Governor of New York: Why We Need An Obesity Tax

[sunshower]

From a letter written by David Paterson, governor of New York, to CNN:

Like many New Yorkers, I remember a time when nearly everyone smoked. In 1950, Collier's reported that more than three-quarters of adult men smoked. This epidemic had a devastating and long-lasting impact on public health.

Today, we find ourselves in the midst of a new public health epidemic: childhood obesity.

What smoking was to my parents' generation, obesity is to my children's generation. Nearly one out of every four New Yorkers under the age of 18 is obese. In many high-poverty areas, the rate is closer to one out of three.

That is why, in the state budget I presented last Tuesday, I proposed a tax on sugared beverages like soda. Research has demonstrated that soft-drink consumption is one of the main drivers of childhood obesity.

The article continues here if you would like to read the rest: http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/12/18...ity/index.html

The proposed 18% tax would apply to sugared drinks including fruit drinks that are less than 70 percent juice that are nondiet. If you get a regular Coke, you pay tax. If you get a Diet Coke, you do not.

While I'm very much in favour of educating people on nutritional information, nutrients and health issues, I'm not sure how I feel about a tax like this. Part of me thinks it's silly, the other part thinks it could be helpful.

What do you think? Obesity tax: yay or nay?

[crashintome202]

this is one of the most retarded tax ideas i've ever heard.

[scrock25]

No, a veiled attempt by a Government Official to increase revenue streams. Like you said, educate, don't punish.

I don't regularly drink pop either.

[thebestauntie]

While I agree educating people and trying to encourage folks to be healthier is a great idea, taxing things like sugary/fatty foods and drink is not the way to go about it. Higher taxes on things that are 'bad' for you has not proven to be a deterrent in any way (i.e. cigarettes).

Taxing the bad foods/drinks won't help with obesity, just like it hasn't helped with cigarette smoking. They may as well just call it the stupidity tax and leave it at that and forget about trying to call it something else.

[enigma1434]

Originally Posted by scrock25

No, a veiled attempt by a Government Official to increase revenue streams.

I don't regularly drink pop either.

It would increase revenue streams, for sure.

I actually would be ok with something like this. If it increases revenue streams which would otherwise be increased by jacking up property taxes, overall sales taxes, or state/local income taxes, that's just fine with me.

Plus, if it gives incentive to people to cut back on something that is one (of the many) causes of obesity, more power to it.

[sunshower]

Originally Posted by thebestauntie

While I agree educating people and trying to encourage folks to be healthier is a great idea, taxing things like sugary/fatty foods and drink is not the way to go about it. Higher taxes on things that are 'bad' for you has not proven to be a deterrent in any way (i.e. cigarettes).

Taxing the bad foods/drinks won't help with obesity, just like it hasn't helped with cigarette smoking. They may as well just call it the stupidity tax and leave it at that and forget about trying to call it something else.

Actually, if you read the article, they claim that the taxes put on cigarettes are the reason fewer people smoke. I'm pretty sure only a small handful of people stopped smoking because of the price hike. Most people I know who quit smoking rarely list, "I was sick of paying smokers tax" as one of their reasons. It's usually health related. At the same token, though, most people likely wouldn't admit the added expense of sugary drinks made them stop drinking them and switch to diet. They would likely list a health reason. I don't know.

Anyway, I agree with you, LA. It's an interesting concept and all but it just seems bizarre. However, the article states that all the money collected via the tax will be used for health education programs which really wouldn't be so bad. Whether or not that's actually true is debatable.

[enigma1434]

Originally Posted by thebestauntie

While I agree educating people and trying to encourage folks to be healthier is a great idea, taxing things like sugary/fatty foods and drink is not the way to go about it. Higher taxes on things that are 'bad' for you has not proven to be a deterrent in any way (i.e. cigarettes).

Taxing the bad foods/drinks won't help with obesity, just like it hasn't helped with cigarette smoking. They may as well just call it the stupidity tax and leave it at that and forget about trying to call it something else.

