- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Boulder passes nations steepest sugary beverage tax - Agree or disagree?
Posted on 8/1/17 at 1:01 pm to jdeval1
Posted on 8/1/17 at 1:01 pm to jdeval1
quote:
Why not put a big arse tax on everything that's unhealthy then? Fast food, fried chicken, booze, potato chips, pizza, burgers
It already exists for booze, cigs, and now sugary beverages. I wouldn't mind seeing it rolled out to fast food joints in general and would vote in favor of that.
1
Posted on 8/1/17 at 1:04 pm to Salmon
quote:
is this something to be proud of?
to me and the other people who voted for the tax it is. sugar is essentially poison, baw
Posted on 8/1/17 at 1:04 pm to Chucktown_Badger
Chicago's tax is now in effect, but get this, in true Chicago fashion they didn't even try to disguise it as a simple money grab.
So that's the line, but the tax still applies to zero calorie and sugar free drinks.
Goddamn pieces of shite is what they are.
Oh, our tax doesn't apply to drinks bought using food stamps. So our tax dollars can now buy even more of those "death drinks" but they won't be taxed because we don't want to piss off the poors that are voting these a-holes into office...the people who are the least healthy and sucking at the public teat. And Heaven forbid we simply say that food stamps won't work for sugary drinks...
quote:
Cook County, which includes Chicago and surrounding suburbs, joins a growing number of localities across the United States that have adopted measures to cut consumption of sugary drinks for health reasons, including Seattle and San Francisco.
So that's the line, but the tax still applies to zero calorie and sugar free drinks.
Goddamn pieces of shite is what they are.
Oh, our tax doesn't apply to drinks bought using food stamps. So our tax dollars can now buy even more of those "death drinks" but they won't be taxed because we don't want to piss off the poors that are voting these a-holes into office...the people who are the least healthy and sucking at the public teat. And Heaven forbid we simply say that food stamps won't work for sugary drinks...
This post was edited on 8/1/17 at 1:07 pm
Posted on 8/1/17 at 1:05 pm to HippieTiger
quote:
voted for the tax
quote:
HippieTiger
Checks out.
Posted on 8/1/17 at 1:06 pm to mylsuhat
quote:
all "sin-taxes" are ridiculous and should not exist
I agree, but I think they should 100% prevent tax-payer funded food stamps from being able to purchase things like this.
And I think they should put warning labels on shite like cigarettes, but say “THIS shite WILL MAKE YOU A FAT, GROSS frick IF YOU INGEST TOO MUCH”.
But don’t tax it.
Posted on 8/1/17 at 1:08 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
low-income populations that see a disparate effect of chronic conditions like heart disease, diabetes and obesity.
And why do these broke dick motherfrickers have disparate conditions of heart disease, diabetes, and obesity? Because they get govt handouts like welfare and WIC. And they buy unhealthy shite to eat and drink. Cut their welfare off and tell them to start paying for their own food, maybe they'll get healthy.
Posted on 8/1/17 at 1:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:The distributors are the ones taxed, but the price increase carries over to consumers. then the government will accuse the merchants of "gouging" the customers also, time to invest in a quick mart concentrating on sugary drinks juuuuuuuuust outside the city limits of Boulder
Yep, it's call the market economy. I doubt if there are very many people in the demographic they are targeting in the first place.
Posted on 8/1/17 at 1:11 pm to tigerinthebueche
quote:
Cut their welfare off and tell them to start paying for their own food, maybe they'll get healthy.
Just make their welfare only work for essentials, like fruits, vegetables, standard meats, bread, eggs, milk, etc.
Instead they buy 72 oz. family size bottles of red drink, zebra cakes, and hot pockets.
Posted on 8/1/17 at 1:11 pm to HippieTiger
quote:
to me and the other people who voted for the tax it is.
being the most willing group of people to impose taxes upon yourself shouldn't be something to be proud of, but hey, if it works for y'all...
quote:
sugar is essentially poison, baw
irrelevant
Posted on 8/1/17 at 1:12 pm to HippieTiger
I don't like government dictating things like diet (since the govt knows jack shite about health) but given this is a city ordinance I can't really give any shits assuming it was voted on.
If you don't like this it is easy to move. If people hate it, the suburbs/small towns around should capitalize on the sentiment.
If you don't like this it is easy to move. If people hate it, the suburbs/small towns around should capitalize on the sentiment.
Posted on 8/1/17 at 1:13 pm to tigerinthebueche
quote:
And why do these broke dick motherfrickers have disparate conditions of heart disease, diabetes, and obesity? Because they get govt handouts like welfare and WIC. And they buy unhealthy shite to eat and drink. Cut their welfare off and tell them to start paying for their own food, maybe they'll get healthy.
Oh lawd, you are one of those types
Posted on 8/1/17 at 1:14 pm to HippieTiger
HFCS should be illegal, or at a minimum come with a health label warning like tobacco.
Posted on 8/1/17 at 1:17 pm to AUCE05
quote:
HFCS should be illegal, or at a minimum come with a health label warning like tobacco.
All sugar is the same. You even Fed Up, bro?
Posted on 8/1/17 at 1:20 pm to Chucktown_Badger
Of course. But concentration levels, and the ability to increase sugar % and decrease fiber and micronutrients is not the same.
Posted on 8/1/17 at 1:20 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
I looked it up and surprisingly it is taxed but alcoholic beverages aren't. Found my loophole.
quote:
Frappuccino would be taxed if you buy it at the supermarket (where it’s distributed by Pepsi), but exempt if you get it at a Starbucks. The so-called Starbucks Loophole was first noted by the Puget Sound Business Journal.
Posted on 8/1/17 at 1:24 pm to HippieTiger
i have no problem with this. the local citizens voted on it and should be allowed to dictate the future of their city. any boulder residents wanting to chug some carbonated beverages are more than welcome to come join us in the south.
Posted on 8/1/17 at 1:27 pm to HippieTiger
quote:You're serious. And that is scary. Even scarier is that your town is filled with people with this same line of thought.
I wouldn't mind seeing it rolled out to fast food joints in general and would vote in favor of that.
Posted on 8/1/17 at 1:30 pm to HippieTiger
I strongly disagree because it disgusts me for politicians to use the tax code to try and influence behavior.
Posted on 8/1/17 at 1:33 pm to highcotton2
quote:
Frappuccino would be taxed if you buy it at the supermarket (where it’s distributed by Pepsi), but exempt if you get it at a Starbucks. The so-called Starbucks Loophole was first noted by the Puget Sound Business Journal.
That was in Seattle. The Puget Sound Business Journal was a clue.
Posted on 8/1/17 at 1:33 pm to AUCE05
quote:
decrease fiber and micronutrients
No form of sugar has fiber or micronutrients. It has...sugar.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News