Hard Talk on Soft Drinks

12345
RSS Feeds
September 20, 2009
3:16
The ongoing health care debate once again brings taxing on soda and other sugary drinks into discussion. But is this a good idea for everyone?
YOU NEED FLASH TO VIEW THIS VIDEO
No PhotoPaulo Koeberle
September 26, 2009
12:06 AM
A tax on soft drinks would be acceptable if the revenues were used to lower the cost of MILK. Got the idea? Not for other things. One burger for one brocolli.
No PhotoA.J. Harris
September 24, 2009
08:42 PM
In concerns of the economy, this not the right time for this right idea. Imagine smaller islands under the U.S. Free Association.
No PhotoArden Kasner
September 24, 2009
12:11 PM
When I was in Vietman a carton of Camels were $1.10 and a case of Coke was $1.10. Camels are now $65.00 and Pepsi is about $7.00. I would like to find out what Obama and Congress enjoy the most and make in not affordable to them.
ACrimaldiACrimaldi
September 23, 2009
04:43 PM
I don't think this tax is an effective sollution because those that like soda will continue drinking it, just like those that like to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes continue to do that as well. Also, think of all the other foods out there that are equally sugary and bad for one's health. Little debbies, Starbucks Frappacinos and Candy to name a few. Once we start taxing soda, what will be next? I feel like its opening up pandora's box.
No PhotoCeckel
September 22, 2009
06:13 PM
I think the tax increase would have to be pretty substantial in order to curb soda intake at all. While I agree that soda contributes to health problems, I think in comparison to other things like cigarettes that have sin taxes, soda just isn't in the same category. Soda drinking needs to decrease in the US but I don't know if this is the right way to do that.
Jessi StaffordJessi Stafford
September 22, 2009
01:07 PM
If the tax is levied on manufacturers and not necessarily put onto each can/bottle of soda, then the last PSA is irrelevant, trying to tell the consumer their right to drink soda is being taken away. That said, what's the point of taxing the manufacturer and not the consumer if it isn't going to curb soda drinking, which would better their health. Another point to all of this is the fact that the cigarette tax was not as highly contested even though it could be said to be part of a 'nanny state' as well. It's a double standard. You either tax luxuries or you don't. You try to encourage better health all around or you don't. Then people won't have the opportunity to point fingers.
Chiguy87Chiguy87
September 21, 2009
12:39 PM
This would be a good revenue building idea. If you look at the extra taxes on cigarettes or alcohol, which are harmful for health, people still pay it. There isnt as much social stigma attached to eating unhealthy as much as smoking. This wont be effective for fighting obesity but possibly for paying healthcare..
No PhotoDaniel
September 21, 2009
12:31 PM
I think in order to curb obesity we cannot simply restrict certain food groups via taxes, regulations or other methods but we must promote more of an active lifestyle and learn how to incorporate it in our daily lives. Taxes on soft drinks wont directly change this but it may be a start to a new way of thinking.
Derrick HoDerrick Ho
September 21, 2009
09:27 AM
The tax may help pay for health care, but will it help to reduce obesity in America, I hardly think so. America's obsession over soda makes it rather price inelastic if you ask me. So even if soda prices are going to double if drink manufacturers even allow for that to happen, I don't think people will stop drinking.
akorozcoakorozco
September 21, 2009
09:10 AM
At this point, the obesity epidemic in the US isn't going to be changed by individuals. A tax would probably have the effect of slowing down the chugging of corn syrup that happens here every day.
No Photogmaxson
September 20, 2009
10:42 PM
Where would a 'sin tax' such as this end. What ingredients would be an indication that such a tax is justified. This would be an absolute regulation nightmare. Less government, less regulation, more choice, better education. Great topic by the way. Love your work Newsy!
No PhotoKayla
September 20, 2009
09:18 PM
I don't think this will in any way help curb America's obesity problem. Being overweight comes from more than having a few too many Cokes. Changing attitudes and habits is the only way that problem will ever get solved. STILL, taxing sodas heavier sounds like a good way to raise money for health care. Come on, people. You're saying you'd rather not have universal healthcare than pay a few cents more for a soda?
No PhotoKatherine Cleerson
September 20, 2009
05:45 PM
I also disagree with manufacturers spreading the cost to keep consumers from paying the extra tax. that defeats the health benefit of this tax. we've seen an increase in smokers quitting since they've been hit in the wallet so many America's obese need to feel the pinch when they pay so they'll cut back.
Ashanya IndralingamAshanya Indralingam
September 20, 2009
05:40 PM
while the means to an end (namely funding for national healthcare)benefit of the soda tax are unquestionable, even better is the long-run health impact of this---fewer fat Americans! I think this will ultimately pass because it doesn't impact the diet soda industry, just the sugar sweetened kinds. Soda is addictive but most people made the switch to diet years ago, so, luckily, we've already had a transition period.
EDITOR'S PICK|MOST POPULAR|MOST RECENT|MOST COMMENTED|HIGHEST RATED

SMART VIDEO SNAPSHOTS

2:37
November 18, 2009
2:36
November 16, 2009
2:48
November 16, 2009

Newsy