What do YOU think about an added tax on SODA and SOFT DRINKS?

I'm very much in favor of proposed special taxes on sodas and soft drinks, because these liquid candies are fattening up my countrymen and countrywomen at a shocking rate.

Opponents say it is a "regressive" tax because the poor would be disproportionately taxed.  My take on this is, obesity disproportionately afflicts the poor, and anything that discourages the consumption of liquid candy (sugar) is a big bonus.

It might also help defray the costs of obesity-related medical expenses.

What do YOU think?

Here's a link to an article about it in the Los Angeles Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-soda-tax21-2010feb21,0,2401878.story

I agree with you that a soda tax is definitely a good idea.  I am a reformed soda addict.  I used to drink around 10 cans of diet coke daily.  It was really doing some major damage to my body.  I think that in this bad economic times a tax would be a good deterrent to keep people from consuming so many sodas.  I wish that healthy food was less expensive.  It makes no sense why healthy food costs so much more than junk food. 

People generally have soda instead of water.  And water is nearly free!!!

Diet soda - too?  ;)  If so, I'd probably whine, or quit drinking it.

Guess I should go read the article. 

 Hey there, MM!

Hola!

 It would be okay if that was the only factor behind it. As it is now, we subsidize the corn industry heavily, allowing huge amounts of high fructose corn syrup to saturate the market. This allows unhealthy food to be produced at a much lower cost then otherwise possible, giving us a situation where a couple of heads of broccoli can cost $3, and you can get a double cheeseburger meal for $3. 

I occasionally still have a soda (I refuse to completely eliminate them, but I only have around 1 every 2 weeks or so), and I always buy the cane sugar kind. This is around $2 for 12 oz of soda, which seems much more in line with what it SHOULD cost if we weren't using tax money to subsidize junk food. That, and the metabolism of high fructose corn syrup is done completely in the liver, meaning a) it's hard on the liver and b) it doesn't promote satiety the way real sugar drinks do. So basically we shouldn't tax junk food if we are currently using tax money to subsidize junk food. That just screws the consumer either way.

The bad news is, though corn syrup has been given a bad rap, to a large extent sugar is sugar is sugar is sugar . . .

And cane sugar-sweetened soda is bad for us, too.

*sigh*

My personal fave is the "sin tax" on bottled water.

And water is a sin... because.....?

 Oh, I'm behind you on that ... to some extent.  It takes four to ten times the amount of water IN the bottle just to MANUFACTURE IT!!!  And the bottles add heinously to our landfills, and are costly to recycle.



Now THAT said, my real personal ax to grind is with "flavored waters" -- scuse me?  I thought flavored water wa*****h.  Oh wait ... it's not punch!  it h as an extra vitamin thrown in ... it's VITAMIN (sugar-enhanced and food-coloring tarnished) water! 

So it must be healthy!