I feel sick
http://www.ny1.com/content/news_beats/politics/90648/paterson-considers--obesity-tax--to-close-budget-gap/Default.aspx
Soda now gets a sin tax... but just regular soda, because that makes you fat.
ETA: Husband Mine has a letter he plans to send to Paterson.
It can also be read under the cut.
I'm trying to come up with a good letter to write Paterson, and suggest others send him as well, discouraging his suggested 15% tax on non-diet soft drinks.
Dear Governor Paterson;
I'm writing to express my opposition to your proposed obesity tax on sugar sweetened soft drinks.
Like taxes on alcohol and tobacco products, this would represent a "sin tax" on nondiet soft drinks. I find the existing sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco offensive enough already, and I am not a consumer of tobacco and only rarely a consumer of alcohol. I consume about two or three cans of nondiet soft drinks a week, and about 50% of your constituents also consume these same sorts of soft drinks, and I vote. In the next election, an implementation of such out of touch and offensive taxes will be reflected on my ballot.
Even so, many of us will vote with our feet by no longer consuming sugared soft drinks, thus depriving New York of its projected revenue. Unfortunately, the switch will probably be to diet sodas, which have been demonstrated to be actually worse in terms of obesity risk than nondiet soda. In fact, emerging research indicates that diet soda may be far worse than nondiet. New York needs to keep out of what I'm putting in my body. It shouldn't be artificially making the more healthy alternative the more costly alternative, deciding what's best for my health, and creating misguided taxes that will result in more costs to consumers with none of the touted benefits and, in the end, little of the revenue sought.
"After adjusting for age, sex and ethnicity, Williams found that regular soft drinks were no longer significantly linked to the incidence of becoming overweight or obese, but diet soft drinks were." (Fowler, et al., University of Texas, urls below)
I look at other states and see more reasonable taxes, then see New York attempting to raise taxes even higher in this time of economic uncertainty and wonder just what we're doing wrong. Other states are providing the services their citizens need but not charging such high taxes, and not trying to micro-manage their citizens' lives, perhaps New York needs to step back and review what we're spending money on rather than trying to squeeze more money out of an already overburdened tax base.
http://www.uthscsa.edu/HSCnews/singleformat.asp?newID=1539
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20050613/drink-more-diet-soda-gain-more-weight
There's not enough meat in there, though. I need more reasons why:
* Sin taxes are bad
* Its unfair to target nondiet sodas over other sodas, other junk foods, and other foods in general
* Other reasons this is a dumb idea
Soda now gets a sin tax... but just regular soda, because that makes you fat.
ETA: Husband Mine has a letter he plans to send to Paterson.
It can also be read under the cut.
I'm trying to come up with a good letter to write Paterson, and suggest others send him as well, discouraging his suggested 15% tax on non-diet soft drinks.
Dear Governor Paterson;
I'm writing to express my opposition to your proposed obesity tax on sugar sweetened soft drinks.
Like taxes on alcohol and tobacco products, this would represent a "sin tax" on nondiet soft drinks. I find the existing sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco offensive enough already, and I am not a consumer of tobacco and only rarely a consumer of alcohol. I consume about two or three cans of nondiet soft drinks a week, and about 50% of your constituents also consume these same sorts of soft drinks, and I vote. In the next election, an implementation of such out of touch and offensive taxes will be reflected on my ballot.
Even so, many of us will vote with our feet by no longer consuming sugared soft drinks, thus depriving New York of its projected revenue. Unfortunately, the switch will probably be to diet sodas, which have been demonstrated to be actually worse in terms of obesity risk than nondiet soda. In fact, emerging research indicates that diet soda may be far worse than nondiet. New York needs to keep out of what I'm putting in my body. It shouldn't be artificially making the more healthy alternative the more costly alternative, deciding what's best for my health, and creating misguided taxes that will result in more costs to consumers with none of the touted benefits and, in the end, little of the revenue sought.
"After adjusting for age, sex and ethnicity, Williams found that regular soft drinks were no longer significantly linked to the incidence of becoming overweight or obese, but diet soft drinks were." (Fowler, et al., University of Texas, urls below)
I look at other states and see more reasonable taxes, then see New York attempting to raise taxes even higher in this time of economic uncertainty and wonder just what we're doing wrong. Other states are providing the services their citizens need but not charging such high taxes, and not trying to micro-manage their citizens' lives, perhaps New York needs to step back and review what we're spending money on rather than trying to squeeze more money out of an already overburdened tax base.
http://www.uthscsa.edu/HSCnews/singleformat.asp?newID=1539
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20050613/drink-more-diet-soda-gain-more-weight
There's not enough meat in there, though. I need more reasons why:
* Sin taxes are bad
* Its unfair to target nondiet sodas over other sodas, other junk foods, and other foods in general
* Other reasons this is a dumb idea