What do you think about a tax on sugary drinks as a way to curb obesity and finance health care reform?

I think it is morally wrong to allow a government to use taxation as a way to influence personal choices. I hate the concept of a sin tax, such as what we tack on to tobacco, alcohol and certain other products. If a product is legal, it should be taxed at the same rate as everything else.

ANY food or drink item that is overindulged in can be bad for our health. This sort of taxation is nothing more than a money grab and all the justification and moralizing in the world can't disguise it. As the article states, the government already influences our diet in various ways, including educating people about the "food pyramid".

Education is fine, as that is simply giving citizens the information they need to make an informed choice. When they cross the line from education to taxation they go from a helpful mode into a punitive one. The government is essentially saying that they don't care if you consume something unhealthy as long as you give them extra money while you make yourself sick.

This is just like the tax on cigarettes. The government always wants more of our money, so they tax small addicted segments of the population in order to get that money. If the passionate "stop obesity" crowd outnumbers the soda addicts, soda drinkers will get taxed more.

The government doesn't really want people to stop drinking soda, they simply want more money from them. If people stopped drinking soda, the soda companies would make less money, employee less people and pay less taxes. If the government truly desires to use taxation as a way to fight obesity and fund socialist health care programs they need to start a "fat slob" tax.

Make people go to the Big Brother weighing station when they pay their income tax and charge them for being over weight. It wouldn't matter if the excess lard came from chugging soda, scarfing down pork rinds or indulging at all-you-can-eat buffets. While this level of governmental intrusion would hopefully lead to a revolution, at least this approach could claim some degree of honesty as it would target the problematic condition rather than unfairly punish healthy people who occasionally drink soda.

With a soda tax people will keep on chugging and the government will simply exploit their addiction for profit. Once people get hooked on a product, they will keep buying it even when the cost goes up. I once worked at a deli and constantly had people try to buy soda, alcohol and cigarettes using food stamps.

They had so little money that they needed government assistance to buy food yet they still tried to spend what little they had on non-nourishing items because they wanted it so badly. If soda gets more expensive, addicts on a tight budget will leave the veggies and milk off of their shopping list so that they can still afford the soda. If we allow the idea of a soda tax, how long until we tax salty snack foods because of high blood pressure problems or cheap ground meat because of fat and cholesterol issues?

Why not impose a 100% tax on fast food since most of it is so bad for you? How about setting up government sponsored gyms and taxing anyone who fails to complete their mandatory workout since failure to exercise is unhealthy? Instead lets just take it to its natural conclusion and let everyone pay for their own health care and eat/drink whatever they please.

If the goal is to discourage soda consumption by making it more expensive, all they have to do is eliminate government corn subsidies. As many people have already commented on that NY Times article, this would raise the price of high fructose corn syrup, which would in turn make soda more expensive. It would also make a lot of other unhealthy food and beverages more expensive at the same time.

The government won't do this, because this would not give them the excuse of extracting more money from us via the new tax.

(i.e. , the so-called "asphalt-tar-for-cigarette-tar" tax)). Likewise, any taxes on sodas or sweets would have a negligible effect.

Besides, who said that sodas are the prime reason for obesity? Fast food, not to mention virtually unlimited supplies, at least in the USA, and little self-control are far more responsible for obesity in youngsters and adults. To be fair, people are "wired" to eat as much as is available (think of your prehistoric ancestors, who had to fight tooth-and-nail for their next meal; not too many chubby cavemen have been found, to date!

). However, modern man has no such rationale, and, unfortunately, we can't tax lack of control or stupidity.

As a libertarian, I think the government should get out of our lives and our pockets as much as possible. Taxing us for things like this is silly. I mean, someone who is thin and in perfect condition, muscular, exercises and eats well will pay the same tax as someone who is obese and in poor health and doesn't exercise or take care of themselves.Do we come to a point where we have to stand on a scale and get our blood pressure and blood sugar taken in order to tell what we can and can't eat?

Watch this: aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf It's really worth watching if you haven't seen it. No, I mean REALLY worth watching.

No- because people are going to do what they want - raising the tax didn't stop people from drinking, smoking or buying gasoline!

