It doesn't have to be specific to that income group in order for that tax to be a "new tax" that will be paid, no matter how small or large the portion, from sub $250k income peeps.

On top of that, the vast majority of this tax revenue will come from the $250K group. 😄 Where do you think the majority soft drink purchases come from? The rich are certainly not going to drink 10-20 times as much as the $250k soft-drink, drinkers. Obviously, this tax would primarily affect the sub $250K peeps. It is almost the exact opposite of what Obama said.

To sum up:

There's no rebuttal to this. Taxes are taxes are taxes. He said no new taxes to the sub $250K group. This tax will hit that specific group much much much more than the $250K+ group.

Edit - And to say it has to be specific to income taxes, that's rather ...I don't want to insult you as you're cool. So lemme say it this way: For people most of America, the vast majority of us make much less than 100k. A federal excise tax on a commonly consumed good IS income tax. When you live pay-check to pay-check, any form of federal tax IS an income tax, especially if it is one a good that is very commonly purchased. It is merely word semantics to say it specifically doesn't fit under "income taxes". That's word semantics...yes, I'm exaggerating, but you do get the point. Shouldn't we tax something that targets the absurd vast majority of $250k+ people? Wouldn't that be more in keeping with what Obama promised?

Originally posted by dadudemon
the vast majority of us make much less than 100k. A federal excise tax on a commonly consumed good IS income tax. When you live pay-check to pay-check, any form of federal tax IS an income tax, especially if it is one a good that is very commonly purchased.

But that's your fault, not the governments. All you have to do is go make more money. Don't whine to the rest of us because you're lazy.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But that's your fault, not the governments. All you have to do is go make more money. Don't whine to the rest of us because you're lazy.

Sarcasm?

Originally posted by KidRock
Repeat: Obama never said income/federal taxes..he said people would SEE no NEW TAXES.

Which they clearly are going to with this new one. He said people would see no new taxes, period.

Unless you can convince me a sales tax is not a tax then no I am not wrong.

Okay. But your wrong with your leap of (il)logic.

Originally posted by dadudemon

To sum up:

There's no rebuttal to this. Taxes are taxes are taxes. He said no new taxes to the sub $250K group. This tax will hit that specific group much much much more than the $250K+ group.

There actually is:

Originally posted by King Kandy
It was obvious to anybody with a brain that he was referring to taxes that actually depend on income...

This is of course besides the point that this proposed 'soda-tax' is shit.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit - And to say it has to be specific to income taxes, that's rather ...I don't want to insult you as you're cool. So lemme say it this way: For people most of America, the vast majority of us make much less than 100k. A federal excise tax on a commonly consumed good IS income tax. When you live pay-check to pay-check, any form of federal tax IS an income tax, especially if it is one a good that is very commonly purchased. It is merely word semantics to say it specifically doesn't fit under "income taxes". That's word semantics...yes, I'm exaggerating, but you do get the point. Shouldn't we tax something that targets the absurd vast majority of $250k+ people? Wouldn't that be more in keeping with what Obama promised?

This second point you are making, I don't even know why you brought it up as it was obviously not what I was referring to. "Income taxes" as I meant it refers to a very specific concept, a key part being that it hits your income regardless of personal choices, whereas this is solely due to your income based on how much soda you consume... and on your "living paycheck to paycheck" thing, if you are buying so much soda that the extra three cents forms anything resembling an income tax, then you have far, far deeper issues than high taxes.

The way I interpreted his statements, personally, was that there would be no tax increases that applied specifically to the -250K tiers. This is a general tax increase (and a negligible one at that), and as opposed to "tiered" income tax systems has nothing to do with the income you make.

"I can make a firm pledge," "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."-Barack Obama in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12, 2008.

Next.

Raising the income tax would be better since sales tax is inherently regressive. He definitely should break that promise because Americans are just ****ing brainwashed and moronic. When they're getting paid $2 an hour, have no infrastructure, no health care, privatized commons and social services, no clean water or air, no homes, and a 2% income tax, they'll still be whining about how taxes are too high rather than making the obvious connection that someone who's actually read an economics book while ignoring his first year professor could see.

Originally posted by Robtard
Then I insist that the government lower my personal taxes, as I exercise regularly and rarely eat fastfood, while the guy who doesn't exercise and eats Burger King 4 days a week should increase.

What about basing taxes on bodyfat, cholesterol levels, blood-sugar etc?

The irony being that in the UK the government propose a so called "fat tax" whereby unhealthy foods are taxed higher at the other end they also plan on refusing fat people treatment on the NHS...Despite the fact that they paid a higher percentage towards the NHS in the 1st place through the fat taxes.

Originally posted by jaden101
The irony being that in the UK the government propose a so called "fat tax" whereby unhealthy foods are taxed higher at the other end they also plan on refusing fat people treatment on the NHS...Despite the fact that they paid a higher percentage towards the NHS in the 1st place through the fat taxes.

You know, I can't bring myself to say that is entirely a shit way of going about it. The "refusal" aspect does seem harsh though, not sure that's right.

This wouldn't work here, as the U.S. is over-loaded with overweight people.

In terms of obesity and heart disease rates by country, hasn't the one common factor among the fattest and most atherioslerotic countries been the English language?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Social Engineering? I think it's called "making money".

Originally posted by Robtard
You know, I can't bring myself to say that is entirely a shit way of going about it. The "refusal" aspect does seem harsh though, not sure that's right.

I agree that directly related taxes are a good idea. Taxation on cigarettes and alcohol funding the NHS has wen't on for years. But to then turn around and tell someone who's paid far more than their fair share of taxes throughout their long lives and who may have rarely visited the doctor as they were reasonably fit and healthy all their lives that they're being refused treatment for being too old or too fat is utterly disgraceful. Especially when, in the UK, anyone can get treated on the NHS...So if you're skinny but have never worked a day in your life and never paid a penny income tax you can still get treatment....If you arrived yesterday as an illegal immigrant and never paid a penny tax in your life, you can still get treatment at the UK taxpayer's expense.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Then why doesn't the government tax tofu? Soybeans?

all items are taxed

the proposed additional tax would be to offset the costs to health and the state by the product.

The ideal of the thread being that identifiable harm would increase the taxation of a product. Therefore, tofu and soybeans would need to be demonstrably unhealthy for such a tax to be levied.

You are better going after the subjectivity of "harm" if you really need to make such rhetoric.