I don't have any statistics, but hasn't it been at least argued that the various cigarette taxes have caused some cut back? I guess it would obviously be looked at locality-by-locality and it would depend on the severity of the tax.

[crashintome202]

the most unhealthy food is typically the cheapest. therefore if you're going to increase the price your just killing the lower class even more. i thought the dems wanted to help them out?

[TrippingBrando]

Originally Posted by enigma1434

It would increase revenue streams, for sure.

I actually would be ok with something like this. If it increases revenue streams which would otherwise be increased by jacking up property taxes, overall sales taxes, or state/local income taxes, that's just fine with me.

Plus, if it gives incentive to people to cut back on something that is one (of the many) causes of obesity, more power to it.

This is a good point. Taxes are inevitable, especially with the current economy. I'd feel better about implementing more "sin" taxes on things proven to be detrimental than to do further raise taxes on benevolent homeowners.

Of course it raises the question on where does it end and why should government dictate what is bad enough to warrant being taxed. I, however, still don't feel these arguments outweigh the benefits of more tax revenue and potentially a more healthy citizenry, which in turn could lower healthcare costs.

And, I'm pretty certain cigarette taxes has led to at least negligible cutbacks on smoking.

[tarheel997]

yeah now we can all get cancer from aspartame

such a horrible idea

[sunshower]

Originally Posted by crashintome202

the most unhealthy food is typically the cheapest. therefore if you're going to increase the price your just killing the lower class even more. i thought the dems wanted to help them out?

I would assume Diet Coke would stay at it's current price and regular Coke would increase. The lower class will not have to spend anything extra to choose diet over regular.

[thebestauntie]

Originally Posted by sunshower

Actually, if you read the article, they claim that the taxes put on cigarettes are the reason fewer people smoke. I'm pretty sure only a small handful of people stopped smoking because of the price hike. Most people I know who quit smoking rarely list, "I was sick of paying smokers tax" as one of their reasons. It's usually health related.

I agree with you, LA. It's an interesting concept and all but it just seems bizarre. However, the article states that all the money collected via the tax will be used for health education programs which really wouldn't be so bad. Whether or not that's actually true is debatable.

I have never heard one single person quit smoking because of the price of cigarettes, they can "claim" that all they want.

Government also always says the tax money collected from these taxes will go towards education or something like that, but I'm always skeptical about that.

[scrock25]

Originally Posted by TrippingBrando

This is a good point. Taxes are inevitable, especially with the current economy. I'd feel better about implementing more "sin" taxes on things proven to be detrimental than to do further raise taxes on benevolent homeowners.

Of course it raises the question on where does it end and why should government dictate what is bad enough to warrant being taxed. I, however, still don't feel these arguments outweigh the benefits of more tax revenue and potentially a more healthy citizenry, which in turn could lower healthcare costs.

And, I'm pretty certain cigarette taxes has led to at least negligible cutbacks on smoking.

I quit because I finally came to the realization that continuing to smoke cigarettes would eventually kill me. When I was addicted, I couldn't have cared any less how much I had to pay for 20 more.

[scrock25]

Originally Posted by sunshower

I would assume Diet Coke would stay at it's current price and regular Coke would increase. The lower class will not have to spend anything extra to choose diet over regular.

Oh, but the sacrifice in taste would be enormous!!!

[thebestauntie]

Originally Posted by sunshower

I would assume Diet Coke would stay at it's current price and regular Coke would increase. The lower class will not have to spend anything extra to choose diet over regular.

I don't really understand that part, it's not like diet soda is all that much better for you than regular soda.

[crashintome202]

Originally Posted by tarheel997

yeah now we can all get cancer from aspartame

such a horrible idea

[TrippingBrando]

Originally Posted by scrock25

I quit because I finally came to the realization that continuing to smoke cigarettes would eventually kill me. When I was addicted, I couldn't have cared any less how much I had to pay for 20 more.

