05 Jan 17
Originally posted by checkbaiterOddly enough, the article you linked refers to unhealthy sugary drinks, not water. I still find it interesting how many people buy water from the shop rather than get it out of the tap.
Woman Outraged at 50% Drink Tax… Taxed $3.04 for Water!
http://conservativetribune.com/receipt-goes-viral-for-good-reason/
As for the drink in question, the article says it was "Propel Fitness Water".
You conservatives are so gullible its amazing!
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by twhiteheadI know it is sugary water, but that is not the point. It is appalling to me that the government wants to step in to every area of our lives.
Oddly enough, the article you linked refers to unhealthy sugary drinks, not water. I still find it interesting how many people buy water from the shop rather than get it out of the tap.
As for the drink in question, the article says it was "Propel Fitness Water".
You conservatives are so gullible its amazing!
So in your opinion it is good that the government can tell you what not to drink?
You may not have read this part....
Apparently, after reaching the highest echelons of local government, neither the mayor nor those around him have figured out just how taxation influences prices. While I don’t expect liberals to be all that bright when it comes to economic realities, this is especially bad, even for the left. (Philly’s mayor, if you even had to ask, is a Democrat.)
Taxes usually are going to be paid by the consumer.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by checkbaiter"So in your opinion it is good that the government can tell you what not to drink?"
I know it is sugary water, but that is not the point. It is appalling to me that the government wants to step in to every area of our lives.
So in your opinion it is good that the government can tell you what not to drink?
You may not have read this part....
[b]Apparently, after reaching the highest echelons of local government, neither the mayor ...[text shortened]... if you even had to ask, is a Democrat.)
Taxes usually are going to be paid by the consumer.[/b]
In general, it is good that those in charge of telling us what to do are democratically elected by us. That means government. And make no mistake, someone IS going to take charge of telling us what to do. Show me a place where that's not so.
Originally posted by JS357The government should not arbitrarily tell us what to do and if sugar is so bad that it is appropriate for a 50% tax in beverages then there should be an identical tax for sugar in coffee or sugar in ice cream or sugar in other products. There also should be a similar tax for other additives that are just as unhealthy such as salt or preservatives. However when the government picks on just one group (here the beverage industry) and when the amount (here 50 percent) seems obscenely high, we should question its appropriateness.
"So in your opinion it is good that the government can tell you what not to drink?"
In general, it is good that those in charge of telling us what to do are democratically elected by us. That means government. And make no mistake, someone IS going to take charge of telling us what to do. Show me a place where that's not so.
05 Jan 17
Originally posted by checkbaiterSo, you can't tell the difference between sugary drinks that are not good for you and water? I am pretty sure your thread title says 'water'. Was it dishonest, or deliberately deceptive?
I know it is sugary water, but that is not the point.
It is appalling to me that the government wants to step in to every area of our lives.
Why? Government uses taxes to encourage certain behaviour rather than using force (prohibition, anti drug laws etc).
Are you in favour of legalising all drugs? If not, then please explain why you support government interference in that instance.
The pretence that taxes are a 'liberal' thing is ridiculous. In fact I bet you voted for Trump in part because he promised to tax certain imports.
So in your opinion it is good that the government can tell you what not to drink?
In my opinion, the government should encourage healthy food through taxes. They do not tell you what not to drink. They encourage the drinks manufacturers to manufacture healthy drinks.
The reality is that we get very little choice about what we can buy at shops. And when unhealthy sells better thats all you can get.
You may not have read this part....
Apparently, after reaching the highest echelons of local government, neither the mayor nor those around him have figured out just how taxation influences prices.
Bet you can't find any actual substantiation for that ridiculous claim. What makes you think that the mayor and those around him do not understand taxes?
Taxes usually are going to be paid by the consumer.
Sure. That is kind of what taxes are. The thing is, that some consumers are more likely to buy the products with lower taxes, which are also healthier.
Originally posted by quackquackBut it isn't arbitrary at all. It is a carefully thought out tax to try and discourage the manufacture of unhealthy drinks that stupid people think is just expensive water (but still buy for some odd reason).
The government should not arbitrarily tell us what to do
and if sugar is so bad that it is appropriate for a 50% tax in beverages then there should be an identical tax for sugar in coffee or sugar in ice cream or sugar in other products.
Why?
The reality is that you do not get nearly as much sugar from coffee as you do from a high sugar soft drink.