I think the tax is ignorant or exploitative at least. It would make sense if ONLY obese people needed health care. That is not the case however.To select part of the population to fund any project designed for all, is ridiculous.

As far as the article and the attacks back and forth, it doesn't surprise me. These type of arguments happen every day. Just listen to a liberal show then switch to a conservative show and you will see that they both put a spin on every situation to further their own agenda.

Liberals - Conservatives, Democrats - Republicans, Management - Employees, Soda manufacturers - Politicians that want to tax them, the list goes on ad infinitum. Spin, spin, spin... I also doubt the tax is really to combat obesity. If it was then 100% of the money would go to that cause.

I think this is just more smoke and mirrors to get the bill passed. Alcohol, tobacco, sugar, what's next?

I don't think it will have any effect of any kind, meaning I don't even think the tax revenue will generate a measurable benefit for health care either. Where I live, many stores have recently started charging their customers five cents for each plastic shopping bag they use. It doesn't have any effect on me whatsoever.

I know I personally sometimes view deterrents as challenges, so if others adopt the same mindset, that may be part of the reason schemes like this fail.

I don't think a 5 cent tax on a can of coke is going to change people's drinking habits, though it will generate a lot of money. I'm all for it.

In general, having the government tell its citizens how to conduct their personal lives (e.g. What to eat or drink) is troublesome. After all, what makes our Representatives and Senators authorities on what is the right thing for any one particular one of us to eat or drink? Furthermore, with all the lobbying action likely to be involved how independent will be their debate and their vote?

As long as what I drink or eat has negligible effect on others, the government should not try to regulate or even "encourage" what I choose to do. Having said all that, there is that critical part 'as long as what I drink or eat has negligible effect on others." In the tobacco lawsuits that resulted in large payouts by tobacco companies to the government, the premise resulting in those payouts was that the overall result of having people properly use the products in question was increased medical costs to Medicare and Medicaid.

One can similarly make a valid argument that drinking sugary beverages increases costs to society through increased obesity rates and its resultant illnesses. In addition, sugary beverages are not a life necessity, so having their prices increase will not significantly damage any consumers who cannot afford the higher prices. Whether the response should be taxation, or damages, is probably immaterial.

If the latter are assessed, the companies in question will most likely raise prices, passing the cost to the consumer anyway. Morally however, I'd prefer the latter, as it puts the onus where it more properly belongs. The countervailing argument is that the cost of assessing a tax are much lower than the cost of litigation.

Thus I'd say that taxation of sugary beverages is at least ethically and financially a viable proposition. Whether it is also legally and politically feasible is a separate issue.

The tax is an excellent idea. It is well documented that a tax on an item reduces its use. It does not stop people from buying; but, on the average it discourages it.

The danger of sugar has been known for years but only recently have the major public health and medical associations been convinced that there is enough conclusive evidence and now they have begun to speak out. Discouraging unhealthy drinks by means of taxes has been a part of American tradition since the founding of the country. President Washington led the troops to put down a rebellion against the tax on whiskey in western Pennsylvania.

That tax had been chosen because the founders of our country felt that whiskey was a harmful drink which was being abused by too many (as opposed to beer and wine, which they praised as healthy). They needed to tax something, and they picked whiskey because it was an unhealthy drink. Taxing drinks with added sugar would benefit public health by reducing obesity.

Sodas with sugar have no nutritional value and are addictive. That's one of the insidious things about sugar, it's a highly refined chemical which is addictive even though it starts as an ordinary natural product. Corn syrup is as bad: sucrose, fructose, and glucose are the three types of sugar which are overconsumed because they are sold and used in refined form.

Naturally any such tax would not stop people drinking sugared soda, wipe out obesity, or balance the budget. However, it would do a bit towards each. Taxes on tobacco have reduced smoking, saving many lives.

Taxes on sugared drinks would reduce obesity and other sugar related health problems by reducing their consumption. That would save money on health care while the taxes would provide some money for other purposes. A one cent tax per can has been estimated at 15 billion dollars a year.

Something like 25 cents a can would be more reasonable, and could generate about 375 billion dollars a year. That's a lot. In so far as the tax reduced consumption, the amount of the tax would go down but the amount saved in health care would go up.It's a win-win situation.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.