Definitely. I'm sure you understood that I said "negligible" and "cutbacks." I figured that a small percentage of smokers perhaps cut back the amount of cigarettes they smoked due to price hikes.

[scrock25]

Originally Posted by TrippingBrando

Definitely. I'm sure you understood that I said "negligible" and "cutbacks." I figured that a small percentage of smokers perhaps cut back the amount of cigarettes they smoked due to price hikes.

Small, agreed.

[jenben41]

Originally Posted by crashintome202

the most unhealthy food is typically the cheapest. therefore if you're going to increase the price your just killing the lower class even more. i thought the dems wanted to help them out?

I sort of agree with that. There's the idea out there that the worst foods are often the cheapest (I tend to disagree- just because it's accessable and not expensive doesn't mean there aren't cheaper options), therefor the lower class has the highest rate of obesity due to the availability of crap food.

I do think this is akin to the smoking tax- it raised awareness and let the government say, "Look! We care! We're doing something!" but I don't think it will singularly cut obesity rates. Education will, though.

[scrock25]

Originally Posted by jenben41

I sort of agree with that. There's the idea out there that the worst foods are often the cheapest (I tend to disagree- just because it's accessable and not expensive doesn't mean there aren't cheaper options), therefor the lower class has the highest rate of obesity due to the availability of crap food.

I do think this is akin to the smoking tax- it raised awareness and let the government say, "Look! We care! We're doing something!" but I don't think it will singularly cut obesity rates. Education will, though.

Where will the $$ for this education come from though?????

TAX THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jenben41]

Originally Posted by scrock25

where will the $$ for this education come from though?????

Tax them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

duh, stupid! (how come you can type big letters?)



You won't price people out of the market by taxing them, though.

[enigma1434]

Originally Posted by TrippingBrando

Of course it raises the question on where does it end and why should government dictate what is bad enough to warrant being taxed. I, however, still don't feel these arguments outweigh the benefits of more tax revenue and potentially a more healthy citizenry, which in turn could lower healthcare costs.

Yeah, I agree - it does raise that question. And, that's where the argument lies. I fall on the same side you do but no doubt it will stir up a big fight.

Originally Posted by thebestauntie

I don't really understand that part, it's not like diet soda is all that much better for you than regular soda.

I agree. I don't think diet soda is any better for you than regular. Sure, it has 0 calories, but the fact of the matter is that you're putting something in your body that isn't water, yet it claims to have 0 calories. There are ingredients in it that make it something other than water and IMO that likely means they aren't good for you. (if that made any sense)

Obviously just my opinion, but I would vote for drinking regular soda in extreme moderation over drinking diet soda frequently. I'd rather know what the ingredients do to me than think it's nothing and find out later that I was wrong.

Originally Posted by TrippingBrando

Definitely. I'm sure you understood that I said "negligible" and "cutbacks." I figured that a small percentage of smokers perhaps cut back the amount of cigarettes they smoked due to price hikes.

I agree - the cutbacks would be negligible at best. But hey - negligible cutbacks are better than no cutbacks.

[TR3Esmoker]

Fuck NY and our blind Governor.

[Oh, word?]

Where the hell is Cassie when we need her input?

[enigma1434]

Originally Posted by Oh, word?

Where the hell is Cassie when we need her input?

Did you give yourself a good birthday washing down there?

[sunshower]

Originally Posted by Oh, word?

Where the hell is Cassie when we need her input?

She's

[funktabulous]

Originally Posted by sunshower

She's

That's what I thought.

And good riddance.

[Oh, word?]

Originally Posted by enigma1434

Did you give yourself a good birthday washing down there?

I did my best, but, you know how it goes.

[Oh, word?]

Originally Posted by sunshower

She's

Oh, I know. It was just a little tongue-in-cheek humor. Hence, the .

[enigma1434]

Originally Posted by Oh, word?

I did my best, but, you know how it goes.

That's too bad. Maybe next year.