Have we discussed the proposed obesity tax?

[Spinach]

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local...vernor_paterson_proposes_obesity_tax_a-1.html

Governor Paterson proposes 'Obesity Tax,' a tax on non-diet sodas
BY GLENN BLAIN and KENNETH LOVETT
DAILY NEWS ALBANY BUREAU

Sunday, December 14th 2008, 11:37 PM

Gov. Paterson, as part of a $121 billion budget to be unveiled Tuesday, will propose an "obesity tax" of about 15% on nondiet drinks.

This means a Diet Coke might sell for a $1 - even as the same size bottle of its calorie-rich alter ego would go for $1.15.

Paterson's budget also calls for a 3% cut in education spending, a $620-a-year tuition hike at SUNY and a $600 increase at CUNY - and about $3.5 billion in health care cuts, a source said.

The Democratic governor will not call for a broad-based income tax boost, but he will push to restore the sales tax on clothing and footwear.

The drastic belt-tightening comes as lawmakers struggle to close a $15 billion deficit this year and next.

"It's painful to make these decisions," Paterson said Sunday.

State employees again will be asked to forgo their 3% raises next year and defer five days' pay until they leave their jobs, the source said. In all, Paterson will propose about $9 billion in cuts, $4 billion in new taxes and fees, and $1.5 billion in nonrecurring revenue, a second source said.

The so-called obesity tax would generate an estimated $404 million a year. Milk, juice, diet soda and bottled water would be exempt from the tax.

"I'll just buy less," said Victor Lopez, 55, of Manhattan, as he drank a Coke at a midtown Subway store.

"I don't like to buy Diet Coke," said Amaury Garcia, 16, who works at a flower shop in Penn Station. "I'll just not buy any sodas if it goes up."

Public health advocates welcomed news of the tax, saying it would help the fight against childhood obesity.

"Raising the price of this liquid candy will put children and teens on a path to a healthier diet," said Elie Ward of the American Academy of Pediatrics of New York State.

The Paterson administration also announced steps yesterday to expand the state's social services net, including a 30% increase in welfare payments over three years starting January 2010, increased money for food banks and expanded access to the state's Family Health Plus program.

Paterson also hopes to make it easier for people to enroll in Medicaid by eliminating face-to-face interviews and fingerprinting requirements.

[email protected]

With Edgar Sandoval and Erica Pearson

Here's my problem with it-----it's a slippery slope, imo. How far will this thing go? I'm pretty well for "sin taxes", but who gets to decide what is healthy and what is not. Also, this tax is on "non-diet drinks". Here is another article (one of many) indicating that diet drinks are a greater contributor toward obesity than it's sugary counterpart.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159579,00.html

And for those who don't care for Fox:

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20050613/drink-more-diet-soda-gain-more-weight?pagenumber=3

Thoughts?

 

[donnA]

my thoughts? it's stupid.

 

[Salty]

Hmm, Sin tax - what is considered sin - remember "take a little wine for your stomack sake"

Whats next - Mickeys D, BK, Wendys ect....

And its just not soda - there are some other 100 new fees, taxes ect.

But Patterson does want to increase socal spending - welfare ect.

no wonder so many compaines are leaving NY to go down South

Salty

last one out of New York, please turn off the lights

 

[Spinach]

"sin tax" refers to alcohol, cigarettes, etc. Some States have adopted such taxes and are supposed to spend the tax money on education about the dangers of them.

I doubt this particular tax will go to educate on the causes of obesity.

 

[mcdirector]

There are people who can't drink diet soda's because they can't have the nutri-sweet.

Given my druthers, I'd rather always have water, but I've been in some situations where I had to get a soda and I'm not gonna drink a diet.

"Raising the price of this liquid candy will put children and teens on a path to a healthier diet," said Elie Ward of the American Academy of Pediatrics of New York State.

CAN HE SPELL liquid migraine. AND he'd make me pay more for the one that wouldn't give me one?

pffffffttttt

the government needs to stay out of my dietary choices. Period.