There also should be a similar tax for other additives that are just as unhealthy such as salt or preservatives.
When they are significantly unhealthy, yes, I agree. Salt in itself is not unhealthy at all. Only too much salt is.
However when the government picks on just one group (here the beverage industry) and when the amount (here 50 percent) seems obscenely high, we should question its appropriateness.
Are you sure they are the only group taxed?
Sure, we can question appropriateness. But lets question it not declare it summarily inappropriate without a reasonable argument.
And worse, don't declare it 'liberal' when it isn't.
And if you have to start the discussion with a lie (that it is water that is being taxed) then you have lost the argument before you even begin.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI didn't use the word liberal -- the liberal argument would be that people should have maximum freedoms to choose what they ingest. And I did not even say that government can't make it more expensive through reasonable taxation of certain items. But it is inconsistent to allow people to freely purchase (without tax) pounds of sugar presumable so they can add it cookies, coffee and everything that eat and then have a 50% tax on one product in which sugar is added. To me this type of governmental favoritism should always be questioned as it is more likely government using its power to curry favor with certain groups.
But it isn't arbitrary at all. It is a carefully thought out tax to try and discourage the manufacture of unhealthy drinks that stupid people think is just expensive water (but still buy for some odd reason).
[b]and if sugar is so bad that it is appropriate for a 50% tax in beverages then there should be an identical tax for sugar in coffee or sugar in ...[text shortened]... ie (that it is water that is being taxed) then you have lost the argument before you even begin.
Originally posted by twhitehead"Why? Government uses taxes to encourage certain behaviour rather than using force (prohibition, anti drug laws etc)".
So, you can't tell the difference between sugary drinks that are not good for you and water? I am pretty sure your thread title says 'water'. Was it dishonest, or deliberately deceptive?
[b]It is appalling to me that the government wants to step in to every area of our lives.
Why? Government uses taxes to encourage certain behaviour rather than us ...[text shortened]... t some consumers are more likely to buy the products with lower taxes, which are also healthier.[/b]
Try not paying tax and you'll learn what force is 🙄
A fine is a tax for doing bad, a tax is a fine for doing good.
Both backed by F O R C E.
05 Jan 17
Originally posted by quackquackSorry, didn't mean to suggest you used the word liberal. I was referring to the OP and the link.
I didn't use the word liberal -- the liberal argument would be that people should have maximum freedoms to choose what they ingest.
But it is inconsistent to allow people to freely purchase (without tax) pounds of sugar presumable so they can add it cookies, coffee and everything that eat and then have a 50% tax on one product in which sugar is added.
It is not inconsistent. Your error is to assume the tax is on sugar. It is not. The tax is on a particular product, sugary drinks that are unhealthy. They are not unhealthy purely because they contain sugar, but because of the manner in which they are consumed - ie they result in the consumption of large amounts of sugar.
To me this type of governmental favoritism should always be questioned as it is more likely government using its power to curry favor with certain groups.
Except it isn't favouritism. It is good to question things, but not so good to jump to the wrong conclusion.
05 Jan 17
Originally posted by WajomaI know full well what force it. You on the other hand are deliberately dodging the point which suggests you know you are wrong.
Try not paying tax and you'll learn what force is 🙄
A fine is a tax for doing bad, a tax is a fine for doing good.
Both backed by F O R C E.
Huh? A tax is a fine for doing good? In what way? You seem to be totally confused about what is going on here.
And a fine is not a tax. It is a fine.
And yes, they are both backed by force and I never ever suggested otherwise.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
05 Jan 17
Originally posted by quackquackYes, we should question it. I see you are freely doing so. It seems to me that your gripe isn't about freedom, it's about not having things go your way.
The government should not arbitrarily tell us what to do and if sugar is so bad that it is appropriate for a 50% tax in beverages then there should be an identical tax for sugar in coffee or sugar in ice cream or sugar in other products. There also should be a similar tax for other additives that are just as unhealthy such as salt or preservatives. How ...[text shortened]... when the amount (here 50 percent) seems obscenely high, we should question its appropriateness.
05 Jan 17
Originally posted by JS357Is there any evidence that taxing soft drinks in this way leads to less obesity? that is the rationale for the tax, is it not?
Yes, we should question it. I see you are freely doing so. It seems to me that your gripe isn't about freedom, it's about not having things go your way.