Well, if it were applied my way, it would make many sodas taste better and bad tasting/unhealthy sodas more expensive and less available. If its applied to all sweetened drinks, it'll make soda more expensive and diet will remain the same. If instead of doing this, income taxes are raised, there will be a slight hardship in the short term, but in the long term (as in, within 2-5 years), your wages will go up, your quality of life will go up (better roads, better education, better water and air quality, better access and affordability of care) and the value of your money will go up.
Originally posted by inimalist
all items are taxedthe 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.
It still is social engineering. It's an attempt to make people eat healthier through taxing them for a choice the government disagrees with. It's not right.
Originally posted by Robtard
There actually is:This is of course besides the point that this proposed 'soda-tax' is shit.
I disagree on fact. The extreme majority of people in the US make less than $250k a year. If we assume carbonated and other sugary beverages are consumed, equally, across all income demographics, then we can conclude, quite readily, that the extreme majority will be paying the extreme majority of the tax revenue on this law.
In other words, this law is considered "fair" in that it doesn't discriminate by income class because everyone pays for it. However, since this tax would collect the extreme majority of taxes from the people that fit into a specific income demographic, we can say, with no problem, that this tax is aimed primarily at the sub $250K group. You don't think they didn't think about where the majority of tax revenue would come from? I am an economic newb, and I deduced this much on my own in mere seconds upon reading. They, being heavily steeped in this bullshit every single day; having specific experts and aids to assist them, giving them advice that will help legislation and statements be the most "constituent friendly" and media friendly; being aware of the political promises: both internal to their campaign and external to Obama's campaign; and being aware of the economic troubles as well as anyone else in America; certainly can be called aware of what they are doing. (That was a long sentence. The very first part and very last part are the real sentence...I should highlight, but you're more than smart enough to deduce that.)
Originally posted by King Kandy
Okay i'm not going to address the first part of your quote because it was basically "poor people drink lots of soda" and another thing that i'll be addressing shortly.
I never said "poor people drinks lots of soda." Nor did I imply that.
Someone who makes $249,999 is hardly poor. I'm not sure how you derived "poor people drinks lots of soda" out of
the vast majority of this tax revenue will come from the [sub]$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.
Originally posted by King Kandy
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.
I know you didn't bring it up. I brought it up. I had an epiphany. Saying it isn't legislation primarily aimed at the sub$250k group would be factually incorrect. Do you really think the $250k+ group really drinks more than 20 times the amount of soft-drinks per-person than then $250k+ group does? In fact, isn't the $250K+ group only comprising of 2% of the US population? That means my numbers are off. I've got to recalculate that. Let's see. That's 49 times the amount of soft-drinks, if they are to remain proportional. Is that even remotely logical to conclude that I said that "poor people drink lots of soda."
And, yes, many people could do better if they ate smarter. It's not more expensive to eat healthier. It's just harder to do so in America.
And, I agree: if .03 per item is significant, then it is just that: financially significant.
However, the taxes COULD add up. Find me some numbers on sugary beverages consumed, and we can do the math on the yearly costs per household.
Originally posted by King Kandy
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.
As we now know, Obama was specific and meant any and all taxes. There is no wiggle room this time. KR is 100% correct and even my income demographics argument isn't necessary now.
What does this tell us about Obama? Simple: He's a politician.
This is where the belief of natural property rights comes into play. If a government does exist, it's only job is to protect that natural right. Since it is natural, it is not under society's control and outlawing it is not controlling society, but protecting individuals rights to choose.
Those things are voluntary, and as such are not social control by a government body.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
This is where the belief of natural property rights comes into play. If a government does exist, it's only job is to protect that natural right. Since it is natural, it is not under society's control and outlawing it is not controlling society, but protecting individuals rights to choose.
belief in a "natural law" would be social control
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Those things are voluntary, and as such are not social control by a government body.
granted, though oppression does begin at home
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
But, we refuse to force people to be rational. We will never try to push people towards anything we want with coercion. As long as they do the same, there isn't a problem.
Designing a system so that only one sort of person can succeed (which Libertarianism and anarcho-capialism do) is a form of social control. You're just picking a different sort of person to put on a pedestal.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
You are correct. It would be a social control by protecting everyone's right to choose, which in the end makes it a paradox.
Reducing the level of absolute freedom to ensure a certain level of functional freedom isn't really a paradox.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
It controls society by allowing everyone in society to be unrestricted.
Excluding mind control no society can every exist where everyone is unrestricted.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Yup. But unlike government, it is not a coercive monopoly.
Unless you want it to last more than three days. At some point people will realize they can work together to benefit themselves. At that point anarchy falls apart and gets replaced with something else. To keep anarchy "stable" you need a government to brutally enforce natural law.
At which point the whole thing seems to be rather pointless.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Reducing the level of absolute freedom to ensure a certain level of functional freedom isn't really a paradox.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Excluding mind control no society can every exist where everyone is unrestricted.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Unless you want it to last more than three days. At some point people will realize they can work together to benefit themselves. At that point anarchy falls apart and gets replaced with something else. To keep anarchy "stable" you need a government to brutally enforce natural law.