Comments on: What Do Taxpayers Really Think About a Soda Tax?

By: Ron Hassett

Ron Hassett — Tue, 19 May 2009 17:53:03 +0000

I’m not opposed to “sin” taxes as such but we don’t have enough sins to tax. As a result, some sins are unduly taxed to please minority groups. Why not legalize gambling in every state. That would generate substantial tax dollars. Or legalize the oldest profession in the world. (prostitution). It’s underground, uncontrolled and wrecks havoc on too many women. At least it could be controlled, subjected to health department standards and taxed.

By: christopher ganiere

christopher ganiere — Tue, 19 May 2009 00:35:16 +0000

Taxing to make people “healthier” is bad policy. Taxes should be for a single purpose – raise revenue in the most fair, most efficient way possible.

By: Do taxgirl Readers Support Sin Taxes? | taxgirl

Do taxgirl Readers Support Sin Taxes? | taxgirl — Tue, 19 May 2009 00:28:53 +0000

[...] still time to participate in the “sin tax” survey… It only takes a few moments of your time and it’s completely anonymous. Sound off on [...]

By: elush

elush — Sat, 16 May 2009 18:23:04 +0000

I have to agree with Rebecca that this is more a tax on the poor and under educated than anything else. Melody is right too, ’sin’ taxes are a crock admit you want revenue and leave out the false concept that the tax is for promoting good behavior.

Imagine if 30 years ago if they created a Butter tax and pushed everyone to use margarine which they now realize was mostly made up of trans-fats, one of the taboo food de jour. Same thing for eggs or saccharine. With most artificial foods we just don’t know enough about what the long term affects of any of them are to try and use taxes to encourage or discourage using or avoiding any of them.

By: Bill

Bill — Sat, 16 May 2009 13:47:32 +0000

Isn’t it interesting that in all the fervor to control everything we eat and drink due to the concern over our health and the related costs, “Uncle Nanny” totally ignores the one thing that costs our society thousands of lives, destroyed families, and billions in health care each year- Big Booze! Not a word is mentioned about adding more tax or mounting campaigns to control us in that area. Wonder why……

By: Melody

Melody — Fri, 15 May 2009 21:02:24 +0000

I’ve read studies which show very clearly that as the consumption of drinks sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup has increased, obesity and it’s stepchildren–diabetes, heart disease, and cancer, not to mention gum disease– have increased also. A little education could go a long way, here; but if the sole purpose of this legislation is to raise revenue rather than as deterrence, I can swallow it (pun intended). As a smoker, I’ve seen my tax increases pay for everything from stadiums (for sports I don’t watch and in which I can’t even smoke) to health care for children (better, at least). So, let’s call a spade a spade and tell people we’re raising some revenue here. We may not like it, but at least we can understand it.

By: Bo Ives

Bo Ives — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:49:44 +0000

I don’t believe it. I came back to see if there were any additional comments and found a Crystal Light add on the right margin. Good for you Kelly!

By: Bo Ives

Bo Ives — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:23:11 +0000

I know sodas no longer use sugar to sweeten them. I would impose a tax on sugar and salt. Both ingrediants are “cheaper than dirt” and both ingrediants lead to health problems if over used. Perhaps taxing them directly would move people to more healthy substitutes which cost substanitially more.

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Thu, 14 May 2009 01:45:54 +0000

Unfortunately this is just another tax on the poor like the cigarette tax.