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

I dont know about anywhere else but here in RI the tax on tabacco is INSANE! its almost $10 for a pack of cigs, and I dont care cause I quit 9 months ago lol 
The kicker is PEOPLE DONT CARE! They are STILL buying them!  So I say Tax them more! 
And Alcohol too, max the tax out on the bad stuff leave the harmless (diet soda) stuff alone!
Do you think people will stop going to Mc Donalds if they gave them a special "Fast Food" tax? of course not! Most people wouldnt even notice much less complain! lol

 Oh I don't know ... 'round these parts McDonald's is hawkng itself as an economic lifesaver during financial hard times!  I'm sure if a happy meal cost twenty bucks, moms wouldn't buy 'em.

Also, there are plenty of studies correlating diet soda with obesity just as much as is the case with sugary soda!

No winning, yikes!

I'm sick of the nanny-state and would oppose such taxes, just as I opposed a tax increase on smoking (even though I'm allergic to cigarette smoke and think it's a disgusting habit).  After a soda tax, what's next?  There are plenty of things out there that are "bad" for us -- will the gov't decide to tax all of them?  We're already taxed to death -- ENOUGH ALREADY!

You won't like to read this, but here in California we taxed the living daylights outta cigarettes, made it illegal to smoke just about anywhere, and made the demon tobacco almost impossible to advertise.

The result is, reduced smoking.  

There really is a strong correlation between taxing a product to death, and reducing its use.  And it's hard for me to argue that in the case of smoking, that's been a bad thing.  

In California, 14% of our population smokes.  (In fact, California has fewer smokers per capita than anyone else, except Utah ... where many consider it to be against their religion.)  Right next door in Nevada, it's more than 50% higher!

I'm well aware of the effects in CA (I live here).  But I don't believe taxing something to curtail its use is the government's job.  If (insert bad thing here) is so bad that the government believes it legitimately worthy of elimination, then outlaw it -- if the thing is bad enough, then it should be outlawed.  But if its not bad enough that it can legitimately be banned entirely, then don't try to back-door it by placing an illegitimate financial burden on those who wish to partake.

I'm all for it but I would sympathize with true carbonation addicts. I know if the price of soft drinks goes up both my husband and son would choose water instead. I broke my own addiction about 6 months before surgery and have never regretted it. However, I dont think it would cure everyone. Look at smokers. If they want to smoke badly enough they will give up necessities to pay for  their habit. It probably doesnt matter how expensive or how taxed something is, if people want it badly enough they will find a way to get it.

Karen

Really, I'm for taxing all of the sugary drinks, carbonated or not.

Vitamin water?  Smar****er?  Gimme a break.  It's soda without the carbonation.  

Tax it!


(And if people still want it badly enough, let them pay for it, if I'm going to have to pay for the consequences, too!)

Taxing something because it's "bad" for you is ALWAYS a stupid solution. It doesn't fix the problem (how many people have actually quit because cigarettes keep getting taxed and taxed and taxed? Not that many), it doesn't effectively discourage it, and the tax money never, ever goes to effective programs - just special interest groups that get their egos stroked. And then what if the tax has it's effect and consumption goes down? You know, they never, ever think of that. The program that the tax money went to insists that it still needs to be around, and money gets siphoned off from other programs, leading to more taxation and idiocy. Adding on "special" taxes never truly helps the people it's supposed to "help."

This is a freaking free country. Supposedly. If I want to gorge myself on horse meat, foie gras, smoke cigarettes until my house turns black, and drink myself into a sugar coma with soda all while stuffing my pie hole with sal****er taffy, who the FRACK are YOU (the collective you) to say that I can't? YOU are NOT the boss of ME.

Yeah, you pushed my button here.

Well, I see your point.  

But here's how I see it --  My tax dollars provide healthcare for people who can't afford it, and my tax dollars provide healthcare for public servants.  My tax dollars also provide health care (well, SICK care) for children in public schools.  Obesity is a major public health concern, and it's impossible to ignore, anymore, from a public policy perspective.

Obesity is also a very EXPENSIVE public health issue.  It would be great to solve two problems with one stone -- reduce obesity by reducing sugary drinks, and also generate a positive tax flow to pay for the existing problems.

I am also not wild about having the government involved in my personal decision making, but at this point it seems like the horse is already outta the barn on that one.

 But that's assuming that sugar-containing sodas and juice drinks are a signifcant cause of obesity ..  Not sure how true that is ..  Kids seem to be eating a lot of junk food of ALL kinds ..  

 That's kinda like the thinhead who posted a comment to the news article about Kevin Smith's being bounced from the SW airlines flight b/c of his weight:  "I didn't cause him to eat all those Big Macs and Whoppers, why should I have to let him crowd me in a seat I paid for?" (or something along those lines) .