 

[Spinach]

Dietary choices are costing us, as a nation, a TON in medical care (no pun intended). Obesity (which is a word I don't care for, fwiw) is fast becoming an epidemic, if you will, among our youth. Perhaps....just perhaps, it would cause more people to consume less, and ultimately help our youth. Yes, adults should have the right to make their own food choices, but what about the kids. They don't get to decide.

As for the tax, I'm undecided.

 

[carpro]

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local...vernor_paterson_proposes_obesity_tax_a-1.html



Here's my problem with it-----it's a slippery slope, imo. How far will this thing go? I'm pretty well for "sin taxes", but who gets to decide what is healthy and what is not.

Liberals and democrats.

 

[Revmitchell]

The government has no business trying to profit from control of people. This is unamerican and shameful.

 

[Spinach]

What is the answer to stopping obesity then?

See, I think most people know they are eating junk and either don't care or are addicted, in a way, to the foods they are eating. They either won't or can't control themselves. If it weren't for the health costs to take care of them after their bad choices, I wouldn't care one way or the other-----their choice.

However, their choice becomes a problem for all of us, as taxpayers. In addition, the next generation doesn't seem to have much of a chance.

If we don't hold people accountable for themselves, should we hold the food industry accountable?

When and how will this obesity epidemic end?

 

[saturneptune]

Just think, if they pass this tax, Baptist pastors will get America's highest award for balancing the national debt.

 

[Revmitchell]

What is the answer to stopping obesity then?

See, I think most people know they are eating junk and either don't care or are addicted, in a way, to the foods they are eating. They either won't or can't control themselves. If it weren't for the health costs to take care of them after their bad choices, I wouldn't care one way or the other-----their choice.

However, their choice becomes a problem for all of us, as taxpayers. In addition, the next generation doesn't seem to have much of a chance.

If we don't hold people accountable for themselves, should we hold the food industry accountable?

When and how will this obesity epidemic end?

It is not the governments place or job to stop obesity. Turning to government for every little ill in life is lazy and unconstitutional. Why can't libs think of any other methods? There are not many if any problems in this country that cannot be solved by restoring this country to being based on godly families of one man married to one woman where dads and mothers are active and God fearing.

 

[Spinach]

Just think, if they pass this tax, Baptist pastors will get America's highest award for balancing the national debt.

Baptist Beer, anyone (for those who aren't in the know, that's what I've heard Coke called)?

Reminds me of a joke I heard when I was a kid----"Why are Baptist preachers so fat? Because every time they pray, they think it's time to eat."

Back to the topic---I'm still not sure how I feel about the tax. If there were to be such a tax, I'd prefer that the money be spent on health education, rather than balancing an already poor budget. I see the current proposal as a cop-out. I see a need for taxes and a follow-up with a justification as to why they taxed this particular thing----what a large amount of taxes they could receive, too!

To help me make up my mind on this issue, does anyone have any information as to whether or not cigarette and alcohol sales dropped after imposing a tax on them? Thanks.

 

[donnA]

how about a higher tax on toilet paper.
I know many people who smoke, and not one quit when the taxes were raised. They've been talking about higher tobacco taxes, everyone I've heard talk about it (lots here in tobacco country) say they'll just pay it, still haven't heard one person say they'll quit smoking.
Last year we had a tax hike on gas, can you believe it, after were paying nearly $4. to begin with. And not one person quit buying gas because of it.
Point is, no one stops anything because the taxes go up on it.
And isn't that just what we want, the government finding new ways to tax us, more ways to get more of our money.
Fat causes high cholesterol, clogged arteries, eventual heart attack, weight gain(obesity). Should the government step in and rescue us by imposing stiff taxes to try and prevent people from eating meat and thus killing themselves from it?
And here I thought we had some sort of semblance of a free a country.

 

[Spinach]

I agree that it's a slippery slope.

Anyone from New York know if this will actually be passed?